Talk:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College Basketball 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Atlantic Coast Conference articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Former good article nominee North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 2, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Good to Know[edit]

"which has never beaten the Tar Heels in Chapel Hill since the first game between the two teams in 1926 at Chapel Hill "

That the games IN Chapel Hill are also AT Chapel Hill! GeneCallahan (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph[edit]

The intro needs a major re-working, especially the first line, "The University of North Carolina's basketball program is one of the more famous college teams in the nation". Agreed? Orlière 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a comma. It says, "The University of North Carolina's basketball program is one of the more famous college teams in the nation, and is especially well known for its rivalry with Duke University, one of the most intense rivalries in sports." However, that isn't exactly top notch either. If you feel you can improve it, go ahead and edit it - all changes don't have to be brought up in the talk page first. --NomaderTalk 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've tried my hand at reworking it. Orlière 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

I can help you out Nomader with working on content for here. I also live in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, so I can volunteer to take photos of UNC, the Smith Center, etc if we can't find good public domain ones. -- Daveahern 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now, there are two pictures currently on Wikipedia, both of which can be seen at the UNC-Duke Rivalry page. Good pictures, but I guess a couple more wouldn't hurt... on another note, do you happen to know what the overall ranking is for UNC all-time? I can't find it... --NomaderTalk 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I did some research through media guides and started putting together the team history section, along with some stats for the team. According to the UNC media guide, they've won 1883 games all time (through the end of 2006 season) - second to Kentucky. -- Daveahern 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work - I'll be adding some templates here and there with some pictures if I can conjure up any. In the meantime, keep up the good work! --NomaderTalk 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Helms Award[edit]

Any discussion of UNC's championships means we have to bring out the Helms Award. Does the awarding of the Helms "championship" by UNC's 1924 team (an award based on a poll that was given out in 1936) qualify UNC's 1924 team as a National Championship team? UNC claims it as one. I would argue with that. -- Daveahern 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be listed as a seperate thing entirely, though recognized as a 'national championship', just not in the normal sense. --NomaderTalk 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be listed as a National Championship but not an NCAA National Championship. UNC's statistics officially recognize the difference.

By any interpretation, listing 1924 in the "NCAA Tournament Championships" box to right is certainly incorrect.

Men and Women's Team[edit]

Should this page be renamed North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball or should it include information on the women's program as well? Remember 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We're having a discussion in the WikiProject here - feel free to weigh in your opinion. For now, we're focusing on the men's team only, but that might change soon. --NomaderTalk 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources for article[edit]

I am not sure that fansites or publications issued by a school's athletic department are valid sources. Duke53 | Talk 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this logic should be applied to all college basketball articles. Or better yet, we should have an administrator intervene. I have suggested this several times to Duke53, but he keeps ignoring my requests. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are official publications from the school's athletic department invalid sources? Please give some example, Duke53, of a situation where a school would intentionally lie in an official document from its athletic department. If anything, school documents should be considered supreme, for they keep (and easily provide) a much larger amount of statistics than any other organization keep, including the NCAA. Alan_daniel (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Hansbrough's "retired" jersey[edit]

It seems to me that Hansbrough's number shouldn't appear in the retired jersey list as it hasn't actually been retired yet. His winning of the Sporting News Player of the Year Award means he's eligible to have his jersey retired. But it won't actually happen until the season after he leaves the university. I think the mention of his eligibility to have his jersey retired in the article is appropriate enough for now.Ncjon (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable players and coaches[edit]

I've put a cleanup tag at the top of the section, since there's no apparent criteria for declaring a player "notable". And as much as I love Jackie Manuel and Ademola Okulaja, they're rather insignificant in the whole scheme of things. And I've created a subsection for retired and honored numbers - maybe we can replace the notable player section with a list of honored players? Also, it seems better to divide them into categories, like "NBA All-Stars", or "NBA head coaches", etc. Any suggestions? --Mosmof (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many players and its disorganized. I don't think you need to change the heading from "notable" to "honored." If you did that, you might miss out on some players who were notable but did pick up many awards because they were on a talent-heavy teams. I would think decent criteria for notability would be: A)Retired jerseys B)Honored jerseys C)NCAA ChampionsD)NBA All-stars E)NBA coaching/administration F)Division I college head coaching G)NBA/ABA Champions
But even those categories wouldn't catch somebody like Jim Delany Ncjon (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As much as we'd want to avoid a vague criterion, we can have an "others" subsection for former players with notability outside of basketball - Delany and Julius Peppers would qualify, whereas Jackie Manuel or Ademola Okulaja wouldn't, since their time at Carolina is their only claim to notability. Some possibly deserving players would miss out (Rashad McCants?), but my feeling is that it's better for any Wikipedia list to be too exclusive than too inclusive. --Mosmof (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that could work. I don't think there's a way to put hard criteria on the "other" category, but you would have a place for the people who go on to do other things. Ncjon (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that anybody on a national championship team would be notable as well as anybody that was notable enough in their own right to have a wikipedia page. But that's just my feelings. Remember (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider a player notable for simply being on a national championship team, but I can understand the argument. Just to be a devil's advocate, are walk-ons, the one JV callup they pick each season, and guys who otherwise weren't in the regular rotation, notable if they're on the championship team? Anyway, my feeling on notability is that for some players, their only source of notability is their association with the Carolina program, so to recognize them as a notable Carolina player would seem counterintuitive. But I can see how there could be a gray area for national champs. --Mosmof (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would refine my argument to say that people who were in a regular rotation on a championship team. Remember (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to ThurstAsh13 (talk · contribs) for expanding the notable players/coaches subsections - something I talked about but never got around to doing. Now, does this mean we can get rid of the criteria-free list at the top of the section? Most of the players are either redundant or not that notable on their own right, and the remainder, we can probably throw under an "others" subsection. --Mosmof (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

UNC Men's Basketball Seasons[edit]

I was just looking at the seasons for the Men's basketball team and hardly any of the seasons have links on wikipedia. So maybe we could start making the wiki pages for the missing seasons so we can be the first university to have all seasons correctly and completely filled out. I've been trying to do it, but I can't ever get determined enough to do it. I always use the media guide that UNC releases each year before the new basketball season starts. In there it has all the previous seasons as early as 1953. It says to go to Tarheelblue.com for the one's earlier than that, I did go there and they weren't there. I was just wanting some help from you guys if you are up to it. ThurstAsh13 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization[edit]

I'm thinking of reorganizing this page to try to get it to FA status and I was going to use the Chicago Bears article as a template. Any thoughts? Remember (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Chicago Bears template

  • Contents [hide]
  • 1 Franchise history
  • 1.1 1920–1970
  • 1.2 1970–2003
  • 1.3 2004–present: Lovie Smith era
  • 1.4 Ownership
  • 2 Logos, uniforms, and mascots
  • 2.1 Logo
  • 2.2 Uniforms
  • 2.3 Mascots
  • 3 Stadium
  • 4 The Bears in popular culture
  • 4.1 Local radio and television
  • 5 Statistics and records
  • 5.1 Season-by-season results
  • 6 Players of note
  • 6.1 Current roster
  • 6.2 Pro Football Hall of Famers
  • 6.3 Retired numbers
  • 7 Coaches of note
  • 7.1 Head coaches
  • 7.2 Current staff
  • 8 Notes and references
  • 9 Sources
  • 10 External links
For such a prestigious program that UNC has they hardly have any information on the program through the years. I mean like the Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball page has some information on their team through the years. That is the one thing that this article is really lacking in itself. I mean we cover the big points but nothing sort of minor but needed. Our paragraphs about the decades are sort of just statistics in a way I know there is information out there on this stuff, but I can't find any of it; and truly I am a terrible writer. So Remember you said you wanted this to become a FA article we need more information in the team history section. It skips so many years, from the first few years that the program began in and then to Frank McGuire. This part needs attention more than anything I think. ThurstAsh13 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Condense Page?[edit]

Does anyone else think this page could be condensed a bit? No information needs to be removed, but some of the rather large charts of statistics could be made into their own pages and the links could be provided on this main page. It just seems too cluttered and drawn-out to me. -hsxeric 10 March, 2012 16:00 EST

Request for Comments: Team infobox practices[edit]

Your comments regarding team infobox practices are solicited: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Request for Comments: NCAA Sweet Sixteen phantom appearances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

rivalry[edit]

could somebody help add info to the rivalry section i made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarHeelMan746 (talkcontribs) 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Victories over AP Number 1 Team[edit]

This has gotten a lot of media coverage recently. If you have information and sources please add them to this section in the article. --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources you cited for this section don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and there's a question about whether this factoid is notable enough to warrant an entire section. If it has gotten a lot of media coverage recently, as you suggest, you should be able to find a reliable source for it, which would not include goheels.com - the team's PR arm. The ESPN article doesn't even mention the "record" Ncjon (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong wrong and wrong. The media guide is a reliable source and the ESPN article does mention it. Go reread it again. I'm adding it back now. --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There is widespread coverage of this making it a notable part of North Carolina basketball. --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It's really just another number in a long list of numbers the program has. It wasn't a focal point of any of the articles you cited, although I appreciate you adding some reliable sources this time - GoHeels - the PR arm of the team - is not reliable and you cited the same AP article a couple of times on different websites. I think this is more appropriate as another bullet in the by-the-numbers section if it is to be included.
stop erasing the information. You said it would work if I added sources. I did and now your adding more requirements. You can't make this up as you go along. --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No need to bully, Ncjon. Work with newer editors to properly source the section. Given extensive coverage by the sports media about this, it's clearly relevant as is. STwilliamST (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No bullying here. I'm trying to work with him to get sources and present the information appropriately. Ncjon (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add more requirements. I told you the first time that you needed to find appropriate sources, which you did and I appreciate, and that it doesn't warrant an entire section. Once you got the sources, I moved it into an appropriate place. You're new to Wikipedia. As it is, you're in violation of the three revert rule on this article, but I'll let that slide cause you're new. Ncjon (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess the 3 revert rule doesn't apply to you? You "broke" it first. Yeah you did change the requirements…. you asked for more sources and when I posted more sources you added new requirements. I would say you're more working against me than with me. --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't violate the three-revert rule, you did. Please take some time to look it up and try to understand Wikipedia's minimal guidelines for things such as editing and sourcing. I never changed the parameters on you. Perhaps you overlooked my second suggestion, which is that this does not warrant a separate section, but it was in my original comment. I still don't believe it warrants a special section as the individual game scores are not notable, but I also don't think this article needs an edit war over it. So I'll let it slide. Ncjon (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Your three edit reverts were 14:27, 7 December 2013, 22:30, 10 December 2013‎, 03:57, 11 December 2013‎. My three were 17:40, 10 December 2013, 02:28, 11 December 2013‎ and 00:45, 12 December 2013‎. Is anything you say correct? --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
A. The changes I made were days apart and the last time, once you got appropriate sourcing, I changed the presentation without reverting. B. Your reverts were all close to the 24-hour time limit from Dec. 10 at 5:40 p.m. to Dec. 12 at 12:45 a.m., thus bumping up against the rule. I'm pointing this out once again in the hope that as a new editor you'll take some time to learn about Wikipedia's minimal sourcing and editing guidelines rather than trying to have an edit war with you. At this point, I see no further reason to continue this discussion here. If you've still got an issue with me, please take it to my talk page. Ncjon (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You are funny. --Keepitpithy8 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)