Template talk:1982 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball navbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / North Carolina (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject North Carolina.
 

Red Links[edit]

I believe that since college players do not have inherant notability, then the navbox should only contain those that currently have pages. See the NCAA fotball championship navboxes for an example of this. The proper place for the entire roster listing is on the UNC season artcle. The navbox is for the purpose of navigation to different WP pages, not for conferrig recognition. If articles for the pages that are currently redlinked are added, they should be added to the navbox. IMO, however I don't see a lot of those red links becoming notable, unless it is for something other than basketball. At this point, there is no reason to argune notability when an article doesn't even exist! Here is the hidden text used on all of the college football championship navboxes to illustrate my point:

"The only criteria for inclusion in this navbox is the existence of a player's or coach's page on Wikipedia. If other players or coaches from this team have Wikipedia pages, they should be included in this navbox. It is not the intention of this navbox to include the entire team roster, as college athletes do not automatically meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, unlike professional athletes."

I am open to discussing this further. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That is definately a fair point. I disagree that we should limit the navbox to only list those individuals that have current articles. I think Jimmy Black is probably the person that should deserve an article the most who doesn't have one. My suggestion would be to link all the others to the 1981-82 Season basketball page for the Tarheels, which can include information about them. If you are a true Carolina fan (or have just done some independant research) and can tell me that you know that none of the other players are notable enough to have their wikipedia pages ever, then I would be more amenable to having their names removed. Remember (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If you think Jimmy Black meets WP notability requirements, I am highly supportive of you creating a parge for him, and then adding him to the navbox. To be frank, however, it is not productive to argue notability of when the pages don't exist. Until they do, the argument is moot. Asking if I am a true fan is completely irrelevant, and rooting interests should not come into play, are unencyclopedic and goes against the spirit of keeping a neutral point of view. Like I said above, the roster is completely appropriate on the season page, but the navbox's sole purpose is to aid in navigation to relevant WP pages. It is a reflection of what IS on WP not what it SHOULD BE. If a page doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in the navbox. Based on my discussion of the football pages above, keep in mind that this has been a prevailing thought with these college templates, as these players lack inherent notability. If any of them play, or played pro ball, then by all means create the article and add them. I don't think linking them to the season page is appropriate either, as the navbox implies that an article exists, where, in these cases, it doesn't (and linking to that article, frankly, is not a true acurate representation of a random benchwarmer). A link like that belongs in the title line of the navbox, not in place of a non-notable player. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess you and I differ on a couple of things, those being: (1) whether or not to include redlinks of individuals that are notable but yet do not have a wikipedia page as of yet, and (2) whether a navigation box should include an exhaustive list of a roster even if all people are not notable. I am in favor of red links and in favor of complete listings of rosters in templates and you seem to be opposed. That's okay. I will defer to whatever the consensus is on this. Remember (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Black was one of the starting five on the championship team so I would think that he was notable enough for his own article. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to create it. Remember (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
p.p.s. I did not mean to imply in my previous comments that somehow "true carolina fans" get to edit this template while other editors don't. What I meant to say (but said in a very bad fashion) was that if you are knowledgable enough to know which individuals were not notable on the team, then I am more willing to trust your determination that their names should be removed rather than to have a redlink. Remember (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)