Talk:Milwaukee Bucks

Roll "Firsts" into a Team History article and remove ownership list

As @Sabbatino: reverted my cleanup edits, I am proposing that the sections in question be taken care of as follows: The "team firsts" section rolled into a comprehensive team history article, and delete the unnecessary list of owners in the interest of having a more consistent article style across NBA teams. Etzedek24 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the team first section, as it was plagiarized directly from the team website, and am still recommending the owners list be deleted. Etzedek24 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: The list of owners is necessary since there are many individuals that own the team. If it was a group under a certain name then it would not need a section of it own, and a mention in prose would be enough. You should consider starting a discussion at WT:NBA, where it will be seen by more people since teams' talk pages are rarely used for discussions. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: The list is of minority owners. It has sourcing, but I don't think it's entirely relevant to the page at large, especially with all the redlinking--and I'm not sure of any other team pages that provide a list of minority owners on the main team page. I propose we roll it into a separate list, perhaps List of Milwaukee Bucks minority owners. Etzedek24 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Edens, Lasry and Dinan are not minority owners. They are the main owners. Secondly, red links should be delinked. As for List of Milwaukee Bucks minority owners – it would fail WP:CSC and would be deleted, so that is not a good idea. Teams' pages are not supposed to be the same. They can have a similar pattern, but surely should not be a mirror of other pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Colors

@Etzedek24: Regarding the colors of the team. I could not find anything about "Good Land" being the nickname of Milwaukee so the color in question should be "Good land green" or "Good Land g reen" (if you will be able to give proof for it being a nickname) as green is a common word. I did find that "Cream City" is the nickname of Milwaukee so the color should be listed as "Cream City cream" since cream is also a common word. Same goes for "Great Lakes Blue" as blue is again a common word and it should be listed as "Great Lakes blue". I do know that Great Lakes is a famous lake chain so there is no need to indicate that for me, because I did not realize that at first so that was my mistake. MOS:CAPS quite clearly says that common words are not to be capitalized. Just because the media (leagues, teams, newspapers, etc.) use strange capitalization (as I wrote in my edit summary – "Head Coach" or "Person X Has Been Hired As General Manager") that does not mean that it should go against the MOS:CAPS policy. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If "good land" isn't some kind of proper name, then it'd be "good land green", not "Good land green".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: See above for rationalization on that and other points. Cream City and Good Land are Milwaukee nicknames, therefore proper nouns. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 12:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I apologize for the Great Lakes comment, I wasn't sure of where you were from. Good Land is a little waffley because it is commonly assumed to be the Algonquin translation of the city's name, which derives from Wayne's World (see this link). A Google search of "milwaukee the good land" displays local affiliation with the term. Hope that helps. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: Well I am not from North America if that is what you are implying. People from Northern/Eastern Europe know geography pretty well. Now getting back to colors, I suppose you are in agreement with the explanations I gave? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Yes, it was not my intention to dispute the common color names, apologies for that. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 19:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that sports teams typically capitalize the whole color name if they use proper nouns in their team colors. So it would actually be "Good Land Green", "Cream City Cream", and "Great Lakes Blue".  TNats  ₃  07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Teams also capitalize "Head Coach" (or similar positions) or write article title in all caps, or capitalize the first letter of each word in the article title (the previous example by me – "Person X Has Been Hired As General Manager"). Wikipedia has its own rules and they should be followed. It is also funny and strange that a user with no previous interest in the subject just shows up out of nowhere and tries to show that he "knows it better". – Sabbatino (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion for a while and I have this page on my watchlist.  TNats  ₃  20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sabbatino, wikipedia is open to everyone. This is not a private discussion and everyone is entitled and welcome to comment on this and any discussion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I did not forbid anyone from editing, did I? And that WP:3O is ridiculous since noone is objecting the capitalization (which is correct) but this user, and there is no dispute as it is stated there. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Think again. This over-capitalization is directly against everything MOS:CAPS is telling us.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC for team colors

The consensus is that when it comes to team colors that include proper nouns and/or are created specifically for the team (as opposed to common color names such as gray, blue, or black), the whole color name should not be capitalized.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When it comes to team colors that include proper nouns and/or are created specifically for the team (as opposed to common color names such as gray, blue, or black), should the whole color name be capitalized? TNats  ₃  03:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes

No

• Obviously not. If you drive a Ford pickup truck, and ate a McDonalds double cheeseburger for lunch, and are going to San Franciso restaurant for dinner, before seeing a Pat Metheny concert later on that Saturday evening ... you are not driving a Ford Pickup Truck, eating a McDonalds Double Cheeseburger, going to a San Francisco Restaurant, seeing a Pat Metheny Concert, on a Saturday Evening. We have MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  PS: Regarding the side question raised below, about whether to use a "branded" color name, that's a reliable sources matter. If we have RS for specifics about the color (Pantone number, or whatever), it can be included in the section on the team livery/branding/whatever. If we do not, then we should just use plain-English color terms, because we have no evidence of a specific, definable color, and WP is not a marketing and branding platform. See extended comment below for pro and con rationales on a case-by-case basis.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm guessing this RfC is about mention in an infobox, not expanded prose.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• No for all the reasons that were given to you. To make it short – common words are not capitalized and media often uses strange formations, which are not supposed to be used in Wikipedia since there is a WP:MOS that advises us how to react in some situations. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• No: Keep it simple, keep it low key, follow the MoS general recommendation to use lower case unless there's a reason to capitalize. A color is just a color.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• No for the reasons given above. Besides, it makes no sense to talk of a "color ... created specifically for [a] team". Colors exist in nature; they are not created. They may be chosen from the range of possible colors, and named, but that is not the same thing as making them. Zazpot (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• No (summoned by Legobot) - the name of the shade can be capitalized if it is a proper noun or a trademarked name, as a currently is in the article and other shades like Kelly green and Persian green. But green, and other colors, is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• No Summoned by a bot. A great grammar lesson! Comatmebro (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I imagine a lot of teams brand their own colors, like the Cleveland Cavaliers with "Cavalier Black".[1] Is it any different than plain old black? Is "Cavalier Wine" any different from Wine (color)? One thought would be to use the basic color name unless there is a notable name i.e. Wikipedia article exists (that meets GNG) for said color e.g. Dodger blue.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this RfC is confusing as to whether the question is 1) whether to use a branded name or the common color name, 2) whether a color should be fully capitalized e.g. Dodger blue or Dodger Blue, or 3) both 1 and 2.—Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's question number 2. TNats  ₃  02:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: As you'll intuit from my !vote above, I'm entirely sympathetic to restraint of the misuse of WP for marketing, but that specific limitation isn't applicable. WP:Notability determines what can have its own article, not what can be mentioned in an article (or we would have much, much shorter articles that said very little that was informative). What can be mentioned is governed by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy. A strong case can be made that "Cavalier black" is indiscriminate noise, because black is black. (If it's not black, then it's very dark grey, or a very dark something else, like near-black purple, whatever. But not black. If "Cavalier black" is actually super-dark brown, then the article should probably say so, since WP saying it is literally black would be misinformation.) Similarly, a case can be made that Cavalier wine is a legit mention by name, iff RS provide some identification of it as a very specific color. It then becomes a verifiable and relevant technical detail, though it's hardly earth-shaking. A primary source that was specific would actually be sufficient, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Some of these teams probably publish this information, so that memorabilia manufacturers, etc., get the color "just so". PS: This is conceptually similar to the details of blazonry in heraldry, and lots of the detailia in technology product articles (exactly what CPU chip is used in what model of a cell phone, etc.). Most readers DGaF, but some will, and might consider the article incomplete without it. I don't feel strongly about inclusion of it, just that there are some good and some not-so-good reasons to argue pro or con on it.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Regarding my comment about mentioning the color name if it had its own Wikipedia article, I was more thinking along the lines of WP:UNDUE. A color with its own page would seemingly not be a trivial mention. Ultimately, there's no clear guideline for this specific case, so any prose will be based on consensus. My thinking would be that a color with its own page might be sufficient for mention, but a standalone page is by no means a requirement for it to be mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, that argument does work unidirectionally (and even a section would be enough; it's about the sourcing, more than anything else).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that if it's accurately sourced and provides evidence that it warrants its own unique color name, then it should be capitalized? Does that mean that if those requirements are not met, is capitalization still optional or is it discouraged? TNats  ₃  08:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

More or less, but there are other concerns, implicit in WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policies. If the house style sheet of the Fooville Wildcats says they use "Fooville green and Wildcat orange" (or "Fooville Green and Wildcat Orange", for that matter), and we can't find any reliably published information on exactly what these colors are (HTML/CSS color codes, Pantone colors, or some other exact spec) then this is just marketing noise, we should ignore it, and we should write that their colors are green and orange, in plain English. We could even be more descriptive and say light green and dark orange, if we have consistent indications in this direction.

If they specify exact colors by name and identifying color codes, it's okay to use "Fooville green and Wildcat orange", but we should avoid "Fooville Green and Wildcat Orange" per MOS:CAPS (it's excessive stylization for no real purpose, just marketing aggrandizement; we don't even capitalize the second element in "Moore's law", etc.). Whether we should use "Fooville green and Wildcat orange" is an open question. If the color is notable, certainly. This is rare.

If it's not notable, just specifying the color details is sufficient: "a light green (hex color 97FA92), and a dark orange (D27D1E)". We already know the team name, so repeating it is redundant and not helpful to the reader, and serves only the interests of the team's branding department. If the official color happens to coincide with a standardized Web color, we should use that name of it, because, well, it's an internationally standardized color name. Same goes for named Pantone colors, or whatever other system applies. I.e., give readers something they can look up and relate to other information and other processes, like using the colors in GIMP or Illustrator. There is no encyclopedic purpose to telling readers that the Fooville Wildcats use Fooville Wildcat colors. There are too many WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues here in using promotional names for things we can't actually prove are trademarked or even specific.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The whole reason I made this discussion was because I am confused about MOS:CAPS and it gives no specific word about the stylization of team colors. Can someone point out to me where on the page I can get that information? TNats  ₃  01:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't believe there is MOS guidance for proper nouns of this type. Similar questions that come up every now and then are like whether it is NHL Entry Draft or NHL entry draft? Any comment SMcCandlish?—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

They're not really related, except inasmuch as there's a specialized-style fallacy in common ("It's about sports, and us sports people like to capitalize sports stuff, so Wikipedia damned well better do it, or we'll fight about it until the end of time"). Our MoS pages would be 50× longer if they tried to account for every single topical circumstance to which general approaches are written to apply broadly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What IS Bango, though?

Is he a buck? A dollar bill? An elk? What? 207.228.78.183 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bucks

Gianni’s will not be attending game 4 of the series 2600:1700:4E70:9ED0:3113:95F0:865C:C716 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Bucks owners

Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers has been a partial owner since 2018. 148.59.157.112 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

The City and Classic uniforms should be removed because they are from the 2022-23 season.75.149.78.53 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

On September 27th it has been announced that “The Portland Trail Blazers traded guard Damian Lillard to play alongside Giannis Antetokounmpo with the Milwaukee Bucks as part of a three-team deal that also included the Phoenix Suns”

This trade has now made the Milwaukee Bucks the fourth favorite team to win the 2023-2024 NBA season, only behind the defending champions The Denver Nuggets, The Boston Celtics, and The Phoenix Suns. Kvncortz (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

On January 2023 = In January 2023 2603:8000:D300:3650:4C1D:B062:2D04:9F66 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done – I've added the exact date, and also fixed the year so that it's consistent with the cited source, which it didn't appear to be before. Tollens (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

In the first paragraph, it says "The team was founded in 1968 as an expansion team, and play at Fiserv Forum."

Instead, it should say the team "plays" at Fiserv Forum. Rowaniel (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)