Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association

Skillz

Hello! I saw here that Oscar Robertson, Billy Cunningham and Bob Pettit needed pictures. Well I added some great ones! Should those now be removed as a task? Thanks. Ping me. -DangerousJXD (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reasons for it to remain. Any editor that thinks something can be improved can just be bold and do it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I really think Petit, Robertson and Cunningham should not be listed saying they need pictures because they don't. I tried to change it but I don't see how. Hassan Whiteside, Wesley Matthews and Jimmy Butler are players that need pictures. DangerousJXD (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

James Worthy needs pictures too. –DangerousJXD (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this hasn't been archived yet, Bernard King too. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation guideline for Tony Parker

There is Tony Parker, the French player in the NBA, as well as Tony Parker (college basketball), the American player currently in college which used to be at Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tony Parker (college basketball)#Page move to discuss the conventions for disambiguating basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Standings templates

There is a discussion at Module talk:Sports table that aims to unify standings tables for all leagues and sports. An NBA-specific template (that could ultimately be used by leagues such as MLB & NFL) is in development. Unlike other templates that do colored shades, the template would only denote playoff qualification via the usually letters z-, y- and x-. Please join the discussion specifically under #PCT mode to help in the development. –HTD 09:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why...

...nobody really works on articles of NBA players from back in the day? —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lots of different reasons. Recentism is a problem throughout Wikipedia. A lot of editors are probably too young to even remember Karl Malone, let alone someone like Joe Fulks. Even if editors have interest in the older players, they may not have the research skills to get the sources they need. For guys who played before the internet era, it's helpful to have access to books and old newspaper articles. Zagalejo^^^ 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspected recentism. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have created dozens of stub articles (w/complete infoboxes though) on historical NBA, ABA, and NBL players. I don't expand them very much, but I do enjoy getting the basic notable historical players on Wikipedia. I agree with Zagalejo, I think there's a lot of recentism on here, and I go out of my way to get the old timers. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to state that a lot of issues with these articles are the kind of issue someone without knowledge on the subject can fix. Things like changing "1998-99" to "1998–99" or "1979 NBA Draft" to "1979 NBA draft". Other basic copy editing and layout fixing is also common. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The historical players are overlooked and sort of left out to pasture. Every once in a blue moon I'll decide to add an infobox and do cleanup work on a stub article that someone else created, but has since been ignored. I encourage everyone else to do the same; it doesn't take long and it makes even stub articles look so much better. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Some projects do stub contests to see how many they can expand. Many NBA player stubs were hastily created when WP was just getting started, but no one went back to the non-stars like Dave Hoppen or Duane Causwell to expand them. At that point there were so many notable basketball figures without articles (still are) that this became the focus. And players become newly notable every season, so there is always a constant stream of new articles to be created. Rikster2 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

List of eligible players in draft articles

How do we handle the list of eligible players in draft articles? In the past (until the 2010 NBA draft), the list of eligible players were removed after the draft because they were not needed anymore. Since the 2011 NBA draft, the list has remained in the articles. I don't mind the list remain in the articles as long as they're properly referenced and formatted (MOS:FLAG), but the list is growing and there's a discussion to add more players, I think we should start limiting the number of entrants listed. Last year's draft article even includes a section for "Potential entrants who declined to declare for the draft" which I think should not be included in the article. I've divided eligible players to 5 categories according to the eligibility rules and another category for the potential entrants, and I would like to ask for a project-wide opinion whether they should remain in the draft articles. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

College underclassmen who declared as early entrants

• Keep They are properly referenced and the league announced this list every year. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as long as these types of players are not excluded: [1] — X96lee15 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep WP: Is a tertiary source tasked with summarizing secondary sources that list these names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

International players who declared as early entrants

• Keep They are properly referenced and the league announced this list every year. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep WP: Is a tertiary source tasked with summarizing secondary sources that list these names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

College seniors (automatically eligible)

• Oppose College seniors were never listed in the draft articles but has received some support from this discussion. I believe limiting the list to notable seniors or seniors who have won college awards would not be the answer and we should omit college seniors altogether. There are just too many college basketball seniors who will not be drafted or even have a professional basketball career. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose A general list would not be useful. I could support a list of seniors who were at least AP honorable mention All-American.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment If we leave redlink underclassmen e.g. 2011_NBA_draft#College_underclassmen, it seems strange to not allow blue link seniors who don't end up getting drafted. Or perhaps just rmv the redlink underclassmen after a few years.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just delink the underclassmen if they aren't drafted Rikster2 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

22 year old international players (automatically eligible)

• Oppose Oppose for similar reasons with college seniors. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see how to winnow this list down.

Other automatically eligible players

• Oppose Although some notable players were/will be drafted through this path (Brandon Jennings, Thanasis Antetokounmpo, Emmanuel Mudiay), I believe creating a comprehensive list would be difficult (if not impossible) and just including notable players is not objective. Moreover, most of the citations don't explicitly say that the players are eligible. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep but require sourcing of each case. I think this pool is only going to grow in future years as more players go NBDL or international vs. one and done in college. This is always a small list and should be manageable. If desired we could add a note saying it may not be complete. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess if each case is properly cited it's okay, but I'm really concerned about the references that are usually used. Consider Todd Mayo case where the reference is dated back to 2014 when he was still planning to leave college and play professionally before entering the 2015 draft. I think we need a better reference that actually shows that he's already playing professionally for a year and then became automatically eligible for the draft. Also, can we synthesize that a player is automatically eligible after playing professionally for a year if the reference doesn't explicitly say the player' eligibility? — MT (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep each individually sourced name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential entrants who declined to declare for the draft

• Oppose Just not relevant enough to be included in the draft article. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This invotes WP:CRUFT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Eligible players after draft is completed

After the draft, would anyone object to removing all the eligible lists? Years later, its really only relevant who actually got drafted, or undrafted players who later make it. Player-specific info can go into the player's bio, if they are notable enough for their own article.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would object. The early entry and eligible international lists are still relevant as part of the picture of who teams were choosing from. It also just seems a little wonky to delete this much content from an article if it's all accurate.Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. In that case, I would think adding seniors notable enough for their own standalone articles would be acceptable (hypothetically, I don't plan adding them myself). If these eligible player lists stay, any objection if they go after the actual draftees once the draft happens. I always find there's a bunch of stuff to scroll through to get to the core info: who got drafted. Stuff like the lottery and who is eligible seems secondary once the draft has occurred.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that. Underclassman and international declarations are generally individually newsworthy and lists of these folks are tracked on just about every sports site. It's assumed that the universe of college seniors are eligible. Besides, if you think there is clutter already then why would you advocate adding more on the page before the draft results? Rikster2 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: seniors, I thought I was just extending your earlier rationale of providing a "picture of who teams were choosing from". No big, let's leave it to the !vote above.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Any objection to moving the draftees section earlier after the draft is completed? There's worse things than leaving it chronological, but I think moving the selections earlier for completed drafts would be an improvement to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally would not have any issue with that. Rikster2 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the selections up at 2014 NBA draft. Will wait for any feedback before proceeding with the other articles.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have the selections up in the article. I also have removed the "potential entrants who declined to declare for the draft" section per discussion above. — MT (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated articles back to 2006. The ones before that seem to have the selections on top already.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Question re flag icons

@Martin tamb: (and anyone else who wants to field this question) Why are we using national flag icons for the NBA draft eligibility lists, as well as some current NBA team rosters? The overwhelming majority of these NBA players, American college and foreign players have never been a member of their respective national teams in international tournaments, and do not represent their home country in any meaningful way. We intentionally exclude flag icons from player infoboxes, but then we splash them all over some draft and team pages -- aren't we being a tad inconsistent in our use of flag icons? I have been a strong proponent for the proper use of flag icons in international sports like golf, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, track and field, etc. To me it seems perfectly normal for an Olympic gold medalist to have a "national team" parameter with his representative flag icon in his infobox. It also seems very odd when we start using flag icons for University of Kentucky undergradautes who have declared for the NBA draft, or a Spanish player who was never a member of his national team, or a Turkish high school kid who may be good enough to get drafted by an NBA team? Obviously, any element of meaningful representation is absent here, so can someone explain the logic of the growing use of flag icons in NBA-related articles? Oh, and before someone asks, I have no problem whatsoever with including a flag icon in the embedded medals table for those players who were members of medalist national teams in the Olympics, FIBA world championships, Pan American Games, or other major international championship tournaments. Having said that, the question regarding random use of flag icons in NBA team, draft and season articles needs to be answered. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Flags remain where nationality is covered by reliable sources. e.g. award winners. Past discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_19#More_flags. Seems the press has followed NBA's lead on marketing the league's international players. Which current rosters still have it? It's rarely mentioned as far as team's rosters (e.g. no quotas), so it was removed from Template:NBA roster header.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I'm not a fan of flags in NBA lists as well, but the flags were already there in several draft articles that already promoted to featured list status and I was too lazy to start another discussion to change the consensus formatting. At least, if the flags are there, we should follow MOS:FLAG which states "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon." You might want to have a look at 2014 NBA draft article where I rewrote the entrants table to follow MOS:FLAG and I also removed U.S. flags from college underclassmen list. I've been planning to do the same for the 2015 article, but I have not find the time to do that. Regarding current NBA rosters, the consensus was to remove the flag and it still hasn't changed. If you're talking about all-time rosters list, there is a lot of flags there, but on the two all-time rosters list that I have rewritten and maintained, Dallas Mavericks all-time roster and statistics leaders and Miami Heat all-time roster, I've removed all the flags from the players list and create a separate "international players" section which contains the flags and the links to foreign national basketball team played by the players. If there are ever a discussion to remove excessive use of flags in NBA articles, I would be happy to support it. Cheers! — MT (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin tamb: Thanks -- I think you and I are already on the same page. Like you, I would be inclined to start a WP:NBA/WP:CBB talk page RfC to clarify the limited permissible uses of flag icons in college basketball and NBA-related articles. That said, let's see if some more of the WP:NBA and WP:CBB regulars want to chime in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Greater Los Angeles Sports by year navboxes

FYI

Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 and similiar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Greater_Los_Angeles_Sports_by_year_navboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Image layout

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kobe_Bryant#Image_layout to reach a consensus on the layout of images in WT:NBA articles.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-NBA leagues

You are invited for the discussion at WikiProject Basketball. It's a general talk on whether we should change Euroleague FGP and 3PFG format from .325 format to 32.5 format. Also, freely express your thoughts on whether or not we should have domestic league coverage, and not only of Euroleague. Think of the consequences it may produce and are there enough contributors willing to do such an enormous job. Even Euroleague stats maintenance is creaky(f.e. I'm maintaining almost all Euroleague stats without any willingness to do so for domestic leagues; but also read counter-opinions). Any interested, please read other opinions and join.--AirWolf ^talk 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Category:African-American basketball players

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Misuse_of_Category:African-American_basketball_players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Finals logo

An editor uploaded File:2015NBAFinalslogo.jpg, which was found on an unconfirmed website that does not seem affiliated with the NBA. This logo does not look like the official 2015 NBA Finals logo and instead looks like "2015" was photoshopped onto an older NBA Finals logo. I have also opened a discussion here on the matter. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an easy delete. The thing is, 2014 and 2015 Finals articles don't have the annual logos. I looked at Chris Creamer's website and he only stops up to 2009. Can we find anything for the most 2 recent finals? –HTD 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Christian Laettner article

It has been almost completely re-written and almost paints him as just a college player (NBA career not even mentioned in lead anymore). Also whitewashes some of his shady business dealings later in life. I already replaced a ton of infobox content that was removed, I'm not spending any more time on Laettner, but that article really needs some scrutiny. Rikster2 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss infobox suggestions for Christian Laettner

at Talk:Christian Laettner#Infobox. Major changes are being introduced, seemingly just for this article. Rikster2 (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Medals in infobox of bio

FYI

You are invite to join the discussion regarding the handling of medals in the infobox at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Medals_in_infobox_of_bio.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Grouping navboxes

Articles with lots of navboxes typically cap them using {{navboxes}}. However, I see at Michael Cooper#External links that a whole bunch of his coaching navboxes are not grouped. Presumably, this is because the capped ones are titled together as "Michael Cooper—championships, awards and honors". Aside from navboxes related to a person's current role (e.g. roster, current league coaches), shouldn't the rest of them be capped too? How about one grouping for the non-active ones that just uses the default title of "Links to related articles"?—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is more than an NBA issue. It is a college and NBA issue, especially with all the coach movement between the two. Rikster2 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I went and left a notification at WT:CHOOPS.—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with nesting all except current templates (current roster, "current coaches of," etc). Rikster2 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pinging Jweiss11 and Jrcla2 directly, as you and I seem to be clashing with their latest respective edits regarding the order and general collapsing of boxes at Fred Hoiberg.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what is up with those edits. The current templates always go on top and they are always removed eventually as they reflect temporary states. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What we've got here is a conflict in standard practices between NBA and college sports. The standard practice for college sports is tenure navboxes sorted chronologically, followed by championship navboxes sorted chronologically, and then awards and honors navboxes sorted chronologically. Tenure navboxes are always uncollapsed. If there are three or more championship and/or awards and honors navboxes, then those are collapsed in a grouping. Current roster navboxes do no exist for any college sports. See Steve Spurrier or Amos Alonzo Stagg for good examples. Pinging Dirtlawyer1 here as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

in basketball, current roster templates for pro players/coaches ALWAYS go on the top. I noticed this isn't true in football (see Tom Brady) but that makes no sense to me. Why would you bury a current roster template when it is the companion to the team-colored infobox? Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Larry Brown (basketball) might be the king of all examples with 13 exposed navs + one "championships, awards, and honors" container with 18 more embedded. Per WP:TCREEP, the easy solution is to just push more into the container. However, it warns: "this solution is not a license to simply hide existing templates behind a curtain without actually doing anything to help reduce the larger problem." Do we want to 1) find the an easy solution, 2) brainstorm ideas to reduce navboxes 3) do nothing?—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Brown is an exceptional case, like Michael Jordan for players. But in Brown's case a lot of it just has to do with his coaching at a LOT of places. As it pertains to infoboxes, it seems difficult to make realistic reductions without cutting whole classes of templates. We have had that discussion and could again, but there will always be that 5% of cases where it gets out of hand. Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any active American coach who's had more head coaching jobs in college and the pros than Larry Brown, who's now on #12, but there are other historical examples, particularly from the era when college guys coached multiple sports, e.g. E. J. Stewart or Edwin Sweetland. I don't see any way we can really eliminate these tenure succession navboxes. We've done a lot of work in recent years to streamline these footer areas by eliminating redundant succession boxes. But there does look to be some opportunity for paring down among the championships, awards, and honors navboxes. Looking at Larry Brown, do we really need navboxes for the FIBA Americans championships? We've also got two navboxes for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame there, one for the 2002 induction class and another bloated one for entire HOF. How about the similarly bloated navbox for the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree those are likely candidates to remove. That said, in Brown's case it wouldn't solve the template overload problem unless you cut into coaching tenure, major award or championships. He'd still have 22 templates (I am assuming cutting things like current NBA coaches, statistical leadership and AAU All-Americans as well.) Rikster2 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why we can't arrange alphabetically except for the current usage on top? Most readers (including me) don't realize it was arranged this way. I thought it was just arranged randomly. For an unsuspecting reader, it being arranged alphabetically looks neat. –HTD 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes placed on top

The current situation for navboxes placed on top of the heap can be summarized by Jweiss11's comment above: "What we've got here is a conflict in standard practices between NBA and college sports." It appears college articles place tenure navboxes—applicable to team's coaches—sorted chronologically on top. For NBA, current roster navboxes are always on top, as evidenced at GAs like Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Pau Gasol, Tony Parker, etc. As most college players are not notable, there are not roster navboxes for college. Can we decide whether current roster/position navboxes should be on top e.g. current roster like {{Golden State Warriors current roster}}, current league coaches like {{NBACoach}} or {{Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball coach navbox}}?

Based on absence of opposition here, and the fact that Hoiberg's article has been stable for stable over a week, there appears to be consensus to have current navboxes be placed on top.—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Navboxes related to current roles should be on top, like at this version of Fred Hoiberg. These are the navboxes I imagine are most frequently used based on current news (it applies for me at least), and should preferably be readily accessible and in a standard position.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

   Echoing Rikster2 below, I'd be fine with not applying this for current college coaches, if that's a sticking point, though I think having them be consistent would be better.—Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

2. This works well for pro coaches. It gets a little weird for college coaches where there are no current roster templates but there is a current conference coach navbox. For the sake of ease and consistency I'd be fine putting the conference box at the top for college coaches. If the tenures are chronological their current school won't be at the top anyway. I'd also be fine just doing away with {{NBACoach}} and the similar college conference boxes in the name of reducing navbox clutter. Rikster2 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

   Let's table any deletion discussion for after we generally decide here if "current" navs should be on top or not. Trying to avoid going off on a tangent, turning this into a WP:TLDR, and being left with no consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Coaching tenure navboxes

Coaches generally coach multiple teams in their career, and general practice currently is for each team, where college or NBA, to have a navbox with all their respective all-time coaches listed. It seems that bios generally have these coaching tenure navboxes uncollapsed, outside of a {{navboxes}} that is either labelled "championships, awards, and honors" or with the generic "Links to related articles". Some coaches have numerous uncollapsed coaching navboxes e.g. Lenny Wilkens, Larry Brown. Should these coaching navboxes be collapsed; if yes, can they be collapsed with the other "awards", or should they be in a separate group?—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Collapse into generic "Links to related articles" with other honors

1. Too awkward and undue to specifically leave multiple coaching navboxes from former stints uncollapsed. I imagine there are plenty of articles like Hoiberg's that need collapsing. Quickly placing them into {{Navboxes}} using the default title of "Links to related articles" requires the least amount of effort. (If there is support to grouping coaching tenure boxes together, my !vote can move there if needed to break any deadlocks.)—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
2. I am good with nesting these. I actually have never seen the logic in having them outside the collapsed section. Rikster2 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

   Rikster2, the logic is that collapsed navboxes are harder to access and tenure navboxes are more important the the awards, honors, championships navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

   14-15 navboxes on a page without collapsing looks crappy no matter what they are for. Rikster2 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Jweiss11: Why are tenure navs considered "more important the the awards, honors, championships navboxes"?—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

   Bagumba, there may be different thoughts from various editors here, but I think the idea is that the tenures reflect a more defining characteristic of the subject than the awards, honors, and championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

   That depends on the subject. I really don't think the coaching tenures of people like Bill Russell, Steve Alford, Danny Manning, etc. are more defining to them than their playing accomplishments. For people like Phil Jackson and Pat Riley they probably are. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

General question

General question: are we talking about NBA coaches or all coaches? Because any NBA-only solution will necessarily come into conflict with standards of other WikiProjects. And by "all" coaches, I mean at minimum: NFL, NBA, MLB, college football, college basketball, and college baseball—because the populations of those six have significant overlaps. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that an NBA-only discussion won't solve the problem. Rikster2 (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Was hoping for a college/NBA solution, as the coaches cross boundaries. WP:CHOOPS had already been notified of the top-level discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

But once you get into college hoops, you're then already deep into college football and college baseball because of the many, many subjects who have coached multiple college sports, particularly those from the early 1900s, when such practice was commonplace. Then once you're into college football, you're in the NFL. And college baseball brings you, albeit to a lesser extent, into MLB. See Hugo Bezdek for one guy who coached NFL, MLB, and college football, basketball, and baseball. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If there's a logical reason why it's done the way it currently is, and there is consensus to follow it with WT:NBA and WT:CHOOPS, it should remain. Otherwise, there's enough differences between WikiProjects that a local consensus isn't the end of the world. AFAIK, there is no global WP guideline on this, so in the worse case, this would boil down to subjective preferences. Still, I think the main concern is that it's kludgey to leave many of them uncollapsed, and debatable why it should be treated differently from other navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of basketball players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for basketball players: Joakim Noah and Michael Jordan. If you have any questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment on a merge

Please comment at Talk:Personal life of Wilt Chamberlain to discuss whether that article should be merged into Wilt Chamberlain. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Draymond Green's position

Draymond Green starts one game at center in Game 4 of 2015 NBA Finals and now editors are starting to add "Center" to his infobox. I'm assuming we only list primary positions in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction, it's only one editor so far Kyle121101, who I'll ping here to discuss.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it before I saw this. I stand by my action, however. He hasn't played center up until Game 4 and he most likely won't in the future. He's a natural small forward and on a different team under different circumstances, he would most likely be playing SF rather than PF. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It is more accurate to say the Warriors didn't start a center in that game. iguodala isn't a PF either. Rikster2 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say to update Template:Infobox basketball biography to say list a player's primary position, but even primary is subjective and probably won't help.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: FWIW, basketball-reference makes no mention of him at PF[2], but I'm not advocating to change it to SF in his case.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"...natural small forward and on a different team under different circumstances, he would most likely be playing SF rather than PF" That is exactly what I think. For the article, I think just Forward is best. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with DangerousJXD. @Bagumba, yeah I know but he has definitely being playing PF this season. Just Forward covers both. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NBA draft early-entry withdrawals

Would we want to maintain a list of players who declare then withdraw from the draft. Today, June 15, is the deadline to withdraw. Presumably, the NBA will publish an official withdrawal list in the coming days, much like they did in 2014. In the meantime, editors have started removing names from the list at 2015 NBA draft#Early entrants without citing a source. Some I can verify easily, the rest might be on non-english website or less intuitive place not easily found on Google. Logistically, maintaining a withdrawal list would make it more intuitive to account for 1) Which players from the original list have been struck, 2) The source that verifies the withdrawal prior to the next official announcement from the NBA.

Otherwise, maybe we just don't remove people until the NBA officially announces it. On the other hand, we already maintain a list of people who reportedly declare for the draft before the NBA announces it. And other ideas?—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Height and weight in lead

I see some articles having a players height and weight being added to the lead. It was just saw it removed from Timofey Mozgov by Stusutcliffe with explanation: "no need for height & weight in opening paragraph. That's what infobox is for". Is there a consensus one way or another? For the record, I don't recall having either added or removed it from the lead of any article, but do think it can sound trivial in the lead. It would be suitable for a "Player profile" section, but only a select number of articles have such a section.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there is consensus on this and don't necessarily think there needs to be either. Rikster2 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't care either way. Or do you think there are some specific cases where it should be in the lead, but feel that it's too complicated to try to qualify when it is appropriate?—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I just don't think it matters if it's there or not so long as the paragraph reads smoothly. There are bigger battles. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless a basketball player's height and/or weight are somehow exceptional, the exact numbers are trivia and do not belong in the lead. The lead section serves two related purposes: (1) it succinctly states the reasons for the subject's notability, and (2) it summarizes the major points of the article. The lead is not the place for random trivia (e.g., birthplace, relatives, height, weight, etc.). The height of most NBA players falls somewhere between 6'4" and 6'9"; a current player shorter than 6'0", or a true 7-footer, are exceptional and perhaps worth mentioning. A player's exact weight is rarely, if ever, noteworthy, except in those odd instances where he has had weight-related issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And, no, I don't think there needs to be WP:NBA/WP:CBB "consensus" on point to exclude height and weight from the lead; just an exercise of common sense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Dirtlawyer1 said above. I will add that I don't think it matters that much. There are better things to worry about. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Dirtlawyer1. In some cases the player's specific height (or some history of controversy about his height) is a significant element of notability and is appropriate for the lead (see Hakeem Olajuwon, Manute Bol, Spud Webb, Muggsy Bogues); in most cases, I wouldn't think so.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Satnam Singh Bhamara

Regarding the 52nd pick of today's draft, Satnam Singh Bhamara, is he classified as an "international" player, or a postgraduate student, or is he a high school senior? NBA official release of early entrants listed him as a postgraduate student, however at the age of 19, I seriously doubt that he already finished college/undergraduate degree in either India or USA. I also don't think he is an "international" player, considering that he was enrolled in IMG Academy and resides in the USA for the last 3 years before the draft. I also don't think he can be classified as high school senior, since no high school senior can enter the draft until 1 year after his high school graduation. An article from SI mentions that he moved to USA in 2010, spend 4 years somewhere (could be in IMG), before playing for IMG Academy postgraduate team in 2014–15. Right now I have changed the class to postgraduate according to official NBA list, but I'm not sure whether it's accurate. — MT (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't link to the article postgraduate education; that focuses on a different definition of the term. (I think; I only read the lead.) But many prep schools in the US have what they call "postgrad" programs - basically, an extra year of high school. I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia article that really discusses that concept, but here's a New York Times article: [3]. Zagalejo^^^ 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's basically a postgraduate high school class. That's make sense with all the information that he failed to get NCAA scholarship. This means that he finished high school before the 2014–15 season and became an early entrant because he has at least 1 year removed from his high school graduation at IMG Academy. I'll try to piece some information and add notes to the article later. Thanks! — MT (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft picks showing NBA colors and team history

I see some editors taking out the new team name/colors for 2015 draft picks because they "haven't signed a contract" with the team. Pretty sure this has not been past practice and seems like a losing proposition as o think it's pretty natural for editors to (for example) add info for the Lakers to D'Angelo Russell's article. I believe that we always made an exception for draft picks, but I can't find the discussion now. Rikster2 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's more of an issue for overseas players, who may not be coming to the NBA for several years. Personally, I wouldn't care if we listed someone like D'Angelo Russell as a Laker. They own his rights, and he's not under contract with anyone else. Zagalejo^^^ 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's odd – this has never been an issue in past years. For some reason, a few editors this year have a huge vendetta over adding the team to the infobox and it's just not worth it. These drive-by edits are not going to stop and I don't think it's necessary to keep people from adding it. It will eventually sort itself out though. I will stay with the current norm of keeping it out until it changes, possibly with this discussion. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As it wouldn't be technically incorrect to consider them part of the team already, I'd just assume the team be included and avoid the edit warring. Perhaps those removing it should be invited to this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's my rationale for not including the teams until the players have signed official contracts: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yes, the teams that drafted each player own those respective players' rights in the NBA, but what if, for example, Karl-Anthony Towns decides to go back to college instead of signing a contract with the Timberwolves? What if Jahlil Okafor does the same instead of signing a contract with the 76ers? Unlikely situations, for sure, but possible. The fact of the matter is, none of the new draftees are on the actual rosters of their respective teams yet, and therefore, those teams should not be in the infoboxes yet. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

When has a drafted player ever gone back to college? I don't think they even can – they are deemed ineligible to return I'm pretty sure. But if that is a main reason, and being such an unlikely event to occur, it is really worth reverting over and over again? I'm surprised you can even be bothered. In past years, no one has even been this nazi over this issue, especially for first round picks – which, unless they are international players, are most likely going to sign rookie contracts. It's overkill and not worth it. Drive-by users and IPs are not going to stop and/or take any notice of warnings or hidden notes. I personally think you are wasting your time and it will eventually be sort out. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, none of these draftees have the option to return to college. But they could hold out (unlikely under today's CBA). To me, second round picks are more the question. It's not that uncommon for them to not make the team and play elsewhere (I think about half of last year's' second rounders didn't play in the NBA this past season). I guess I can go either way, but it seems silly to me for first rounders who aren't contractually obligated elsewhere this upcoming season. Rikster2 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I know that in some other sports drafts, players do have the option to go back to school even if they're drafted. However, the point still remains that they are not officially on their respective teams' rosters yet, which is why I feel that, as I previously mentioned, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to have those teams in the infoboxes already, for the sake of factual accuracy. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that baseball and hockey players can go back to school, but football and basketball players can not. I can go either way. A significant percentage of draftees do not ever play in the league, but I did not have a problem with the previous decisions to immediately add the team to the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A bigger issue, in my opinion, is people adding summer league signings. These people aren't even on the team, they have the opportunity to try out for a team. Rikster2 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just made aware of this thread, so I'll offer my two cents as one of the editors with a "huge vendetta" (not my words). First of all, I'll second what A guy saved by Jesus said above; WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies. The more important rationale for reverting, in my opinion, is WP:V. Not only is it not verifiably true to say these players are on their draft team, but it's verifiably false. Including false information in an article is completely against the purpose of the project. I don't find it particularly convincing that we should allow the false information to stand because IP editors will continue to add it; that's why we have semi-protection. It's also noteworthy that multiple admins have semi-protected pages accordingly, seeming to indicate that they find the arguments towards not including the information persuasive. I will not provide username links here to avoid WP:CANVASS, but the protected pages include Karl-Anthony Towns, D'Angelo Russell, Jahlil Okafor, and Kristaps Porziņģis if anyone cares to see who protected those pages. ~ Rob^Talk 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, let's leave ad hominem attacks out of this. I've already been called a nazi twice. ~ Rob^Talk 21:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Contextual inclusion of 2015 HoF Inductees in HoF sections of Team Articles

The eleven members of the 2015 Basketball Hall of Fame were announced in February and will be inducted in September. http://www.nba.com/2015/news/02/14/hall-of-fame-2015-finalists-announced/ http://www.hoophall.com/the-class-of-2015/

• Louie Dampier
• John Isaacs
• Lindsay Gaze
• Tom Heinsohn
• George Raveling
• Dick Bavetta
• [John Calipari]]
• Spencer Haywood
• Dikembe Mutombo
• Jo Jo White
• Lisa Leslie

Multiple edits have been made primarily to include the 2015 inductees within the Hall of Fame section of corresponding NBA team articles. These edits are being removed by an editor, apparently under a banner of the induction ceremony not yet having occurred.

My proposed middle-ground is placing a sentence at the bottom of the team article's Hall of Fame section, noting the player has been elected as a member to the Hall of Fame, with induction to occur in September. The primary distinction being the inductee is not co-mingled in the list of existing HoF members (typically a table or bullet list) to avoid confusion.

This would have the general appearance of:
Hall of Fame

• Player Name Pos, 19xx-xx, Inductied Class of 19xx
• Player Name Pos, 19xx-xx, Inductied Class of 19xx
• Player Name Pos, 19xx-xx, Inductied Class of 19xx
• Player Name Pos, 19xx-xx, Inductied Class of 19xx

Player Name (player for the TEAM from 20xx-xx) was elected into the Hall of Fame in 2015; He will be inducted in September.

Feedback? UW Dawgs (talk)

It's not OFFICIAL until the ceremony takes place. It's the same with retired numbers. When Team X announces that they will retire Players X's number and you add it to the Retired numbers table of that team it gets removed instantly. Even if you include a note – ¹ Player X jersey will be retired on December 10, 2016 – it still gets removed. I keep reverting your edits with this Hall of Fame thing, because the same thing, what you want to do, happened to me in the past and it always got reverted. I think the best solution would be to add that player and hide him with <!-- Player X --> until September 11 and then these things can be removed <!-- -->. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This sort of pedantry does not improve the encyclopedia. You also engaged in edit wars on numerous articles over whether the current season was 14-15 or 15-16 that likewise was not helpful in improving the encyclopedia. I would ask you in the future to please stop wasting people's time with trivial nonsense like this. I support what UW Dawgs proposed and disagree strongly with your pedantic objections. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And I support the long standing standards. And speaking of trivial, you're the one who makes everything trivial. My edits are more helpful then your nonsense when you write things that don't have their place in somewhere. And I again see that you have difficulties with reading comprehension so there's no discussion possible with you. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And how dare you come here and write something without any relevance to the subject? Do you want to get reported for personal attacks? I sure can report you so you would beg for my mercy. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out your recent editing history is not a personal attack. However you saying "you have difficulties with reading comprehension" is a personal attack. You writing two paragraphs about me personally and not about content is also a violation of policy. If you carry on like this, you will find yourself blocked. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I could go either way. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. We should not however baldly indicate that any of these are now in the HOF. They have all, however, been voted into the HOF. Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image

JesseRafe has taken a lot of time to prune Jahlil Okafor from this version. I am very close to this article as its main editor and I have decided not to contest much of the prose content that has been deleted. However, I have noticed that he has removed almost all images depicting Okafor's face clearly from the front and all pictures depicting him dunking except the main image. The selected remaining images seems to be somewhat curious in relation to the ones deleted. The single most clear picture of his face (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG) has bee the subject of edit warring. Can someone have a look at the changes and lend an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• "I am very close to this article" sounds a lot like WP:OWNership. I think the removal of images was appropriate, as I stated at the talk page. We don't need a million images of the guy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, especially WP:OWN. Your opinion carries no more (or less) weight than any other editor. As this players profile rises I would caution you to welcome other editors and move away from your self appointed role of "main editor" Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Historically, OWN is ususally used for cases where the person who has been the most active editor tries to say his version of the article was correct and should be left alone. When a person says I am the most active editor and am in a dispute where I need other opinions it is not regarded as OWN. So you guys are losing focus here. I realize that I need the opinion of others and find it hard to believe that we want to remove the most clear picture of his face, almost all pictures showing his face clearly and all pictures of him dunking except the main image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And (at least) three people disagree with you. I think you should drop the matter. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

if you want to keep the image so much you could make it the Infobox picture. I have nothing against the image per se. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the current infobox picture of him is the best one that we have. However, I think File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is the second best picture of him. I also think several of the images that have been retained are less helpful to the reader than those that have been removed. I am asking if someone would consider which images are the best. Since all of the images are my own, I think I am too close to make a call on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would leave File:20140402_MCDAAG_Jahlil_Okafor_dunk.JPG where it is but File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG would probably make a decent addition to the article. It does seem there are not clear shots of his face. I would get rid of the 2nd group of on-court shots rather than adding yet another image. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for focusing on at the subject at issue. Yes, my point was that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is a pretty helpful image to the reader (almost the best that we have). I will readd that if there are no objections. I am hoping others will look closely at this image. Editorofthewiki has stated that the article had too many images and the removal of images was good, but I can not think that he really believes the most helpful image to the readers should be removed. Also, File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG was from the day that the two highest paid coaches in basketball came to call on him and we had a picture of them in the article. How many time do we see the two highest paid coaches in college basketball in a high school gym. Do we want to remove that from this article? Do we want all of the other dunks (from various championship games and all-star games) to remain out of the article? Handpolk you mentioned that you think the two from February 21, 2014 might be unnecessary. Keep in mind that this picture is one of the McDonald's Morgan Wootten National Player of the Year standing next to the Naismith Prep Player of the Year Award winner as crosstown rivals. We may never even see such crosstown rivals again. Do we want to remove this? I am very close to the article, but need constructive feedback here because we may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"How many time do we see the two highest paid coaches in college basketball in a high school gym" "We may never even see such crosstown rivals again" with this kind of logic this article would contain dozens, possibly hundreds of images. An article like Michael Jordan would contain thousands or tens of thousands. This is not a record of historic images that are related in some way to the article. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that many of the pictures that were in the article depicted certain events or things that were notable. We need to determine what we want to depict for the readers. Saying "chop some images out" is not really very constructive. I am asking that you help me consider pictures X & Y against pictures Z & W if you want to limit the pictures. I am hoping to discuss the merits of inclusion of particular pictures that were removed versus those retained. I don't think the current set of images is the best considering what is available and what they represent.--TonyTheTiger (T)

In a BLP we want to cover notable events, the same does not apply to photos. We don't need or want a photo of every important event in their life. Look at Michael Jordan. There are a few important photos, some rather mundane photos -- and a huge gap of stuff that is not in there via images. Because that's not what the article is for. So while you may think 'get rid of some photos' is unhelpful, I find 'this photo is special because X' irrelevant. I see no reason to add additional images to this article. If you want to add that head shot, then you've going to need to remove something. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk You keep arguing that if Michael Jordan's article doesn't have X, other articles should not have X. Michael Jordan may be the greatest basketball player ever, but his wikipedia article may not necessarily be the standard against which other articles should be measured. Each image should be judged by its contextual relevance and the article's layout. You need to stop looking at Michael Jordan's article to determine whether pictures should be retained in this article. It would be helpful if you would help to consider the content of the current article and consider the contextual relevance of the possible pictures. I admit that since I am close to both the prose and the images because I was the primary contributor of both, I would be aided by other editors who want to consider the content of the article and the context that the pictures may provide. If you could stop judging one article by the content of another that would be helpful. You seem to be willing to spend time on this issue. What I am asking you to consider is things like does the fact that Michael Jordan does not have a picture of himself dunking in a state high school championship victory mean that no other basketball player can have such a picture in his article and the like. Why is the current number of pictures the maximum number of pictures given the amount of content that has no illustration?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You ignored my point because I provided an example that included WP:OSE. My point was that your original research about the historical importance of a photograph is not relevant. Whether that was the first time Jahlil ever set foot in a Burger King or the first time coach A and coach B ever wore matching polo shirts at the same press conference, does not matter. What matters is whether more or less images would be good and what images those should be. There should not be more images in this article at this time. The face shot would be a good addition. If you want to add it, remove something else. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I do understand that the historical significance of a photo does not matter to its inclusion in an article about another subject. However, per MOS:IMAGES, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." We have a sentence that says "On September 19 John Calipari made Okafor an offer to play for Kentucky,[29] joining Ohio State, Michigan State, Louisville, Illinois, Duke, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona as programs that have offered Okafor." and we have a pair of images depicting Okafor and Calipari on that very date. Those images represent both ths subect and the topic at issue that he was a hotly-pursued blue chip athlete, which is not WP:OR. Those images are significantly and directly related. Similarly, we have a paragraph of content regarding Okafor's run to the state championship and all pictures have been removed regarding that topic. If you look at Commons:Category:Jahlil_Okafor for pictures named with the date 20140322 you can see that there are many images including the one previously in the article that we could use to illustrate this element of the subject. According to MOS:IMAGES, what we need to do is consider which images are relevant, add variety and fit in the article. In regards to your statement that "What matters is whether more or less images would be good and what images those should be.", I concur in a sense. However, you and I differ on the term good. It seems to me that your definition of good means whether we go over a certain number of images. However, mine is that good images are those that are relevant, varied and fit. It is not necessarily the case that all images in an article about person x be of person x. Variety could be added with images of closely related subjects, IMO. 15 images were cut down to 6 during the recent editing. I don't think 6 is a magic number. I think about 3 of the removed images should be reconsidered if they fit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in" does not mean every relevant image should appear. Nor does it mean everything in the article should be backed up with an image, if one is available. That just means that if you want to use an image, it must meet those criteria. "I think about 3 of the removed images should be reconsidered if they fit" I disagree. 6 is plenty. I think your position is driven less on what is right for the article than on your love for the images you have. That's what Pinterest is for. This is an encyclopedia. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Images must be relevant and significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Furthermore, the guideline states: "images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal ..." In accord with that, I support if possible improving the quality/chose of images -- but do not support their removal. Given the size of this article, the number of images in the first-above-mentioned diff was appropriate, and their removal - rather than either leaving them in, or improving the quality/choice, was not in accord with our guideline. IMHO. Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)