Talk:2005–06 NBA season

National Basketball Association High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Basketball Association, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NBA on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Basketball AssociationWikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball AssociationTemplate:WikiProject National Basketball AssociationNBA articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notable Occurrences[edit]

including the thing about raja bell and kobe bryant is ridiculous. it was hardly a "notable occurrence" of the season in the context of league history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.205.23 (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos[edit]

Do we really need the logos of all of the teams next to the names here? It is incredibly redundant and, more importantly, makes it very difficult to read. bob rulz 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article works into the other NBA seasons articles I created. I put the logos on there to help put the season in perspective from a visual standpoint, just like what the NHL seasons page does. Moreover, I don't find that they make the article difficult to read, but that's just me. Dknights411 15:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should put more information in the boxes then? I just realized that my main problem is that they take up a comparably significant portion of the box, drawing attention to the logos rather than the stats in the box (which is really what it's there for). Or perhaps make them smaller. bob rulz 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logos are at 50px. The problem is that most of the logos are longer and tend to stretch the box (like the original Phoenix Suns logo for example). I'll experiment with different image sizes.Dknights411 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I resized the logo images to 30px. How does it look now?

I believe it looks much better now. I can go with that. bob rulz 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]