User talk:Rikster2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

High school play[edit]

Where is it written that high school play is to be ignored? In the Category:American basketball coaches, just through the letter A, there are a dozen coaches with their high school play listed, including Mark Aguirre, Danny Ainge, Steve Alford ,and Red Auerbach... I didn't bother going any farther in the alphabet... GWFrog (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All of the people you list use Template:Infobox basketball biography not Template:Infobox college coach because they are NBA figures at some point in their past. That infobox has a "high_school" field specifically to show their HS name and city. College coach doesn't. If you want to convert the infobox for Harris to basketball biography you can, but you lose fields like coaching record. There is no one using college coach that shows the HS career in "playing years." Rikster2 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
In the Parameters for Template:Infobox college coach it has:


School(s) coach graduated from


The sport they played in for the teams listed below. player_sportX clashes with player_yearsX and player_teamX. If player_sport1 is defined, player_years1 and player_teams1 will be suppressed; they'd have to be shifted down to player_years2 and player_teams2.


years the coach played


The teams the coach played for


The position(s) the coach played

Nowhere does it say, "Use college information only, ignoring high school data." I don't see that including the high school info is a problem or why you are making an issue of doing so... GWFrog (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It's funny you should ask me why I'm "making an issue out of this." I was wondering the same thing about you. Heck, on your last revert you had left me a message about this then reverted my edit before allowing me to engage in the discussion that you started. There are almost 7000 articles using "infobox college coach" and I have probably edited over a thousand of them at some point. I can honestly say I have NEVER seen one that tried to list HS playing years in the player fields, even guys like Steve Spurrier who were high school All-Americans. Additionally, there are over 10,000 articles using infobox basketball biography or infobox NBA biography (directs to the same thing). I don't know of one case that shows high school playing years (as was the case in the Harris article). What is so special about this guy that the format should vary so much from literally every other similar article? There is a nice section in the prose about his HS career (which I assume you wrote), his HS career isn't being "ignored." Rikster2 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've also edited well over a thousand of the articles using Infobox college coach. It's never been common practice by me and any other regular editors to include high school years in the playing fields, only junior college, college, and pro. High school or any other level is commonly reflected in coaching or admin fields. @Dirtlawyer1: and I are planning on revamping Infobox college coach and putting some written standards in place for all fields. We certainly want to look at any and all fields and get input from an array of editors, although I don't think the idea of putting high school playing years in the infobox will be too popular because of the general lack of notability and verifiability of that information. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, guys. I'm one of the sports infobox busy-bodies, and I have been involved -- to a greater or lesser degree -- with the redesign and modification of the infoboxes for NFL players, CFB players, college coaches and NBA personnel. The first principle of good infobox design is to resist the temptation to try to include everything. Infoboxes are supposed to represent only the most important elements of a person's life/career, not a bullet-point retelling of the article's main body text. Infoboxes should focus on the 10 to 15 most important data points of a person's life and career, and that usually involves making some choices (sometimes hard choices). Core data for all persons, regardless of occupation, usually includes the subject's dates of birth and death, and place of birth. For athletes, core data usually includes teams of which the subject was a member (and related year-spans), and likewise for coaches. We also typically includes major championships won and awards received by the subject athlete or coach.

Into this mix of career data, we must ask how relevant is a college or pro sports coach's high school playing career to his later coaching career? And the short answer is: not very much. Is Steve Spurrier's time at Science Hill High as important as his college and NFL playing careers, the USFL, college and NFL teams coached, the college championships won, or the college honors received? Nope. Not even close. Frankly, the same could be said for most successful professional athletes, too. Michael Jordan's high school playing career is near-meaningless trivia in contrast to his college career at North Carolina, his pro career in the NBA, the championships won, and the college and pro honors received. Remember: infobox data is about making choices, so, no, I would oppose adding a new parameter to Infobox college coach for the high school playing career of a college coach. Nothing prevents anyone from adding a well-sourced paragraph or two about the coach's high school playing career in the main body text, which is where it should be in my opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it OK for other editors to nominate your articles for deletion out of a personal grudge and then not notify you of it?[edit]

I just wanted to get clarification of this because I can't get any. ArmstrongJulian marked several of my articles for deletion, and did so out of a grudge. I did not even know that such editors were allowed in the Wikipedia, but anyway, in doing so, the editor did not notify me of the articles being marked for deletion. I am asking you because I asked you about this before, and because you were working in the basketball project and I know you are not an admin and you told me that, but you did review the articles and mark them for deletion. But I never got a confirmation back from you on if Wikipedia allows this sort of thing by editors? I just can't understand how the site would allow that. I would like to have some sort of confirmation one way or another on if that type of thing is allowed or not? Or maybe you know an editor that would know? Bluesangrel (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If that's truly what is going on, you can report him here - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Might be hard to prove the reason he put the articles up for AfD is a grudge, though. Rikster2 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I included you in a discussion about a complaint I made about ArmstrongJulian at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ArmstrongJulian nominating articles for deletion out of personal grudges and general editing with personal bias and rudenessBluesangrel (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Bluesangrel - No offense, but you should leave me out of it. This is your argument with another user and I just am here to edit and create articles. I have both agreed and disagreed with both of you on several matters and am kind of annoyed that you wrote "But i want to make clear that in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball they are always agreeing with each other and they are always suggesting one thing, with the other agreeing and trying to change things or set new standards" at the ANI page. I feel like I am a very active member of this project and that we disagree quite a lot. Setting standards for basketball articles is one of the missions of that project. You are free to join those discussions - and have. But not everyone's preference can result. If you feel like you have legitimate cause to report him, great. I haven't followed the history of the two of you all that much to be honest. Rikster2 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I was not talking about you Rikster. I was talking about a completely different editor, the admin Bagumba, is who I was talking about. And it is frustrating that he is an admin and he did nothing to even discuss any of this. This is very frustrating to me, because no one would do anything, no matter that I did everything advised by Wikipedia, and simply did not want to get anyone in trouble. Now I make a complaint, and everyone is mad at me for again no reason. I guess I worded the complaint wrong, because AirWolf is mat at me also and another editor sent me a message that they could not understand it. I have never sent a complaint before, so I don't even know how to do it. But no, I was not talking about you. Sorry for the confusion. I guess i am not getting anywhere with this complaint, which is very frustrating, because Julian is an out of control editor and I am sure he is doing the same to other editors. You don't act that way to just one person.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Give it time, you just put it up there in the last hour. Your best case is to link the edits you feel were wrongly done (use Help:Diff for how), as GiantSnowman suggested in the AFI. Show people what you are talking about instead of asking people like me to corroborate. Everything on Wikipedia is archived so it's not like anyone can take an action or make a comment and delete it. It's always there. You do some good editing, and I'd like to see you feel like you've gotten fair treatment, but I've not been directly involved. I didn't even know there was a disagreement on the Pallacanestro Treviso Talk page, for example. Rikster2 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Were you not the editor that Julian was arguing with me about and having that huge endless needless discussion and argument over this article Universo Treviso Basket and whether they should be two separate articles? Now I am confused. I could have sworn it was you.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Go look at that Talk page - do you see my name anywhere? Rikster2 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess it was on something else. But I could have sworn that Julian brought that up again and involved you on it. Maybe I just remembered it wrong. Sorry if I did. I will change that at the complaint page. It was an honest mistake.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


I'm not fully conversant on the deprecation of the Persondata template. I'm guessing that there's something in wiki data that replaces it. Do we have to do anything? Or does wiki data take care of it by itself.

I'm sure I've written some articles with this template in them. Should I just remove it and do nothing and everything will take care of itself or do I have to remove it and take some other step?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Persondata was officially deprecated by an RfC in May 2015; no one should be adding to it, modifying it, or adding Persondata templates to new articles. Wikidata is a much better system for embedding metadata (hidden, but searchable core datapoints about a subject), it is intended to be used for all subjects, not just biographical ones, and it works for all of the different language versions of Wikipedia, not just the English language Wikipedia. That said, there are some editors who want to delete all remaining Persondata immediately, and others -- including myself -- who rightly point out that much accurate and useful information remains to be transferred from Persondata to Wikidata. I have over 5,000 bio articles on three different watch lists, and I am manually transferring all of the accurate and non-duplicative Persondata information from those articles to Wikidata before I manually delete the Persondata with an edit summary noting the transfer. At a minimum, before deleting the Persondata template, we should be checking to see if the Wikidata subject profile includes (1) the subject's common name (e.g., "Babe Ruth"), (2) full name (e.g., "George Herman Ruth"), (3) birth date, (4) birth place, (5) death date, (6) place of death, and (7) brief description (e.g., "American swimmer, Olympic gold medalist" or "American basketball player, coach"). One of my concerns is the loss of alternate name forms -- full names, birth names, maiden names, multiple married names, adult name changes, nicknames -- that were often embedded in Persondata because there was no other convenient place to list them. In my personal editing experience, some of the best and most detailed Persondata was added among sports subjects, and we should be organizing to review and compare remaining Persondata and transfer accurate information to Wikidata. At a minimum, if you would review the Persondata and Wikidata for those articles you have watch-listed, that would be a big help and a manageable task. If you would give me two or three examples of articles you follow, I would be happy to provide concrete examples of what can and should be done. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I responded at your talk page --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Sphilbrick: With your permission, I'm going to copy-paste these discussions from Rikster's and my user talk pages to the talk page page for WP:BASKETBALL. I think a lot of other sports editors -- and the sports WikiProjects -- would benefit from these discussions about Persondata. Is that okay with you? Rikster, I would love to have your participation at WT:BASKETBALL, if you're interested in the subject. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DL - I am not at all interested in spending my time transferring data from persondata to Wikidata. To me, that is the epitome of work that a bot should do - moving data from prescribed fields in Wikipedia to prescribed fields in Wikidata. I also have questions aout how, if this is very important, is the data getting to Wikidata from new articles that don't have Persondata? If it isn't, then persondata will soon be outdated anyway. I can stop deleting persondata, but why shouldn't I delete it if it doesn't contain alternate names and brief description? Logically birth and death dates and places can be drawn from infobox fields if one exists on the article. There is no way humans can efficiently move this stuff over, so why is no bot being employed? If it is truly important, then the resources should be put forth to do this job. Rikster2 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You might find it useful to read the RfC which deprecated Persondata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
That is an incredibly dense and spidery discussion to point anyone asking what the issues are to. Rikster2 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's there if you want it. Feel free to skip to the closers's statement. There's also A SIgnpost article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)'
Or we can refer people to what the May 2015 RfC closing administrator had to say to Andy:
Andy, ping me off-wiki. You are in danger of WP:NCR. Seriously, calm down, it can be done slowly and methodically, and let people come to terms with it over a period of time. Seriously, just chill a bit and you'll win the battle for hearts and minds. Nobody doubts your commitment or passion, but you have a positive genius for rubbing people up the wrong way! Guy (Help!) 21:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [1].
Not sure why you don't bring that up, but it is rather disingenuous how you always leave that part out, Andy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing I agree with Rikster's observation. Please consider a {{nutshell}} summmary. I plan to read it, but I can understand that some might choose not to. (I see your suggestion to jump to the closing statement, which may be an adequate closing statement for those involved in the discussion but it doesn't give a hint regarding the issues.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: It is important to recognize that Andy is the leading crusader for immediate deletion of all Persondata. There remains large amounts of accurate and usable information from Persondata that has not been transferred to Wikidata, alternate names being the chief example among them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rikster, if there are no alternative names or brief descriptions in the Persondata templates for particular articles, it's probably reasonably safe to delete them. I would suggest that you check the Wikidata profile for the articles before deleting the Persondata templates, and check the core data outlined above in particular. There were bot runs in the third and fourth quarters of 2014 that transferred some, but not all information from Persondata to Wikidata. I'm guesstimating 85 to 90 percent of birth and death dates were transferred to Wikidata (although, it is unclear whether this data was transferred from infoboxes or Persondata), and some significantly lesser percentage of brief descriptions were also transferred. Apparently no major bot runs have been attempted since then, so Persondata added, modified or update since 2014 has not apparently been transferred by bot action. I was very surprised to recently learn that there is no automated process for transferring article information to Wikidata from newly created articles, so we probably should be training our editors to create Wikidata profiles for new articles, too.

Personally, I would like to have seen more concerted efforts at bot transfer, but folks like Andy maintain that isn't feasible (or worth the effort). I have no choice but to take him at his word regarding bot transfers, but I have reviewed and compared Persondata and Wikidata for well over 1000 articles so far, and manually transferred additional Persondata to Wikidata for most of them. The alternate names, in particular, seem not to have been transferred by bot action in any meaningful percentages. Failing to get those alternate names into Wikidata would represent a real loss of metadata because many of these alternate names do not appear elsewhere in the articles. In any event, we are also missing a real opportunity to introduce our Wikipedia editors to Wikidata, and we should be working to achieve maximum buy-in into the Wikidata system. If we believe in the value of metadata -- and in the new Wikidata system -- we should be doing everything we can to ensure its accuracy and completeness as to core biographical data of our article subjects. That's my perspective. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You suggest I would suggest that you check the Wikidata profile. I don't don't know how to do this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We should continue this elsewhere[edit]

I didn't realize what a hornets nest I kicked. It isn't fair to Rikster2 to carry on this conversation here. Where is a better place?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Follow up on my talk page. I'm preparing a general discussion for the sports WikiProjects. Thanks, SP. Apologies to Rikster for spilling so much ink on your page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
it's par for the course on my Talk page, look at the other discussions presently on it. but yes, move it elsewhere please. Rikster2 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: There's an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing Persondata, with no posts in the last few days, about how to implement the consensus at the previous RfC, which I referenced above. Judge for yourself what consensus is forming. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sort of ironic you posted this under this particular header. Rikster2 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Conference POYs[edit]

Nice job with Madarious Gibbs! Yes, I think I can tackle Damon Lynn within the next couple of days or so. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have created an article on Lynn. Feel free to add to it, as the article is rather short. Good luck on Anthony Gill! ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to tackle Anthony Gill soon, or should I have a go at it? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Eddy - I haven't had a ton of time lately and have a couple of other articles in the queue ahead of it - feel free to do it if you like. There is a picture on the 2014-15 Virginia Cavaliers article you can use for him. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

IPs removing sourced nationalities of Argentine and other players[edit]

Hey Rikster, there are different IPs that say they come from Mexico, that are removing the sourced nationalities of Argentine players. I just noticed this now. It is on like almost every single article of Argentine basketball players. Since most of the Argentine players have for example Italian descent, they have Italian passports and play with Italian citizenship for example in Europe. A lot of them also have a Spanish, or Polish, or German citizenship. The same case is also true for many Brazilian players, as most of them also have an Italian descent and play with Italian citizenship if they play in Europe (or some as Spanish maybe), and players from Uruguay also and so forth. But the same thing is also being done in those articles. I just now noticed this was happening. Is there something we can do about this?Bluesangrel (talk)

Big East[edit]

The current Big East can claim anything they want, for the simple reason that the American doesn't seem to care, but legally and in the eyes of the NCAA, the American Athletic Conference is the successor to the former Big East Conference and has existed since May 31, 1979, while the present Big East Conference is a new creation that did not exist before August 1, 2013. GWFrog (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Gimmie a break, check out the BE basketball media guide - history claimed back to 1979, which was part of the arrangement. That indicates a split. The American only cared so they'd get the BCS bid. Heck, read the current BE history section on the website. Rikster2 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


He's at it again. Incorrect article naming convention (no comma), incorrect infobox formatting, no categories, no content. He might need to be brought up at a noticeboard at this point. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind throwing a warning his way? I can do it, but I'd like it to be clear I am not the only person concerned with his actions or that I'm picking on him. Rikster2 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just messaged him. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Baloncesto Málaga basketball players[edit]

It's an odd duck - it wasn't renamed, actually. It looks, according to the history, as if Category:Baloncesto Málaga basketball players was created in 2008; Category:CB Málaga players was created in 2006. The two existed in parallel until earlier today someone made the latter into a redirect to the former; I just combined the two. I would have no objection to a name change; I would suggest one using "Baloncesto Málaga" because that's the name of the article. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but a user just renamed all the "CB Malaga" articles and templates that way. Not saying it is wrong, but it'd probably be best for someone else to look at it besides that user. Rikster2 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest bringing it up with the Basketball WikiProject, then - y'all would have a better handle on discussing things like naming convention than I would. All I note is that CB Málagahas been a redirect to Baloncesto Málaga since it makes sense to me that everything should be listed under the same name for convenience's sake. That said, if the user is acting unilaterally, and there's no consensus, then certainly that should be noted. (Edited to add that I'm starting to figure out a bit more about what's going on, and it's giving me a headache, so I have to put this aside for a bit until I've eaten. Gotta preserve that strength, you know...) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

New York, New York . . . it's a wonderful town[edit]

Hey, I've been following the Great Brooklyn/New York City/New York State Debate, and have almost chimed in a couple of times. For future reference, you may want to review WP:USPLACE, which governs the typical American convention of single, combined links for "City, State" (e.g., "Miami, Florida"). It may not resolve the Brooklyn vs. New York City issue (a judgment call, IMO), but it definitely rules out separate side-by-side links for city and state (e.g., "Miami, Florida"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: side-by-side links, it's usually only an issue when the city article doesnt have the state in it e.g. New Orleans. I'd code it up as "[[New Orleans, Louisiana]]", but I've seen people insist on "[[New Orleans]], Louisiana", or the anti-WP:NOTBROKEN / WP:NOPIPE crowd will anyways change it to "[[New Orleans|New Orleans, Louisiana]]". Anything but the SEAOFBLUE I just let it be at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Even for world-renowned American cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City and New Orleans, there exist redirects in the "City, State" combined, single-link format for exactly this reason. Whether it's piped or not is a big whatever; I've stopped worrying about it if the link is displayed in the proper format. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
breaking up city, state (or borough, state ;-) in this way is a real pet peeve for me. I wish MOS had stronger language around this. Does WP do any kind of user experience testing? I'd be interested to know how often readers click the "state" link on purpose. I'd bet it's few. Seems like the question a person is trying to answer (where is that place this person was born or this building is located?) would usually be answered by the city, state link. Rikster2 (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As if on queue, this edit, a change to "[[New York City]], New York" I can just blow it off, but since we are on the topic, wondering if any of you feel the entire <state, city> should be just one link.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do. That was the point of my comment above. If it's linked in the article text, a link to "New York City" would be sufficient. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There is only one link to New York City, it's just that the state isn't linked e.g. "New York City, New York" as opposed to (my preference) of including the state in the single link in "New York City, New York"—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know. It's not just your preference; it's the de facto standard for American cities per WP:USPLACE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to cite USPLACE for how to refer to locations, when the guideline specifically uses the word titled. Perhaps the guideline needs tweaking to refer to references as well, making it Wikilawyer-proof. Otherwise, the argument would be that since New York City is the title, that is what should be linked directly and displayed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We're beating this to death, and it can be argued. There are a handful of well-known American cities, like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, etc., that do not need the state for disambiguation purposes. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including the state for those cities in the infobox links for consistency -- it's akin to an address, and it looks dorky and inconsistent to have "New York" following "Albany" for a linked place of birth, but not "New York" following "New York City" for a linked place of death in the same infobox. And this is why people go round and round, chasing their own tail on this, because they emphasize different aspects of the issue. As for mentions in article text (as opposed to infobox links), I would not link "New York, New York," but just "New York City". But then again, I am the all-knowing, all-seeing, master of time and space, and I understand all. Can't hold everyone else to that standard of cognition. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It sounds like the two of us are consistent about how we encode them. I personally wouldn't go to battle on use of links with USSPACE as it is written. Probably wouldnt make a difference even if the guideline was written more explicitly (see WP:NOTBROKEN). I guess I'll follow what I do for NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE: I won't unnecessarily do it, but will blow it off if someone changes it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Retired numbers[edit]

Honestly never thought people would confuse North Carolina for being the state that retired his number, but I guess it's possible for non-sports fans. I just figured its the North Carolina Tar Heels, not the University of North Carolina Tar Heels. At any rate, I'll leave it if you still think the extra distinction is needed in an infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I always add "University" if the academic common name is a state name. It's different to say it's retired by "Ohio State" or "Central Michigan" or "Duke." Just my opinion, but I feel strongly about it. I always try to keep an eye towards basketball being a world game, not just an American one. Rikster2 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but I'm also wary of non-American reading this and thinking that "University of ... " is the typical way to refer to it in a sports context, and then sounding like a fool in the US. For example, we only list "North Carolina" in the college field, but I guess you'd argue it's obvious they aren't attending a state for college. Oh well, I might not do it when I write it myself, but I'll try to remember to not undo it. BTW, you're still changing dashes to commas e.g. 1982–1983 -> 1982, 1983. LOL. It's all good.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
well, there's still no consensus that the dash is right for a 2-year span, and there has been considerable discussion about 6- and 8-digit date ranges where people argue the dash indicates a split season in these cases . I don't agree with that, but I still don't agree the dash is the way to go for a 2-year span. I try not to change articles you track (UCLA, etc), but maybe I got confused. And yes, I would suggest that the name in the college field shows it's a U. Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I haven't stayed away from "your" articles to hide what I am doing, I have just done it out of respect for your preferences. Rikster2 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I've given up on caring about the dash—some random IPs sometimes change a few here and there—and I might even start using commas one day. I've tried to stop stressing on written or perceived "consensus" if in practice, it really is not followed. As for the college field, it's pretty clearly written (somewhere) to use the name in the school's sports article's title, and it's the defacto practice even if it wasn't. I don't mind that CCC, but there's probably more important content to spend our time on. That being said, we're all volunteers, so I'm fine if that's what you want to pursue.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I am usually in different moods to do different types of things on WP depending on the day. Some days I want to create content, sometimes it is converting or adding infoboxes, sometimes it is looking for missing info like high schools or birthdates, sometimes it's just taking a category and working each article in turn. As for the "University of" for retired numbers, I forgot another rationale - the infobox sometimes includes high school "all-state" or Mr. basketball honors, as well as state basketball HOFs. It felt like there were some circumstances where a state really is a state and that the college honor should be highlighted to be clear. This isn't something I do that often unless I run across it, but my next step is usually to check other articles with the highlight and achieve format consistency, even of only for a point in time. Rikster2 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense if it's needed for disambiguation, but I'd otherwise say to normally exclude the "U of ..." unless that how they are referred to in sports. (Which reminds me the highlights discussion is still outstanding on my part.)—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but I'm not a fan of listing the same highlight one way for some players and another for others. Rikster2 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd disambiguate on a page as needed. Kinda like I wouldn't refer in prose to "Los Angeles" alone if a player had player for both the Lakers and Clippers, but otherwise reference a team by just their location is OK when it's not ambiguous. If you're not convinced yet, we can just leave this as no consensus. Its minor.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Another option is to move to "retired by North Carolina Tar Heels," Michigan Wolverines, Bradley Braves, etc. That is consistent with the naming convention of the programs. Rikster2 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
And it would be consistent with existing pro entries that say "retired by Los Angeles Lakers".—Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

High school[edit]

You jogged my memory when you brought up high school above. DaHuzyBru deleted HSs from Lamar Odom's infobox, saying only the last one is needed. Is that a direction we want to go? I don't care in the sense that nobody outside of their hometown recognizes the school anyways. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure a lot of articles list multiples—no idea if consistently.—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, when I create articles I usually just include the last HS unless they did a year in prep school in addition to their local HS. But other people are really passionate about it. I think we give too much attention to these guys' HS careers anyway, but I guess recruiting has gotten pretty high profile. Rikster2 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I delete those recruiting tables from bios. They're ok for college team season articles, but a waste of space in a bio for something that can be written in two sentences.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for virtually single-handedly merging all the transclusions manually of Template:Infobox WNBA biography. —Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus. He deserves more than a barnstar for that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

He can provide you his PayPal account details.—Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rikster2. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied there-- (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category[edit]

Hi Rikster2: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New Disability delsort category[edit]

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 18:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ellenberger & Crowe[edit]

Thanks for adding the template updates for the Norm Ellenberger page. I was casting about trying to find the right one when you saved me the effort. I've also been meaning to contact you about the proper categories for the Ray Crowe article, but it got lost on the back burner. Appreciate the assists! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Rikster2 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

NY, NY v. NYC, NY[edit]

Saw your edit at KAJ. I don't entirely get "... is a nickname, not the city name". In my thinking, NY, NY is COMMONNAME when the state is mentioned. City in New York City is a form of real-life disambiguation because standalone New York refers to the state, unless it's understood by the context. AFAIK, if it's clear the city is being referred to, New York is fine, but otherwise New York City can be used. However, another form of disambiguation would be to just pair it with the state, New York, New York, which is also all I ever see with postal addresses. As it's clear that it is referring to the city, I don't think most (American?) people normally use New York City, New York, but with Wikipedia being the top search hit for all matters, maybe that's caused a circular change?

Wikipedians love using actual article names, and usually don't know when to drop natural disambiguators (e.g. too many links to quarterback sack instead of piping to plain sack when it's in a football article). Which can be understandable, because a writer may link to an article which they have no domain expertise in and can't tell a disambiguator from the common name (and didn't read the lead, or the lead is not clear). I've only visited NY, so maybe New Yorkers really use NYC, NY. IDK. Anyways, as a (presumably) long-time resident/citizen of the US, just interested in your take. Don't worry, I have no interest of opening this into a wider audience; the whole Brooklyn thing was like pulling teeth already.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am just not a fan of assumptions in the infobox, mainly because basketball articles usually are of interest internationally (unlike football and baseball IMO). I like that we don't use state abbreviations. I like that we don't use position abbreviations. I like that we don't assume people know the state that cities are in. Personally, I'd prefer we use fewer college abbreviations ("UCLA" or "BYU" are ok, but "UMKC" is something even many U.S. sportsfans don't easily recognize). I guess I just don't see a reason why we'd use the nickname only for NYC when every other city uses the full city name, state. Rikster2 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't effective in convincing you that "New York" is not a nickname, it's COMMONNAME, and we typically mention things by COMMONNAME. Oh well, it'd be a no brainer if the article was named New York (city). FWIW, the first bolded term in the New York City article is New York and not New York City, if that would convince you that City is just a natural disambiguator. Re: UMKC, is that a COMMONNAME issue, or just a bad marketing decision? Honestly, I wouldn't have know if that was the same as University of Missouri even if I did see the full name. Oh well. Even in California a lot of non-sports fans don't know that California is Berkeley's sports team. And if we didn't use common name, we'd have University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Tar Heels. Have a great Thanksgiving.—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)