Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Basketball (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Merging Template:Infobox WNBA player into Template:Infobox basketball biography[edit]

Per this discussion, there was agreement to merge the WNBA template into the broader, more encompassing "basketball biography" player/coach template. When an admin went to do it, he/she found issues with merging due to differences in how the two templates display information. I'd like to recommend some changes to the template to allow for this change. I will sign up to do a lot of the conversions (as I have with merging the Australian, Philippine and college infoboxes previously) if we can reach agreement. Here are my recommendations:

  1. Create fields for the WNBA draft similar to the PBA draft for Filipino players (e.g. "wnba_draft_year," "wnba_draft_team," etc.). There should be four fields for year, round, pick and team and should display in the same way that NBA draft does for male players.
  2. One issue with the WNBA is that it is purely a Summer League, creating some strange club history chronologies (eg - a player could compete for ten years with the New York Liberty in the Summer and with Fenerbahçe in the Summer, making for 20 repetitive entries in the current usage). My suggestion is that we create a set of club years that display as "WNBA teams" above the standard set of clubs. Not sure if the template could be coded so that the "standard" fields (eg - "years1," "team1," etc) would display the header "Non-WNBA teams" if the "WNBA" fields were in use. This would be similar to how "as player" displays before the standard fields when the "coach" fields (eg "cyears1," "cteam1," etc) are used and "as coach displays before the coach teams. This could be an issue if a player is a WNBA player, also plays in Europe and goes on to coach. I'm not smart enough to figure this one out, but I figure somebody out there can help solve it.
  3. Create a Hall of Fame flag for the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame like the current Naismith (field name "HOF_player"), FIBA HOF ("FIBA_HOF_player"), and College basketball HOF ("CBBASKHOF_year").
  4. Create coding to link a WNBA profile (if possible)

I believe that the rest of the template would not need to be changed. There are some differences with how the WNBA template chose to show info (like adding "WNBA's" before the team name at the top), but I do not believe that the info for WNBA players is substantially different beyond what I have proposed and can match what exists for "basketball biography." I believe it is very important that we get these merged, as we are seeing more movement between men's and women's leagues (examples - Joe Bryant, Michael Cooper and most recently Becky Hammon. It looks AWFUL to have two infoboxes on an article, and in these cases is unnecessary. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Becky Hammon example is a great one as to why these need to be merged. You can't add her current assistant role with the Spurs to the WNBA box because the Spurs colors won't display. You can't add her playing career to basketball biography because she had significant WNBA and overseas careers, which that box can't accommodate. But the is 99% overlap in the other info in the 2 boxes. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Re: WNBA draft -- Quite a few leagues elsewhere are doing drafts lately (such as the Korean Basketball League). Perhaps making a generic draft parameter should work.
Re: Summer league -- I don't think we'd need a separate area for WNBA teams. Let's just treat their spells in a WNBA team as one "spell", then the team from elsewhere as one "spell". If they change a team, list it after whichever of the two the player was later signed. For example:
  • CSKA Moscow (2006-11)
  • Phoenix Mercury (2007-10)
  • Connecticut Sun (2010-present)
  • Galatasaray (2011-present)
HTD 11:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I find that structure very confusing as in 99% of club histories are a chronology, but can go along with whatever the consensus determines. Rikster2 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
TBH I dunno how a separate section for WNBA teams would work when a reader realizes that the years of service overlap. I'd probably settle on a note. A WNBA contract doesn't usually rescind a player's contract from another team. –HTD 13:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've been following this conversation and merge process for a while. While I endorse most of Rikster's comments above, I also recognize the problem regarding overlapping WNBA and overseas team tenures. A high percentage of second-tier and even some of the first-tier WNBA talent plays overseas during the WNBA off-season. To my way of thinking, I don't see the justification for creating a separate WNBA career history; the only practical solution is to accept overlapping team tenures in the career history section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But the whole Summer season/Winter season thing is what the WNBA editors would be giving up in merging templates - I don't see why we shouldn't accommodate this difference. I would argue most WNBA players play somewhere else in the traditional basketball season. If Candace Parker and Brittney Griner do it, most do. Unless someone can come up with a good note or format then I think we need to create something that works for this league. Rikster2 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Rikster, but "accommodate this difference" how? I agree completely with your description of the issue and the prevalence of WNBA players who also play for non-WNBA teams, but question the solution. What is the harm in having a single career history with overlapping tenures for WNBA and foreign teams? This would seem to be the simplest, if not the most elegant, resolution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Right now the basketball infobox has a clear chronology of teams (which can contain duplicates for multiple tenures with the same team) that can be followed down the list very easily. Introducing overlapping tenures to this makes it very difficult to follow. I wasn't around when the WNBA box was created, but it was created with this league difference in mind and is clear and easy to follow. Much like we added the "pba_draft" fields to accommodate merging the Philippine Basketball Association box, I think we need to consider carefully how to make this work or consider not merging the templates. We could just as easily make some tweaks to the WNBA box that enables better flow between the leagues but maintains separate boxes. Not saying that is what we should strive for, but it is still an option. Rikster2 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Rikster, I don't want to be hypocritical, because I have advocated separate player infoboxes for different levels of the same sport or very similar sports when I believed the circumstances warranted separate templates (e.g., college football vs. NFL vs. CFL). Perhaps what we need to see are mock-ups of the various career history solutions for WNBA players who have also played abroad. If we cannot make WNBA/foreign career history work in the framework of the merged Infobox basketball biography, then let's say so: we can make two separate infobox templates with nearly identical appearance, and very similar coding, but for the career history -- if that is necessary. This may be an example where separate templates work better for the WNBA and most other leagues, but let's see if we can create the mock-ups and make an informed decision based on something more than opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I know little about women's basketball, but are the overseas leagues of WNBA players significant to their notability? A good number of MLB players play in winter leagues, but they are not added to their infobox. (As an aside, the more I see all the D-League entries for someone like Malcolm Thomas, the more I think that might be clutter also)Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: - Short answer, yes it is significant to their notability. I think it is a mistake to use baseball and football as the model for player movement for basketball. Those sports are dominated by MLB and the NFL (and by North America in general). Basketball is more similar to soccer in the way players move teams because the sport is more of a global game. I will reiterate that the WNBA infobox was constructed differently because player movement for women is different (the WNBA was structured by its NBA parent to be a Summer League so it wouldn't compete with the men's league and players actually derive the bulk of their income in other countries) – I think it is a mistake to just say that isn't important so it fits more neatly into an infobox created solely with the men's game in mind. Last, while I disagree with you on the D-League issue, how about we hold that discussion for another day and instead concentrate on running this WNBA infobox issue, which has been outstanding for over a year, to the ground? Rikster2 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, women's basketball players are paid more in Europe (and Australia?) than in the WNBA. The situation is actually unique since a player could have contracts for separate teams, something that can't be done on other sports. –HTD 14:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Career history options[edit]

  • Okay, I think we all have a grasp of the issues presented: WNBA is a summer league, and many if not most WNBA players also play in Europe or elsewhere during the WNBA off-season (the traditional basketball fall-winter-spring schedule played by most leagues). Thus, WNBA players are often under contract with a WNBA team and another non-WNBA team at the same time. The template issue is how best to present these overlapping team affiliations and career history in the player's infobox. As I understand it, there are basically three options:
1. Continuous, non-overlapping year spans for team tenures, for example:
2001           Atlanta Dream
2001–2002 Galatasaray S.K.
2002           Atlanta Dream
2002–2003 CSKA Moscow
2003           Atlanta Dream
2003–2004 CSKA Moscow
2004           Atlanta Dream
2004–2005 CSKA Moscow
2005           New York Liberty
2. Overlapping year spans for team tenures, for example:
2001–2004 Atlanta Dream
2001–2002 Galatasaray S.K.
2002–2005 CSKA Moscow
2005           New York Liberty
3. Separate career histories for WNBA and non-WNBA teams, for example:
2001–2004 Atlanta Dream
2005           New York Liberty
2001–2002 Galatasaray S.K.
2002–2005 CSKA Moscow

Anyone should feel free to expand these examples with additional team tenures, if you think that would be helpful to illustrate the issues or potential solutions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think those are the right structure options (though the WNBA single seasons would display as "2002" vs. "2002–2002"). Although option #1 is consistent with how men's infoboxes display, I think it looks terrible for this case. To me, it comes down to option #2 or #3. Personally, I like #3 but could be convinced for #2 if we found a good way to have it flow smoothly. Rikster2 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Option three is how it currently is, ex. Sue Bird. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely how the WNBA player infobox displays club history. What we are trying to determine is what it should look like if these articles were migrated to the more generic basketball biography infobox, as has been suggested. Is #3 your preference? Do you think any of the other options would work? Rikster2 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 with a footnote. If we're preventing confusion, Option 3 is not better if the reader figures out that the playing years overlap. Option 1 implies successive one year contracts from multiple teams and this isn't almost usually the case. Adding a footnote would solve the problem, such as "WNBA seasons are held in the summer, when other women's basketball leagues are in the offseason." –HTD 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Rikster2 seemed to imply above (11:58, 7 January comment) that the WNBA does not dominate women's hoops at the global level. If that is the case, it seems undue to generically have a "WNBA teams" section followed by "Non-WNBA teams". And the ultimate design should accommodate players that didn't play in the WNBA. Ann Meyers played before the WNBA existed, so should not have a "Non-WNBA teams" header for her playing career. I assume the year-around league phenomena can apply to men's too? Ed O'Bannon played in Argentina and Greece leagues with overlapping tenures as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So one example. There are a few others (Australian NBL used to run in the Summer too). It does happen rarely in the men's world and can be handled on an exception basis. It is the norm for WNBA teams. What is your preference for how this is displayed, Bagumba, or did you just post to complain? (by the way, I doubt O'Bannon had overlapping tenures - more likely the start/end dates for the two teams were not known by whomever put them in so they just displayed the full season. I have to do that with CBA teams sometimes) Rikster2 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm still getting familiar with women's basketball, so it's premature for me to just !vote. Here's some points that remain unclear to me:

  1. Why is "WNBA" and "non-WNBA" the proposed grouping? Is it because it is the most notable league for English readers, or because it is considered the top league world-wide? Other?
  2. If we are tailoring this for English readers, or the WNBA is the pre-eminent league, I'd lean towards not listing overlapping leagues, or list them in footnotes in the infobox. They can be fully discussed in the body. Perhaps include a visual display there of the timeline of their teams, similar to Timeline of the National Basketball Association.
  3. Template:Infobox basketball biography currently has one "Career history" section, with "As player:" and "As coach:" encoded in that section. Will that continue, or will there be dedicated playing and coaching career sections as with Template:Infobox WNBA biography? I don't think having "As player:" then "WNBA teams:" under a generic "Career history" will look good.
  4. Overlapping tenures might be a general problem for other leagues besides the WNBA. What about players from the American Basketball League, that started about the same time as the WNBA? I'm not saying don't allow two lists of teams like in Option 3, but let's design this so the section names are customizable e.g. "{{{primary league}}} teams" and "Non-{{{primary league}}} teams"
  5. WNBA coaches who played in leagues other than the WNBA should not have "Non-WNBA teams" for their playing career. This would be a problem with sticking with existing WNBA bio template.

Apologies if anyone finds this to be "complaining" as opposed to helping to find a solution for all (women's) basketball people.—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that is furthering discussion not complaining. Thank you. On point #2 I am very much opposed to not showing the non-WNBA teams at all. If that's the direction just to make it work, just leave them separate, add the WNBA color palate to basketball biography for male players who become WNBA coaches and be done with it. Rikster2 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
#2 for me was dependent on answers to #1. Keep it if we all agree that the non-WNBA teams that overlap are significant to their notability, not merely because it's a fact that they played on those teams.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Not including teams that don't directly drive to the person's notability is not the way we currently treat basketball biography for men and I think if we have to treat women's players differently in order for them to "fit," then that probably means the two boxes shouldn't be merged. If you'd like to see a change in how we look at basketball biography globally (and your Malcolm Thomas comments tell me that you do), then we should stop this discussion and get consensus on how we want to use that infobox instead of trying to shoehorn that question here. But, yes, it is significant to Candace Parker's career that she has played for the last five years for a Russian team (and has in fact won a Euroleague championship with that club). This is a key part of her career history. Rikster2 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't exclude solely to make it fit. However, looking at your example of Candace Parker convinces me that some (if not all) non-WNBA are notable enough to be listed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, There are a lot of non-WNBA women's players who use the basketball bio', see Category:Australian women's basketball players mostly (WNBL). Most of them have their career histories blank (maybe because there are overlapping careers and don't know how to list them or just don't feel like it) and some just use infobox sportsperson. There isn't really anything different about the WNBA and basketball infoboxes besides the WNBA and Non-WNBA careers. Quick comparison For different header options, it might be a good idea to be able to change the WNBA-career to a different league. Also, some footballers have like four headers, see Fabio Capello. It might also be a good idea to have a footnote or asterisk for overlapping teams. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It's hard to see chronological order between WNBA and non-WNBA team in this case with Erin Phillips with Option 3. With Option 2, it's hard to see which teams overlap. As Option 3 isn't much of an improvement with its own set of issues, I think for editors it'd be more straight forward to just have one option, Option 2. Not sure how we would footnote if we were to follow HTD's suggestion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I never understood how Option 3 solves things, if overlapping playing years is a problem. People would still find out that playing years overlap. Option 1 further misrepresents things. Option 2 with a footnote is the way to go. It still is a chronological (if you define it as when a player started) list of teams a player had played for. Perhaps a link to an explanation on an article (women's basketball?) would help. –HTD 18:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can get on board with option 2 (though it isn't perfect by any means). Can somebody play around with how this would look for a more complex case like Penny Taylor, though? I am having trouble envisiniong which teams would go first, etc. Also, can we get agreement that my suggestions #1 (draft fields) and #3 (Women's basketball HOF flag) should be added? The WNBA profile would be nice, but not necessarily a need to have day 1 in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess everyone agrees on having the draft fields, HOF flags and WNBA profiles. I dunno what'll be the problem in adding the WNBA profile right now instead of later. As for Penny Taylor, it'll go like this:
  • Dandenong Rangers (1998-2002)
  • Cleveland Rockers (2001-03)
  • Termocarispe La Spezia (2002-03)
  • Famila Schio (2003-07)
  • Phoenix Mercury (2004-07)
  • UMMC Ekaterinburg (2007-09)
  • Phoenix Mercury (2009-11)
  • Fenerbahçe Istanbul (2009-13)
  • Phoenix Mercury (2013-present)
Also I'd say to keep separate spells on one team as separate appearances in the infobox, just as what they do for soccer players. –HTD 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Template updates for WNBA[edit]

The following parameters have been added to Template:Infobox basketball player:

  • draft_league
  • wnba_profile
  • womensHOF

Documentation has been updated. The only thing that hasn't been done are integrating the WNBA team colors. For that, Template:WNBA color needs to be integrated into Module:Basketball color. Don't know when I'll get to playing around with that. If someone else wants to take a stab, or perhaps User:Frietjes can help out. In the meantime, try the new params out on some retired WNBA players, where the colors aren't needed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox[edit]

Steve Nash is a dual citizen. You are invited to help form a consensus on how his nationality should be presented in the bio's infobox. Please comment at Talk:Steve_Nash#Nationality_in_infobox. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) for recruiting[edit]

I've noticed an increasing number of edits adding 247sports recruiting information (and in some cases deleting Anyone know why this is? And for some (like this edit to Damian Lillard), the recruiting rankings are being listed for years prior to what the main article says is its founding date of 2010. I am a little worried there may be a spamming ad campaign going on here. Anyone have more insight into this site? My experience has been that Scout and Rivals (and later ESPN) were the most prominent recruiting rankings, but also know that 247Sports is more recently affiliated with so I am guessing it at least is becoming legit. But should Wikipedia be "leading" that rise to respectability or following once it is established? Comments? Rikster2 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

247Sports is legitimate. I think it's surpassed ESPN recruiting and now is on par with and arguably better than Rivals and Scout. 247Sports should be included in the recruiting rankings tables in addition to the other three. -AllisonFoley (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Due weight should be the guiding principle. Are independent sources mentioning 247? If so, is it enough to warrant mention with the other major ones?—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This ESPN article mentions rating for all four agencies, including 247. USA Today called 247 one of the " four major recruiting services".[1] I'm satisfied.—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the rankings prior to 2010 when the site was launched (like Damian Lillard and Trevor Booker)? Where do those ratings even come from? That's actually my bigger issue - Scout and rivals info is being replaced. I know Scout and Rivals were operating pre-2010. Rikster2 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. If you question it, you can removed it as unreliable for anything before 2010 launch, and leave link to this discussion in the edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Countries and infoboxes[edit]

I propose that, in case someone adds a country next to the team a certain player has played in the past, one adds the words "2nd", "3rd", "4th" et. al. right next to the team's country, of course with a link to said league. F.E.:
Player X played last year for, let's say CB Prat. This is a team from the Spanish LEB Oro, the second tier of the Spanish basketball league system, so, his infobox would go something like this:

Of course, only if the league is on a second or lower tier. If that guy, say, went to Baloncesto Málaga, a team from the Liga ACB, the Spaniard first tier level, it wouldn't be necessary to add "1st", it would be like this.

The reason for this would be that teams in several FIBA leagues, specially at Europe, tend to play on promotion/relegation systems and this way the reader not only would have an idea of where that player has been playing, but also, of what kind of basketball kind of level has he been playing, which is, in my opinion, useful information. I know some of you might think that most wouldn't know what it is referring to, but I believe most readers could infer without much difficulty that it means levels or tiers and with the link there, they would be a little more encouraged to investigate, to inform themselves more about the subject. I've actually been told that it might overload the infobox, but, being quite honest, save for very few cases, three or four extra characters don't make that much of a difference and it they did, we could substitute "2nd" "3rd" "4th" for just "2" "3" "4" What would you guys think of this, what would you propose? Intruder007 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should follow WP:IBX re: infoboxes: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I'm wary of adding information that won't generally be verifiable in a bio. The info at best will be in the team article, but I find little with citations in a lot of those articles. I don't think it's intuitive if the 1st, 2nd, etc is in relation to the country, or some sort of world rankings. There is no key, and doubt there is room to add a labeled column. Finally, there was an earlier concern that even a lot of the leagues were often not linked correctly from the country.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
2nd-3rd-4th, I don't think it is as vague, specially if just put our minds into writing the right link, and most of the league articles say in the first or second paragraph which level on said country's pyramid it is, so it wouldn't be that hard for the reader to confirm that info and about the leagues not being linked correctly, that would be more of the editors' fault (it's one of the reasons I dislike redirects). To help that, we could, for example, open a thread in one of the wiki talk pages listing the different leagues with their proper levels and the correct leagues. I know it might sound a bit ambitious, but it can be done and wold be quite helpful. Intruder007 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, only basketball athletes lists the country of the league in the infobox; other sports don't. While I like this feature, having another field for it's level on the pyramid might be a tad too much. Also, some countries don't have proper "pyramids" so if we'll be doing this for those countries, it would be made up. –HTD 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In the case of countries with no pyramids, I guess it would depend. If it only has a single league, that would be no problem, it just wouldn't have a number and if it were countries with different leagues that are not arranged like that, we could just write the initials of the league, for example Japan has the bj league and the NBL, but both leagues are alternate, no promotion or relegation, akin to the NFL and AFL on the 60's. To fix that, we could have two options.
And in case we had any sort of doubt, we could use this template as a basis: Template:Professional Basketball Leagues. Intruder007 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's where I am on this: I think adding the league or country is trying to cram a lot into a relatively small space and I don't add this info when I create articles on contemporary players today. That said, I am not that hard over on it so I usually just leave whatever formatting already exists on existing articles I edit. I think the information is somewhat useful, but once you get into the nuances of how to display (for example, what link do you use to "Spain" if a played was with a club through 2-3 relegation/promotion actions?) it is "more trouble than it's worth." Tenure and team seems sufficient, especially if the team has a Wikipedia article that a reader could click to if they weren't familiar with the league (and the stint should be in the article with more exposition anyway). Like I said, I am pretty ambivalent about which way to go. However, I am not ever in favor of adding "NBA" after NBA teams. It is the top league in the world, and the only one I know of that has a worldwide TV contract. Rikster2 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I strongly oppose adding anything to these already lengthy infoboxes that will potentially add another line of text to them. At present, virtually all team names and tenures can be stated on a single line of text within the infobox. With the addition of leagues and countries, team tenures are often going to require two lines of infobox text -- and this is an unnecessary extravagance. Infoboxes are not supposed to include every factoid (and more) included in the main body text; they are not a bullet-point restatement of the article in every detail. League and countries can easily be stated in the text; squeezing them into an already lengthy and cramped infobox ignores the primary purpose of what infoboxes are supposed to do: focus on the core, at-a-glance data, not regurgitate the entire article minus verbs and adjectives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To be crystal clear, I oppose adding league and/or country parentheticals to the teams listed in the career history section of player infoboxes. As I said above, the player infobox is already too damn long, and adding another line of text for each team entry in the career history section is going to make them even longer. If clarification of the league and country is required, this should be done in the text; if users can't be bothered to add another sentence (or even a half sentence) to the article text, they don't need to be creating infoboxes that are longer than the actual article. Seriously, folks, the priority is writing coherent article text, not creating ever-longer infoboxes. Is there anyone who wants to argue this point?

As for the existing "consensus," I see two linked discussions above in which virtually no one participated. I would suggest this issue remains wide open for discussion and determination for present consensus. If needed, start an RfC on point and start pinging WikiProject members on their talk pages to participate. It's time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion was left at WT:NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Though I've posted links to discussions on past consensus, I'm generally neutral on whether or not the country is listed. This includes listing "D-League" or "ABA", when it is a US, non-NBA league. If someone wants to be bold, a simple test might be to take a sample of popular NBA articles where a team's league/country is listed, remove it, and see if anyone objects. Candidates are Hassan Whiteside, Dennis Rodman, J. R. Smith, Allen Iverson, Roy Tarpley, Pau Gasol, Yao Ming, and Jeremy Lin.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer - I don't disagree that it is not preferable to have infoboxes longer than articles. However, I see the answer to be expanding stubs/short articles, not removing information that we'd want included in an infobox to compensate for a short article. Tom Brady's infobox is incredibly long - even though he's only played for one team in his career. But his article is also long so it doesn't look out of place (in basketball, that is true of the Tim Duncans and LeBron James as well). I'd be all for eliminating the league, as I have stated. I'd also be up for a sensible discussion of limiting awards (or even - radical idea ahead - eliminating awards from navboxes altogether. I'm not going to devote a lot of time removing countries right now, though. I'd rather write articles and convert the 400+ WNBA navboxes first. Rikster2 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The awards conversation should probably take place at WT:NBA, with a notification here. FWIW, current consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#NBA_highlights. And WP:CCC.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rikster2: I do agree that infobox shouldn't be shortened merely to compensate for a short article.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian book on basketball?[edit]

I stumbled upon Basketbolo žaidimas (krepšiasvydis) ir Lietuvos sporto lygos oficialės basketbolo taisyklės 1926-27 metams. First of all, shouldn't book titles be by main title only, not sub-title included? Secondly, what is the main title? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I believe this is the main title. Even though it is that long. The first part says "Basketball game" and the second one (written in the same size font) says "Lithuanian sports league official basketball rules for 1926-27 years". Essential thing of this book is that it is the first book in which basketball rules were introduced for Lithuanians. -- Pofka (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Elie Stephan[edit]

Dear basketball experts: This article has a link to a player profile, but the names don't match. Can someone who knows about basketball please fix this? Presuming, of course, that this is a notable player; the stats section isn't filled in. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Didn't really check if he was notable or not.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rusmir Halilovic[edit]

This recently created article could use some attention from an experienced basketball editor to resolve the listed issues and apply some further polishing. I know (next to) nothing about basketball, just stumbled over this new article by pure chance (aka "Random article" surfing). GermanJoe (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

McDonald's All-American Boys Game draft articles[edit]

If anyone is interested in completing all the McDonald's All-American Boys Games at Template:McDonald's All-American Boys Games, I added Draft:2002 McDonald's All-American Boys Game and Draft:2002 McDonald's All-American Boys Game as drafts for this project. It just requires someone to fill out the rosters, box scores, etc. We now have 2004-2015 even though it goes back to 1978. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, if you could add a WP:IC or two to serve as WP:RSs, you could move it into main ariticle space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_20#Template:Scoutbasketball regarding this website.—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Standings templates[edit]

If anyone's noticed, football pages have begun using the new version of their ranking tables. These are now universally used from domestic leagues to international tournaments. Perhaps we could do the same for basketball? We have some templates already such as {{Bs cl2 header navbar}}. We could make some more options here such as removing "Points" (reportedly the Euroleague doesn't use them), and adding PCT, aside from having the qualification columns and colors. Also there are some season articles that have hardcoded results tables, so there's already something to work on.

Of course we need someone who knows to write templates, which would make it so much easier for the rest of us. –HTD 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: and myself have worked to create this module. @Asturkian: has implemented Module:Sports table on a variety of European basketball pages. Module:Sports table/WL has some functionality already, including removing points, having win percentage and even implementing games behind. Colo(u)rs can be omitted without problem. @Howard the Duck: If you need any help implementing them, or if you want to see an example, then let me know. CRwikiCA talk 15:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: If you want to look how do they work, I implemented them in several European men's national leagues of this season with all kind of features like percentages, points per win or not, averages or point ratios (see Template:European Basketball Season 2014–15). Asturkian (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is great. Ultimately, the vision, at least for basketball, is to make this universal. That means all basketball competitions at all levels will use these templates, from FIBA sanctioned tournaments to the NBA and US NCAA. If that's ever to be done, additional columns such as Home, road, divisional and conference records would have to be added (see {{NBA team standings}}).
As for colors, I would've wanted the use of green for wins instead of aqua (as what is currently being used now). Seeing 2014–15 ACB season, it looks weird to see greens for playoff teams and wins for "Positions by round" while it's aqua for results. Also, if possible, perhaps new shades for wins and losses via overtime and forfeits should be added (for example on how this is being done, see 2014 PBA Commissioner's Cup). An additional problem for forfeits is that for competitions that use the "points" system, it's worth 0 points (and not 1) and the current {{Bs cl2 header navbar}} template has a clunky way of dealing with this.
If these could be done, we would be using this for this summer's Olympic qualifiers, and for the next basketball season for all competitions. –HTD 16:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: You note road and home W/L for the NBA, yet the table only displays W/L itself, so why the distinction? Is your colour comment is with regard to the results table, rather than the standings? In that case, MOS:COLOR discourages using colours for that. CRwikiCA talk 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Home and road W/L: It seems American sports add information for home and road records. AFAIK this doesn't matter on how teams are ranked, but I guess this would be needed if ever universality would be met.
If MOS:COLOR discourages it for results tables, why is it allowed at standings tables? Would it have to be discouraged for both instances? –HTD 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The module allows for the introduction of "new styles" and makes it relatively straightforward to have alternative column design while maintaining overall functionality. The relevant part of that is "Do not use color alone", so the standings tables include the line what happens for that position in addition to the colour. A legend is different in that sense, because you need to be able to recognize the colours. Having different shades would make it hard to see what is going on, I would use letters to indicate over time etc when needed.
Does a forfeit typically count as a loss for the team, in that case points can be subtracted (besides how often are games forfeited on this level. Do you have a link for the Olympic qualifier article as it is now? CRwikiCA talk 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. However, as there are no draws in basketball, one could deduce that the gray color that's used for the standings table must stand for a win. Also, I'd recommend on still having a legend either at the bottom or top of the results tables just to further reinforce the point.
As for shades, again, we're using this for football standings templates (green1/green2, yellow1/yellow2) already. Either way, I've been denoting overtime games with asterisks (the number of asterisks correspond to the number of OT periods) on results tables I've set up, so I guess this should solve the OT issue.
Forfeits, which happen if a team doesn't show up, or prevents the game from being held (most of the time, this means a team walks out of the game) are quite rare. A forfeit loss is a loss. But unlike an ordinary loss where a team still gets one point, they get nothing and a 0–20 scoreline. See 2012 FIBA Asia Under-18 Championship#Group C for an example. The current template already allows you subtract points but this method could be seen as unwieldy. Either way, I'm OK with this method by now. –HTD 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
In addition, several basketball teams have their own season articles, with standings tables transcluded. If possible, I'd like to retain the functionality of having the subject team highlighted (see 2013–14 Los Angeles Clippers season). As we're using colors now, perhaps using other types of visual cues such as arrows (←→) could be used. –HTD 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's leave the results tables out of this for now, that is a different discussion I think. Okay, if deduction points work for you, then we don't need to change that. All functionality would carry over. Teams are highlighted by bolding their entire row, which works well in my opinion, because it quickly draws the eye, without introducing unknown symbols. CRwikiCA talk 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be okay with bold, dunno I can't speak for others. –HTD 19:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you still interested in implementing this, and if so, which article(s) would you want to start with? CRwikiCA talk 15:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still interested. What articles did you try this out on? We could have a pilot test with that/those first. –HTD 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I have not tried it on basketball articles, but on a range of articles in other sports. CRwikiCA talk 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could try it out first somewhere? –HTD 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have a particular article you frequently update, I can convert that table and post it in this thread as an example. CRwikiCA talk 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone updates this, but could you try it out at 1954 FIBA World Championship#Preliminary round? I was going to suggest 1950 FIBA World Championship, but teams advanced to the final group round on a knockout format (a reversal of what's usually done). –HTD 19:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: These tables would look as follows CRwikiCA talk 15:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC):

Pos Team Pld W L PF PA PD Pts Qualification
1  Brazil 2 2 0 160 114 +46 4 Qualification to final round
2  Philippines 2 1 1 126 151 −25 3
3  Paraguay 2 0 2 104 125 −21 2
Source: [citation needed]
Pos Team Pld W L PF PA PD Pts Qualification
1  United States 2 2 0 132 88 +44 4 Qualification to final round
2  Canada 2 1 1 105 117 −12 3
3  Peru 2 0 2 109 141 −32 2
Source: [citation needed]
Pos Team Pld W L PF PA PD Pts Qualification
1  Uruguay 2 2 0 113 98 +15 4 Qualification to final round
2  France 2 1 1 113 118 −5 3
3  Yugoslavia 2 0 2 112 122 −10 2
Source: [citation needed]
Pos Team Pld W L PF PA PD Pts Qualification
1  Formosa 2 1 1 115 113 +2 3 Qualification to final round
2  Israel 2 1 1 100 98 +2 3
3  Chile 2 1 1 117 121 −4 3
Source: [citation needed]
Thanks. This is great. Now I'd be interested on how you'd apply these to the final round, where there aren't any further knockout rounds to determine the winner? –HTD 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This table can be formatted as follows:
Pos Team Pld W L PF PA PD Pts
1st  United States (C) 7 7 0 482 300 +182 14
2nd  Brazil 7 6 1 418 341 +77 13
3rd  Philippines 7 5 2 438 406 +32 12
4  France 7 3 4 371 392 −21 10
5  Formosa 7 2 5 345 405 −60 9[a]
6  Uruguay 7 2 5 422 446 −24 9[a]
7  Canada 7 2 5 433 498 −65 9[a]
8  Israel 7 1 6 330 451 −121 8
Source: [citation needed]
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) head-to-head record; 3) head-to-head goal ratio.
(C) Champion.
  1. ^ a b c The three teams had 1–1 records in their mutual games and goals ratios of 1.063 for Formosa, 1.031 for Uruguay and 0.914 for Canada.
You could highlight gold/silver/bronze if wanted, but that wasn't done in the original table, also |use_goal_ratio=yes would use point ratio/average rather than differential (if that is to be preferred). CRwikiCA talk 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally dislike highlighting gold-silver-bronze for a table that has more than 3 columns. I'd rather go with 1st 2nd 3rd. Also, goal ratio used isn't actually overall goal ratio, but only the goal ratio amongst teams tied (ergo it has to be manually computed). Also, the first tiebreaker used is actually head-to-head results. In that tournament they went to goal ratio since the head-to-head records were also tied. Can that be incorporated too? –HTD 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I made the suggested changes to the table, I don't know whether those medals should be used, or just use regular 1, 2 and 3. CRwikiCA talk 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess the icons is an alert to the reader that the teams won the said medals. Regular 1-2-3 doesn't convey that. Colored rows do that too but could be ugly. I guess the job is to make sure these medal icons are to be used appropriately. –HTD 18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
1950 FIFA World Cup#Final round uses the colored rows method and I don't think it looks great. Also, I don't think it passes WP:COLOR. –HTD 18:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the 1950 version does not look good with those colours. If this solution works, then feel free to implement it. CRwikiCA talk 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Is "(C)" supposed to be added or is that only for active tournaments? –HTD 19:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right, the C should probably used, and I added it. (The medal positions might then be superfluous.) CRwikiCA talk 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it can be kept. There's no signal to the reader for the 2nd and 3rd place teams that they've won medals. –HTD 11:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't gf_X and ga_Xbe pf_X/pf_X? As there are basketball points not soccer goals (although confusingly, FIBA has the "goal average" tiebreaker). –HTD 17:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: You are right, I made the change. The tables can list goal ratio(/average) instead of difference if that is the tiebreaker. CRwikiCA talk 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

TfD: Template:United Basketball League proposed for deletion[edit]

There is a pending TfD deletion discussion regarding Template:United Basketball League at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 9#Template:United Basketball League. You are invited to provide your opinions in the discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox national basketball team[edit]

Hello, I have recently tried improving this template to make it similar to the football one. I included new headers: "First international", "Biggest win", "Biggest loss", but there is some kind of problem with it, which I'm unable to sort out. The problem is that when you add another data, the previous one is not shown in the template. Could anyone more experienced check it out? I'm currently editing Lithuania national basketball team and already added information about these games. -- Pofka (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

National team navboxes[edit]

I was under the impression that navboxes were limited to teams that medal. However, I see that Category:2012 Summer Olympics basketball squad navigational boxes and Category:2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup squad templates has perhaps a navbox for every participating country. Is this considered trivial or template creep for non-medal teams, or is any national team that notable? I'd hate to see this for US men's team, though they typically medal, but not sure how people feel about other countries.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Navbox creep. Delete. Most of these non-medalist national team navboxes will also not have a season- or year-specific team article to support them, either, contrary to one of the basic criteria of WP:NAVBOX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It'll suck so bad for Lithuania's fans which have all of the FIBA World Cup navboxes to remove 2014 because they blinked in the free throw shooting contest that was the 3rd place playoff. If FIFA World Cup has them, I don't see why basketball should be restricted to just the teams with medals. This is once in 4 year and not every national team gets in. That's hardly navbox overkill. –HTD 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Personally I think it should just be for medalists, but this isn't something that keeps me up at night. But the fact that WP:FOOTY does it isn't a good reason IMO. God help us if we start assuming automatic notability for minor league players as they do or if we ever start doing "Milwaukee Bucks starting point guard" navboxes along the lines of the American football QB navboxes. Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I'd guess there's something more important on national team player participating in a World Cup (or Olympics) vs a minor league player, or the starting center of a club team such as the Charlotte Bobcats. Either way, you could try out a test TFD on {{United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship}}. –HTD 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Like I said, it's not keeping me up at night. There are just lots of navboxes out there on sports articles of all stripes. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
            • There's always "Links to related articles" to hide those navboxes away. TBH, national team navboxes are standard fare on other sports articles. What I'd rather delete are those minor awards navboxes (should be limited to MVP). I'm on the fence on "championship" navboxes, leaning on keeping those. –HTD 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated the U.S. 6th place finish template for TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_24#Template:United_States_Squad_2002_FIBA_World_Championship.—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Underbelly 50 using Category:African-American basketball players[edit]

Underbelly 50 has been using Category:African-American basketball players for all the players with dark enough skin for him to feel that they belong in the category. I have dropped him a note at User_talk:Underbelly_50#Category:African-American_basketball_players. If anyone wants to follow up on this issue, that would be great if he decides to ignore my advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As Underbelly 50 hasn't even commented nor edited since your post to their talk page, I'm not sure why we are taking about about advice being ignored. I'd suggest identifying some specific edits that you are contesting, and having UB50 discuss those and their general selection criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits at the pages that I am the main editor for: Caris LeVert, Tyus Jones, Cliff Alexander as specific examples.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, Now that Underbelly 50 had attemped to revert and blank the related discussions and ignored the message, what should we do?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Have there been further edits that are not verifiable?—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not add this category to anyones page from now on. I haven't in the past few days. Didn't mean to ignore. Hope everyone is well.User:Underbelly 50

@Underbelly 50: It's OK to add if it's verifiable. Happy editing.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Image feedback[edit]

The surprising results of recent image feedback requests, has helped me to become a better photographer for wikipedia. Honestly, I have been surprised at how much people prefer frontal views to the peak of the action. I don't know if I will learn anymore from more feedback, but I request your image feedback on the latest images from this weekend at Talk:Jalen_Brunson#Post_IHSA_main_image_candidates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We could use more action shots as pictures for basketball concepts (like Four-point play or defensive formations like Box-and-one defense for example), so that little of your efforts would be wasted. –HTD 15:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Allonzo Trier[edit]

The newly created Allonzo Trier article seems to be quite deficient. It is absent any sources and full of grammatical errors. I don't think we should put it up for deletion, because the article can sourced. However, the article is in terrible shape. It will soon fall under WP:CBBALL, but does yet fall under that project. I will drop them a note, but am not sure where to get help for this article. I don't have time to get involved and know that WP:PROD and WP:AFD are inappropriate. What else can be done to get this article cleaned up?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was a blatant copyvio, so there was no option but to delete it. If he meets GNG, anyone can create a non-copyvio version.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"draft_league" field in basketball infobox[edit]

This field was added to accommodate the WNBA draft (see discussion above on this page) as well as possibly drafts in other countries (such as Korea). It is now starting to be applied for the CBA (see Kelvin Upshaw), NBDL (see Chane Behanan), etc. I'd like to suggest that we amend the documentation to only be used for top-level professional leagues (which in the US would mean the NBA or ABA). First, a number of players are selected in both the NBA draft and a minor-league draft and there is a risk that editors will choose the one that makes a person looks better (ie - a player is a second-round NBA draft pick but the number 2 overall NBDL pick). I also think for NBA players it is more notable that a guy went undrafted than he was drafted by a minor league. Last, I'm not so sure that minor-league drafts even get enough coverage to meet GNG - good luck finding a CBA draft for any year for instance. There is also the risk that people will start to use third and fourth tier leagues (like the current ABA) if no clarity is provided. What do others think? Rikster2 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How about use the current team he's playing for? Or maybe that's a bad idea. I dunno. Also, from what I know, non-Koreans playing in the Korean league would have to be drafted. So that means those who were drafted in NBA (if ever) would be drafted anew in the Korean league. How would you deal with that? –HTD 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Dunno. The field was actually created just to be able to convert from the WNBA infobox that had a WNBA-specific draft field. But the suggestion was that the field could be used in countries that also has a draft (like Korea). Can we run down the "top-level vs minor league" question first then tackle this issue about being drafted in two top-level leagues? Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
We could add more draft entires if it makes sense, but I vaguely remember we didn't want to overload the infobox with too much draft info. Maybe we should only list a league the player has played in if there is an existing general article on that league's draft, otherwise list the NBA. Can decide on a per-case basis players that are drafted in multiple leagues and actually play in each of those league. My guess it'll be a subjective decision on which is most notable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
However, I'm not sure if it's more notable to mention which year they were undrafted in the NBA, versus info about a D-League draft. A player that was undrafted by the NBA but plays in the NBA should presumably list that the year they were undrafted in the NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"draft_league" is also used for PBA; there were some PBA-specific parameters before, which still work, but just not documented anymore to simplify things.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it even notable that someone was drafted in the D-League draft? I don't know, I kind of think not. Seems to me a hard line rule is the way to go where possible. PBA uses the fields a lot, no issues there at all (and very little overlap with other drafts), plus it is a top-level league. Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If some never plays in the NBA, I probably don't care if D-League is there or not. You could always say there is WP:NOCONSENSUS yet if you want to remove it, which defaults to past convention to not have it. For Kelvin Upshaw, who played in NBA, I'd say it's more notable to mention he was undrafted in NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
About the PBA, after being drafted 1st (with a rather interesting aftermath), Japeth Aguilar tried his luck out at the NBA draft but was undrafted, then was later drafted 109th in the NBA D-League draft, but didn't make the cut. The thing is, his infobox says he was "picked in the 7th round" in the NBA draft when he clearly wasn't, and that the drafts are in the wrong chronological order (the "NBA draft" is shown first despite it being the second draft of Aguilar's career).
Perhaps in cases such as this making the draft parameters on the teams section (such as "2002-03 New York Knicks (drafted 5th in 2002)") might do the trick, but it could word wrap text into two or more lines and could be unsightly for some. We could also make contingency plans for undrafted players that made the cut and drafted players that didn't. For a great of majority of NBA players, this could be a major adjustment on how the infobox looks, but it could help for other Americans playing elsewhere that joined leagues that had drafts, and had to be drafted multiple times in different leagues. –HTD 02:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Aguilar was using the old PBA draft params, which are no longer documented, but still work. Based on the new documentation, only one draft entry is possible. For the few people that are drafted in multiple leagues, I'm almost thinking it's not worth the effort to support multiple drafts in the infobox. Leave it to prose?—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Very, very few American NBA players would ever get to be drafted multiple times (even if you discount the D-League draft), but it could get handy for some players who play elsewhere who have to encounter such regulations. The basketball bio infobox supports up to 40 professional teams; I'd guess there'd be more players that'll be drafted more than once than play for 40 spells in different teams. –HTD 03:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I would vote that the template support just one draft and we figure out what the criteria is (examples could be - top level league only, home country league takes priority, NBA always takes priority, or similar). The 40 club thing is just ensuring there is space to cover a players' entire career in a long-standing section of the infobox. It doesn't really matter what's more likely in my opinion. We've had 60s/70s players who were drafted by both the NBA and ABA for years. We just used the NBA draft as the default. Rikster2 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd submit to whatever's agreed upon, but having multiple draft parameters would be great help for the players that find themselves in that situation. Heck we could even add ABA Drafts too. That saves us the trouble of formulating any criteria that would be arbitrary in the end. –HTD 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Most if not all Wikipedia infobox guidelines are arbitrary. I would say most WP policies that aren't based on some universally accepted set of rules are arbitrary. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
We're pretty much not discriminatory when it comes to "teams played", for example. Although I'd agree that things such as awards have to be trimmed down in infoboxes. Drafts are a different thing, because it's rare for a player to be drafted multiple times in the post-merger era. That usually means he isn't good enough for the NBA and has to play elsewhere. This is a rare instance so, as what I've said, I'd go with anything that you guys come up with, but I'll agree for the listing of multiple drafts, or even a "Draft history" section at the infobox if it's more than one. –HTD 13:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A well-crafted infobox requires that the editor make choices. A well-crafted infobox by its very nature is selective; it does not include every fact about the article subject. The infobox should include the most important facts, and avoid trivia. The most relevant draft information for a professional basketball player is the draft information for the first league in which he plays. If a given player first played in the old ABA, include his ABA Draft information. If he first played in the NBA, as most NBA-drafted players do, then include the NBA Draft information. Likewise, if he first played in a foreign league, include the draft information for that league. Other draft information should be included in the article text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Basketball World Series[edit]

Looking for coverage of the 1955 NBA Finals as a/its/the "world championship series", I found this ("//" represents paragraph break):

"The Harlem Globetrotters will wind up their regular season in Pittsburgh next Saturday, March 26. // Then the next day Abe Saberstein's quintet appears at Madison Square Garden for the first game of the 1955 World Series of Basketball against the College All-Americans. // The Globetrotters and All Americans will clash in the sixth annual World Series, battling in 21 cities from coast to coast. [... // ...] Almost two million fans have turned out during the past five years. [1955 schedule follows]

--P64 (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and accessibility[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Accessibility_with_infoboxes that is related to Template:Infobox basketball biography having data inside a header, such as the current placement of the player's number and team.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Current team in Infobox basketball biography[edit]

Resolved: Link to team removed from header in infobox, no other format changes—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A recent discussion for college football brought up the issue of links in infobox headers that are not obvious. Template:Infobox basketball biography has this issue with the current team in the top header e.g. "Chicago Bulls" in No. 1 below is white, like non-linked text. College football currently has left the team in the header, but unlinked it. Do we want to go that direction, and have user hunt to the bottom of the career history? Alternatively, it can be moved out of the colored header, but still in the top section. Please !vote below.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Examples for Pau Gasol article
1. Current {{Infobox basketball biography}} 2. Modified with team link in top section
Pau Gasol
No. 16 – Chicago Bulls
Position Power forward / Center
League NBA
Personal information
Born (1980-07-06) July 6, 1980 (age 34)
Barcelona, Spain
Nationality Spanish
Listed height 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m)
Listed weight 250 lb (113 kg)
Career information
NBA draft 2001 / Round: 1 / Pick: 3rd overall
Selected by the Atlanta Hawks
Pro career 1998–present
Career history
1998–2001 FC Barcelona (Spain)
20012008 Memphis Grizzlies
20082014 Los Angeles Lakers
2014–present Chicago Bulls
Pau Gasol
Team information
Team Chicago Bulls
League NBA
No. 16
Position Power forward / Center
Personal information
Born (1980-07-06) July 6, 1980 (age 34)
Barcelona, Spain
Nationality Spanish
Listed height 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m)
Listed weight 250 lb (113 kg)
Career information
NBA draft 2001 / Round: 1 / Pick: 3rd overall
Selected by the Atlanta Hawks
Pro career 1998–present
Career history
1998–2001 FC Barcelona (Spain)
20012008 Memphis Grizzlies
20082014 Los Angeles Lakers
2014–present Chicago Bulls

Option 1: Remove team link from colored header; no other changes[edit]

  1. The current team is linked in the club history and the lead, it doesn't need to be linked at the top of the infobox. Option 2 looks horrible to me. having the number and team at the top in team colors looks sharp. Rikster2 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Rikster: delete hidden team link in first section header per MOS:LINK and WP:COLOR. Current team name and jersey no. in first section header is standard practice for all baseball, CFB, NFL, CFL and all basketball bio articles. It is space-efficient, and avoids repetitive links to current team in infobox. It also looks better, and the "Current Team Name – No. 12" first section header also functions as a sub-header for the player's name immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Option 1. Per Rikster2, the club history has the link, and presumably the lead should too. It isn't much of an inconvenience for the reader to find a link to the player's current squad. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. This one per my comments at WT:Accessibility. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. It is the most simple solution after all. And simplicity is good. Dodoïste (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 2: Modified with team link in top section[edit]

Note: Additional prototypes will be !voted on if Option 1 is not the consensus.

  1. If the team is important enough to be on top, have it linkable. Don't make users have to hunt down to the bottom for it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Imitate the soccer infobox. Have the team link on top, remove the league. –HTD 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Title color in navboxes[edit]

Similar to the link issue above at #Current team in Infobox basketball biography, the titles of colored navboxes are also not obviously links. For example, Template:Alaska Aces 2003 PBA Invitational Cup Champions or many/most of the navboxes at Category:Basketball rosters navigational boxes don't have title that are noticeably linked. Options are to remove the custom coloring, using a white background with team colors are borders only, or repeating the title as a link somewhere else in the navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What about underlining the link? Example below (The red on black needs to be fixed too). ~ Richmond96 TC 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the underlining is hard to see though. MOS:BADEMPHASIS does say: "Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page." I guess this could work for wikilinks?—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted TfD for Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship[edit]

The TfD for Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship has been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_3#Template:United_States_Squad_2002_FIBA_World_Championship. Regardless of your position, it would be good to get more participation to close this one way or another. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Format for Finals and notable games?[edit]

As in football games there is an specific format for the finals (like for example here), in basketball tournaments there is not a rule for this kind of games. We have several options:

Is there any possibility to create a template for this kind of games? Asturkian (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We could. I really liked the 2014 Euroleague Final Four presentation, although I'd think it'll only work for final(s) of a maximum of three possible games (one among these: one-off final, two-legged tie or best-of-3 series). If it's four or more possible games, I'd rather have a series stats at the end rather than a per game list.
If one likes a boatload of stats there's already a template for that. Check out 2013 FIBA Asia Championship Final. –HTD 13:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you requesting that all individual basketball games use the same format. I think the format at both 2014 FIBA Intercontinental Cup and 2014 NBA Finals is quite good. Both present full rosters in a very formal way. One summarizes the box score and the other gives complete detail. Note that 2004 McDonald's All-American Boys Game just puts the box score in a regular table. These articles might very well pass WP:GAN. Note that not all important individual games include rosters. Look at 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game, which does not even include rosters. I am not convinced that a complete box score is required for an individual game although at WP:FAC it might be required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 13:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think a full blown box score may have the WP:NOTSTATS people grab their pitchforks. A simplified box score would be OK enough, and that it has the added benefit of presenting the entire roster. –HTD 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd be OK for a full box score for a single championship game. I wouldn't recommend it for something like the NBA which is not single-elimination and is a best-of-7 series.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • For a best of 5 series or more, I'd recommend a stats summary at the end like what's being done for the NBA PLayoffs articles, plus perhaps a full stats summary for every player on the roster. If the series has a maximum of three games, maybe a summarized box score would work, while a full box score could work in a single game final. With what P64 says below, full box scores can take up two "screens" or more, as opposed to a box score of only points, rebounds and assists, plus a team summary, that can compress the information into one screen. –HTD 02:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Our article 2014 NBA Finals covers 13 screens for me now, of which the 12th and 13th comprise the WP:FOOTER. Among them, the 4th screen is a tabular presentation of the complete 2013–14 season standings. The 10th and 11th screens --completing the body of the article-- are navbox presentations of the complete 2013–14 San Antonio and Miami rosters that are silent regarding who played in the final series or who was eligible. I dislike those features a lot. Too much space that pertains to the series too weakly.

BTW, complete season standings pertain better to the related article 2014 NBA Playoffs, but are not necessary and do not appear there. --P64 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the 2013–14 standings are overkill; at least remove the teams not even in the playoffs, if nothing else (though that requires some work as it's currently a transclusion of regular season templates). I think full rosters are OK for background information. I think you are asking to additionally have a stats summary for each player in the series, which is probably more a matter of effort as opposed to a consensus not to include it.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather put in there "xth place in <division>", xth place in <conference>". I dunno if you could keep the rosters if there's a stats summary too as that may be redundant. –HTD 02:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no. The "statistic" that should have priority, in my opinion, is simply who played in contrast to who sat on the bench and who was a member of the team earlier during the season. That might be deemed background information rather than statistical summary. Perhaps that much can be incorporated in the regular season template by some distinguishing mark, face, or font for the playoff roster.
I should have added that this problem, as I see it, is not general to the entire NBA Finals series of articles. On the contrary: so recently as 1970, for instance, no part of the season standings are duplicated in 1970 NBA Finals and 1970 NBA Finals#Team rosters may be too short rather than too long.
Concerning another matter raised in this section, I agree that no single game in a final series is so notable as a single championship game such as the Olympics, FIBA World Championships, and US collegiate championships provide. It's plausible to me, altho not obviously right, that a single championship game deserves a box score and a series does not. --P64 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Stray whitespace atop some NBA Finals articles[edit]

Perhaps another set of eyes, or three, will see why some of the NBA Finals series such as 1953 NBA Finals and 1970 NBA Finals display several lines of whitespace at the top of the page. 1952, 1954, 1969, and 1971 all display normally, as I expect. --P64 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

1953 is fixed now, but you can still see the error in the 70er article. Looks like it has to do with "radio announcer" (clearing the parameter removes the additional whitespace), but I don't see the problem in the code as well. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI that stray lead whitespace now appears at 1970 NBA Finals, 1972 NBA Finals, and 1973 NBA Finals, alone among articles in this series from 1947 to 1986--where my scan ends, leaving the last 30 years to others.
Note to self: lead text reads YYYY NBA World Championship Series except 1960–64 and 1970. --P64 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Lead sentences from 1955 to 1985 and no others now use "YYYY NBA World Championship Series". For more about that rather than stray whitespace, see Talk:NBA Finals#NBA World Championship Series. --P64 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There was a formatting problem in the template when referees_1 was not specified. I fixed it. —Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That fixes 1970 and 1972, not yet 1973 NBA Finals. --P64 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. What a mess. It's somewhat surprising the thing ever worked.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game image selection[edit]

As you may have noticed, I added images that I took to the 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game and 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game articles for each player. This year I again took hundreds (over 1800) of pictures at the 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. I have uploaded 160 of them at Commons:Category:2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. I am looking for feedback on which images to add to the article at Talk:2015_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting. Keep in mind that the image that we choose is very likely to appear in three articles (here, the team season recruiting section and the player bio). Please give me some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the graphics for Template: Medal[edit]

There is a template talk page discussion regarding the graphics used for medalists in infobox medals tables occurring at Template talk:Medal#‎Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3. As this discussion is within the scope of WP:Basketball, you are invited to make your comments on the recent graphics changes there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)