Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Templates "College athlete recruit..."

Several times I have stumbled over articles containing the the "College athlete recruit..." templates Template:College_athlete_recruit_start, Template:College_athlete_recruit_entry, and Template:College_athlete_recruit_end, see e.g. Stephen Curry#Early life, and every time I thought to myself "what on earth do the authors want to tell me with this template?" I believe that those templates are not self-explanatory and that they do not contain enough information such that someone like me, who doesn't know much about college sports, could understand them. I have tried to understand their meaning and I have added several suggestions and questions to the template talk pages:

Until now, my suggestions have found no comments. I'm a little afraid to be bold and do the suggested changes myself because, as I said here and on the talk pages, I just don't know if I did not completely misunderstand something. So, it would be very nice if the college sports experts from this Wiki project could take a look at my suggestions on the talk pages.

And while I'm at it, I have a heretical question to ask. As I said I'm not sure if I have understood the meaning of the templates but I have come to believe that the templates refer to the article College recruiting and especially to the last entry "Star ratings - ..." in its last list "Terminology". My question now is this: Does a topic which only fills a single small paragraph in a single article justify such an elaborate template structure? Spike (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WBB Articles

User:Just Chilling seems to be reverting a lot of edits to WBB articles due to an investigation into the user who made those edits. However, I don't see anything wrong with all the edits that are being reverted and now there are a lot of articles from last year that are missing information and are outdated. How should this be handled? Mjs32193 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The edits that I reverted were made by a sockpuppet whose master account, that creates socks prolifically, has been Community banned. It is important to note that I have only reverted edits where no subsequent substantive edits have been made by a good faith editor. This is normal practice. The problem with leaving the edits unreverted is that it encourages the creation of further socks compounding the problem. Conversely, if the sockmaster sees that their hard work has been removed then, hopefully, they will be discouraged from further socking. If a specific edit is appropriate then there is no problem with an editor re-establishing the edit in their own words but simply re-reverting is sub-optimum. The argument can be made that if certain edits are important or essential then perhaps they could have previously been made by a good faith editor? In particular with regard to last year's pages, if the sock had not made the edits then there is no indication that anyone else would have made them and, in effect, what I have done is simply to restore the pages to the state that they would have been had the sock not being editing. Having said all this, I fully understand the concern but we have an overriding aim of trying to rid ourselves of this sockmaster. Just Chilling (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Almost all the edits you reverted were game results. They can be copy and pasted back in but that just seems like a hassle.Mjs32193 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Location parameter in the infobox

Does anyone object to me changing the |stateabb = and |state = parameters by completely removing them to simplify it and replace it with |location = to match the Template:Infobox NCAA football school and a couple of others... If nobody objects to this with in a couple of days of this post, I will update the template and manually update the articles. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of George Colliflower for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Colliflower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Colliflower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Juwan Howard event

I noticed a spike in page views for Juwan Howard. All I can find is this. I feel that there must have been an event in his life worth considering for being included in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

League POY in infobox

A recent edit to Manny Harris has removed some POY content from the infobox. I do not understand the reasoning behind this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of interim coding in “current coach” templates

A discussion about notating interim coaches on the conference “current coaches” templates has begun. Please give your opinions here so that a consensus can be reached. Rikster2 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Rivalry AfD

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball–Fox rivalry on whether Ball–Fox rivalry (the rivalry between Lonzo Ball and De'Aaron Fox) is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Olivet Comets men's basketball coach navbox

Template:Olivet Comets men's basketball coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been relisted here. To take any action it would be helpful to get discussion, no matter what your opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Propose eliminating “future recruits” section on team articles

College team season articles appropriately cover recruiting. What I have noticed, though, for some power programs (especially those like Kentucky and Duke who tend to recruit well) we have started adding a “future recruits” section in addition to the current year’s recruits who will begin college play in that season (see example). I would like to establish consensus to only add the current year recruits and eliminate these “future recruits” sections. As it stands, recruits are named in two, sometimes three season articles when in reality they won’t impact the college program until the year they matriculate. While there is a cottage industry around recruiting and players often commit two or more years out, I think this information just clogs up an article that, if fully fleshed out, is pretty long anyway. We also now have photos being added for players who are a year or more away from impacting the program and have no bearing on the season these articles are meant to be about. Propose eliminating “future recruits” sections for these reasons. Rikster2 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with it in abstract, but do have two points to make: (1) Most future recuit sections are collapsed which really don't take up much space and (2) I think it is important for these to be kept in some fashion as they can be simply copied when creating the next year's team. However, pictures of said recruits two years out does seem overboard. Lincolning (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it important for them to be captured? Wikipedia isn't a recruiting site, it is an encyclopedia. Why not just create the table when the new season article is created? They don't have a bearing on the season that they are being put onto. I get there is some interest in future year recruiting, I just don't think it is relevant to the subject of the article (the current season). Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Like it or not, new users and IPs will keep adding this stuff somewhere. I'm inclined to just start creating the future season article and add the verifiable info to it, which is in line with WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." The info is going to be notable, so just avoid the WP:BUREAUCRACY of having to delete or hide it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Team season articles

Hi all! I'm sure many of you are aware, with the season just about a week away, there are still over 400 D1 MBB & WBB teams that need articles. The past few years or so, every men's team and almost every women's team had a season article and I would hate to see that end. I've been very busy lately and a few of the dedicated editors are no longer around. If anyone is interested in helping you can see the list of all the team links at the following links. WBB is especially behind where it has been the past few years at this time.

2017–18_NCAA_Division_I_women's_basketball_season#Conference_standings 2017–18_NCAA_Division_I_men's_basketball_season#Conference_standings

Thanks! Mjs32193 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No coaches poll today

It is after 9PM eastern time. Why is there no coaches poll today?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So, how should we list this in rankings charts? No Poll or just mark it as Week 2? Lincolning (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

deleted page

How did 2017–18 Texas Longhorns men's basketball team get deleted?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The deletion note says "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Just ask for it to be restored. Bagumba might be able to help with the process. Wikipedia is so dumb sometimes. Rikster2 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The page never had any meaningful content. The totality of the content was "<ref>Roster</ ref>" There is really nothing to restore. If someone wants to create the article, they should have at it. Cbl62 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the deletion note is clear. It's the case where someone created a page, nobody else has edited it since, and the the creator blanks their own content. No harm, no foul, delete page. Can always go to WP:REFUND to request that uncontroversial deletes to be restored.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There are a bunch of women's basketball pages that have been deleted because they were created by a banned user. Is there any way to get those back? Mjs32193 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I created it and it has since been expanded, FYI. Lincolning (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_College_Basketball

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD Discussion - “Category:African-American basketball players”

Please go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 10#Category:African-American basketball players to discuss. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns

Gang, there is a requested move discussion regarding the name of the school. Please visit this link for the discussion. It is recommended that you read the discussion above it as well. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please join the discussion

Matt Hart Wiki

A college basket player starting his career at Division III and transferring up to Division I is a rarity. Also rare is that same player earning a full athletic scholarship at the Division I level. Also rare is for said player to become a rotational player performing in all games he was eligible for. Matt Hart accomplished all of these things playing in all 73 games over two seasons at GW scoring 290 points while also being a team leader in 3 point and free throw shooting percentage. prefix:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OP Farmer (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, this is in reference to this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Coaches record in the infobox

Being bold, I have added a parameter for the coach in the infobox [1]. I think it is useful, as seen at Template:Infobox NCAA football school. I am working on getting it as an optional parameter so it doesn't affect all articles. Corky 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You're invited...

information Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Colors in infoboxes, which involves templates in your WikiProject, regarding the issue of whether or not to include the school colors in the infoboxes of Template:Infobox NCAA football school, Template:Infobox college coach, and adding the college color module to Template:Infobox NFL biography. Please comment there. Thanks, Corky 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone moved ETSU pages incorrectly

There was a move discussion that nobody from this WikiProject was alerted to. End result was 6 articles moved incorrectly. Can someone move them back? 2601:80:C202:91B2:658F:DBDA:57FF:9408 (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

At first I thought you were right, but taking a closer look... the pages need disambiguated from the women's articles. adding "men's" in there is correct. Corky 04:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Commonly used names

User:Manster1 has the team names on all the early season tournament pages, like 2017 Maui Invitational Tournament, to not only their full name but also their abbreviation. Like VCU they have listed as Virginia Commonwealth (VCU), LSU as Louisiana State (LSU). Others include Cal State Fullerton listed as California State Fullerton (Cal State Fullerton), Ole Miss as Mississippi (Ole Miss), Chattanooga as Tennessee-Chattanooga (Chattanooga), UAB as Alabama-Birmingham (UAB), and a lot more. I went through ever single early season tournaments page, found in the pre-season section of Template:NCAA men's college basketball tournament navbox, and changed them to the names actually used on their article and the name that they are commonly known by yet they reverted every single one of my edits and blanked their talk page when I tried to contact them. I'm assuming I'm not in the wrong here, shouldn't they be listed by what we all actually know them as? It seems pointless to list teams like UCLA as California Los Angeles (UCLA). A) everyone knows them as UCLA and B) why list their full name and their abbreviation at the same time? I don't want to revert any of the edits until I here back because I don't want to start an edit war with someone who won't cooperate. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not hard over on full name vs. abbreviations in these cases, but we definitely don't need both. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
One thing about the abbreviations, in my opinion, is that if anyone actually wonders what UCLA or LSU or VCU actually stand for then they can click on the link to their season article since every team in DI has their own page. Plus, their season articles and team articles are already listed as the abbreviation due to the fact that they are commonly known as that. It has been accepted that California Los Angeles is known as UCLA, that Virginia Commonwealth is VCU, etc. Otherwise their season articles wouldn't use UCLA or VCU or news outlets would use their full name. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Use the common name from the respective team article, which is not always the same as the university name. Unlike dealing with the academic side of schools, it's pretty much common usage in sources to not expand abbreviations of college sports teams—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have not done anything wrong regarding putting the team's full name and abbervations both, most people actually want to know what the abbreviations stand for. I think it's only fair to put the full name and abbreviatiosn together in case some people want to know what they stand for instead of just putting the abbervations. Juts because it's common usage to not expand abberviations of any sports teams doesn't make it the wrong to put both the full team name and the abbreviations both-Manster1 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It’s a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. If anyone is confused about what the school is they can click the link. That’s the advantage of being on-line. Rikster2 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, don't need both and changing it back doesn't help the matter. Lincolning (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't appreciate anyone making me feel like i have done something wrong when i know for a fact i haven't. I have every right to put both the team name and abbreviation as i please because it does not state in wikipedia that you can't use both at the same time. Stop trying to make others feel bad for no reason especially when they have not done anything wrong. Manster1 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Your feelings have nothing to do with it being done correctly. Stop taking this as a personal attack. This is not about you at all, it's about getting it done the right way and the way you are doing it is incorrect. Team names have never been listed that way, just look at any season other than 2017 on all of those pages. The common names for the schools should be used as they always have been. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Stop personally attacking me and harassing me and bullying me, It clearly states in wikipedia to treat everyone with respect and be respectful. You'll are making me feel bad for no reason at all. I know for a fact I'm doing it right and that i'm not doing anything wrong. Stop making others feel bad just so you'll can feel better about yourselves because you like to bully and harass others for clearly no reason. Manster1 (User talk:Manster1|talk]]) 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The short name only is appropriate here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
We are treating you with respect. Ignoring the thoughts of other editors is what is being very disrespectful. The fact that five other uses are telling you you are doing it incorrect should tell you that you are in fact doing it wrong. We don't care about your feelings. We care about it being done correctly and there is no personal attack in anyway happening. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No you are not treating me with respect, especially when you say you don't care about my feelings, that is more disrespectful. I'm not being disrespectful to anyone. You are the one calling me names here and saying i've done something wrong when i clearly haven't. Stop personally attacking people just to make you'll feel better inside because you have no respect for other feelings and how you make them feel. Saying you don't care about anyone and there feelings is very disrespectful and truly bad manners. Stop personally attacking me for no reason. Leave me alone. Manster1 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So what is the next step here? Obviously we agree that common names are what should be used, but I don't want to edit them to the correct name because, due to their comments here and on their talk page, Manster1 is very likely to simply revert them again. I noticed Rikster2 already reverted Las Vegas Classic to the common name for UC Davis, but I don't want to do the others to start an edit war. Or should I just link to this discussion in the edit summary field? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I realize none of you personally like me at all. You've all made it very clear that every single i do is and always will be wrong no matter how many times i say i'm not wrong. I don't like being accused of things especially when i did not do anything wrong to you'll or any other wikipedia users. I really don't understand why you'll have such a problem with me wanting to help with edits?. Manster1 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why you think this is personal and frankly will not explain again why it is not. If you don't understand that by now then you never will. Simply saying you are not wrong does not make it true. We are not "accusing" you of anything, we simply want it done correctly. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's personal because you'll don't know that i have Asperger's which is a form of autism, social disability. Your basically calling me stupid by saying that if i don't understand that by now then i never will. How is that a nice thing to say to someone. You'll are making me feel bad for no reason by saying i did something wrong, like i broke some kind of law which i have never ever done. I'm not a criminal nor should i be treated like one. I'm being accused of using the team's name and abbreviations as like it's some kind of crime which it's not. I don't understand why it's such a problem using both of them. Manster1 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Your condition should not excuse you from following the same policies as everyone else and in this case WP:commonname should be used. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not making excuses and i don't appreciate being told i am when i know i'm not. I'm trying my very best and apparently everything i do is wrong. Anytime i have used the common names other people have corrected me and said i'm doing it incorrectly. That's all i'm trying to say ok. Manster1 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has corrected you if you used the common names. The page history proves that. If you simply put UCLA instead of California Los Angels (UCLA) then this wouldn't be an issue. And I simply use UCLA as an example. There a lot more that could have used common names but you used the full name and the abbreviation when it should have only been the common name. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rikster2 and I have restored the common names and I informed Manster1 on their talk page. But of course they blanked their page but they have been told about the changes. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Manster1 just reverted my changes. I feel there is a clear consensus here and an ready to start doling out warnings for disruptive editing. One guy isn’t going to hold these articles hostage by reverting multiple user changes in the face of pretty clear consensus. I will hold off on reverting in the hopes that somebody has a better suggestion because warnings until a block is a pretty stiff way to handle it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And they quickly blanked out your warning. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It's ok for a user to do WP:BLANKING of their own talk page. The assumption is that they are aware of the message.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

FFD discussion regarding Florida "Gator Head" logos and fair use

Please see discussion. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

NCAA Champ Game Pages being moved

Hello all,

Just was checking on some articles and noticed that someone has been moving the pages from (example: 1957 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game to "1957 NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game"). I was trying to figure out who's doing it but I can't and I don't know if there's an easy way to switch it back other than manually moving them. Just looking for help on this. Disc Wheel (T + C) 05:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The 1957 article was moved by Dale Arnett in April 2017.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The rationale is that there was no “Division I” for seasons back then so the naming matches the era. This mirrors the season article format (see here) and is correct. The “Division I” names redirect to the proper name so there’s no issue with searchability. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

How to handle Louisville?

OK, folks are all in on updating Louisville articles in light of the NCAA decision of vacating three years’ records and the 2013 title. I’d like to level set how this should be handled. It is important to not give credit for vacated games and stats, but it is also important that Wikipedia readers can get the actual results that occurred on the court as well.

Let me lay out how I think we should handle it as a starting point for discussion:

  1. For Louisville and conference articles, list the actual records but clearly note how many games are vacated with an asterisk
  2. For the 2013 NCAAT article, list the champ as Louisville with a note that it is vacated
  3. For players/coaches on the team, leave the championship highlight with an asterisk/note that the honor was vacated (see Howard Porter (basketball) for how we have handled this in the past)
  4. For Pitino, note vacated games but leave totals (see John Calipari)

I get that the NCAA has vacated these games, but it actually doesn’t do the reader any good not to have access to what the totals were since the games actually did happen. This is why I’d err on the side of listing totals with notation instead of records that say “0–18.” Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Lincolning (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd look to how the college football project handled USC's vacated 2004 national title for ideas on what to do here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I’d like to look at it, but understand that college football and college basketball don’t always agree on such things. I don’t think we should back into whatever they decided without critical review of what we think is the right answer for basketball. Rikster2 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI:CFB writeup is at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of following the CFB precedent for vacated wins. Elisfkc (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree list the records and just put a * next to what was vacated. If you delete info from the UofL page than you will have to go to each college page and delete everyone's vacated items. Alex22406 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex22406 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Alex22406 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Also I agree with Rikster2, we should put the wins and losses together and put a * at the end. If you simply put "0-18" than you will have to go to each colleges page that has a vacated win and do the same. Alex22406 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rikster2 and Alex22406: From what I can see with how CFB project handles it, vacated wins are removed from the record of the penalized team and are footnoted as being vacated. The opponents records remain unchanged. This seems consistent w/ NCAA practice. How do you feel about that for basketball articles?—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of that. It follows closely with how the NCAA handles it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba Here is the thing if we change a record from 35-5 to 0-5, we will have to go to each teams page that has vacated wins and do the same, and with the FBI scandal mentioning 20+ teams today with more to come, that is a lot of seasons and wins that we will have to do that to. That is why I think we should leave it 35-5 and just put a * next to it and put vacated. Then on the All-time NCAA win list take the vacated games off there. If we put 0-5 than people will keep changing it in the future due to the new UofL media guide that comes out each year ignoring the vacated wins. Alex22406 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

UMass rivalries

I was thinking about adding additional rivalries to the UMass sports pages. I realize its a big school, but the sports programs are not nationally very well known. Specifically, I'd like to change the BC-UMass football rivalry to a general rivalry page (UMass plays them annually in Olympic sports, baseball, softball, and hockey as well), and leave the basketball rivalry page as is since it has a name. I was thinking of changing the UConn-UMass football rivalry page also to a general rivalry page for the same reasons as BC. After that, I was thinking of adding a Temple-UMass general rivalry page, a UMass-URI general rivalry page, and a UMass-Maine football rivalry page.....any thoughts?....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

NCAA Bids Table

The article NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament bids by school has been experiencing several editors attempting to significantly expand the information in the tables. I'd like to build consensus on the Talk:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament bids by school page before adding the additional data, and would invite others interested in college basketball to provide comment. Ncjon (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Game highs

Does every page need game highs? (Leading scorer, rebounder, assist). Personally I have never been a fan of it. It has usually been kept to power conference teams and a few smaller teams with really good editors who are fans who keep them updated. But user User:Ragazzi3 has began adding it to a lot of teams pages, and to teams pages who have never included game highs in the past. Is there any decision about if they should be included or not? To me they only create more work for regular updaters like myself. This time a year is hard enough with conference tournaments and postseason tournaments, now I have to take a lot longer updating stats. Shouldn't pages that didn't have them all season stay that way? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, if they are filled in and there is someone who regularly updates it I have no problem with adding them, but it does not need to be on every page, especially if it is not updated or filled in for every game. Mjs32193 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: If a teams page does not have game highs prior to the season then the page should remain as originally created as to not create more work for updaters? There are only a few editors who update games on a regular basis and we already have a really hard time keeping up without having to go through box scores for 351 teams. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I was merely trying to fill in information that was missing from pages. I had every intention of filling in the data for every game in the season and not leaving gaps or unfinished sections. There was one case of Saint Joseph's being partially completed, which was due to an emergency interruption, after which I went back and completed it a couple of hours later. However, over the past several weeks of updating pages, I have noticed that there is often a lengthy delay on updates to game info, which would verify User:Bsuorangecrush's concerns about a limited number of editors updating them. As it wasn't my intention to create more work for others, going forward I will leave the pages for teams as they exist. I do ask that if possible, the edits I have made are left as is, as it did take me several hours to update the game highs for several teams, which were completed in full for the season. I am completely fine with teams being reverted back to not having them next season, I just don't like the thought of accurate and complete data being deleted, and out of respect for the work I have put in to update these pages, as it was my initial intention to simply provide as much data as possible to the site. I have a list of the teams I have already added game high info to, and I can take responsibility for updating game highs for any of those teams who may have games remaining in the season. I will also continue to update game info on completed games, but will do so within the existing parameters of each page. Hopefully this will help ease the workload for other regular editors. I hope you understand that my intention was simply to make each team page look as similar as possible, as I noticed some teams have the game high info, but many do not, and I still believe that in a perfect world, this would be a meaningful addition to the pages. However, as I said, it was not my intention to make significantly more work for those few other regular editors, which I agree this does. Ragazzi3 (talk)

We are all WP:VOLUNTEERs here, and there is WP:NODEADLINE per se, so I don't see a problem if someone adds the highs with intention of finishing later (e.g. Ragazzi3), or if someone chooses not to update the highs and leaves it for someone else (e.g. Bsuorangecrush). I am assuming it's not like Ragazzi3 is just adding columns to tables and not adding any data whatsoever, right? Let me know if I am missing something.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My initial point is that game highs on power 5 pages are fine. They are updated regularly. However, most of the mid major teams are maintained on a regular basis by myself and a handful of other users. It’s really hard to keep up with them all year, let alone this time a year during tournaments. A lot less is going to get done if we have to look up more information for each team. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Bolding seed number in bracket

Should the seed number be bolded in tournament brackets, along with the winning team and score? None of the conference brackets from last year bold the seeds. The NCAA brackets are not bolded except for 2016 and 2017. Tewapack (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think they should because it makes logical sense and it matches everything else in the brackets as well. Sportsman20 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If the majority of them are not bolded I do not see why we should start now. I've always only seen team name and score. I could argue for only the team name to be bolded rather than bold everything. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not see a problem or issue with the seeds be bolded also, there's no policy against it is there, i do not think there is. It just makes more sense that the seed also be bolded because it doesn't match the team and score, which is only logical to do the seed also to match the team and score right?. Sportsman20 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
It also looks incorrect without the seeds being bolded. Again there's no policy against it, so there shouldn't be a problem nor an issue with bolding the seeds also. From what i say in this sentence and my sentences above, i think that's the correct way to do it. Sportsman20 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, consensus on how to do things builds up over time, usually organically. The long-standing convention is to not bold the seed numbers. There are probably literally hundreds of articles that follow this standard formatting convention. Are you proposing we change them all? That kind of massive change is going to require a wider discussion to determine a new consensus. If you really want to change the standard bracket formatting, I suggest you start a Request for Comment about it. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Undoing others work is not right especially when they are not breaking any policies or rules on here. There is no policy that says they can't be done that way. Just because it's not the way your used to doing it doesn't mean you can't do it now. It's incorrect if the seeds don't match the team and the score, it's just common sense and logic to understand that it doesn't match nor does it make much sense to not bold the numbers also. Undoing everyone's hard work and ignoring there work for no reason just because you say it's been done one way doesn't mean it's right or wrong unless they have breaking a policy rule which i have not done. There's nothing wrong with it nor should there be a problem or issue with it either. Sportsman20 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that User:Sportsman20 is also User:Manster1 and User:Manster89. The wording about policies and undoing hardwork is far to familiar. Plus, all three blank their talk page when anyone tries to talk to them. And Sportsman20 has only been making edits since March 8 which is when Manster1 and Manster89 were blocked. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No you clearly have the wrong person. You do not know anything about me nor do you know who i am. Your supposedly saying i'm those particular people based off the wording, policies and everything else I've used in some of my sentences. You are not suppose to pass any kind of judgment towards anyone or anything in life ever, that's what it says in the bible. You clearly are claiming i'm someone else which i'm clearly not. Your also not suppose to talk badly about anyone on wikipedia either. That is very wrong and uncalled for to do that and it goes against wikipedia policies to agree not to treat anyone badly on here ever. So you in fact are judging me based off of some wording and policies regarding another person that somehow used some of the same wording i used. It's not funny nor is it necessary to put other people down that you have and will probably never ever meet in life. So i ask you to please apologize to me for uncalled remarks and comments regarding me because you claim i'm some other user on here which in fact I'm not. Sportsman20 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, I don't think this long-standing formatting convention that has been around for years and used on literally hundreds of articles should be changed without a broader discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rreagan007 (talk). João Do Rio (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Hall pics?

Advice at Talk:2017–18_Northwestern_Wildcats_men's_basketball_team#Possible_Charlie_Hall_pictures welcome.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Current and Future class assessments

Are the Current and Future assessment classes for this project of any use to anyone here? See Category:College basketball articles by quality. Articles created for an upcoming new season get assessed as Future-class upon creation and most tend to never get changed to Current-class one the season starts. Then after the season is over, most remain as a Future or Current class until they get rerated on the quality scale much later; administrative work that doesn't seem to be of use to or managed by anyone here. (Example) Should we eliminate the Current and Future assessment classes? — Wyliepedia 07:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Much like with college football, it's probably not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Video help

this tweet includes an ESPN video. Can anyone tell me how to find the original ESPN posting of this video? Otherwise, can someone help me source that Jordan Poole was 3-7 on threes in the 2017 Dicks National High School Championship game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There may not be a posting of the video. They may have just taped it off TV. Here's a source for the 3-7. [2] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Campus site tournament games

Should campus site games against non-D1 teams, or any that aren't part of the tournament proper, be included on tournament pages? Just for example, on The Islands of the Bahamas Showcase or the 2017 section of the CBE Hall of Fame Classic, and lots of other pages, has the games listed in a bracket form which makes no sense since those games are not bracketed. I know most of the campus site games were added by User:Manster1, who we've had issues with before. I don't want to simply remove them if everyone thinks they should be included but they just seem out of place. I am going to remove the times that Manster1 added since we discussed that before and decided it made the brackets too cluttered, but did we decide to removed TV as well? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone here a DYK reviewer

Is there anyone here who could do a review of 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament DYK nominations? I am hoping for another Michigan win and the chance to get Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Poole and Template:Did you know nominations/Zavier Simpson on the main page during the final four.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Conference Tournament bracket Times

User:Manster89, who I assume is the same as User:Manster1 who I have had conflict before in the past, keeps adding times within the bracket on conference tournament pages such as 2018 Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament. However, if you look at other ASUN tournament pages the times are not included on any other them. And it's not just the ASUN, it's pretty much, if not all, like that on every other tournament. Including the times makes it look entirely too cluttered and the times are already included in the schedule table. I would assume since there are so many pages that they are not on that that would be the consensus way of how to list it. But when I try to remove the times Manster89 with edit summeries of " times are already on the schedule, they dont need to be in the bracket as well" they respond back with summaries like "ignoring other users edits for no reason and making up your own new policy’s just because you want too", and "there’s not written policy that says they can’t be in the brackets as well, it’s wrong to ignore other users edits especially when they did not do anything wrong according to any policy’s". I have not clue how to even respond to that. They don't seem to understand that we work on an consensus and is pretty much going to do it how they want. Again, I don't want to start an edit war but it clearly seems like the times probably shouldn't be listed that way. Thoughts? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No you have the wrong person. I’m not manster1. I have no idea who that is. I’m not starting any war nor am I breaking in policy rules. I have never ever ignored anyone’s edits period. If you look at the conferences websites you can see how they do there brackets and the way the brackets are suppose to look exactly like it. That’s all I’m trying to say hear. 15:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manster89 (talk • contribs)

Brackets we have here do not have to "look exactly like" how conference list them on their websites. They should, however, look like how we have always listed them in past seasons and, although I obviously haven't looked at all the pages but have looked at a lot, can not find an example of times being listed on the bracket. Thus, seems to me that the consensus is that we haven't been listing them that way and shouldn't now. So no, there may not be a "policy", but there does seem to be a consensus. And I refuse to believe that there are two Manster users making edits on college basketball pages and using similar reasoning in edit summaries without it being the same person. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you like. You don’t know me at all. So you can’t say I’m someone else when in fact I’m not. 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manster89 (talk • contribs)

In a conversation on User talk:Manster89 you even said "I’ve dealt with you before" yet I've never dealt with Manster89 before on anything. So pretty obviously the same user. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Again your judging people you don’t even know. Your also ruining my day by making me feel bad for no reason especially when I did nothing wrong to you nor to anyone else. Stop harassing me and bullying me just because you can. You dont understand that I have aspergers which is a form of autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manster89 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with you. I have never met you and never will. I know nothing about you. I simply try to edit the pages based on a consensus of how they have been done in the past and how we can agree they should look. I'm not harassing you in anyway.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bsuorangecrush that inclusion of the times in the brackets makes that portion of the articles cluttered. It is also information that is readily available in the schedule section of those articles so it seems to be superflous to add it to the brackets. Ncjon (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that times do not belong in the bracket headers. Header should contain round name ("First round", "Quarterfinals", etc). The date is almost always present as well. Some brackets (in 2017) have TV station, some don't - I'd be in favor of deleting the TV station. No bracket from 2017 has game time in it. The user is also changing the bracket layout. This has been discussed before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 6#Flow of tournament brackets. Tewapack (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Game time doesn't have any historical value and, in my opinion, shouldn't be there. WP isn't TV Guide. Rikster2 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I've remove TV networks from the bracket in 2018 Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament.—Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament article has game time and network in the bracket before the game. After the game is complete, this information is removed. See example 1 and example 2. Fbdave (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

ESPY Award navbox

FYI

There is a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Template:ESPY Best Male College Athlete for an ESPY Award frequently won by college basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

GAR for double (basketball)

Double (basketball), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lute Olson Award notable?

Is the Lute Olson Award notable. The general press does not cover the award. Typically, the the Olson Award website posts a press release that is available for a year or less. Sometimes, the award winner's school will issue a press release. Otherwise, there is no other press coverage. Do we want to keep this award. I can't even find a ref for this year's award.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Poking around, it seems like there is a reasonable amount of coverage of players being named to the watch lists, etc. the issue with someone like this year’s winner Jalen Brunson is that he has won a lot of higher profile awards and won the NCAA title the same day it was handed out this year. So it gets lost in all of that. I would be in favor of leaving the award pages but deleting the navboxes of the set of collegeinsider.com awards (Lefty Driesell award, Lou Henson Award, etc) if you want to nominate them for TfD. We have a lot of template clutter and these feel lower profile than most Rikster2 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, lists have a lower threshold of coverage compared to articles, per WP:LISTN. I think it can be kept. Agree with the navboxes also. My rule of thumb is that if an FA wouldn't mention it in the lead of a bio, there shouldn't be a navbox for it.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this the complete list of templates at issue: {{Lefty Driesell Award}}, {{Hugh Durham Award}}, {{Clarence Gaines Award}}, {{Lou Henson Award}}, {{Ben Jobe Award}}, {{Lute Olson Award}}, {{Jim Phelan Award}}, {{Skip Prosser Award}}, and {{Kay Yow Award}}?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think about this, I feel that if we are going to keep the articles, I don't want to nominate the templates.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No obligation for you to nominate them. Just curious, do you have ideas on dealing with WP:TCREEP?—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • My concern was whether the subjects were notable enough to exist on WP. If the award is notable enough for an article, I have no problem with the template existing. I don't have a problem with TCREEP. I think templates are a good thing for navigation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for consensus national college player of the year

FYI

There is a discussion on the criteria for consensus national player of the year at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Criteria_for_consensus_national_college_player_of_the_year. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Qualified Teams Templates in NCAA Tournament Articles

There's an inconsistency in the templates used to list the teams who qualified by seeding. In the men's tournament, 1994 and prior uses a template that includes each team's region (unnecessary given the table header) and finish in the tournament (extraneous as it serves the same exact purpose as the bracket), and 1995 to the present replaces that with their qualification method (AQ vs AL) and overall seed when applicable. The women's tournament has a similar issue. 2011 and prior use two separate tables, one for AQ and one for AL, listed alphabetically (which doesn't seem to make sense logically for what it's meant to do), and 2013 to the present uses the same template as the men's tournament currently does (although 2012 and 2014 are inexplicably missing these tables altogether). I personally think all tournaments should follow the template that the men's tournament currently uses but I just wanted to see if there was a consensus on this first before going ahead and doing that. 24.177.244.122 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What wasn't clear enough? I thought I articulated the issue pretty well. Did you look at the linked articles? 24.177.244.122 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
There are inconsistencies between the tables that list the teams in old articles vs new articles. I agree that they should follow a consistent format. The older articles are often much less detailed in other sections than the newer tournament pages tend to be, so we should make sure that removing this information from the tables does not take away valuable information from the articles. Mjs32193 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The information I'm proposing we remove is already reflected in the table header (in the case of which region each team was placed) and in the bracket (in the case of each team's finish including round, opponent and score). 24.181.239.166 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, if the consensus ends up that 1994 and prior is what needs to be fixed, I can do 1985-1994 myself because I'm sure it's just copy/pasting 1995's table and plugging in the correct information, but anything prior when it involves changing the size of the table, that I don't know how to do. 24.177.244.122 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball talkpage discussion

Can I get some other people to chime in on a discussion I am having on the Kansas talkpage. I'm in a discussion with an IP address and I've suggested a comprise with the IP and they have refused to accept it so I would like some help building a consensus.--Rockchalk717 22:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing and the IP address is not backing down despite me and 2 other editors saying the issue they are disputing is a consensus. So please anybody else interested please chime in on this debate.--Rockchalk717 19:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Portal:College basketball

A proposal has been made to delete Portal:College basketball (and all other portals) at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. What are your views on the college basketball portal? Did you even know it exists? It doesn't appear to be maintained or updated on any regular basis. Is it useful? Even if the broader RfC fails, should the basketball portal be deleted? Alternatively, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we want to use conference placement in the infobox.

An editor has removed the conference final standing placement in this edit and this edit. Do we want to remove this content from the infobox?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to be listed in the infobox. Looks cleaner without it and really has no affect on the season per se. Also 99 times out of 100, the conference standings are right below. Lincolning (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
If standing placement were to be included, it should be give it's own field in the infobox, and should probably be implemented for all college sports that use this Template:Infobox NCAA team season, not just basketball. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok without it per Lincolning. The standings nav is usually right there in the lead too, and honestly all but the most diehard fan will care about is whether they won the conference or not. Keep infobox lean and mean.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

NCAA Basketball Tournament/Championship articles and categories

There is misalignment between the articles and categories for the varioius NCAA basketball tournaments/championships:

Aside from the "tournament" vs. "championship" misalignment, Category:NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship as the additional problem of "Women's" coming before "Division I". Should these categories be renamed to "Category:NCAA X Basketball Tournament"? Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection. The Div I men's article was RMed to "Tournament" in 2016.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Bagumba, this all seems like a good candidate for a speedy renaming under C2D "Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name". Although, given my recent trials and tribulations at XfD, what do you think? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

NR in rankings tables

I get sick of people filling up rankings tables with NR in empty cells. This makes it impossible to see the relevant encyclopedic information. Is there an official policy in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe black out the cell? Don't leave it empty though, as a reader wouldn't know if that means they weren't ranked or data is missing or deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we should leave the cells blank if they were not ranked.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Lincolning (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe people add it because the key in the automated rankings template Template:Ranking movements, lists NR. I do not have a problem removing it and leaving it blank, but other sports use the same template so it may be hard to change. Maybe there should be a new template made for only CBB use, because there are other issues with that template such as there are no week 1 rankings in CBB and no way to delete it from the template so the weeks are all off by 1. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the NR is as annoying in Football as it is in basketball. What type of consensus is necessary to get it removed from the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we just change the code in the template so that "NR" makes a blank space appear rather than the letters? That way the cell highlighting will still work correctly in the automated versions. Billcasey905 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba, Lincolning, Mjs32193, and Billcasey905:, can someone take action on this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how to do it. Lincolning (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know either, maybe ask someone who has previously changed it.Mjs32193 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Loyola Ramblers display name

All - We have historically used "Loyola (Illinois)" and "Loyola (Maryland)" for the two division I Loyolas (in addition to "Loyola Marymount" in the West). Given the consistent use of "Loyola–Chicago" in the press (which reached a new level during their Final Four run), I'd like to suggest we transition to this display name. What I don't have a handle on is if this should be a change to all of the athletic pages ("Loyola Ramblers" to "Loyola-Chicago Ramblers") - which would need to be vetted and determined on the Talk page of Loyola Ramblers - or if it would be a display name change only, which could be determined by the relevant college sports projects. Thoughts? A) should it be changed, and B) page moves or display names? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Loyola Ramblers men's basketball as a page name is completely fine. Just like Loyola Greyhounds men's basketball is just fine for Loyola (MD). They only need to be listed as Loyola–Chicago and Loyola (MD) when listed in schedule tables. This is how it is already done so nothing needs to change. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not true that Loyola is listed as Loyola–Chicago consistently. It is Loyola (IL) in most other places and in fact this was previous consensus - this is why I ask. I am not necessarily suggesting page moves, but worth noting that the Chicago school actually calls itself “Loyola University Chicago” (see here). Rikster2 (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case Loyola-Chicago makes the most sense since its the official name. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rikster2: Don't add a dash, don't add the state in parentheses for Chicago... simply display it as "Loyola Chicago". Corky 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The athletic pages don't need to change as Ramblers is already a sufficient disambiguator. As for the display name, Google is not very help with "Loyola-Chicago" vs. "Loyola Chicago", as there is no way to search specifically with or without the hyphen; they just co-mingle the results. I would generally say use whatever is common in sources, but then I just noticed that we list the Miami Hurricanes as "Miami (Florida)", even though the press commonly just calls them plain "Miami", while the Miami RedHawks is generally displayed as "Miami (OH)" in the press.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we cool with “Loyola Chicago?” If so, I will go make changes. Not as much input as I had hoped for. Rikster2 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we have a cbb link for conference season articles yet to be created?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Alternative links should work for that. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking

It seems to me that List of NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Final Four participants should be full of links to championhsip game, team-season and conference-season articles. It will take some time to figure out, I guess, but can someone churn through linking this so that it is a useful article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those should all be wikilinked. If anyone decides to tackle this, please make use of Template:Cbb link for team season articles that do not yet exist. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I have linked all of the existing team articles.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, I did 23 years of linking the teams. Show some credit Lincolning!! :-) 16:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You did including the 2007–08 Memphis Grizzlies season.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I was just having some fun, I didn't point out any of the mistakes you made, but thanks for being an ass about it. Lincolning (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What mistakes?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Donte Ingram

Hey I have been trying to improve Donte Ingram to GA status recently but I hit a roadblock. I can't find his birthdate or even year of birth. I would assume it's 1995 or 1996 since he was a senior last season but I don't know for sure. His Loyola profile and NBADraft.net profile do not help in this regard. Can anyone find it? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Names in roster templates

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Names in roster templates regarding the reason why we present basketball players' names in the form "[lastname], [firstname]" in our roster templates. I propose that we change to use the format "[firstname] [lastname]" and add a sort key to allow proper sorting. If you have an opinion on this, please contribute to the discussion at WT:BASKET. – PeeJay 19:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I've just noticed that college basketball roster templates actually already do present names in the form "[firstname] [lastname]", which begs the question, why do we not introduce this for the professional and international ranks? Please contribute to the discussion linked above. – PeeJay 19:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

College stats in bios

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#College_stats_section about the location of college stats in bios.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Tobacco Road (rivalry)

Tobacco Road (rivalry), formerly at Tobacco Road and unsourced since creation in 2005, purports a four-way rivalry between Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest.

There is some indirect geographical usage of the term for Duke-UNC hoops ala ABC11 - "The Tobacco Road rivalry between UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke is one of the fiercest in college sports.", but I am having trouble sourcing usage as a four-way "rivalry." And there is a book apparently on point, which is now used as the lone citation.

Article cleanup/sourcing might be a good project for someone from this project due to the strong presumed foundation in basketball. It also might pivot from Tobacco Road (rivalry) to Tobacco Road (sports). Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sean Munson

Is this guy notable? Seems like an AfD candidate. 2601:80:C202:91B2:B8C3:EEC6:C1F5:BEB5 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Played in Israeli Basketball Premier League (Bnei Hasharon), which meets WP:NHOOPS. However, I can't find significant coverage in online English sources to meet WP:GNG, so unless they are in Hebrew or offline. Frankly, I'm alwasy a bit skeptical of the selection criteria of leagues where notability is presumed.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC: XXXX–XX year format

FYI

There is a related RFC regarding the XXXX–XX year format of seasons at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Year_range_for_two_consecutive_years.—Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Davis page move request

It has been 3.5 years since we discussed whether Anthony Davis (basketball) is the primary Anthony Davis. Join the discussion at Talk:Anthony_Davis_(basketball)#Requested_move_14_September_2018.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD:ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team to comment. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide your opinion in a proposed change to “Infobox college coach”

Thanks. Template talk:Infobox college coach#Use of the “sport” field Rikster2 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion could use more opinions to try to reach a consensus. Please go give your opinion if you can. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Once more, this discussion could use more input to reach consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mario the Magnificent

Is Mario the Magnificent a suitable topic for an article? I don't see anything that's notable about him as a mascot. The text of the article is highly promotional in tone; it's written as if it's the university's biography of the mascot. I don't want to just nominate for deletion if this project feels like an article like this is acceptable. only (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Only: Mascots are not inherently notable. They need to meet WP:GNG, and non-independent coverage does not count.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured as much but wanted to see if there was some consensus I didn't know about or a strong desire to improve this article. Thanks, only (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Simisola Shittu

Does anyone have a good source for Simisola Shittu's birthplace? The text of the article says he was born in England, but the infobox lists his birthplace as Canada. I think the infobox is actually displaying his "hometown" instead of his birthplace.

Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 15:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I can’t find one. I agree it’s probably hometown (happens all the time) and should probably be removed. Rikster2 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Majerle?

I was bouncing around the Grand Canyon Antelopes men's basketball pages after discovering that they are coached by Dan Majerle. When I read that his bio says his nephew played for him, I checked out the 2013–14 Grand Canyon Antelopes men's basketball team, 2014–15 Grand Canyon Antelopes men's basketball team and 2015–16 Grand Canyon Antelopes men's basketball team rosters. On WP we have Ryan Majerle listed as a Rockford High School (Minnesota) alum from Rockford, Minnesota. However, his ESPN stat page shows him as a Rockford, Michigan native.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move - Category:Redlands Bulldogs basketball

Please take part in a discussion to rename Category:Redlands Bulldogs basketball. You can chime in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 12#Category:Redlands Bulldogs basketball. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Any votes appreciated. Should be a non-controversial move. Rikster2 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

season pages

Usually people go through all the DI programs and create the team season articles. I am noticing a lot of pages have not been created yet. E.g., 2018–19 Penn Quakers men's basketball team is receiving votes in this week's AP Poll, but they don't have a page to put a rankings table in. Have we given them a lower priority this year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I usually create a lot of articles but have been very busy this year. I noticed a few other users that often create articles are not around either. Feel free to create any that are still red links. Also please don't forget citations, it's a pain when articles get deleted or sent to draft due to that. WBB is also very behind in creating articles.
2018–19_NCAA_Division_I_men's_basketball_season#Conference_standings
2018–19_NCAA_Division_I_women's_basketball_season#Conference_standings
Mjs32193 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Late to the party, but I've been creating a few starter (minus rosters and scheds) articles for some 2018 WBB teams, usually when they appear in the polls. I must use a crappy phone to edit with, and my eyes eventually cross or my browser resets. — Wyliepedia @ 10:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tony Hanson (basketball, born 1983) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tony Hanson (basketball, born 1983) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Hanson (basketball, born 1983) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a template merge discussion at...

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_25#Template:Infobox_college_swim_team there has been one editor who has proposed merging all NCAA sports team templates into one. Interested editors, please respond there.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

C.J. Carter

C.J. Carter seems non-notable. Also appears to be a blatant copyvio. 2601:80:C202:91B2:B5D2:2DF0:3E44:F490 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel Free to WP:PROD. Rikster2 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 in basketball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 in basketball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 in basketball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Bradley Basketball Team of the Century for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bradley Basketball Team of the Century is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Basketball Team of the Century until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Griffin (basketball)

Tommy Griffin the father of Blake and Taylor Griffin has a page. Is he notable?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but I don’t think so. The article is completely from the standpoint of his notable kids and all the sources are about the kids as well. Seems like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Rikster2 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:NCAA Men's Division I Final Four basketball players by year has been nominated for discussion

Category:NCAA Men's Division I Final Four basketball players by year, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

College Athlete Recruit infobox needs an update

I noticed that the current template used to display information about recruits still includes Scout as one of the sites, despite the fact that the website no longer exists (it was folded into 247sports last year. They no longer produce unique rankings, and it seems like pages are a mix of either showing it as N/A or just duplicating the rankings from 247sports. It would be nice if we could get that cleaned up, though I entirely lack the skills to be able to do that. Hoping this is a good spot to put this, I'm new to doing much more than keeping team pages up to date.

Gopherdan (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Conference season infobox listing NBA draft picks

I reverted this recent edit to 2016–17 Pac-12 Conference men's basketball season to add Markelle Fultz to the infobox as the NBA's top overall draft pick. While true, it seems WP:UNDUE to have in an infobox for a college conference's season. While cleaning this up for other #1 draft picks, I found that this isnt limited to #1's. At 2010–11 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season, it lists JaJuan Johnson, the #27 pick because he's the "top pick" of the BIg 10. Can we agree that any NBA draft info does not belong in a conference season infobox?—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Conference draft picks may be relevant to the article (I don't see them as a necessary addition, nor do I have much of a problem with them being present in these articles), but it's not important enough to the season to go in the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
My other comment is maybe we should work with the college football and baseball projects and just come up with a college conference season infobox so we aren't using the same as the pro leagues? This is one difference, there may be others we'd add/subtract/change that are specifically relevant to college sports? Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Why would we not put it there, if there is an option to include it in the template? The person who started the template thought it was notable/worthy of a spot in the infobox because they made it part of the template. So why are we now deciding that it isn't notable? swimmer33 20:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Becasue the season template was created for pro seasons and college just started using it instead of creating a new one. The info is interesting but not critical for the infobox. The field also doesn’t apply to half the basketball conferences each year. Rikster2 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I like seeing the content, but I concede it is an artifact given your explanation. Given that top scorer, MVP and conference tournament MVP are in the infobox, the most important players for the conference season are well depicted in other parameters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous honorees

I ran across List of North Carolina Tar Heels basketball honorees and Honored North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball players, which based on title alone sounded like duplicates. However, "List of ..." is a list of all players that have won some award, while "Honored ..." are players whose jerseys are hung but not necessarily retired. Not sure how widespread this is, but perhaps we need a different naming convention beside "honorees" for the various schools that have an awards list.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The list should probably be re-named something that indicates it is a list of awards and honors. The “Honored” list should probably be renamed something like “List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball retired and honored jerseys” and add the retired numbers. We probably need a standard for awards vs. jerseys as we have other examples like Arizona (awards), Kentucky (jerseys), etc. It’s all ambiguous. Rikster2 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't looked, but each school doesn't have a WP:COMMONNAME that they respectively use? That would be the first preference. For the awards and stuff, that's a generic descriptive title we can standardize.—Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I think some schools only retire numbers (like UCLA) while others retire and/or honor jerseys (like UNC and Kansas). In my opinion we need two conventions because it isn’t accurate to call the UNC list “retired numbers” if it’s both (honored numbers can be worn again, retired numbers can’t). And it’s silly to call the UCLA list “retired and honored” because they don’t honor numbers. So if we want accuracy and consistency we need more than one convention, but not “anything goes.” Rikster2 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
So my idea is that we'd use WP:COMMONNAME for each school individually. In theory, that could result in a different title for each school, but I'd image there's not that many variations in practice. For example, take NFL teams. I'd think most have a hall of fame, but they don't all call it a "hall of fame". While there is the traditionally named Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame, there's also Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor and Washington Redskins Ring of Fame. As for the Tar Heels, their media guide has a "Jerseys in the Rafters" section, but this article on Brice Johnson and Marcus Paige doesn't directly use that phrase, the closest being "Paige and Johnson will become the 50th and 51st players in school history to have their jerseys honored in the rafters." And is this thing with retiring jerseys and not numbers a college thing? Kansas says they retire jerseys,[3] but I'm pretty sure the numbers still remain in use. In this case, it seems like "retire" is not accurate and a bit misleading for the casual sports fan. FWIW, the retired number article uses the terms number and jersey interchangeably.—Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, “honoring” jerseys but not retiring them is a college thing. At UNC, a number gets truly retired (as in, no one can ever wear it again) if you are named National Player of the Year, but honored (i.e. hung in the arena) if you meet other criteria - All-American, ACC POY, etc. - but others can still use the number. I’m fine with using the commonnames. Rikster2 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Mass TfD of NCAA standings templates

See discusssion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Unused sports standings.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

After the end of the omnibus discussion, the editor has re-nominated them individually. They are nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 13.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Of note to the college basketball project would be Template:2015–16 GNAC men's basketball standings and Template:2016–17 Atlantic University Sport men's basketball standings. (Canadian)-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrew Platek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Platek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Platek until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. What does he meet according to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes besides being on North Carolina? 1: Won a national award or established a major NCAA Division I record? No. 2: Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport? No. 3: Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team? No. 4: Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport? No. This isn't an individual sport. He's a sophomore, revisit when he graduates and perhaps gets drafted, or plays some sort of pro league basketball. Brian (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Same should be said for Rechon Black. Same user created article, and he has the same standards as this article. Brian (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Good points, obviously I agree on Platek as I nominated it for deletion. Please make your arguments at the discussion(s) though so those can drive to a decision. Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Importance scale

Is everyone still using the same importance scale as on the Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Assessment#Importance scale page? I'm getting confused as to why some years basketball team pages are listed as low, but some high, even if the team didn't make the NCAA tournament. And most, if not all, 2018–19 women's pages are listed as LOW. Brian (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That project scale still seems reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It does, but take a look at 2017 CAA Men's Basketball Tournament (LOW), 2018 CAA Men's Basketball Tournament (MID), and 2019 CAA Men's Basketball Tournament (LOW). As per the scale, it states, "An article on a specific year of a Division I Conference Tournament – MID." So why is MID jammed in between 3 years? All 3 should be labeled as MID as far as I can figure out from the scale. I'm just confused as to whether it's important to classify them the same, or I'm just being trivial. Brian (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd just ignore them as errors unless a plausible explanation surfaces.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
If you see errors, just fix them. I am sure many exist. We actually have a pretty big issue with folks creating articles and not creating a talk page at all, so I am actually just thankful some have errors to correct. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I will correct what I can find and add as many talk pages as humanly possible. Brian (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe someone could edit the importance scale table? It should have example pages for each point. "The main basketball article of all other Division I programs (e.g. Marist Red Foxes men's basketball (MID)", and "An article on any other specific team's single season (e.g. 2018–19 Marist Red Foxes men's basketball team (LOW)". It seems to me that some were getting confused by the wording, I was one of them, but now it makes perfect sense. Of course, if the team made the NCAA Tournament that season, the team page would be (MID) regardless if it's a team from the MEAC or Big East, and (HIGH) only if they won the national championship. Brian (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to be bold and do it.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:College basketball nominated for deletion

Portal:College basketball has been nominated for deletion as part of a bundled nomination under the title: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Saint Francis vs. St. Francis Brooklyn

Since 2012, St. Francis College in New York has gone by the athletic WP:COMMONNAME St. Francis Brooklyn. In the same conference, there is also a Saint Francis University in Pennsylvania and historically the school has been noted on standings, etc. as “Saint Francis (PA)”, while the Brooklyn school was noted as “St. Francis (NY).” Here is the question, now that they no longer have the same athletic COMMONNAME, should the “PA” still be included when listing Saint Francis? We have no other instance of using state disambiguations with actual differing names (the only others in D1 hoops are Miami and Loyola). Sources are mixed, with the conference using “St. Francis Brooklyn” and “Saint Francis U” (no State) example. The ncaa.com uses “PA” and “BKN” as DABs (though Brooklyn is part of the name, as does ESPN. Fox Sports uses a similar convention to the Northeast Conference, while CBS Sports gets it wrong altogether. My suggestion is not using the state for the PA school as the names are no longer the same. It feels like people are just continuing an outdated “tradition” here. Thoughts? Would like to achieve consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend continuing to use "Saint Francis (PA)" as the short name for the Saint Francis Red Flash for consistency, as their name didn't change in 2012. There are also a couple NAIA schools named St. or Saint Francis: the St. Francis Fighting Saints (St. Francis (IL)) and the Saint Francis Cougars (Saint Francis IN)). Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally for D1 schools we don’t use the states if there are no other D1 schools by that name. The primary example being Xavier used by the Cincinnati school, but the New Orleans one uses “LA” as a DAB. There are also several Notre Dames, though it’s clear which the primary one is. Rikster2 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the state designation as still valuable for two schools within the same conference. It seems fairly easy for readers who may not familiar with the schools, teams, or the conference, to confuse the two.

I'm also curious if a consensus can be found to whether St. Francis Brooklyn is the WP:COMMONNAME. It seems to be the official name in use by the college's department of athletics, but beyond that, I am unsure what is most commonly used. Infinite mission (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, given that these are two not-particularly-prominent schools playing in the same conference, I don't think we should have ever moved away from "St. Francis (NY)" in the first place. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that pretty much no one uses “St. Francis (NY)” anymore, so we’d be using a designation in Wikipedia not found in “real life.” It’s a reasonable question if “St. Francis Brooklyn” is the athletic COMMONNAME - but either that is used or St. Francis (Brooklyn) or some abbreviation of Brooklyn. I’d want to see evidence of why St. Francis Brooklyn isn’t the COMMONNAME before we start changing articles, categories, templates, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Usually when commonname is something we go with it. In this case it appears commonname to use PA, and Brooklyn, except by your own explanation CBS. Saying that CBS gets it wrong altogether is plain ridiculous, it isn't like they said it was in Wyoming. Rather they are the last hold out of using NY. In any event Commonname appears to be established.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
When I posted it yesterday there was a typo on CBS showing “St. Francis (NY)” and St. Francis (Brooklyn)” - no PA - an obvious mistake. Checking now they appear to have fixed the error. I would not have said "NY" vs. "PA" was "getting it wrong." Rikster2 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Rikster2, per your comment above, you are right that the existence of small lower-division schools should not necessarily mandate the use of a parenthetical state code disambiguator on far more major schools. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on "St. Francis Brooklyn" - As I read this, and as I look at game reports from leading sources like the NY Times and the AP, I think the argument that "St. Francis Brooklyn" is not the COMMONNAME has merit. Frankly, it is also a much more palatable conclusion to move that one (and all the corresponding articles) back to "St. Francis (NY)" and use "Saint Francis (PA)" for the Red Flash than to use a state DAB on two schools with different commonnames. Can we get a roll call on agreement to move the ST. Francis Brooklyn pages back to "St. Francis Terriers" and use "NY" when listed on a table, etc? Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of this. I don't see any compelling reason why we ever moved away from "St. Francis (NY)" in the first place, plus it solves the problem mentioned above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Template:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors 2013 is up for deletion if anybody is interested in participating.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

High School Basketball tournaments

See 2019 New York state high school boys basketball championships Should these be kept of AfD. In College football some like this have been deleted in the past.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One might think New York state high school boys basketball championships is enough without the annual articles. However, I'm guessing being NYC there's easily multiple sources of signif coverage every year.—Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils basketball team

This is currently the only D1 article that is not published. I added some references and the schedule still needs to be completed at Draft:2018/19 Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils basketball team. Can someone help get this published so it doesn't get moved to draft for a 6th time? Most schedule updates are done by IP users so publishing it will help it expand. It is incomplete, but it doesn't seem like a bad article to me. Mjs32193 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The last version in Dec 2018 that was draftified was presumably because it had 0 sources. I dont think it makes a difference if the schedule is complete or not. That being said, editors that create articles where a non-sports passerby can't obviously tell if it's notable (e.g. citing some signif coverage) risks an AfD (or being draftified).—Bagumba (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Fixed up the draft page to basically be the same as any other D1 school who's season is over, along with finishing the schedule. Brian (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

1-2-3

I have not really been watching the tournament much since I drive Uber on the weekends. When was the last time all 1-, 2- and 3-seed teams advanced?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

2009 was the last time all four 1, 2, and 3 seeds made it to the Sweet 16. *Edit to add, 2009 was the first time ever it happened, with 2019 being the second.*Brian (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

TFD notification

Only WP:CFB was notified. I think all relevant sports should participate in this discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 4#Athletic program head coaches navboxes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

With the USBWA naming a third team for the first time, will the consensus team have a third team this year?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No, unless there is some announcement by the NCAA saying so, it’s still 2 teams. The NCAA determines “consensus.” Rikster2 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason to expect the NCAA to name a third team now that all selectors have named three teams?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Rikster2, Did the NCAA officially name 2 or 3 teams yet or are we just assuming 2 at this point?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
we are probably not going to know until the new NCAA record book comes out next season and lists them, but there has been zero talk of a consensus third team. Rikster2 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Connecticut → UConn naming convention change

See Talk:Connecticut Huskies#Requested move 29 March 2019 for discussion on whether the naming convention for the Connecticut Huskies should be changed to UConn. Ostealthy (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, this resulted in a consensus to change the naming convention to UConn for current articles back to 2013–14. I've tried to move most of the articles and templates, but probably missed some. I could also use some help changing the name on other teams' season articles. Ostealthy (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"A NCAA" -> "An NCAA"

I was looking at the John Wooden article earlier, and I noticed that it had the words "a NCAA". I was fairly certain that it should be "an" (and a quick search confirmed this) because it is pronounced as individual letters, and the letter N starts with a vowel sound. I changed it in that article, but a quick search shows that "a NCAA" occurs in 838 articles. (For comparison, "an" is used in 3163 articles.) I'm not especially comfortable (let alone want to spend the time) changing it in all of those articles unless there wasn't any better way (although I could), so I thought I'd see what you guys had to say. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"An", per your reasoning.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories for merging discussion FYI

In case anyone at this WikiProject is interested: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 16#NAIA Men's Basketball Tournaments. Thanks. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

George Mason basketball pages

Doing some assessments, and I came across the article, History of George Mason basketball. Problem is, it's not really a history of George Mason basketball, it's more history of George Mason men's basketball, as most everything but a paragraph describes the men's team. Why have this extra article, when we already have two articles covering George Mason basketball; George Mason Patriots men's basketball and George Mason Patriots women's basketball. The women's page is a bit stubby, but could be improved on. I'd say a merge is something we could consider in this situation. Brian (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

New category?

I've seen a category titled Articles needing attention, and in the subcategories, saw baseball, football, NBA, and NFL have them, but not College basketball. I've come across some team articles that were not finished and the only thing I could have thought of was to list them as NA so I could find them to work on them at a later time. Would it be any more productive if we added one, so it would be a little easier to find said articles? Brian (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Also with adding this category, it's also possible to edit Template:WikiProject College Basketball/doc to include a section attention=, when yes is selected, it will populate the new category for articles needing attention. Does anyone object to doing this? Brian (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In theory, you could look at the class rating and determine it's state of being "finished". How do other projects determine what gets marked as needing "attention" (and do project editors know how to monitor it)?—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
They do not specify why an article would be placed as needing attention, some are not referenced, some need rewrites, but surely something could be entered into the assessment department page so it could be clearly understood. Mostly, one's I am thinking should be added are pages that are not "complete" and lack ANY sources at all. Ex: Eastern Michigan and San Diego State. In looking at the class rating, some of the one's I have seen were marked Start, Stub, or nothing at all. So it's daunting to look for them (20,000 of CBB articles, almost 50%, are listed as Start or Stub), find them, and then actually remembering where they all were once someone decided to take up the task of cleaning them up. Not saying I wouldn't clean them up and finish them, but I'm on a self mission to get the project down to nearly zero unassessed articles. This tool is also useful as well; https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/College_Basketball.html which is a cleanup listing for project pages. Brian (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Naismith Outstanding Contribution to Basketball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naismith Outstanding Contribution to Basketball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naismith Outstanding Contribution to Basketball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 72.82.244.212 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Template update

Is anyone able to update the College athlete recruit entry template coding to when the Scout.com parameter for star ranking is left blank, nothing shows up in the final product? Currently it shows “NA”. Scout doesn’t do recruiting anymore but if we code it to show nothing if it’s left blank (similar to the 40 yard dash parameter) it will allow there not to be any issues on pages that do list something in that parameter.--Rockchalk717 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Big East Conference rivalries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big East Conference rivalries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big East Conference rivalries until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:College basketball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:College basketball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:College basketball (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women in basketball who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This would be a good opportunity to start next seasons articles for WBB. It's already falling behind the men in yearly team article creations. I'll try my best to get started helping with this soon. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

LIU Brooklyn Blackbirds vs. LIU Sharks

How are we supposed to treat this? With the merging of the Brooklyn and Post campuses to form the LIU Sharks, are navboxes such as as {{LIU Brooklyn Blackbirds men's basketball navbox}} and {{LIU Brooklyn Blackbirds men's basketball coach navbox}} supposed to be updated to LIU Sharks? Or is the existence of {{LIU Sharks men's basketball coach navbox}} correct and it should be entirely new? Do these programs share the LIU Brooklyn history, or is this fresh history?

Before we get ramped up in the 2019–20 college basketball season this should be figured out. Can anyone lend some guidance? SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, how are the categories supposed to be structured? Is Category:LIU Sharks men's basketball coaches appropriate, or should the LIU Brooklyn one simply be put through a speedy CFR to be renamed to LIU Sharks? SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Martin Dixon-Green for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martin Dixon-Green is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Dixon-Green until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

CBB articles

A number of the new CBB articles have been proposed for deletion. See 2019–20 UConn Huskies men's basketball team and the rest of that conference. We seem to go through this every year and have established that they are notable once the previous season ended. I agree some of these need work but can someone look at this and remove the PROD? Mjs32193 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

First, you can remove the PRODs no problem. That means if an editor wants to pursue deletion they’d need to do so through AfD and that would take more time, during which the articles can be sourced and improved. The editor placing the PROD on the UConn article has a point, there are no reliable sources or any prose to speak of, which does make the article as it stands fail WP:NSEASONS. I’m confident that at this point in the year sufficient sources exist to prove season notability, but right now it’s not demonstrated in this article (or the others I presume). Yes, many incited season articles with no prose exist, but that’s an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Rikster2 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
My bad, I thought only admins could remove those.Mjs32193 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently now they have all been speedied because the person who created them is a sock. I fail to see how Wikipedia is improved by deleting literally dozens of good articles because of who created them. Vandalism by consensus is still vandalism. Totally ridiculous. Smartyllama (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, a lot of other editors spent a lot of time improving those articles and now we are very behind on creating articles for this upcoming season. Are there any admins who can get them restored? ThanksMjs32193 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Try WP:AN. Smartyllama (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Smartyllama, then open a RFC. In the meantime see WP:G5 Kb03 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
After a discussion on Barkeep's talk page went nowhere, I have opened a DRV here. Smartyllama (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Smartyllama, also casting aspersions is strongly frowned upon, especially when acting within policy. I'm referencing your comment "Vandalism by consensus is still vandalism. Totally ridiculous" Kb03 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, G5 in general amounts to nothing more than vandalism by consensus, especially when it leads to mass deletions of perfectly good articles. I’m not going to wikilawyer you on whether deleting perfectly good content in this case meets the official definition of vandalism. That’s not my point. Certainly CSD policy was being followed, but as WP:IAR tells us, policies should be ignored when, as here and in the vast majority of G5 cases where that's the only reason to delete, they make Wikipedia worse instead of better. Now, if the topics weren't notable but this didn't meet other speedy criterion, maybe it would be a good thing to save us from the AfDs. But that's not the case here. And as you said, this also isn’t the appropriate place to discuss the merits of G5 anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Canadian college basketball category

I have nominated Category:CIS Men's Basketball Championship for merging into its parent category. The discussion could use some comments. Please see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#Category:CIS Men's Basketball Championship. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please join a conversation seeking consensus on the use of External links on basketball player articles. The discussion can be found here. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these categories defining?

I discovered Category:Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons and Category:Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons, which are the only two of its kind and neither has been populated since the late 2000s. I was going to nominate for deletion but thought I'd run it by the project members.

Either...

  • these get put up for deletion and that's the end of that, or
  • this project should populate these two, then create similar categories for all remaining DI conferences and be forced to have yet another "thing" to update annually

Thoughts? SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For some context here, this type of category structure is currently in use at the college football project (Category:Southeastern Conference football champion seasons, Category:Big Ten Conference football champion seasons, etc.). Whether or not the same structure should be used for college basketball, I don't know. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, the football ones are for the regular season champions, which I kind of understand. I'm not sure it's apples to apples with college basketball in general, let alone the conference tourney championship seasons. This might be one area that WP:CBBALL diverges from WP:CFB. SportsGuy789 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Baylor and Saint Mary's

I need help with expanding the articles for the 2019–20 Baylor and Saint Mary's men's basketball teams. I can't do this by myself. Plus, the season starts in 3 days, and that is not enough time for me. David Matoushek (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This concerns Draft:2019–20 Baylor Bears basketball team and Draft:2019–20 Saint Mary's Gaels men's basketball team. Huon (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Retired number in bio inbox

The general convention in players' infoboxes is to list players with retired numbers with "No. XX retired by University of XXXX". For example, Jason Kidd showed "No. 5 retired by University of California", but Rey grschel recently changed it to "No. 5 retired by University of California, Berkeley" Now technically that is correct. Kidd played in college for the California Golden Bears at the University of California, Berkeley, and University of California is a state school system, not an individual school. If we followed that example, Michael Jordan would change from "No. 23 retired by the University of North Carolina" to "No. 23 retired by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" since, similarly, University of North Carolina is a school system and was not his school, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I see at least four options:

  1. List only the sports team name without nickname, e.g. "retired by California" or "retired by North Carolina", unless it conflicts with another team in the player's infobox. Non-sports fan might think the state retired the number.
  2. List "University of California" or "University of North Carolina". This is lengthier, even when the school is not ambiguous with other pro teams in their inbox. It can also be ambiguous with the state school system.
  3. List the school name "University of California, Berkeley" or "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill". Accurate school name, but significantly varies and is lengthier than the college sports name.
  4. List the full sports team name "retired by California Golden Bears" or "retired by North Carolina Tar Heels". This is similiar to NBA retired numbers e.g. "No. 5 retired by Brooklyn Nets" for Kidd.

—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I support the No. 1 option, which is consistent with what we list at "College" parameter. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No to 1 and 3, am ok with 2 or 4 Berkeley and Chapel Hill are the flagship campuses, there is a reason their athletic WP:COMMONNAMEs are just the State names. I think just the State makes it unclear for people less familiar with college basketball (like our editors outside the U.S.) so it could be confused with the state of the same name as many of these players are in state halls of fame, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that No. 4 is probably the best option, it's unambiguous and makes it clear exactly where they played basketball. {{u|Rey_grschel}} {Talk} 15:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Non-ambiguous schools @Rikster2 and Rey grschel: For option 4, would we change for all schools, or just schools that are ambiguous? For example, would Larry Bird change from "retired by Indiana State" to "retired by Indiana State Sycamores". Ralph Sampson has "retired by University of Virginia", but University of Virginia is the school name (unlike systems University of California or University of North Carolina). Would it change to "retired by Virginia Cavaliers"?—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
If we are making the change to <Athletic COMMONNAME><Mascot> then we should make that change across the board for consistency in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ideally that's overly WP:PRECISE, but inevitably some drive-by editors will want to make it consistent, so I wont fight it either.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer option 1, but can go with option 4 just to make a decision. I've updated Jason Kidd and Michael Jordan as a trial. Let's see if other comments come.—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Stat boxes for players who played in played in multiple divisions of the NCAA

I'm trying to come up for a format for how a stat box should look for a player who played in multiple NCAA divisions. Below is an example of how it could look (stats are for Max Strus). The major issue I've been dealing with is how to highlight career highs (ex: should DII highs and DI highs both be bolded?) and how to label totals. Let me know what you all think. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Year Team GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG
2014–15 Lewis 31 31 28.8 .521 .352 .773 5.3 2.2 1.5 .8 13.3
2015–16 Lewis 33 33 36.2 .455 .360 .823 8.4 3.5 1.2 .8 20.2
Division II 64 64 32.6 .479 .357 .807 6.9 2.9 1.4 .8 16.8
2014–15 DePaul Did not play – transfer
2017–18 DePaul 31 31 35.6 .408 .333 .803 5.7 2.7 1.3 .5 16.8
2018–19 DePaul 35 35 37.4 .429 .363 .842 5.9 2.2 .9 .5 20.1
Division I 66 66 36.6 .420 .350 .825 5.8 2.5 1.1 .5 18.6
@Editorofthewiki: So more like this (see changes above)? Thanks for the input. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards treating it like a separate "league", and have separate tables like we do for different pro leagues.—Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That might be a good option. I don't think there are too many D2 to D! transfers with articles. One I can think of is Zach Hankins. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Mack Sports Complex

Any objections to me renaming the Hofstra Arena article to the above? Looks like a name change occurred in 2006.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

AFCs to review

Hello, there are a few college basketball-related drafts that were submitted and rejected at WP:AFC that could use a look and/or improvement by users more familiar with the notability of the topics:

Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see the season articles in limbo. These are all big name, Division 1 schools, and I can guarantee that their seasons were covered in great detail in contemporary newspapers. (Back then, print newspapers had significantly more college sports coverage than the print newspapers of today. Even junior college sports teams got regular attention from some papers. You just need access to the right databases to find this content.)
If a new user had submitted these articles ten years ago, the articles would have been accepted without question. Wikipedia has had similar articles for years. I worry that the AFC process discourages new users from getting involved with Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia needs new, enthusiastic users.
Granted, rivalry articles are a horse of a different color. Those are tough to write, even for experienced editors. You need to find sources that specifically refer to the rivalry itself, and even if you find sources like that, Wikipedia tends to judge rivalry articles on factors that go beyond the WP:GNG. Zagalejo^^^ 20:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC on use of nationality and birthplace

FYI

There is an RFC on birthplace and nationality parameters in infoboxes, which is related to this project's use of Template:Infobox basketball biography. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#RfC_on_birthplace,_nationality,_and_citizenship_parameters_with_matching_values.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Standings Template Date Format

Lately, some editors have been using the template {{date|2=MDY} or similar in college basketball rankings. I was a little concerned about this template because it seems to automatically set the date at the bottom of the template to the current date. However, this becomes an issue when standings are not updated frequently. For example, the Template:2019–20 ACC women's basketball standings was not updated with 1/23 game results until 1/24. One day might not be the biggest deal, but some templates are updated much less frequently. Does anyone have thoughts on reverting back to manually typing the date at the bottom of the template when it gets updated?

Swimmer33 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This happens every year, the manually entered dates should be used during the season.Mjs32193 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'll update the ones I notice. Swimmer33 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Long Beach State --> nickname change from 49ers to Beach

I just became aware that Long Beach State has officially changed their nickname from "49ers" to "Beach" as of 2019–20 for all sports other than baseball, which remains Dirtbags. Yes, that's correct: they are now known as the Long Beach State Beach (source: LA Times and CSULB nomenclature guide). Just an FYI. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of season articles

Those with a point of view on minimum requirements for season articles may wish to review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Clarification regarding NSEASONS. Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding captions to tables for accessibility

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Adding captions to tables for accessibility as it affects this WikiProject as well. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Coaching trees

Over at WikiProject College football we've had discussion recently regarding coaching trees on bio articles for coaches. Some of us noticed a proliferation in recent months of coaching tree list sections for coaches of lesser and lesser note. We reached a consensus that while such sections are appropriate for highly influential coaches where reliable third-party sources show substantive discussion of a coach's tree or legacy of coaching disciples, the vast major of such sections amount to some combination of synthesis, original research, and cruft. As such, I've culled over 800 such sections from bio articles for football coaches and left just 54, while identifying about 40 of the culled as possible candidates for inclusion, provided good sourcing can be found; see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coaching trees. There are smaller number of such coaching tree sections on bio articles for college basketball coaches, e.g. Todd Lickliter, Andy Kennedy (basketball), Chris Collins (basketball). I suspect the vast majority of these fall in the cruft bin. We are hoping to extended the consensus reached at WikiProject College football to other sports project and establish a site-wide policy on coaching trees. Please let me know your thoughts here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Tree littering. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Southland Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues has been nominated for discussion

Category:Southland Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 in the tournament template boxes

Now that 2019-2020 season has been cancelled before the D-I and D-II college tournaments could be played, their tournament navigation boxes currently show the year 2020 with strikethrough as 2020. This seems appropriate, as those tournaments never started. There were tournaments that started, but were suspended and then cancelled, such as the Big Ten, and the D-III tournament. The strikethrough does not seem appropriate, but rather either italicized or with an asterisk could be used. A third alternative might be no special formatting, such as the strike-shortened 1994 baseball season in the MLB navbox, or with notes added to the navbox, such as for the 1942 Rose Bowl played at Duke Stadium. Group29 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I would support a strike-through for tournaments that had been cancelled, while no strike through for ones that had begun but were then cancelled. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree with both Group29 and Editorofthewiki. Strikethroughs are most certainly appropriate for tournaments that began but never finished. They have no champions nor MVPs, and consequently no teams earned berths into the NCAA Tournament from them. For all intents and purposes, those conference tourneys never happened. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    The tournaments still happened even if they were cancelled. There just wasn't a champion. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    If there is a precedent, I would concede your point. However, there are some compelling precedents already stated in the paragraph above. The events in in these articles most certainly occurred, but without the customary outcome. This makes them among the most notable in the whole series. Also, per the manual of style, good articles should not have red links, the articles should be created first, not left for later. That's actually what drew my attention to the templates. Group29 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    Welcome by the way, and see the User:71.56.244.35 for a more formal welcome. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Listed colleges in bios' infoboxes

If a person attended a college but never played a regular season game there, should that school get listed in the infobox? There is a dispute at LiAngelo Ball, who only played one preseason game at UCLA before leaving.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, list. This was an interesting problem to contemplate. LiAngelo is neither listed in the career statistics, nor letter winners in this current year UCLA Bruins 2019-2020 Media guide. Also, the Cal State LA exhibition game is not listed in the media guide, so that issue cannot be used as a reference. The media guide for his season could be used. He did have a notable, but dishonorable, college career at UCLA, which definitely is covered in the article itself. I racked my brains and Google to come up with some kind of precedent, such as any other player who had suited up. It's almost like an actor who rehearsed for a play, but then was replaced after one show. Even that is a tricky metaphor because perhaps we are questioning the legitimacy of the exhibition game. In the end, I decided that because he had suited up and played in competition in front of an audience as a Bruin, then he was. Group29 (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
That opens a whole can of worms. No program adds players who never appeared in a regular season or postseason game to their media guides' all-time rosters lists. Just because LiAngelo played in a preseason exhibition game does not means he participated at the varsity level where games' wins and losses actually mattered. Effectively, LiAngelo never played for the school; which has been the precedent WP:CBBALL adopted and employed for over 10 years now. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No it’s well established consensus that teams that played a real game for (one that counted) doesn’t appear in the infobox. This has always included colleges. Enes Kanter being a prominent recent example, but also Connie Hawkins, Roger Brown and many others. Rikster2 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rikster2 for the examples, Enes Kanter and Connie Hawkins are the most compelling arguments for no list. None of the ones you listed ever suited up and played with the varsity team, right? Group29 (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Neither did Ball officially (season stats). That’s the point - the school doesn’t count him as a player in that team because exhibition games aren’t real games. He doesn’t qualify for the UCLA Bruins player category because those categories specifically require a player to have appeared in a real regular season or postseason game - not preseason games. Why would we have internal inconsistency on this? The circumstances of his time at UCLA are well documented in the article so it’s not like this information is being hidden. Rikster2 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, per long-standing precedent. Ricky Ledo comes to mind. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I tend to lean towards voting no here, considering that LiAngelo isn't even included in Category:UCLA Bruins men's basketball players. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I give another example. Carlton Bragg Jr. transferred to Arizona State but never played for them. I tend to think no myself. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Bundled CfD – 2020 postseason tournament participants categories

I've nominated the following categories for deletion:

The discussion can be found here. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CfD: Conference tournament articles

An editor has proposed removing the word "Conference" from conference tournament articles (i.e. articles like 2019 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament). Right now, this proposal only affects the Big Ten, but this could trigger wide-sweeping changes for the naming of other conference tournaments as well if it is successful and moves forward. Please see here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mystery </ noinclude> tag

Has anyone else noticed that a has appeared at the start of all team seasons? Not sure where its coming from or how to get rid of it. Any help is appreciated! Swimmer33 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been resolved. Thanks to anyone who fixed it silently! Swimmer33 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding 2020 NCAA Tournament in infoboxes

Recently, an editor started adding "2020" as an appearance by a whole lot of teams. The mess has been reverted en masse, but there remains one; Gonzaga, with this edit. Gonzaga won their tournament and by that they won an appearance in the 2020 NCAA tournament, even if it didn't happen. How should we handle this? Should teams that won their conference automatic qualifier have it noted on their team pages or not? It's obvious, of course, that since no Selection Sunday happened, any other team (even ones extremely likely to be selected) should not have it. But what of the automatic qualifiers which were won? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the tournament didn't happen so we should not say that any teams were participants, even if they would have been. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. You can’t have appeared in a tournament when there was no tournament. And there is no definitive list of who “made it” and who didn’t since a bracket was never released. May not matter for high seeds, but just shows you can’t produce a definitive list. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
You can still specify conference tournament winners. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Right - there is even a section for that. Rikster2 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems that an IP added that the NCAA tournament was cancelled to a lot of bios' coaching record tables.[4] While it's true, which coaches do we put the note in? If only some, what is the criteria?—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • None. It implies the coach would have made it to the tournament. Nobody made it to the tournament because Selection Sunday never happened. I could see an alternative where the box for post season would be grayed out. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I saw a few boxes that just read postseason cancelled. I thought that was fine and put it on a few coaches' pages while going through updating end of year stuff. I think that leaves it fairly open ended and covers multiple tournaments.Swimmer33 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Since the selection never occurred, they could all be left blank, as Mick Cronin's is now. Group29 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I've invited 162.223.105.163 (talk) here, as they have added the cancellation back to Cronin and some other coaches.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates

Seems that many colleges stopped publishing player's birthdates, presumably for privacy reasons. While they are still college players, what are reliable sources for birthdates? For example, I see that Chris Smith (basketball, born 1999) listed birthdate is same as RealGM.com and SBNation.com. I generally don't use those sites for prose, as I believe there are always more established sources, but what about for birthdates? Do we trust that they reliably get them from public records or ask the player?—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RealGM is probably reliable for birthdates. They them blank in a lot of cases. They are not reliable for birthplaces, which is why they renamed that field to hometown/birthplace since it can be either. Rikster2 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

David Edwards

We had article for early 90s Texas A&M star David Edwards, which was deleted in 2017; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Edwards_(basketball). He has just sadly died of coronavirus; see https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28945171/ex-texas-guard-david-edwards-dies-battling-coronavirus. Perhaps we should revisit his notablity? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support undeleting to draft. Another article I'm trying to get undeleted is Nick Babb (which I nominated for deletion, mind you) who has played professionally in Germany. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:CBB yearly record start

We have an ongoing issue with a new heading caption at Template:CBB yearly record start that could use some more input from folks here. Please see the talk page of that template. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue had now been generalized into a broader RFC, which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#RfC on table captions. This has wide-ranging implications for this and other sports projects. @Rikster2:, you should definitely take a look at this. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

All-America article pictures

All - I have been playing around trying to see if I could come up with a format to add a picture collage to the yearly All-America team articles. I think it would be a nice addition if we could figure out a layout that would look aesthetically pleasing if possible. Anyone able to help? I have been trying to play with the options at Template:Multiple image and Template:Photo montage.

My attempts are below (used Winston to show 5 players)

Members of the 2020 Consensus All-America first team. Clockwise from upper left: Garza, Powell, Toppin and Pritchard (not pictured: Howard).
The 2020 consensus first team. Clockwise from top left: Toppin, Garza, Winston, Pritchard, Powell.

Anyone have a better way to do it and thoughts about placement to maximize different screen types? Or is it just a bad idea? If seen some nice looking montages for cities and countries so wonder if something could work here. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it is a good idea. I think the difference between this and city montages is that the city pics are often several combined into one. I'm not the most tech savvy, but I think this could work in theory. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 consensus first team. Clockwise from top left: Toppin, Garza, Winston, Pritchard, Powell.
  • Here's {{multiple images}} with 5 images, and more uniform heights that the montage template (maybe it's fixable). The editorial decision when there are 5 images is which 2 players to pick to show up bigger than the rest. Toppin and Garza work this year since they both got POY awards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please take part in a preliminary discussion about revising WP:NCOLLATH

Discussion found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Revisit WP:NCOLLATH?. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Impact of Louisville's vacated wins on Western Kentucky

MHS1976 has made several edits to Western Kentucky Hilltoppers basketball articles related to Louisville's vacated wins from the 2011–12 through 2014–15 seasons. My understanding is that when a team vacates a win, this no impact on their opponent's record. A loss is still a loss for for the loser, even though the victor has vacated their win. MHS1976 has edited Western Kentucky Hilltoppers basketball, 2011–12 WKU Hilltoppers basketball team, 2012–13 WKU Hilltoppers basketball team, 2013–14 Western Kentucky Hilltoppers basketball team, and 2014–15 Western Kentucky Hilltoppers basketball team to suggest that Western Kentucky has vacated their loses to Louisville. I am quite certain this is incorrect. NCAA records and Western Kentucky's media guide still regard these games as losses for Western Kentucky. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories, which applies to all sports. Can others weigh in here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Vacating a game has the effect of erasing the game, as if it never happened. Take a look at the Louisville team pages for the affected years to see how vacating is supposed to be noted.MHS1976
The Louisville articles correctly note the vacation of their wins. But Louisville's opponents do not vacate their loss. What about the NCAA records and Western Kentucky's media guide that I linked above? Or Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories, which states "The NCAA prescribes different treatment for vacated wins or contests depending on whether the affected match was a regular season game or took place during a tournament or bowl. In most cases, the win is stricken from the penalized team's official record, but the opponent retains the associated loss"? Or articles for other teams that lost to Louisville in the years in questions, e.g. 2013–14 UConn Huskies men's basketball team? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I stand corrected. After further research you are right. It does not make sense that the win by the cheating team is vacated but not the loss by the opponent, but it is not unusual for the NCAA not to make sense.

Wink Bowman

This very short article has a big issue- 1 The name and its info box. Both are based on a blogspot blog. Blogspot blogs fail as a reliable source because they are self published. If you check out the blogspot blog it says its source is....get this.... Find a Grave fails as a reliable source. Where is the find a grave info originally from? A paid obituary. Also failing WP RS

2- The info box where the birthday and place and death and everything are based on the blogspot-FAG link-paid obituary. So is the name Wink Bowman! Basketballreference, which is a rs, has the name for the basketball player as Al Bowman. Other than his one year stat line of pro basketball, there is no other info on this person from basketball reference.

Could Wink Bowman be Al Bowman? There is no proof for it I see. May I point out the Bill Henrystory where someone claimed to be him. The creator of the Bowman article is retired. Any thoughts? I'm inclined at the moment to rename the article AL Bowman and rip out the Wink stuff because it isn't reliably sourced....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a Wink Bowman playing for Hammond Ciesars in thr NBL mentioned in this 1941 newspaper clip.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about college info box

Question about college info boxes. Are we to add both schools if the individual played for 2 schools? Or even 3?? Or just the last school the individual played at? S882019 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

it’s all the schools as long as they have played at least one regular season game for each (example) Rikster2 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
So in other words, we don't list schools if they never played but did attend, for instance LiAngelo Ball. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is football done differently? If so why?? S882019 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Texas Longhorns men's basketball statistical leaders

I came across this article at NPP and my first thought was to nominate it for deletion on WP:GNG/WP:LISTN grounds (as it's sourced only to the Texas media guide) or WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTDIRECTORY grounds. There looks to be a fair few of these articles and a spot check shows they're being created by one specific user.

A search of professional US sports shows some but not all teams have records pages of varying degrees of cruftiness, usually using only a single source for the online sports references which would seem to violate WP:NOTSTATS as well. (I also spot checked football because it's the sport everyone loves to hate and the Liverpool F.C. records/statistics page is actually very well done.) Wondering what the correct move here is. SportingFlyer T·C 04:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For reference I think you are referring to soccer FL List of Liverpool F.C. records and statistics.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I actively update US college football stats leaders pages during and after that sport's season. While the primary sources for all such pages are the schools' respective football media guides, they reflect what the NCAA uses. In fact, the NCAA maintains a pretty comprehensive statistical database for all college athletes, including key statistical numbers relevant to each athlete's sport. (Note that the NCAA isn't the only sanctioning organization for college football, but it's by far the largest, and AFAIK the only college teams with stats pages here are NCAA teams.) — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with these articles, unless it is preferred to merge into the main team articles. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there's more of a chance of updating these if they're merged into the main team articles. Even pro sports don't have these articles universally, and the clubs that do are only sporadically updated, while having basic information on the main article has a much better chance of being updated. For instance, Memphis Grizzlies accomplishments and records is not a good article and probably violates several things listed at WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Generally the college articles (at least the one's I've seen) are in better shape than the Grizzlies one. That said, I wouldn't be against merging some, provided they don't overwhelm the article - the reason for a spin-off in the first place. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but that may be because most of these are recently created. I'm concerned they won't ever be updated, just like the pro sports stats pages are crufty and fall out of date relatively quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
But WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The discussion should be more about whether we want the article, not the last time it was updated. Incidentally, the Grizzlies' is updated through the 2018–19 season, the last completed season. We generally discourage in-season updates.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't put more than popular career stats of points, rebounds, and assists on the main team page e.g. UCLA Bruins men's basketball#Career leaders. Anything more can either be deleted per WP:NOTEVERYTHING or remain on the separate page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTSTAT applies to "excessive listings of unexplained statistics" which is not what these are, as context is provided. NOTSTAT also suggests that, where stats are lengthy, "the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." Per this reasoning, I think the separate lists are preferable. As this discussion is also relevant to the college football wikiproject, a note should probably be posted there for further input. Cbl62 (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus needed at Talk:NCAA Women's Basketball All-Americans

Calling all pseudo-regular and regular CBBALL editors: @Rikster2:, @Bagumba:, @Editorofthewiki:, @Jweiss11:, @Ejgreen77:, @Cbl62:, @Mjs32193:, @Dale Arnett:, @UCO2009bluejay:

Please weigh in. Thanks! SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is leaning toward not making navboxes at all, but I'd like a little more input from those who haven't chimed in before declaring consensus as such. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Illinois N4C Conference

The Illinois N4C Conference page is long out of date, and some of the info seems to have been incorrect for years. I'm not sure where to begin, though. For starters, how do conference infoboxes normally count associate members? Are they included in the infobox "Members" total? How is the number of "sports fielded" in the infobox defined?

Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 23:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For now, I cleared out most of the infobox fields. Also, should this article even have "Illinois" in the title? I think it should either be at North Central Community College Conference, or simply N4C Conference. Some members are in Wisconsin. Zagalejo^^^ 01:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
From what I can see in the Chicago Tribune, it's been known as the North Central Community College Conference since 1970, so I moved the page there. I don't see the exact name "Illinois N4C Conference" in widespread use beyond what was in Wikipedia. Zagalejo^^^ 06:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to add fields to Template:Infobox basketball biography

There is a request to add coaching wins/losses and win% to this template. Please go to Template talk:Infobox basketball biography#Notable High School Coaches and weigh in on the discussion. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

CBB schedule for non-US leagues

We're about to apply CBB schedules template for Philippine collegiate basketball team articles, commencing with 2019 UST Growling Tigers men's basketball team.

Considering this is a non-US team:

  • In {{CBB schedule start}} – Is it possible to add option to remove "state" in "Site city, state" column name?
  • In {{CBB schedule end}} – Also, a note "*Non-conference game" must be optional since some leagues do not have a concept of "conference" in the first place, so obviously all schedule entries are considered non-conference games.

Thanks. – McVahl (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK if it's parameterized and the default behavior remains the same. (FWIW, the use of {{CBB schedule label}} at the Growling Tigers's page looks inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Avoiding_column_headers_in_the_middle_of_the_table.)—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: re: {{CBB schedule label}} – Almost all NCAA Division 1 team season articles are doing that for previous years, e.g 1982–83 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team#Schedule and results. The template is patterned to that styling. Hmm.. so this violation is already in place for n years? and someone just noticed it only today? – McVahl (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hence, I prefaced with "FWIW". It does drive me up the wall IRL when it's in an Excel and it screws up sorting (and more).—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We should 1) rename site_cityst to site_location and 2) remove anything in the template which violates the accessibility parameters (though it doesn't look like it's a template issue but rather a formatting issue?) and perhaps expand non-conference to game_type. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
About accesibility violation, while unaware of it, I put up {{CBB schedule label}} in other CBB schedule-related docs. I’ll undo my revisions within 24 hours. So.. what is the action on NCAA articles with this violation? Just leave it as is? I hope CBB articles could be coherent as WP:CFB articles in terms of styling. Anyway, thanks for your suggestion regarding site and game type. Seems OK to me. – McVahl (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players at the 2019 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four nominated for deletion

This category (and I assume others of its kind) has been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, feel free join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Category:Basketball players at the 2019 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Need further input on template-protected edit request in Template talk:CBB schedule entry

I am inviting everyone to provide input or comment on edit request in Template talk:CBB schedule entry#Template-protected edit request on 5 June 2020. Thanks. – McVahl (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

High school

I know we've had this discussion for players attending a college but not playing for the team, but what about high schools? Do we list high schools in the infobox if a player never played on the team but went to the school? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I think the only exception would be if they somehow graduated without playing.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Example: Parker Jackson-Cartwright attended Sierra Canyon School but didn't play basketball due to an academic issue. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
His college, Arizona, listed Sierra as his HS,[5] and he graduated there, so I would list it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Call for 1950s All-American articles

All - Over the years we have steadily been building out articles for members of All-American teams and now have articles for all players who have appeared on major All-American teams (consensus plus individual teams that make up consensus) going back to 1960. I recently created Jim Hagan for the 1959 article and have plans to create the last article from that year, Charlie Brown. That will leave us only 8 articles short from completing the 1950s. I was wondering if anyone would like to help create these?

* would complete the season article

Being able to get 100% of the All-Americans for the last 70 years would be a major milestone for the project. I hope that some of you will help see these to the finish. Rikster2 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I think it would be a solid milestone for this WP. My schedule is tight but I'll try to carve out some time for Gene Schwinger. Depending on if I have time I'll definitely sign up for another one or two. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Update - just finished Charlie Brown. 1959 is done (and therefore all years back to 1957). Rikster2 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Did McCoy and Smith. Rikster2 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Finished Schwinger. I'll take Temple Tucker next. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Matheny done Rikster2 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ridley done. Rikster2 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You're making good progress. I promise I'll get to Tucker soon, life is preventing me from devoting a couple straight hours to concentrate on writing a good article at the moment. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ehmann done. 1956 is the only year with redlinks (2). Rikster2 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Temple Tucker done. Not gonna lie that one was a mother to put together. SportsGuy789 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Awesome! I have the sources for Capua lined up, just have to write the article. Not sure that will happen today, though. Rikster2 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you know any editors with subscriptions to birth and/or death registry databases? Tucker has no DOB/DOD info online at all that I could find. Side note, my next article is going to be Ronald Ross to finish out the Chip Hilton winners. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does a link such as{{cbb link|1=1942|sex=men|team=Wyoming Cowboys|title=Wyoming}} link to 1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys men's basketball team instead of 1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team. There should be a way to include a cbb link for a team that doesn't need a men's or women's modifier? I have tried it without the gender parameter and it still includes the "men's" modifier-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the point of it is that a CBB link already links to the program article so even the link (as is) currently links to the Wyoming program article (albeit not directly because it links to the Wyoming Cowboys men's basketball redirect.) However, if someone was to create the article for 42-43, I do not think the cbb link will link to the created season article. Hence my question?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
In the documentation for {{Cbb link}}, it says under |team= that |sex= can be omitted to handle cases like this. However, it's not working that way. The default if |sex= is not specified is "men's". Maybe we introduce a "none" to not add anything?—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I would think that would be an excellent idea. I will add a link to this discussion on the template's talk page.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
now updated, see the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion to amend WP:NCOLLATH

Please weigh in on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal to amend WP:NCOLLATH to include coach guidance. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can folks please weigh in here? Seems like a slam dunk to add at least SOME college coaches to the guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Biography naming convention

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Biography_naming_convention regarding disambiguating basketball biographies.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:College men's basketball head coaches in Missouri has been nominated for discussion

Category:College men's basketball head coaches in Missouri has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Serbian college men's basketball players in the United States has been nominated for discussion

Category:Serbian college men's basketball players in the United States has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football § Sports radio networks - notability guidelines

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football § Sports radio networks - notability guidelines. Raymie (t • c) 00:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Coach bios: gender in lead sentence

For basketball coaches, when and how should gender be listed in the lead sentence. Should it always be mentioned? Is it only mentioned if the coach's gender and their team don't match? Is the gender mentioned as part of their title or as part of the team name? Examples include:

—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it needs to be mentioned. It is typically obvious from the context and it gets clunky. One thing we absolutely should NOT do is only show the gender when it is a women's coach. Rikster2 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Varsity women's basketball programs didn't start until the 1970s. So there's no reason to specify "men's" for coaches (e.g., Phog Allen, Henry Iba, Pete Newell, Phil Woolpert) who coached in an era when there weren't varsity women's programs. Cbl62 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba, I'd go all or nothing. It makes it clear, since gender is usually but not always apparent. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, some women's coaches are men, and it's only a matter of time before a woman is a head coach for men's.—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I continue to disagree. A couple of examples should illustrate the point:
(1) In the pre-Title IX era, there were no varsity women's basketball programs. So, for a coach of that era, e.g., Phog Allen, there is no need to refer to him as the coach of the Kansas "men's basketball team". Context will make this clear.
(2) However, in the post-Title IX era, disambiguation is needed. For example, take the case of Geno Auriemma. The opening sentence currently (and appropriately) refers to him as as "the head coach of the University of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team." Striking "women's" from the opening sentence would create ambiguity and confusion.
Context should dictate whether it is appropriate to specify that a person coached the "men's" or "women's" basketball team, and a blanket "all or nothing" rule that sex must be excluded from (or included in) the opening sentence of basketball coaching articles is ill-advised. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba it should be all or nothing there are men's specific pages for 1955–56 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team, and 1932–33 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team. Shouldn't that dictate that men's coaches should follow that format as well.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I lean toward Cbl62's position here. Consider also the naming scheme of the yearly NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournaments at Category:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament. There "Men's" is introduced only in 1982 when the analogous women's tournament began. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
IMO the existing naming scheme for pre-Title IX teams violates WP:COMMONNAME. Again using 1955–56 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team as an example, the "men's" part of the title is unneeded for disambiguation (as there was no "women's" team in that era), and the team was not commonly (if at all) referred to at that time as the Kansas "men's" basketball team. A bit late to change the team naming convention at this point, but let's not extend the anomaly by forcing editors to needlessly refer to Phog Allen as the coach of the Kansas "men's" basketball team. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME also says: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Not all readers are well versed on the timeline of women's basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Gender wording

Let's put aside when we would specify gender (whether it is always done or based on some criteria like timelines, etc).

In the cases where it is accepted that gender should be specified, is there a preference for specifying the lead sentence for a current position as:

  • is the basketball coach for the North Carolina Tar Heels men's team
  • is the men's basketball coach for the North Carolina Tar Heels

Other suggestions?—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd support "head coach of the North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team". Cbl62 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Module:College color

There is a discussion going on about Module:College color that this project may be interested in; please see Module talk:College color#Proposal:_Migrate_to_Wikidata and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Migrate_college_color_data_to_Wikidata. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RM discussion at Chris Mullin

All - There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August 2020. Please feel free to join in if you are so inclined. Rikster2 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Coaching stints in bios' infoboxes

FYI

You are invited to join a discussion which involves the possibility of adding school mascot names to coaches' career histories in their infobox at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#College_coaching_stints_in_bio_infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal:Add past conference affiliation to college basketball team article infobox

In updating articles, I have found it strange that college basketball program articles don’t show former conference/level affiliations. I think adding this to Template:Infobox college basketball team would be a great help, especially when programs have moved divisions, etc. Template:Infobox college football team has a field called “pastaffiliations” which gives space for this. For simplicity’s sake I propose adding this field to Infobox college basketball team. This feels like key information for basketball programs. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So you propose we have a field where we list all the previous conferences a team has been in? Shall we list the divisions, for conferences that have eliminated them? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit dispute at List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game

Would like this project's input on the article's talk page please. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

SWAC POY AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (Grambling State basketball)

SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple head coaches in Template:Infobox college sports team season

I've proposed adding formal support for interim head coaches to {{Infobox college sports team season}}. Feedback appreciated at Template talk:Infobox college sports team season#Multiple head coaches. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this currently a problem? I've seen season articles with multiple coaches. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Editorofthewiki, somewhat, yes. You have to manually add them as a list within the head_coach parameter, so if you want the "Nth season" code you need to also add that manually instead of using the parameter. It's not ideal, and it gets really awful if there are multiple coaching changes in a year, which has happened at least once and probably more than once. Mackensen (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
OK then, I'm in favor of having a better version for multiple coaches. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players by city or town in the United States has been nominated for discussion

Category:Basketball players by city or town in the United States has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players from New York City

Category:Basketball players from New York City was created today. In the past we have had CfD discussions not to have city-specific "basketball players" categories (except Washington DC which essentially functions as a state). Just wanted to pulse the project to see if there is still an aversion to these categories. Rikster2 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing there is some general non-sport specific practice on this, so a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS from basketball wouldnt necessarily override it, if there is one. FYI, the last CfD is at wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Basketball_players_from_specific_cities.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiConference North America

Hey all! I am planning on having a WikiConference North America sports panel December 12 3:00 EST. This is something that has never been done before and there are many sports which are "native" to North America and part of the America identity. What it seems to be is that we (you, me, and other members of WikiSports) will be in a Zoom (or other video conferencing app) to discuss our experiences in editing sports on Wikipedia. These can range from combating vandalism to how to best get permission to use sports photos. The organizers of WikiConference North America (WCNA) created an Etherpad surrounding planning which I will link here. if you Command F "sports" you will find the section. This will be the very first panel WCNA has ever had on sports so not much to go off of here.

Please ping me if you have questions as this page is not on my watchlist. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed in 2020–21 Coastal Carolina Chanticleers men's basketball team that there are several links to WP:Crystal in the game section. Does this violate the section of WP:Link "Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself"? Should these be removed?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like these appear on lots of other 2020–21 college basketball season articles that were created by User:Bsuorangecrush as well. Yes, these links should be removed. Those fields should simply be left blank until the game happens. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
What links are we talking about? I'm confused.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's related to this change at Template:CBB schedule entry reqested on its talk page by McVahl in June 2020. Maybe they can comment on the introduction of "to be determined" along with the link to CRYSTAL.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Still have no clue how that relates to anything I’ve done. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's unrelated to you.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Since it said it appeared on “lots” of articles I’ve created I thought it was saying I was doing something wrong, even though I’ve been creating atricles the same way for a decade. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Bsuorangecrush, I see it's embedded in the template's code. It's not anything you've explicitly entered. Sorry for the confusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox Look at the testcases for example of complete removal of "to be determined". @UCO2009bluejay: Are you ok with complete removal (and not just the link)?—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I don't really know about it, I rarely create CBB articles. I was only asking the question and looking for expert opinions on the matter because it looked odd to me. You're the expert. But if it has to have a discussion to change the format count me in.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am sleep deprived. It looks good though.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "to be determined" altogether from the template. It was originally changed based on WP:SILENCE, but there is only opposition now from those who have commented here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

2020-21 articles

Hi. As the 2020-21 season has already begun for most teams, many team articles, including top 25 teams remain redlinks. Just looking for some help in starting the articles. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I will get to some when I can, i've been busy lately. The following links can be used to see conference standings and all the red links that need articles. In the past we have had articles for all men's and women's teams so we are significantly behind.
2020–21_NCAA_Division_I_men's_basketball_season#Conference_standings
2020–21_NCAA_Division_I_women's_basketball_season#Conference_standings
Mjs32193 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm looking to help out where possible but I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. I created a draft for the AmEast 20-21 season - is there anything else I need to do to get it published or does it automatically go to the appropriate approver? Also, is there any formal declaration of who's working on specific pages or is it just based on the current pages/drafts? Thanks! -jmc (Kirby661) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

CfD notice - team broadcaster categories

All team-specific NCAA conference broadcaster categories are up for CfD (as well as MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA). If you have a POV on these categories, feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Team broadcaster categories. Rikster2 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Module college color

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_28#Module:College_color that editors of this project may be interested in participating in.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The current practice for college basketball navbox's is to allow italics for NCAA final four appearances and bold for NCAA championships. Since in the early days (pre-1956 when the NCAA began granting automatic bids to conference champions) the NIT was generally recognized as the equivalent or better than the NCAA, I think we should allow pre-1956 NIT semifinal appearances to be italicized and pre-1956 NIT championships to be bolded. I have noticed that on some templates already are bolding non-NCAA "championships" such as Helms and Premo-Porretta, I think it would be appropriate to provide similar recognition to early NIT accomplishments, since many recognized the NIT champion as the "national champion" prior to the mid-1950s, as long as the navbox clearly indicates that pre-1956 NIT semifinal and championships are also being recognized. Winning an early NIT I believe has more credibility than a Helms and Premo-Porretta "championship".

Are there any objections?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MHS1976 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Strong objection. Helms and Premo-Porretta national champions, while retroactive, are considered legitimate NCAA champions and recognized as such by the NCAA. The NIT champions of yesteryear are not formally recognized as the national champions, only the schools who won them think of them that way ('officially' speaking). Not only that, the Western Kentucky navbox, where this conversation originated, was trying to put NIT Final Four appearances in there, which definitely isn't a thing. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support (Nominator of discussion already made opinion known, cannot !vote twice. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)). I have also seen NAIA recognition in NavBoxes, early NIT accomplishments are certainly more worthy of highlighting than NAIA.MHS1976 (talk)
  • NAIA is a classification of athletic competition, not a single year-end tournament. Completely apples to oranges having won a national championship based on classification versus winning just one postseason tournament of which there were competing tournaments within the same classification. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Still waiting for a rebuttal to why the NIT and NCAA/NAIA Tournaments aren't apples to oranges. Guess there isn't one... SportsGuy789 (talk)

Can we please get some others' inputs here? This needs a consensus. @Rikster2:, @Bagumba:, @Bsuorangecrush:, @Jweiss11:, @UCO2009bluejay:, @Editorofthewiki:, @Ejgreen77:

  • No bolding/italicizing NIT. There is dispute about if the NIT was ever considered a national title and if so when that ended. It has never purported to be a national title mechanism, which the NCAA tournament always has. Personally, I'd be OK with not recognizing Helms or Premo either. I'd be open to recognizing NIT championships with some other type of coding, but wouldn't try to distinguish between those that supposedly were equivalent to NCAA titles and those that aren't. To me that is an exercise in Wikipedia:Original research. Rikster2 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Just as an example of how little agreement exists on NITs as national titles, the first editor says they should be considered on par with NCAA Titles until 1956, but BYU claims a "national championship" in 1966 based on their NIT title. Here is the problem. They finished second in the WAC to Utah that year. Utah went to the NCAAs, where they lost in the Final Four to eventual champions Texas Western. So there is no solid line as to when an NIT was considered "on par" with the NCAAs. We cannot arbitrarily create one. As I said, the NIT has never claimed to be a means to a national title. Rikster2 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Additional Information It is not my opinion that the early NIT was on par with the NCAA, but is generally recognized by sports historians. The NIT started a year before the NCAA tournament. For several years after the NCAA began, the NIT was considered to be the premier college basketball tournament and some schools would opt to go to the NIT instead of the NCAA. It is generally recognized by sports historians as being on par with the NCAA through the mid 1950's, when the NCAA offered automatic bids to conference champions and expanded the number of teams in the tournament. This is when the NIT was relegated to being a second trier tournament. Not acknowledging early NIT accomplishments as equivalent to NCAA accomplishments is historically inaccurate and gives the impression that the NIT was always a "consolation" tournament, which it was not. Please see https://www.sportshistoryweekly.com/stories/march-madness-ncaa-nit-college-basketball,697 I do not think this is a major change in practice since numerous other accomplishments (including subjective, after-the-fact "championships") are permitted in the Navbox. MHS1976 (talk)
    • I am saying there is disagreement among historians about when they stopped being on par, if they ever were. 1956 is not a date that is shared by historians. And no, not shading NIT championships on a Wikipedia template is not a travesty. I'd argue that trying to highlight NIT finishes BELOW a title goes against sports historians. Nobody ever writes about NIT runner-ups. Just so you know, I've probably read over 150 books on the history of the sport. I know the field used to be as strong or in some cases stronger than the NCAA tournament. That doesn't give these results historical significance on par with acknowledged championships. Even when Ned Irish and co. started the NIT in 1938 it was never meant to decide a champion. Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The only grey area in the decline of the NIT is whether it was 1955 or 56 when it was no longer a contender with the NCAA. 1956 the NCAA gave conference champions automatic bids, that coupled with the expansion of the NCAA caused the quality of teams going to the NIT to decline. By the end of the 50's the NIT was firmly established as the second rate tournament, apologies to BYU, but no one considered the NIT champion the National champion in 1966.MHS1976 (talk)
        • Please cite independent reliable sources to back this claim up. Confirmation that the NCAA made a change to the way teams were invited into the NCAA does not constitute this, you need reliable sources that indicate the NIT was considered on par with a National title before a certain date and then this was no longer the case after. This can certainly be in the form of historical sources looking back and making that point specifically (more than one, though please). And I will again say that NIT final four participants have never been held up as on par with the NCAA Final Four so you’d need to back up any assertions you have to the contrary on that as well. Rikster2 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Agree, we need to see reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that it's WP:DUE to highlight NIT semifinalists for a particular era. NCAA titles and Final Four for early era are shown for completeness, not so much becuase they are on par with the modern era's signficance. Considering the NIT opens up Pandora's box for other mythical championships. We need objective criteria if that is going to happen. My guess is individual fans of teams probably tailor their respective navbox to glamorize the team. See Template:Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball navbox's includion of "Helms and Premo-Porretta national championships". On the other hand, Template:Utah Utes men's basketball navbox does not show their 1947 NIT title, only their 1944 NCAA.—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
          • FWIW, the Helms and Premo-Porretta championships are listed on every single team navbox who won them, not just on Kentucky's. As I mentioned above, Helms and P-P have been established as legitimate retroactive national championships by a number of sources and the dispute with them would not be the same as the MHS1976's claim that NIT championships and NIT FF appearances are equal to that. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Here are some references that acknowledge either the supremacy or parity of the early NIT with the NCAA:

Miller, Ralph (1990). "Ralph Miller: Spanning the Game." Sagamore Publishing LLC. p. 56. ISBN 0915611384. "Had the Aggies lost one, we would have been forced to have a playoff, and that was the problem. We had already accepted a bid to play in the [1954] National Invitation Tournament (NIT). The tournament picture was much different then. There was no announcement of NIT teams following the selection of the NCAA field as exists today. The reason was that the NIT was still considered a premier tournament."

Davies, Richard O. (2007). "Sports in American Life: A History." Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated. p. 155. ISBN 9781405106474. "In 1938, [Ned] Irish invited 16 [sic] teams to compete in a new tournament that he called the National Invitation Tournament (Temple defeated Colorado 60-36 in the final), and it would be the premiere college basketball event for more than a decade. The following year, the NCAA responded by creating its own tournament, but it did not surpass the NIT as the premier postseason tournament until the 1950s."

Peeler, Timothy M. (2010). "NC State Basketball: 100 Years of Innovation." University of North Carolina Press, The. p. 66. ISBN 9780807899700. "Despite winning the crown, the Red Terrors did not have a chance to play in the 1947 NCAA Tournament. Before the league's event began, NC State's newly named athletic director Jon Von Glahn was offered the chance to play in the NCAA Tournament, contingent on [Everett] Case's team winning the league tournament. Instead he chose a spot in the more prestigious National Invitation Tournament.

Chansky, Art (2006). "Blue Blood: Duke-Carolina: Inside the Most Storied Rivalry in College Hoops" Macmillan. p. 113. ISBN 0312327889. "The NCAA Tournament field had fluctuated between 22 and 25 teams since 1953, during which time the National Invitation Tournament remained prominent and, in the Northeast, actually bigger.

Augustyn, Adam, ed. (2011). "The Britannica Guide to Basketball." Rosen Education Service. p. 17. ISBN 1615305289. "New York City basketball writers organized the first National Invitation Tournament (NIT) in 1938, but a year later the New York City colleges took control of the event. Until the early 1950s, the NIT was considered the most prestigious U.S. tournament ..."

Roth, John (2006). "The Encyclopedia of Duke Basketball." Duke University Press. p. 272. "During its early years the [NCAA] tourney was overshadowed by the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) in New York."

Glickman, Marty (1999). "The Fastest Kid on the Block: The Marty Glickman Story." Syracuse University Press. p. 75. ISBN 0815605749. "The first big tournament I covered was the 1946 National Invitation Tournament, the NIT, at Madison Square Garden. It, not the NCAA, was the big college basketball tournament in those days.

https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-march-madness
2. The NCAA tournament used to take a backseat to the NIT.
The National Invitation Tournament, or NIT, which predates the NCAA tournament by a year, was once considered the preeminent college basketball event. It was especially attractive to teams that wanted the media attention of playing at Madison Square Garden in New York.

http://collegeinsider.com/3-lesser-known-facts-about-the-ncaa-march-madness
3- NIT vs NCAA
It might interest you to know that the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) was once considered more prestigious than the NCAA Tournament. The NIT originally fielded 6 teams and was played at Madison Square Garden. Playing in the NIT meant that college teams would get more media attention.

http://www.thecardinalconnect.com/brief-history-louisville-nit/#.YAHXchZOnD4
And believe it or not, ages and ages ago the National Invitation Tournament was considered more prestigious than the NCAA Tournament.

https://www.sportsrec.com/invitational-tournament-6322694.html
The National Invitational Tournament, or NIT, is a basketball tournament established in 1938, a year before the start of the NCAA men's basketball tournament. It carried significant prestige for many years and rivaled the NCAA tournament.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2018/3/11/17103916/nit-tournament-ncaa-history-selection-rules-requirements-locations
How old is the NIT?
It was founded in 1938, a year after basketball inventor James Naismith founded the NAIA tourney (which, these days, is essentially the top tourney for non-NCAA college teams).
The NIT was college hoops’ biggest deal for decades, offering trips to New York City with fewer stupid rules than the NCAA’s tourney. College hoops then became downright college football-y in its debates over which tourney winner should be considered the actual champ.

https://basketball.fandom.com/wiki/National_Invitation_Tournament
During the NIT's first 15 years or so, the winners were hailed as National Champions by some

https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/the-nit-was-awesome-until-the-ncaa-ruined-basketball/83025/
Ray Meyer, the head coach at DePaul, noticed the demeanor of Ohio State’s players and pulled aside their coach to let him know that they could have the NCAA slot. He’d rather send his Blue Demons to the National Invitation Tournament.
[The NIT] was a national championship. It was Madison Square Garden. It was the mecca of college basketball.

https://www.sportshistoryweekly.com/stories/march-madness-ncaa-nit-college-basketball,697
Hosting its games at New York City’s prestigious Madison Square Garden (MSG), the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) was historically a more glamorous basketball event than the NCAA’s post-season tourney known today as 'March Madness'. Though, by the 1970’s, that hierarchy would flip and the NIT would drop to second class status.

http://www.ncaa.org/static/champion/a-brief-history-of-mens-college-basketball/
Seven schools are implicated in a point-shaving scandal in which players were offered bribes to fix games. Most notably, The City College of New York and Kentucky are involved. In the aftermath, CCNY and three other New York-based schools never return to prominence, and the NCAA tournament usurps the New York-based NIT as the nation’s pre-eminent postseason contest.

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/National_Invitation_Tournament
The National Invitation Tournament (NIT) is a men's college basketball tournament operated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Played at regional sites and at Madison Square Garden (Final Four) in New York City each March and April, it was founded in 1938 and was originally the most prestigious post-season showcase for college basketball.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/30203/what-happened-nit
An NIT bid wasn’t always a consolation prize, though. The NIT is actually one year older than the NCAA Tournament – Temple routed Colorado to win the first NIT in 1938 – and it was originally an exclusive field that only invited six teams to New York….
What happened to the NIT’s prestige?
The NCAA’s uncanny ability to impose its will on teams and fans was just as potent in the 1950s as it is now. Starting in the 1950s, the NCAA forced any team that won its conference to automatically accept its NCAA Tournament bid. The new rule began the slow process of draining the top teams away from the NIT.
MHS1976 (talk)

  • Comment - Thank you for researching and posting these. While I would say not all of these meet the criteria of WP:RS - for example you really can't use Wikis - it is obvious you did some research and brought back some sources that show the prestige of the NIT in its' early days. Here is what I personally could support - some notation of ALL NIT championship seasons (not just the early ones). The NIT was never a national title designation, it was an event to bring together some of the top teams in the country to see inter-geographic matchups. None of those sources, and none I have ever encountered outside that list - have EVER shown a bright line of when the NIT ceased to be on par with the NCAA Tournament. Wikipedia putting one in place would constitute WP:Original research in my opinion. Therefore, just note all the champs. The good news is that the modern ones will never overlap with Final Fours or NCAA titles. What I cannot support is noting NIT Final Four/runners-up in program infoboxes. There are no sources (including those you posted) who pay any special attention to these teams. So I can support either staying with what we have or changing the guidance to add all NIT champions to the template structure. That's my input. Rikster2 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sorry @MHS1976:, I definitely meant to respond to this way sooner. I agree basically verbatim with what Rikster2 said just above. Maybe denoting NIT champions is a truly notable accomplishment, but that doesn't suggest they should be referred to as "national champions" because they weren't. I also agree with Rikster2 that in no sources anywhere does being in the NIT Final Four or a NIT Runner-up garner special mention. Those are objectively insignificant team achievements. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox basketball biography width

FYI

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox basketball biography#Infobox bodystyle regarding the width of the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it Centenary Gentlemen, or Gents?

Recently 1975–76 Centenary Gents basketball team was created. I started googling, and it appears that Centenary College does call themselves the Gents. Based on third party sources, it's a mix down the middle whether they're being referred to as Gents or Gentlemen.

Does anyone know the actual nickname for their men's teams? SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

College basketball on the Main Page

For those of you creating and expanding high quality basketball content, remember that WP:DYK enables you to display your work on the Main Page. You can submit articles if you have a catchy hook and if the article meets one of the following three criteria: (1) newly created within the past seven days and 1500 characters of prose; (2) former stubs/redirects that have had a five-fold expansion in the past seven days; or (3) designated as a "Good Article" in the past seven days. For inspiration, here are a few recent DYKs featuring college basketball topics:

Cbl62 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 postseason results

It seems like the consensus reached last year was to either leave the 2020 postseason blank or "Postseason cancelled" in infoboxes and coach bios. I notice that a lot of articles today specifically link to the 2020 NCAA tournament article while remarking it was cancelled (coded as #1 below). I feel this implies the team "would have gone" to that tournament had it not been cancelled, which in most cases is WP:CRYSTAL, and even automatic qualifiers were not to be noted as the tournament didn't happen.

I just want to make sure I understand the consensus before fixing articles. What is the preferred notation for the 2020 postseason results?

  1. [[2020 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament|NCAA post season cancelled]]
  2. [[2019–20 NCAA Division I men's basketball season|NCAA post season cancelled]]
  3. [[2019–20 NCAA Division I men's basketball season#Postseason|NCAA post season cancelled]] not much information in this section
  4. [[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports#United States|NCAA post season cancelled]]
  5. Postseason cancelled no link
  6. no text
  7. Other?

Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_basketball/Archive_7&oldid=1258067430"