Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association

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


2016-present: Post-Bryant era[edit]

maybe we should put 2016-2018 on it because there's really no use of having it 2016-present when clearly with LeBron signing the Post-Bryant era is over, they're back as a playoff team. The Speller (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Speller: – "they're back as a playoff team". – Can you see the future? (I mean James could get injured, or even traded, or just retire if he felt like. We do not try and predict the future here) I am not invested in that article, but two seasons hardly make an era in any sport. May I suggest 2016–present: post-Bryant and the LaBron James era or something similar? Yosemiter (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

nah I don't know about that because it won't really look right because LeBron joined in 2018 not in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How about 2013-2018: Missing the Playoffs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 01:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Speller: Because that is inaccurate; it would be 2013–present: missing the playoffs. Anything can happen, we cannot predict the future. So please stop trying to insinuate something that has not actually happened yet. Yosemiter (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

yes, let's please put 2013-present: Missing the Playoffs, because the Post-Bryant era started three years too late, when he got injured in April 2013 the Lakers went down ever since, he wasn't the same after that and the Lakers wasn't good, what's the problem of putting that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 15:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yosemiter's earlier point is that it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as we don't know that they will miss the playoffs in 2018–19 i.e. "–present". Frankly, all these "era" section names sound very amateurish, but I guess it's already littered across most sports articles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

may I suggest putting 2013-present: Missing the Playoffs — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Speller: Personally, I suggest just leaving as is for now. The team has yet to play with James (he could even get injured in the first game and miss the season, we don't know) and we don't know if the team will be defined by his presence yet (even if it is likely). You clearly have some sort of biased views for the Lakers and are trying to redefine the perception of the team away from the neutral point of view (based on your comment "Post-Bryant era started three years too late, when he got injured in April 2013 the Lakers went down ever since, he wasn't the same after that and the Lakers wasn't good", which is the very definition of a non-neutral opinion). No matter your opinion, 2013 to 2016 were still Bryant years, and that team was defined by his very presence, injured or not. Yosemiter (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

yeah but what does that have to do putting Missing the Playoffs 2013-present? it's really still not Post-Bryant era you can ask people, what if they win the championship next year? If anything it could really be 2013-present: Post-Bryant era — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 20:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC) How come we can't put Management problems: The dark ages on 2013-2016? How come it's Management problems and decline — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As Yosemiter suggested earlier, do read (or re-read) WP:NPOV. The tone must be encyclopedic.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

what about on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Lakers the Rebuilding should be 2004-2008 because Pau Gasol didn't join till 2008 in February. Do y'all think putting 2004-2008: Rebuilding and 2008-2013: Return to championship form and 2013-present: Missing the Playoffs is a better option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 21:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's time to start winning Post-Bryant era — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 14:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

2013-2018: Rock bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

on the 2007-2013 do you think putting Bryant/Gasol years instead of duo is a better fit? Because they already have a duo on 1958-1968 West/Baylor. Maybe just having duo on that one only in the article, like not more than once — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

will it be ok for me to find some sources to back it up for the history year 2016-present to have "The Young Core"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 01:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nba.com/lakers/news/180608developing-lakers-young-core

https://lakeshowlife.com/2018/07/14/los-angeles-lakers-young-core-excites-lebron-james/

http://www.espn.com/watch/player?id=22409982&lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's so generic you might as well title it 2016–present: A basketball team. (Also most every team has a "young core" at some point, you'll notice the article don't call it that as a proper noun like "Showtime".)Yosemiter (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Naismith HOFers in team navboxes[edit]

It seems like there's no consistency with team navboxes in listing former team members who are in the Basketball Hall of Fame e.g. they are in {{Phoenix Suns}} but not {{Chicago Bulls}}. Personally, I feel they should not be in navboxes to avoid WP:NAVBOXCREEP by adding every team's navbox to an article, e.g. Shaquille O'Neal played on six teams, Jason Kidd played on five, etc. These navboxes already have the team's retired numbers, who generally had more of an impact a the team, as opposed to HOFer Grant Hill playing one year for the Clippers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Team navboxes should be standardized. I was starting the standardization process back in July 2017 (Template:Brooklyn Nets, Template:New York Knicks and Template:San Antonio Spurs), but after the objections at Template:New York Knicks (1 (although minor, but that is still an objection), 2 and 3) I stopped and even got a "friendly" message on my talk page. I then created a discussion at WT:NBA, but got no good feedback. Now going back to the navboxes, I think that all the titles (Finals, conference and division titles) should be removed. Same goes to Hall of Famers, because that list will grow. However, I am not sure about the "Retired numbers" section since, because while it is relevant, it also just clutters the navboxes with unneeded information and some players already have +10 navboxes in their pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, my experience is that it's generally more effective (but still not full-proof) to deal with one issue at a time (e.g. HOFers), or at least have multiple threads (or subsections).—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Then I suggest we create more sections and discuss it. However, looking at the activity here, I doubt that users would join the discussion. On the other hand, we can always invite them to the discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Actual that one had a decent turnout by this project's standards. Your best bet is to just take the lead, say you propose XYZ, and see if there are any objections, then tweak as needed. You can go off WP:SILENCE in the worst case.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we should remove HOFers. I also think stuff like broadcast teams, Retired numbers and GMs should go too, but maybe that’s a different discussion. The problem we have is that an omnibus team navbox shows up at the bottom of person articles and people have to hunt for why, for example, Tim Kempton has the Suns box on his page or Sam Lacey has the Kings box on his. The boxes are ambiguous. Rikster2 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, general managers, retired numbers, media, division and conference titles should be removed. There are people who have more than 10 navboxes at the bottom of their pages and we do not need to make it more WP:TCREEP than they already are. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Should the GM info be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere, similar to List of New York Yankees owners and executives? I think retired numbers are notable enough for their own standalone pages and navboxes for each team.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: The problem with general managers is that some of them do not have their Wikipedia pages. Listing them in the main team page would be the most logical solution. As for retired numbers, a user at Template talk:Denver Nuggets#Retired numbers has raised this question after I reverted him. I pointed that user to this discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear, I'm OK with GMs being removed from the template. I think the NBA can have lists like List of New York Yankees owners and executives, which is an FL, and have somewhat of a common structure between sports. I doubt I will spend much time on it myself, so if someone wants to put it into the main team page instead, that seems ok too. It could be spun out later if someone wants.
Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of the team navbox having links to sections on the main team page, as the main team page is already linked. Leave them out. The exception would be if some teams have standalone lists, or we envision them being notable enough to eventually be created; an interim link to a team page section would be OK for consistency.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I understood what you meant. The biggest question of having a page for generals managers is the people's will to keep it updated. In my opinion, it would be better to include them in the team's main page by adding a list, and in the future we would see if such lists could be converted to pages. There is also a problem with verifying that some person was a general manager for the team, because not everything is announced and teams' media guides sometimes do not list all the general managers. As for the links to the team's main page in the navbox, please look at Template:Brooklyn Nets, which is my proposed format. The only link that leads to the main page is the "Franchise" link, which should be removed. On the other hand, this, this and this look problematic. There is too much information and about half of it should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Were you still planning to remove or tone down the "Media" section? The best next step might be to take the team with the most traffic, the Lakers, make your proposed changes to Template:Los Angeles Lakers, and see if it gets any reaction after a week. Once any issues are resolved, continue on to other teams.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did. "Media" section should be removed. Same goes for "Retired numbers", "General managers", "Presidents", "NBA Championships", "Conference Championships", and "Division titles" sections. The "Personnel" section should be trimmed down and should only include owner, president, head coach and a link to the roster template (I am not sure to which one at this time). The "Franchise" link in the "Franchise" section should be removed, because the template already links to the main page of the team. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
NBA championships are a pretty big deal. I'd recommend getting the more minor (and less controversial) stuff out, and revisit the NBA titles later if you still think it's not needed. I'd do the same with retired numbers, or at least create new navs for the retired numbers at the same time they are removed from the main nav.—Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of linking to the roster templates, especiallly when the current season link exists, and the current roster is always in the main team page too. It's also strange to jump from article namespace to template namespaces.—Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
While NBA championships might be considered a "big deal" (well that is what they are competing for), but I cannot say the same about the conference or division titles. At least in the navbox they are irrelevant. The only thing that I agree about the retired numbers is that they should be moved to separate navboxes, but that would take time. However, the biggest concern with these navboxes would be the one for the Orlando Magic. They have retired one number so far and that number would not link anywhere, because it is dedicated to the "fans". The bigger problem arises with the Memphis Grizzlies, Toronto Raptors and Los Angeles Clippers who have no numbers retired. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: I placed the revised navbox of the Los Angeles Lakers in my sanbox. Feel free to comment. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────── Here are my comments, which is probably not anything you changed: I think "Retired numbers" should literally only be for retired numbers—not microphones, "honored numbers", other "honors" like the fans, total wins by a coach, etc. I'd say limit the "owner" to the NBA Governor for the team i.e. the one person who represents the team at NBA meetings (Jeanie Buss in Lakers case), who pretty much also gets referred to as the "owner" in reliable sources; get rid of co- and minority owners. Also in this LAL case, Magic is the "president of basketball operations", not the general team president.—Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the retired numbers being the actually retired numbers (no honored numbers, microphones or other honorary listings). I also agree with the situation regarding the president of the team, but that would need some more research since not all teams list their presidents. On the other hand, president and president of basketball operations are sometimes used interchangeably so that would need further discussion on who to list. Now regarding the owners, where can I find the information on who represents each team at the NBA meetings? And I have another question – what about championships? Should ABA and NBA championships be listed in separate rows or in one row (there are two current NBA teams, but this still needs to be addressed)? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
For owners, team media guides are probably the best source. For example, the Warriors list Joe Lacob as being on NBA Board of Governors (see p. 14 of his bio). Though Peter Gruber is a co-owner, the media generally mentions Lacob as the owner, not Gruber nor GSW Sports LLC.—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I was more noting that Magic was incorrectly listed as president when he is president of basketball operations. The reality is that many teams have their own front office structure, and titles like president or even president of basketball operations are not consistently used. An interesting question is when do we list GM vs pres of bask. oper, or both? E.g. the press usually talked about Mitch Kupchak (GM) for the Lakers before but not as much Jim Buss (pres of b.o.), but now Magic gets more press and not GM Rob Pelinka. Same question applies to Template:NBAgeneralmanagers, which sometimes lists both. Basketball-reference.com seems to only pick one (see [1])—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Not all teams' media guides are available online so that would be difficult for determining who to list for some teams. I thought about looking for a list of members of the NBA Board of Governors, but did not find any official listings by the NBA. We could use the NBA media guide (2017–18 NBA media guide) as a source, but even there some positions are not listed. In Template:NBAgeneralmanagers we should list only one person since it is evident that assistant general manager (or any similar formation) is just an assistant to the general manager. Of course there are people who are both president of basketball operations and general manager, but that template is about general managers. The NBA media guide to which I included a link lists Rob Pelinka as the general manager of the Lakers or Artūras Karnišovas for the Nuggets, so they should be the only persons listed in that template. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Re: Template:NBAgeneralmanagers: the template name says GMs, but the navbox's title is currently "Current heads of basketball operations in the National Basketball Association". It's probably more useful to readers to list the "head" instead of just the GM, as long as it's common sense enough to reach an easy consensus on teams.—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is also a note at the bottom of the template, but it does not make sense to list president of basketball operations for one team and general manager for the other team (or both for some teams). It should either be one or the other. The heading itself should be changed to "Current general managers in the National Basketball Association". – Sabbatino (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Just want to point out that the NBA has released a 2018–19 NBA Guide, which might be used as a source. They list the "controlling owner" (if there are two or more owners in the team) or the member who represents the team in the Board of Governors. General managers are also listed. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Update OK, I think I've removed all the HOF listings.—Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I implemented the new format at Template:Los Angeles Lakers and Template:New York Knicks and intend to do it for other teams this week. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: All teams' navboxes have been updated. The only opposition I got was at Template:Cleveland Cavaliers (as usual)... – Sabbatino (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Bagumba that NBA championships are "a pretty big deal"; as such, I think they are too important to remove from the template. I also agree with Rikster2 that broadcasting content "maybe belongs in a different discussion". Personally I support including an optional "Media" group -- why shouldn't List of Cleveland Cavaliers broadcasters or Cleveland Cavaliers Radio Network be included in the {{Cleveland Cavaliers}} template? Team-specific broadcast articles and *current* media outlet partners do not have nearly the same risk of WP:TCREEP as people do, such as former players, coaches, owners, etc. As an active member at WP:WPRS, I can also tell you that it is default-consensus to include a team's template at the station article for the team's radio flagship (similar lingstanding practice for teams from MLB, NFL, NHL, etc.). My only other concern is the unnecessary use of boldface in the newly proposed/standardized "Personnel" group. One last thing: as a frequent contributor at the Cleveland Cavaliers template, I would've joined this discussion weeks ago had I known of it. I was only made aware after Sabbatino edited the Cleveland template two days ago and linked to this project talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 02:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
First of all, the NBA championships were not removed from the template as you implied here. They were kept, while the division and conference titles were removed since they are irrelevant and does not help the reader in any way. Same goes for playoff appearances, which was also removed. We do not need an infodump in team's navboxes (*cough* Template:Cleveland Browns *cough*), which can be seen with the previous format. There is also nothing wrong with the new format in the "Personnel" section. That is the standard listing for many navboxes and just highlights key people or other information. It is easier for others to see key people when those are bolded. The media section is not necessary and not all teams have a separate page dedicated to broadcasters. The other problem with media section is that some of its content (TV channels and/or radio stations) is not verifiable and IPs tend to add information without verifying it. On the other hand, a link to broadcasters can be listed in the "Franchise" section since most of the relevant links are there. In addition, you are not someone special to get a personal notification every time someone edits Cleveland-related pages/navboxes/etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
My mistake on the NBA championships group -- after reviewing Sabbatino's edit on 10/30, he is absolutely correct that he did *not* remove the championships group as I stated (not implied) in my edit summary linked above. I was wrong. You'll have to forgive me for missing something as I'm playing 6 weeks of catch-up in this thread. As for the Browns template, I'm not sure what that has to do with the NBA Wikiproject (in fact, I've tried to help standardize the NFL team templates in the past at WP:NFL, so the Browns template is more of a reflection of the NFL wikiproject itself than whatever Sabbatino was implying). As for boldface, yes, it's definitely unnecessary (& inappropriate per MOS:BOLD) in the "Personnel" group. But I can ignore that if it helps us arrive at consensus.
My view on the "Media" group may surprise Sabbatino. I'm less interested in keeping an optional media group than with maintaining consistency across the major professional league team templates. If that means limiting the media presence in any given team template to a piped wikilink to [[List of (Team Name) broadcasters]], so be it. I would simply prefer that if team radio networks and/or radio flagship stations and/or local TV partners are eliminated from all the NBA team templates, that the same is done for all the MLB, NFL, NHL, (MLS?), etc., team templates. Remove the media group, and/or remove affiliated media outlets -- let's just be consistent across the major leagues. Otherwise it results in an inconsistent mess in broadcast station articles. Example: it makes little sense to include the {{New England Patriots}} template at radio flagship station article WBZ-FM (and vice versa), and not also do the same for the {{Boston Celtics}} template at WBZ-FM. Again, if we want remove all but a single link to a team's article for its broadcasters, that's fine. Let's just be consistent -- either remove all the media outlets/networks from all teams in all the major leagues, or keep them all. I realize this will involve coordinating with the relevant wikiprojects, but I'm happy to start on this if it means we can finally put this issue to rest. Levdr1lp / talk 15:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Once again you are engaging in an edit war on pages related to Cleveland. What is the meaning of that? Instead of keeping the new format, which was implemented to all the teams' templates (with no objections), you reverted to your preferred version without any explanations. How about keeping the new format for the time being and then revert it if there is no solution? As I already wrote earlier (with the addition of Bagumba supporting the changes), I will have to repeat myself again – "Playoff appearances", "Division titles" and "Conference titles" must go since they are irrelevant and just litter the template with useless information, which does not link to the template. Some of the teams' templates are not even updated until the start or even the middle of the season so all that information is useless. There is a reason why the "Playoff appearances" parameter is not used in the NBA teams' infoboxes as it causes more problems than it solves them. As for the "Media" section, it is not supposed to be the same as in other major sports' templates. "Project X" might use hundreds of templates, while "Project Y" might not use any at all. And the Cleveland Browns' template was one of the examples that popped up to my mind, because I recently asked about changing the teams' templates at WT:NFL and people are in agreement there that those look more than an infodump than an actual navbox, which is supposed to be short and include links only to the most relevant pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Reverting to the last stable version of the {{Cleveland Cavaliers}} template until consensus is reached is not an edit-war. It's WP:BRD. And while that's not policy, it *is* a common way to help generate discussion. A handful of editors in agreement at a Wikiproject talk page regarding content affecting dozens of pages -- without seeking input from regular contributors at those pages -- is not exactly broad consensus. I'm basically deferring to your preferred version to help reach that broad(er) consensus anyway -- *if* we can make an effort to keep media/broadcasting content consistent across all the major professional leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and maybe MLS). Let me reiterate: it doesn't make sense to include the {{New England Patriots}} template at the radio flagship article WBZ-FM, and *not* also include the {{Boston Celtics}} template. Either remove both team templates from the WBZ-FM article (which also means removing WBZ-FM link from both templates), or keep both team templates in the article (and keep WBZ-FM in both templates). I honestly do not care which option we choose (really); I simply want consistency in team templates across leagues from the perspective of broadcast outlets. I realize this will require some effort and coordination and -- quite likely -- further discussion. Clearly the trend in recent years has been to trim down content in team navboxes (removing past coaches and limiting to only current personnel, etc.), and I'm fine with that. I just want basic consistency. I don't care how we get there. Levdr1lp / talk 23:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And I will again repeat that the teams' navboxes of the four major leagues are not supposed to look the same. Is it that hard to comprehend that? Moreover, the new format is not "my preferred version" since Bagumba supported it and nobody else were interested in this discussion, which just make it clear that people do not really care. These 1,000+ rants from your side are not helping since it is clear that the only part of which you are against is the removal of the "Media" section but that is not the reason to revert to the "last stable version". – Sabbatino (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sabbatino, I'm not "ranting", and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't chatacterize my posts as such. I am also fully capable of comprehending you. I think there is consensus for nearly all the changes you want to make -- limited, apparently, to a few editors at this Wikiproject -- but consensus nonetheless. I recognize that. The broadcasting content is somewhat different, however, not because I am unwilling to defer to your preferred version re: Media (and Bagumba's, etc.), but because I have an issue with how your changes will affect broadcast outlet articles. You may not care much about radio or TV station articles, but I do. It's not exactly a stretch to think that if broadcast oulet links do not belong in NBA team templates, then the same also applies for NFL team templates, MLB team templates, etc. It would then follow that, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, team templates do not belong in broadcast outlet articles. Step back from the NBA content for a second and consider things a bit more broadly: does it really make sense to remove the {{Boston Celtics}} template from flagship radio station WBZ-FM, and *not* also remove the {{New England Patriots}} template? I can't stress enough that I'm totally OK with removing broadcast outlet links from all team templates from all leagues, and accordingly, removing all team templates from broadcast outlet articles. I just want to keep sports content consistent from the perspective broadcasting content, just as you want to keep content consistent across NBA team templates. I am willing to join the existing consensus here, strengthen it, and monitor content accordingly. I am just asking for a little cooperation and/or support; there's very little I'm asking you to do, if anything. Like it or not, your changes to NBA team templates will have a broader affect. Levdr1lp / talk 23:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
─────────────── @Levdr1lp: I can sympathize with your dilemma of wishing for consistency. For myself, I've come to the realization over time that some projects end up doing their own thing, and there are some things that seem obvious to me that they could be common, that are not supported by others. Thus, my rule of thumb has become to do what makes sense for an individual project, and hope that other projects will be won over once they see it successfully executed. It's better to be inconsistently good than consistently bad.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Seeing that the opposing user has not reacted for a week, I assume the format can be re-implemented to the Template:Cleveland Cavaliers navbox. Although, I am pretty sure that it would get reverted again by the opposing user so advice is needed on how to handle this situation. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix Suns and WP:EDITORIAL[edit]

Follow up on a previous discussion. Anyone else notice some of the overly redundant phrases and extreme editorial content being added to current Phoenix Suns topics. The user seems to be unresponsive to other users' concerns on User talk:AGreatPhoenixSunsFan or possibly just uncooperative. At what point does it become disruptive when it takes several other editors (@Bagumba: here, @Sabbatino: here, @DaHuzyBru: here, and @Rikster2: here) to keep the one in check? Yosemiter (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally have had to clean up after them for roughly two years now. They tend to fall in the categories of WP:SNYTH, WP:OR and adding trivial and outlandish content to anything Phoenix Suns related. I don't care for the team pages, but it's the player bios that concern me. I'd consider AGreatPhoenixSunsFan a pest – their editing style is very poor and always requires copyediting or a complete re-do. They also seem to think edit summaries are where you make blog posts and talk to oneself... I'd support any drastic action taken. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@DaHuzyBru: Yep, I came across this ridiculousness as well. Yosemiter (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really work team pages, but I get very irritated with this user updating transactions prematurely despite having been around quite awhile and having been told what the consensus is repeatedly. If some sort of administrative action is needed to change this, then fine. This user has a couple of IP addresses they edit under as well. Rikster2 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Serious question- Between this and the Lakers do NBA pages attract more editors who think that Wikipedia is a message board than other sports, or is this just a recent phenomena?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: It seems like the Lakers' problem is just a couple of editors trying to write future history (see the one-way non-neutral editor POV discussion higher up). Her we have an editor making fanboy exaggerated stats, non-neutral opinions, and general trivial updates to everything Suns related. The team season pages take the biggest hits as they are less monitored (see my severe clean up here, here, and here as examples). There have been over 60 edits on the team season page alone over the past week, compared to 7 on the Lakers' season page. It means having to constantly monitor or WP:HOUND a problematic editor, and that should not be necessary if the editor in question was actually open to making this a better encyclopedia instead of their personal pet project. Yosemiter (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: Yes, I gathered that from the discussion. But we don't usually have that problem in the college pages (other than some [eventually prodded] oft page about the editor's cousin.) or from what I can gather from the NFL, and MLB pages. Heck, I'd recommend sending them to ANI if they don't tone it down if they never read... WP:NOT (pun kind of intended)-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

They've had enough warnings regarding writing about breaking news deals that I'd immediately block for that if they repeat. They seem to edit a lot based on SBNation, so maybe we need to reach some agreement on if those are reliable or mostly fanboy amateur postings. Another big issue seems to be their violation of the WP:POLITENESS policy: Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's edits are frustrating since other users need to improve them and he does not make any effort to make them as they should be. Messages in this talk page are ignored and that raises a question if he is in the right place. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: The user (and likely their constantly changing IP) was the reason you protected Jamal Crawford a few days ago as they kept "updating" his team to the Suns based on the "reports", two days before it was confirmed. The user has been given warnings about OR and RSBREAKING since 2012, including multitudes of final warnings, but has yet to actually be blocked at any point. I know blocking should not be used as a punishment, only for protecting the wikipedia, and with their constant IP edits I am not sure it would do anything. Just looking for suggestions, but we all seem to be on the same page about the problems. Yosemiter (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And continues with the editorials, redundant phrases, and "would"s. Is ANI the best place? They also made this transaction edit about an hour before it was official in the transactions. Yosemiter (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Either ANI ("urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems") or WP:AN.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, this IP range is probably same editor given the edit summaries and use of would.—Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The IP recently added breaking news on Tyson Chandler. They've been warned that they cant have good hand/bad hand accounts. Let me know if you see any more speculative edits from them in the future.—Bagumba (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I did notice their main account had gone somewhat quiet (thanks for the IP range info). I have never taken anyone to ANI, so should I here? Yosemiter (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The first question would be what action are you expecting? Block (how long?), topic ban, etc?—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That is the problem I am having. They are clearly editing on Good Faith, but they ignore constructive criticism. Depending on the person (in this case, one whose talk page is filled with "last warnings"), we do not know if a block will do anything at all for when they return. Yosemiter (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The breaking news edits need to stop, and is relatively easy to enforce if it's spotted. The editing style is a bit harder. It's hit or miss getting people to look at diffs on a noticeboard, especially if they are not obvious vandalism, lies, or personal attacks. I think the biggest problem, and perhaps best angle if anything is pursued, is that they dont at least respond to discussions (WP:POLITENESS).—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba and Yosemiter: More of the same here, here and here. WP:OR with career high and season high claims (i.e. not supported by box score ref); using the term "blowout" as a describing word for the scoreline (they have been doing this forever and ever added it retrospectively here); using the edit summary as if they are sending a tweet to the subject. They clearly have no intentions to change their ways or take on the criticism they have been receiving. Still unresponsive on talk page. Bagumba, any grounds for a further block? DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything that was written and he should be blocked for a longer time. However, there is a bigger problem – he has multiple IPs under which edits are made, and for some reason, maybe because of the main account's brief block, they are used more than the master account. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@DaHuzyBru: Aside from obvious stuff here, I'm not going to block here per WP:INVOLVED. Options are to contact an uninvolved admin directly or try WP:AN.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The list of NBA champions table...[edit]

...looks disorganized, and I've been trying to get the blessing to replace it with this (condensed example below):

  Eastern Division/Conference team (from 1949)
  Western Division/Conference team (from 1949)
Year Winning team Coach Games Losing team Coach Ref
2018 Golden State Warriors (WC) (10, 6–4) Steve Kerr 4–0 Cleveland Cavaliers (EC) (5, 1–4) Tyronn Lue

As you can see, this looks much more similar to the champion tables of other leagues, instead of using Eastern v. Western, which didn't even happen the first two years.

I've also developed this alternative to the Appearences table (again, condensed example below):

In the sortable table below, teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by year of first appearance. In the "Years of appearence" column, bold years indicate winning NBA Finals appearances.

Apps Team Wins Losses Win % Years of appearance
31 Los Angeles Lakers[a] 16 15 .516 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010

I want to know your opinion regarding these changes soon.–Piranha249 21:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I would not be opposed to the presented changes, but a table (or a list) is not supposed to be the same as in other pages. You should get rid of the "(EC)" and "(WC)" designations since that does not help if you are going to add colors for division/conference champions and because there is no need to repeat the same information twice. Same goes for the "(from 1949)" in the legend since the colors are going to give that information and people might get confused what the format was prior to 1949. And do we really need to list the winning and losing head coaches? Sometimes less is better and people can always click on the Finals' link and see who were the head coaches of those teams. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess the (EC) and (WC) is for WP:ACCESS so that people who are color blind can know which is from the West and which is from the East. The list is an WP:FL and any changes would have to stand the scrutiny of WP:FLRC. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
We could use * and dagger, or just opt for more intuitive W/E superscripts like Golden State WarriorsW and Cleveland CavaliersE.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I could agree on that compromise. –Piranha249 23:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Would we consider omitting the conference information altogether? That could simplify some things. I think most readers just want to know who won and who lost. Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification I'm also notifying other who have commented on this topic: FatIIar, Lowellian and Karl Malone the Mailman (at Talk:List of NBA champions) and Zagalejo (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 35#List of NBA champions).—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

G League stats in bios[edit]

If a player has played in the NBA, are their G League stats notable enough for a dedicated table e.g. Travis Wear#Career statistics (recently added by Billgatenguyenlobcity)? Seems to be borderline WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT. NBA bios typically have an EL link to basketball-reference.com, which would have a link to their G League stats e.g. Wear's BBR NBA page has a link to his BBR G League page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it given no current consensus to add it here.—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that G League statistics are not notable. Only top league statistics should be listed. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

John Kundla and NBA titles[edit]

A situation has come up at Gregg Popovich's page. Omnibus is stating that John Kundla has won 4 NBA titles despite the NBA crediting him with 5 wins. There is also a source from USA Basketball to verify this claim, but he states that this source is "not reliable". – Sabbatino (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post supports 5: "John Kundla, the Hall of Fame coach who led the Minneapolis Lakers to five NBA championships ... the Lakers won the 1949 championship in the Basketball Association of America — the league that preceded the National Basketball Association — and NBA titles in 1950 and from 1952 to 1954. The Lakers also won a National Basketball League title in 1948, but the NBL marks are not included in the NBA’s records."[2]Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that article should say 4 NBA, 1 BAA title, not 5 NBA. That’s inaccurate, the NBA didn’t exist yet. Rikster2 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Per sources: NBA.com (yes, that is the primary source), Star Tribune, The New York Times, and The Washington Post (already listed by Bagumba). Even in the NBA's record books (2018–19 Official NBA Guide) it is stated that the 1947–1949 Finals are credited as NBA Finals. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
But 1 BAA, 4 NBA is also correct. You can’t be NBA champion if no NBA exists. But I am not going to fight over it. Rikster2 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
This is correct. And for the record I didn't say it was an unreliable source, I said that it is a verifiably inaccurate claim that was made in passing by the source. EDIT: Now that I see the additional sources provided by Sabbatino it does appear that the primary source (NBA) does include the non-NBA championship as an NBA championship so I'm now fine with it. Omnibus (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hustle Award[edit]

Hey guys! I was wondering if the NBA Hustle Award, the inaugural award given to Patrick Beverley in 2017, should be added to the NBA Award info box? It isn’t the most prestigious award but it is something rather worth putting their for the sake of information. Amir Johnson is also a receiver of the award in 2018. Natethenbaman (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Natethenbaman: I asked about this in June 2018, but did not went ahead and create a page for it. The problem with it is that this is a new award (only two people received it so far) and there is not enough independent coverage to create a page for it. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We should make the page before too much people have won the award. It is a rather important award because it has its own stats for it. The "Hustle Stats". I believe it should be on the info box and have a short page. Natethenbaman (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Natethenbaman: Please do not create a new section for this. I merged both sections so keep it in one place. If other people are not interested in this discussion then just be WP:BOLD and create a page for that. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Lakers 1980s[edit]

what about the Lakers edit in the 1980s? I saw one edit before I thought it was really good and it may work cause it had all the imformation about the organzation and team

1979-1991: Dr. Jerry Buss, Coach Pat Riley, and Showtime 1980s - The Magic Johnson era

1980-1991: "Showtime" dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talkcontribs) 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)