Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 15

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


Resolved: Image name now fixed. --—Chris!c/t 01:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the person depicted in File:Toney Douglas cropped.jpg Toney Douglas? Someone removed the image from Toney Douglas claiming that the person in the image is not Douglas. I just want to verify if that is true. A comparison with Douglas's image on Google seems to support that.—Chris!c/t 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that Shawne Williams, maybe? [1] Zagalejo^^^ 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Could be. If the person depicted in the image is in fact Williams, then how do we fix this? I don't know how to fix the image name other than delete and then reupload.—Chris!c/t 22:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. I don't really know if it's Williams, either. Zagalejo^^^ 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's Williams on that picture. In the full picture with Amar'e Stoudemire and Wilson Chandler, they all seems to have similar height (Stoudemire 6-10, Chandler 6-8). Douglas is only 6-2 and Williams is 6-9, so it's definitely Williams in the picture. There is a Template:Rename media but I don't know how to use it since the image is from commons. — MT (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone at commons tagged the image for renaming. So case close I guess. Thanks everyone.—Chris!c/t 06:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's me, but I'm too lazy to register for a commons account so I do it as an IP address. Hopefully the request gets through. — MT (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article collaboration for specific date

I realized today that we're a little over a year away from the 50th Anniversary of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. It is a bit away still, granted, but how does everyone feel about collaborating to make it a main page featured article? It would go live on Wikipedia on March 2, 2012, exactly 50 years to the day from when it happened. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to help out.—Chris!c/t 05:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you think we should wait maybe another 6 or 8 months to start though? I feel like it's a bit premature to be too worried about it right now; I only thought of the idea and wanted to "put it on paper" before I forgot. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to start whenever you want. There is plenty of time left still.—Chris!c/t 06:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing d-league teams in the career history section in Infobox NBA Player

Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we do that? Any thoughts? I have this idea when I read Hamed Haddadi's article.—Chris!c/t 06:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I know in many articles, we have done that already. But my question is: should we use arrow to indicate d-league assignment.—Chris!c/t 06:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've thought the same thing...European and other international teams are included, but those considered professional, while D-League is still semi-pro. Nonetheless, I always thought that they should perhaps be included, but stylized a different way (say in a different color font, or italicized, or something). Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
"Semi-pro" is a term for a team/league that players are only part time. The D-League players are full time, albeit minor league. We should be careful of using the wrong terms and short selling full time professionals.oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking arrows. Just like how in articles of soccer players who are loaned to other teams, an arrow is used to signify that. NBA players on assignment to d-league is similar to that.—Chris!c/t 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • My bad on the semi-pro mix-up thing. I'm actually from Sioux Falls and even back in the day when the Skyforce were in the CBA, "semi-pro" and "minor league" were sort of used interchangeably to describe them, even though they are professionals. But I do like the idea of using arrows to signify assignments. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Chris! suggested I take this up here from Talk:Jeremy_Lin#Presenting_D-League_Assignments_in_InfoBox: The ideal situation is that a reader at a glance can see where a player is currently playing. If he is playing in D-League, the next question is why? Is it because of an assignment or is it because he got cut from NBA? Lets take Jeremy Lin article as an example—he's a Warrior currently assigned to Reno. The Infobox has his current team as Reno, and under teams is listed Golden State Warriors (2010–11) and →Reno Bighorns (2010–present). An NBA player on assignment is still on NBA roster, and that doesnt seem to be readily reflected: the infobox looks like he is some NBA player that got cut and signed on with D-League. His current team is not listed as Warriors, and under team history it is not showing present for Warriors. Well the → is there, but a reader wouldn't know what that means without a key, hover text, actual text, etc. I'm not an avid reader of the soccer articles, so curious how that convention came to be known by readers (maybe I'm making a big deal about nothing). D-League website seems to put (NBA) next to players that are from NBA and has in key "(NBA)-Assigned from NBA team" [2]. Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe for D-League assignments, we can do an indent. Like your example with Jeremy Lin. It has Golden State Warriors listed, but then underneath, make an indentation to list the Reno Bighorns...something like this:
  • Golden State Warriors
  • Reno Bighorns

Just a suggestion to play around with. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestions are:
To do this, the infobox needs a slight modification.
  • The Career history section should shows "→Reno Bighorns (on assignment) (2010–present)".
As said by Bagumba, most of the readers wouldn't know what "→" means.
A player assigned from NBA is still on the NBA roster as well as on the D-League roster. For example, Jeremy Lin is inactive on the Warriors roster and active on the Bighorns roster.
My suggestions here mostly came from the WP:FOOTBALL's infobox because the assignment to the D-League is somewhat similar to the loan deal in football. For example, please see Alexander Hleb. His infobox clearly shows that he is still a Barcelona player who is currently on loan to Birmingham City. — MT (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I like Martin tamb's suggestion. Once this is decided, we can ask User:LOL to modify the infobox.—Chris!c/t 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If we have "assigned" in "No. 17 Reno Bighorns (assigned from Golden State Warriors)" then for naming consistency we should have "assigned" instead of "on assignment" in "→Reno Bighorns (assigned) (2010–present). Also, playing with Coulraphobic123's idea on indenting, would we show
  • Golden State Warriors (2010–present)
  • →Reno Bighorns (assigned) (2010–present)
or without bullet but indent (my vote)
  • Golden State Warriors (2010–present)
→Reno Bighorns (assigned) (2010–present)
Seems to be a lot of parens with the (assigned). Maybe we can go the football infobox direction and have the years in a separate column too (getting greedy)? Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Go the football infobox direction is not a bad idea actually. Note that we can add a key at the end to explain the arrow. Also, indenting is messy imo.—Chris!c/t 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

List question

Resolved: Fixed. --—Chris!c/t 01:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at some NBA lists (NBA All-Defensive Team and All-NBA Team), and I have a question. Is the section title "winners" appropriate? I would just use the title "selections" instead. You don't hear anyone ever say "X was the winner of the 2010 first team All-NBA center spot", people do say "he won a spot" on one of those team, but saying "X was named to the" or "Y was selected to the" is more widespread I think. I don't think I've ever heard "winner" used in relation to being named onto one of those teams. Incidentally, I started those articles years ago as short little prose summaries of the teams, and someone massively overhauled them to FL's (congrats to whoever did that), but its nice to some sentences I wrote still in those articles. AaronY (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I overhauled them to FL's. And I agree that the section title should be "selections".—Chris!c/t 23:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Truncating seasons played on statistic pages.

Resolved: Chris!c/t 01:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey fellow NBA fans, every night at the end of each NBA game, I'm the one who updates the career leaders pages (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, 3-pointers, and free throws). In the column in these pages that displays the teams and seasons that particular player played for, in order to reduce the clutter of all the dashes I've been considering not listing what years they played in season-to-season format, but rather to year-to-year format. Example: as is right now, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's team/seasons listing are as follows:

Milwaukee Bucks (1969–701974–75)
Los Angeles Lakers (1975–761988–89)

I would like to change it to:

Milwaukee Bucks (19691975)
Los Angeles Lakers (19751989)

The links still connect to the correct seasons that terminated/began his tenure with each team (the 1975 in the Bucks tenure links to the 1974-75 NBA season and the 1975 in the Lakers tenure links to the 1975-76 NBA season. My question is, what does everyone think as far as me going through and editing each player in these statistic pages in the year-by-year manner I've proposed, or should I leave it in the old season-to-season format?

Also, for those statistics like steals, blocks, and turnovers that weren't officially recorded until later seasons, should I include all seasons played for those players who were playing prior to the incorporation of those stats or just have their seasons listed as the ones they played when those statistics were being officially recorded? Again for example, on the blocks leaders page, Kareem's seasons played starts at 1973-74 because that's the first year that blocks were officially recorded, but as we know, he first came into the league during the 1969-70 season. Also, his blocks per game average is only done across the games that he played since the season that blocked shots were first being recorded. Should I take his total blocks and divide them across his total career games, or just leave them as blocks divided across games played while blocks were being recorded?

What I'm thinking is that I'll leave the blocks per game average as is (blocks over games played when blocks were officially recorded), but include prior seasons played by those players who were playing before these stats were implemented, but somehow set it apart from the other on the blocks page, Kareem's team/seasons played would switch from:

Milwaukee Bucks (1973–741974–75)
Los Angeles Lakers (1975–761988–89)
Milwaukee Bucks (1969–70–1972–73)
Milwaukee Bucks (1973–741974–75)
Los Angeles Lakers (1975–761988–89)

This way it includes their total career lengths, but the only active links are those in which blocked shots count. I would do this for the steals and turnovers pages, too, where applicable.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on these two ideas, which I should change and which I should keep the same. Thanks for your input! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just fyi, earlier this morning I posted at WT:MOS. Nice timing. :) —LOL T/C 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the year–year version because I've been using that in the List of National Basketball Association player-coaches and List of National Basketball Association head coaches with 400 games coached. I followed that format from 50 Greatest Players in NBA History, which already promoted to a Featured List status. However, I think the year should accurately show when the player joined or left the team. Therefore, extra care should be taken for a player who change team in the middle of the season, for example:
Philadelphia 76ers (19962006) → He played for the 76ers in the 2006–07 season, but he was traded in December 2006.
Denver Nuggets (20062008) → He played for the Nuggets in the 2008–09 season, but he was traded in November 2008.
Detroit Pistons (2008–2009)
Memphis Grizzlies (2009) → He played for the Grizzlies in the 2009–10 season, but he was waived in November 2009.
Philadelphia 76ers (2009–2010)
This way, the years will accurately show when the player joined and left the team while the links to the seasons are also accurate. — MT (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for responding! That's exactly the format I was thinking of for players like Allen Iverson and others who were traded/waived mid-season. Basketball-Reference has a list of transactions for each player. And thank you for showing how to work the nbay syntax. How about my second suggestion on the steals/blocks/turnovers lists? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Coulraphobic123, welcome aboard. We really need a dedicated editor to help maintain those lists. For clarity purposes, I think we should list all the seasons that a player has played for even though a given statistic haven't been recorded. To clarify, you can note on top that the statistic is officially recorded starting in so and so seasons.—Chris!c/t 21:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think, then, of my idea about listing those seasons that didn't include the statistic separately (as I have written above with Kareem's blocks)? I'd make them links, like the others, but change the color to probably gray and make a note at the top of the page that signifies teams/seasons played for in gray were those seasons when that statistic was not included. That way, it shows every season they played for, also makes the seasons in which those stats were recorded stand out from the rest. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think separate listing is unnecessary. If you note it on top, then it is fine. Readers are smart enough to realize that, I think.—Chris!c/t 23:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha "I think" is the key phrase there. What I'm doing is I saved each of the pages in separate word documents and I'm going to go through those over the next couple of days and update each one with the new syntax. I'm going to do the separate gray text listing, but I have a reference note next to it. Check back on these pages over the next few days and feel free (anyone) to make recommendations. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is unnecessary because readers aren't stupid :). But feel free to try that out and I will check it out later.—Chris!c/t 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All right, I edited the blocks page that implemented the format I had in mind. Review it and let me know if it's a better lay-out and if there are errors. I will be working on these intermittently (since they take quite a bit of time) or other people could so long as they follow the same syntax that I have in the blocks list. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks ok. However, besides my preference, I just don't know if there is any WP:MOS violations with this format. I'll go through the MOS later and see if I can find an answer.—Chris!c/t 04:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have a preference towards setting the separate season aside is because a couple of years ago when I sort of "took the reins" on these pages, someone went through the steals page and deleted the seasons of each player who played before steals were recorded and I figured since the per game averages are only calculated using the games played when blocks/steals/turnovers WERE recorded, then that info should be set aside...but each players full career still included. Also, since most readers may just be using these pages to do a quick look-up of a career total, they may not notice the notes on the blocks/steals/turnovers pages noting differences or absences in seasons. I felt this way, at least the continuity of each players' careers would be kept intact. I'll see how it goes for a little while and see if it grows on people. But yes, if there are any errors or MOS violations, feel free to fix these whenever. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think using grey font and the notes work pretty well, but I don't know much about the MOS. Anyway it only affect a small number of players on the list, so it wouldn't be too hard to fix them if a change is needed. I made a minor change to the blocks list, changed the tied rank into numbers so that the Rank column can be correctly sorted. I also made the Team column unsortable. Also, having a total games played could be a good addition to the list. I also found this template, Template:Decimals, that could make the average accurate:
Shaquille O'Neal: Blocks 2702, Games 1186 → using {{Decimals|2702/1186|2}} gives 2.28
Not really essential, but might be useful for the active players whose numbers change everyday. — MT (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I did note the change you made as far as the rankings go, and I hadn't thought about how that T wouldn't sort them correctly. However, I think ties should be noted so I will do so as "40(T)" or "40(Tied)" just in case an unscrutinizing reader views it as an error and this way they can still be sorted. And I like the decimals format, but I'll consider that later after I'm done updating the other pages with the new format. The decimal template, in a way, would have a touch of redundancy to it when entering the data because you'd have to enter the number of blocks (or other stats) in its own column, and then re-enter it again on the line below for the next column...but at the same time, it's easier to keep track of career games played. So I may do that after I finish formatting. Thanks for the ideas everyone, keep them coming! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For ties in numbers of blocks/steals/turnovers, I think players with the higher averages should be listed first. The tie is sorted by player's last name right now. So, if my idea is implemented, then a sorted key would be necessary. Also, I think the list should include the number of game played. Yes, it make updating more difficult, but this is relevant information. So, I think it should be included.—Chris!c/t 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Coulraphobic, this is the wrong approach. I've answered this on your talk page.Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

However, the second point about steals/blocks/turnovers makes sense and is an improvement.Hoops gza (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I think it makes more sense to put the player who retired earlier first, because his career total existed first.Hoops gza (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is not a big deal.—Chris!c/t 04:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seriously considered adding in games played on there, too...and most likely will for each player. The sorting ties by averages over alphabetical order by name is something I've thought about, too. At first I thought to just sort by name because the purpose of the pages I edit are career totals, but since there aren't any similar pages (that I'm aware of) that rank the top 50 in averages, then maybe sorting by average wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'll mull that around in my head for a bit, but I'll add in career games played for the six pages that contain averages (since the 3-pointers and free throws don't rely on games played). And I understand your arguments, Hoops gza, but in cases like Elgin Baylor that showing year ended (1971) is more important than showing the season that he ended (1971-72) since he only played 9 games of that season, and then retired. Plus, showing the season gives the incorrect illusion that he won the championship with the Lakers that year. But again, it's something I'm keeping in my mind to consider changing back. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Besides, the year is linked to the actual season. So it is not misleading at all.—Chris!c/t 04:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably the heading should be changed. Right now it uses Team (seasons), which could misleads some readers. I like the approach used in 50 Greatest Players in NBA History, which uses Team(s) played for (years). The years clearly shows when the player joined and left the team, while each year is linked to the season's article with a note to clarify this.— MT (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Chris!c/t 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. I'm sure most of you are aware of the unfortunate dispute between the Wikipedia Signpost and WikiProject Basketball as terms to whether or not it should be done, and many offered up your project as a more responsive alternative. I would like to ask the most active members of the project, including coordinator(s), if you have one, and please take care of this at your earliest convenience as the report is scheduled for two days after Christmas, December 27. Extra info:

  • Questions can be found here.
  • I will fix the templates to match WP:NBA.

Thanks --Belugaboycup of tea? 20:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to do this even though I am not good at answering questions :).—Chris!c/t 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I would too, even though I'm not entirely sure what Wikipedia Signpost is...I should probably look that up. And your link is broken. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Full names on templates

Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing to change the navbox templates for the NBA teams (see {{Detroit Pistons}} for example) to use people's full names as opposed to just their last names. Here is my reasoning:

  • It will keep consistent with the rest of the areas on the navbox. Currently, only coaches have their last names. Hall of Famers and media personnel list the full names. It's bad form to be inconsistent within a the same template. I'm less concerned with consistency across templates. I think we at Wikipedia spend too much time making similar articles/templates/etc. follow a boilerplate form, instead of improving individual articles/templates/etc.
    • HoFers may be OK to use just their last name, but media people probably aren't well-known enough to use just their last name.
  • It reduces any confusion over who the navbox is referring to. For example, if the navbox lists "Scott" as a coach, it really is impossible (unless you know the details of a franchise) to know what "Scott" it is referring to w/o having to mouse over the name or actually clicking on the name.
  • Reduces the size of the templates, makes them easier to edit for regular editors and reduces the chance of making errors. For example: [[Bob Houbregs]] is only needed vs [[Bob Houbregs|Houbergs]]. The first is shorter, easier to read as an editor and the last name isn't required to be typed twice.

Anyway, that's my reasoning. Any thoughts? — X96lee15 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible idea. Also, do you think they should be sorted alphabetically by last name or keep them in their current chronological order? I say the former...but that's just because I'm kind of OCD when it comes to alphabetization. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur. To Coulraphobic123: alphabetization makes sense for most categories, but not for those such as Head coaches. It makes more sense for them to be in chronological order.—Chris!c/t 01:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Playoff Career Statistical Leaders

Resolved: Chris!c/t 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, over the course of the week I think that I'm going to start working on the all-time career leaders in the playoffs in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers, 3-pointers, and free throws. I plan to use the same formatting as the regular season career leader pages, however, since career playoff numbers are so low, instead of listing the top 50, I think I'm going to cut it down to the top 25. Unlike on the regular season career statistical leader pages, in the column for teams played and years, I'm not going to list all seasons played...just those years in which that particular player on his team played in the playoffs. For example, on the regular season career leaders pages, Paul Pierce's teams/years is written as:

Boston Celtics (1999–present)

On the playoff leader pages, it will look like this:

Boston Celtics (20022005), (20082010)

This is because the Boston Celtics weren't in the playoffs from 20062007. In the header of that column, I will have a footnote explaining this. Also, note that at the end, it doesn't say "present." I figured I'd do this for the active players since being "active" in the playoffs is different from being "active" during the regular season since not all players who played in the regular season play in the playoffs. While I'm thinking of it, is there a template that's similar to the NBAy one that instead links to the playoffs for that particular year? If not, I'll just have to type it out long form. If a template is found or created, let me know! Any questions or recommendations, let me know too. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That is quite sensible for playoffs statistical leader lists. And there is no template for playoffs years. Though, I don't see why the parenthesis should split when the year ranges aren't continuous.—Chris!c/t 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey all...I finally in my spare time have created the all-time career playoffs leaders lists. I did so in 8 separate word documents (for the 8 stats to be tracked). I am going to start making the actual new pages for these and make sure that everything on there is accurate and there aren't any typos I may have made...then once I know the 8 new pages are complete and correct, I will add the links onto the NBA statistical leaders template. I'll update when I have done this so you all can look through and see if the formatting is the same as the other lists and see if you've found any errors I may have missed. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have created the new career playoff leaders pages and put the links on the template. I will now go through player-by-player on these lists and add-in links to these pages in their "See also" sections. Go ahead and look through the pages and offer suggestions or let me know if there's something incorrect. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

A discussion has been started by another editor regarding some criteria that would make an NCAA Division I college basketball player inherently notable. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Basketball additions and I encourage people to express their thoughts. Full disclosure: I was the one who added that criteria to WP:NBASKETBALL before it was removed and brought up for discussion, so I'm going to stay out of the conversation, if possible. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames on stats lists

Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I wanted to start a conversation on which players' nicknames should be included on the statistical lists. I think that if a player typically went by a nickname, as is the case with Magic Johnson and Muggsy Bogues, we should also include their first names written as Earvin "Magic" Johnson and Tyrone "Muggsy" Bogues. Then, there are those who alternately went by both their first name as well as their nickname, like Nate "Tiny" Archibald and Walt "Clyde" Frazier. But then, there are those like Maurice Cheeks who often times was called "Mo" and Eric Floyd who often times was called "Sleepy."
My question is, where do people stand on who should have their first names and/or nicknames included on the career stats pages. This may be a matter of "who's most famous." I think Magic's should be listed as Earvin "Magic" Johnson since nowadays he's somewhat reverting to Earvin in his post-player career and is more often now referred to as Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Nate "Tiny" Archibald and Walt "Clyde" Frazier are the only other two that I can think of in which it's common to use either their first name, nickname, or both in one. Should we do the same with the lesser known or "less famous" players like Tree Rollins, Fat Lever, etc. making them Wayne "Tree" Rollins and Lafayette "Fat" Lever?
I don't think that shortened versions of normal first names should be changed, like I don't think Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain should be written as William "Bill" Russell and Wilton "Wilt" Chamberlain. I think this goes without saying. Mo Cheeks is one I'm debating on between using Maurice Cheeks or Maurice "Mo" Cheeks. Also, I don't think the more "descriptive" nicknames (for a lack of a better word) should be used. I think Dominique Wilkins and Charles Barkley should be written as such instead of Dominique "The Human Highlight Film" Wilkins and Charles "The Round Mound of Rebound" Barkley...but I also thinks this goes without saying since people say The Human Highlight Film Wilkins or The Round Mound of Rebound Barkley. These are what I call secondary nicknames.
In summary, there are three different schools of thought. First, those who went almost solely by their nicknames (like Magic and Muggsy) I believe should include first name and nickname (since these are professional lists). Second, those like Nate Archibald and Walt Frazier who went by their respective nicknames of Tiny and Clyde about as often as their real first names (these, I think, make the most sense to use both first and nicknames). Third, the ones who were probably more often called by their first names and are probably better known by their first names, but had nicknames often attributed to them. It's these I want to know what people think of. Thanks for the input! I'm still working on those playoff leaders lists too. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we are making this overly complicated. The easiest solution is to just follow existing Wikipedia convention where article name should be the name commonly in use. For Magic Johnson simply uses Magic Johnson. For Wilt Chamberlain simply uses Wilt Chamberlain. For Charles Barkley simply uses Charles Barkley.—Chris!c/t 01:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm going to go ahead and take your word on going with whatever the big, bold title name says on their pages. This will leave some with a combination of first and nicknames (John "Hot Rod" Williams is one for sure) but I'll get rid of Earvin and just go with Magic, get rid of Tiny and just go with Nate, etc. I'll let it sit and see how it looks aesthetically, and if other people make edits to add Earvin back in or Tiny or whatever, then I'll consider reverting those. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am truncating John "Hot Rod" Williams to just Hot Rod Williams. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Chris on this one. I think that using Earvin "Magic" Johnson in that list might trigger inexperienced editors to start adding players' nickname to the other lists. We certainly don't want to see LeBron "The King" James or Tracy "T-Mac" McGrady in this list. I also think that we should follow what the calls these players. For example, Magic Johnson, Fat Lever and Muggsy Bogues' player files are using their nicknames [4][5][6] but Nate Archibald and Walt Frazier's player files are using their real names [7][8]. — MT (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the sources that are cited on these pages are for basketball-reference, should I go by the conventions that they use on those pages? One consistency error I found was that and Wikipedia both have Johnny Kerr, but on the career blocks leaders list, the link goes to basketball-reference where he's listed as Red Kerr. Should I switch out the sources or use both? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice that basketball-reference tends to use nicknames, they have Red Kerr, Tiny Archibald and Hot Rod Williams instead of their real names. I personally still prefer what listed but if he's more commonly known as Red Kerr, then he should be listed as Red Kerr and maybe his article need to be moved to Red Kerr per WP:COMMONNAME. Kerr's career was before I was born so I have no idea which name is more common. As for the sources, I'm suggesting that you use both basketball-reference and Even though only listed the top 30 career leaders, they have more details, similar to the wikipedia lists (games played, field goals made, average, etc). The career leaders page can be found here. — MT (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In Chicago, Kerr was pretty consistently known (in print and other media) as Johnny "Red" Kerr. (Although I'm not sure how to prove that. I'm just basing that on my own experiences following the Bulls.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should use both names if multiple reliable sources show multiple ways. Like on, it's listed as Johnny Kerr. But on Baketball-Reference, it's listed as Red Kerr. The same goes for Nate Archibald (as seen on and Tiny Archibald (as seen on Basketball-Reference). So maybe in these instances, since each source uses different "first" names, then they should be listed as Johnny "Red" Kerr and Nate "Tiny" Archibald and all others that don't have a consistent name on either source. However, both and Basketball-Reference list Muggsy Bogues (neither uses Tyrone) and Sleepy Floyd (neither uses Eric). Maybe using these two sources should decide which should include nicknames and which shouldn't. lists "Earvin Magic Johnson" and Basketball-Reference uses just Magic maybe that one should be used in full, as well. Is this dual-source thing a good compromise? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Basketball-Reference and are both reliable. But for sourcing things like player's name, I still prefer just because it is official. But if we can't agree on that, then using both seems to be a reasonable compromise.—Chris!c/t 03:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Follow the KISS principle: use whatever title the article for the player uses. As articles are named according to the policy WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be the most commonly used name o the player, and the one readers would most recognize (the underlying principle of the policy). To use an unfamiliar form rings of false formalism and is unneeded. Keep it simple, use the player's article title; the decision has already been made. oknazevad (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft articles structure

Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I need a suggestion on which structure is better for the draft articles:

  1. Older revision of 1947 BAA Draft1980 NBA Draft: The lead combined the players selected and their college achievement prior to the draft with the players' future achievements.
  2. 1947 BAA Draft1980 NBA Draft: Similar text with the older revisions but the information is moved to another section to keep the lead short and simple.
  3. 1981 NBA Draft: The information about the players selected and their college achievement prior to the draft are listed on the lead, while the players' future achievements are on separate section on the end of the list (I'm not really sure about this section's placement, any comments and suggestion are welcomed).
  4. 1984 NBA Draft: The information about the players selected and their college achievement prior to the draft are listed on the lead, while the players' future achievements are on separate paragraphs on the lead. The lead is really long (5 paragraphs) but this articles has survived a Featured List review process despite some comments that the lead is too long.
  5. Any structure suggestion are welcomed.
Note that I've been working from the oldest draft articles and I haven't reach most of the 1980s and all of the 1990s and 2000s draft articles.

Option 1 and 4 make the lead really long which creates the problem. I think that the information about the players selected and their college achievement prior to the draft should be separated from the players' future achievement, whether they're in separate paragraphs or in separate sections. However, this would need a major restructuring on the articles prior to 1980 and I would like to know which structure is better so I can start working to make all the draft articles consistent. Thanks! — MT (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer #2. And I think the section title should simply be called "overview".—Chris!c/t 19:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's my input. I think #3 is converging towards what I'd like to see in the draft articles. Ideally, IMO, an NBA draft article's opening paragraphs (following the lede) should give the reader some insight into why the draft went down the way it did. When one includes later accomplishments in the same paragraphs, this confuses matters. For example, in the 1972 NBA Draft article, we read that LaRue Martin was the first choice and later became regarded as a monumental bust . . . but we really don't see what motivated the Trail Blazers to make this selection over (say) Bob McAdoo. It's easy to criticize the Trail Blazer choice with the benefit of hindsight and ask how they could choose Martin over a player who would soon lead the league in scoring three times and win an MVP. But of course, the Trail Blazers couldn't know this in advance, and in the article it's left as a mystery as to why he was chosen at all (note: Martin did have over 1,000 pts and 1,000 rebounds in his three years at Loyola so the Trail Blazers did have something to go on). So, I think the 1981 NBA Draft format is making progress in this direction by separating the later accomplishments from what was known on draft day.
The paragraphs containing information regarding the draftees' later accomplishments can be viewed as an epilogue to the draft day choices (one could even give it a section title along the lines of "Epilogue"). A reader can look at these paragraphs and then make a judgment as to who made good choices based on what was known on draft day, who made bad choices, and who just got lucky. In the case of 1981_NBA_Draft#Draftee_career_notes, since there are quite a few players discussed it might be helpful to break out the different post-draft details as separate bullet points rather than having them all in two large paragraphs.
There's a lot of good material in the draft articles already, thanks in large part to User:Martin tamb. I think some reorganization (and I do recognize it will take a fair amount of work) will make the articles even better. — Myasuda (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Myasuda because it is more of a subjective matter than objective...but it's progressing well. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, just go with #3 then.—Chris!c/t 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Keep them coming guys. Cheers! — MT (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Avery Johnson picture?

Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone use their Flickr know-how and find a fair use image of Avery Johnson? I would do it myself but I don't know how. The reason I ask is because he's been a fairly prominent figure in the NBA for a number of years now, and I also would like to use his picture for the newly-created Southwestern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year. Any help would be appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you need a fair use image, you can just upload any image find on the web. It doesn't have to come from Flickr. But I think a fair use image could only be used on the primary article. I am not sure if it is appropriate to use on Southwestern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year.—Chris!c/t 20:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I presume you mean free rather than fair use; I can take a look around flickr and see if anything pops up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yeah, precisely. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: It is decided that we should follow the draft pick number on basketball-reference.—Chris!c/t 01:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I discovered errors involving the draft pick number of some players. Due to salary cap violation, the Timberwolves forfeited their first-round pick in the 2001, 2002 and 2004 drafts. On the NBA website, the draft pick numbers for all their picks were preserved and skipped over. But seemingly does not take that into account and just list players in the order in which they were drafted. As a result, the draft pick number of the players after the forfeited picks were incorrect (some of the more notable players include Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer). I think we should follow and fix all those errors. I am fixing them now but would need extra help monitor the pages and make sure that they are error-free. Thanks—Chris!c/t 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They also had to forfeit their picks in the 2003 and 2005 drafts, as well. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, 2003 and 2005 were later restored, my bad. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I think basketball-reference takes the more sensible approach. But if the NBA officially skipped over the 29th pick, then I guess it makes sense to follow their lead. If anyone goes around changing things, do remember to alter any references to the pick in the body of the text, too. (Not just the infobox.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I like how basketball-reference do it too but we should follow the official source nevertheless.—Chris!c/t 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, the 2004 NBA Draft Board doesn't follow suit. —LOL T/C 02:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to use the basketball-reference's numbers. I think it's incorrect to say that Gilbert Arenas was selected 31st overall when there is only 29 players selected ahead of him. — MT (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand. But the problem is basketball-reference isn't the official source. is.—Chris!c/t 19:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So...can anybody find an NBA source that identifies Varejão as the 31st pick of 2004? —LOL T/C 19:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This says he is 30th pick. It is frustrating because even NBA itself is inconsistent.—Chris!c/t 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the official source isn't consistent, then maybe it is just simpler to follow basketball-reference.—Chris!c/t 20:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the NBA really puts much thought into these things. I'd be OK with using the basketball-reference numbers. Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, we should just follow basketball-reference, then. All the draft article has to be fixed, though.—Chris!c/t 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In Arenas' case, a quick google news search shows that several notable news article mentions him as the 30th pick, see Bloomberg, ESPN and Business Week. — MT (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On some player's articles (I can't find an example right now), Infobox NBA Player includes many college or high school awards/honors. But on many others, the infobox doesn't list any college or high school awards/honors. The first thing is should we include them at all? If we decide to include, them how much should we include? Should we include all or just some (if some, we will need to discuss with WP:CBBALL to see which to include or exclude)? Or should we do it like Stephen Curry, where both Infobox NBA Player and Infobox College Player were include. I personally like to exclude all high school awards/honors and include only some notable college awards/honors. I believe Infobox NBA Player should supersede Infobox College Player. Having both is too much imo.—Chris!c/t 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Two infoboxes is excessive and should be combined into one infobox, there is too many duplicates information (such as: birthdate, birthplace, height, weight, high school, position) in those two infoboxes. I personally prefer to see only professional achievements (i.e. NBA achievements and national team achievements) in the NBA player infobox. However, if some college awards are going to be included, there should definitely be a limit on the awards. Anyway, I'm not really familiar with U.S. college basketball, so perhaps other user here or at WP:CBBALL would have a better suggestion on the limitation. — MT (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Could make it a separate section in box that is collapsible and hidden by default like i see with some players and their olympic medals. Also, just because a player hits the NBA doesnt mean there isnt interest in his college accomplishments (e.g. comparing current college players with past greats, alumni nostalgia, etc) A majority of players' greatest achievements will be college. However, I do agree it clutters perennial all-stars and hall of famers boxes Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue now is that most new NBA player articles start as college player articles. I know I created articles for guys like James Anderson, Trevor Booker, Gordon Hayward, etc when they were still in college. I don't know that all those college honors should be wiped clear. Maybe we could amend the NBA infoplayer box to include college awards and limit it to those listed on Template:College Basketball Awards. I do think there needs to be agreement on a format to transfer this list of accomplishments to the college career section of the article so we don't lose things like all-conference selections, etc. Just my 2 cents. How does the WP:NFL do it? Rikster2 (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

After looking at {{Infobox football biography 2}}, I had this idea. Should we create a new infobox that could be used on all NBA related people (coaches, executives, d-league players etc)? The upside is that would make articles (at least infobox) looking nice and consistent across the board. The downside is it takes lots of work. What are your thoughts? Sorry for bombarding everyone with ideas/questions, but since we are discussing infobox already, I felt that it makes sense to ask now.—Chris!c/t 09:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I actually really like that template after looking at it. It seems pretty complete with info and all-encompassing of players' team history and all. I'd say go for it! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
What information would we add to an executive's infobox? Why can't coaches and D-League players just use {{Infobox NBA Player}}? —LOL T/C 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, coaches and D-League players can just use {{Infobox NBA Player}}. But, I think the infobox needs a name change so that other people won't think that the infobox is for players only. As for executive, just add a place to list the teams they managed.—Chris!c/t 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We could probably just move {{Infobox NBA Player}} to {{Infobox NBA biography}}, and make some of the parameters optional so that executives wouldn't show missing fields such as height and weight. —LOL T/C 03:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for doing this.—Chris!c/t 03:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll wait a few days before taking action, in case there are any contrasting opinions. —LOL T/C 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to predict all the little things that could happen when we change an infobox. I think it's best to leave as many parameters optional as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 04:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What would be a good condition for omitting the link to a playerfile? —LOL T/C 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it on Mike Brown (basketball, born 1970). There are two problems. The coach parameter seems to be broken because the "career history" is gone. "Pro career" should just be "Career". Also when the infobox appears on player articles, "As player" should appear so that people know that the teams are played not coached. —Chris!c/t 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Or should we have the sections for playing history and coaching history separately?—Chris!c/t 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should separate their history because most coaches are former players. Perhaps we should add two parameters coach_start and coach_end? —LOL T/C 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok.—Chris!c/t 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm worried about doubling the number of headings if we split them up because they do consume quite a bit of space, so I've instead placed a "Coaching career" row underneath "Pro career". Let's not commit to using these parameters yet; we still need to see what happens when we use this infobox for various executives. —LOL T/C 01:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I will try this infobox on some executives to see what happen.—Chris!c/t 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

H-O-R-S-E competition?

Resolved: Chris!c/t 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if they're still doing it for the 2011 All-Star Weekend? I haven't heard anything about it and doesn't even mention it as a listed event. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the news, either.—Chris!c/t 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Turns out, it's been canceled for good. Ah oh well. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


I will start using {{Resolved}} to denote talk page threads that have been resolved.—Chris!c/t 01:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

More Task Forces?

Resolved: Not a good idea.—Chris!c/t 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to have more task forces for NBA teams. The only team project is on the Celtics, which has just been marked as as semiactive. There are only a few other task forces- the Cavaliers, Bulls, Mavericks, and Lakers, plus a WNBA project that has no connectuion to the NBA project. Should we set up more for more teams? Soxrock24 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No not a good idea, mainly because right now nobody maintain any of the existing taskforces and sub-wikiprojects. It is more effective if we pool all of our resource on the main wikiproject.—Chris!c/t 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus, it's not likely that there would be a devoted or as enthusiastic a fan base to keep teams like the Bobcats and Grizzlies updated compared to the Celtics and Lakers. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we just don't have enough active editors to make such task forces useful. Zagalejo^^^ 05:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Grizzlies

There is a discussion that has been started at Talk:Vancouver Grizzlies which may be of interest to WP:NBA. Dolovis (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the discussion is about whether teams that moved should have 2 articles. Personally, I don't think we should. It simply makes zero sense to me why we should have 2 articles on the same team. But that is my view only and I will not impose that unilaterally. After some thoughts, I tend to agree with the point (raised at Talk:Vancouver Grizzlies) that a split may be a good idea if the team has stayed in a city for a long time and has historical ties to the city they left. I really think we as a project should make a decision. Currently, it is unclear where we stand. Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers, Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets, Buffalo Braves/San Diego/Los Angeles Clippers all have single article. Vancouver Grizzlies/Memphis Grizzlies, Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers all have 2 article. (Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Thunder is an exception)—Chris!c/t 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that when I edit career statistical leaders, for a player like Wilt Chamberlain who played for both the Philadelphia and San Francisco Warriors, the link has always gone straight to the Golden State Warriors (even before I started regularly editing). Same with the Nats & Sixers, both Lakers, Braves/Clippers, etc. The one exception I noticed was the Seattle SuperSonics ones always went right to Seattle's page, and so in keeping with the consistency of linking it to the most recent location/incarnation of the team, I changed it so that they link to the Oklahoma City Thunder. Granted Seattle's history is much more and significant that it warrants its own page instead of being "hidden away" so-to-speak as a separate article in the history of Oklahoma City Thunder. Having said that, how would one decide which franchises to split up. Example, the Sacramento Kings have been in Sacramento since 1985, but as far as having historical implications goes, then the Rochester Royals or Cincinnati Royals should or could be the "defaults" since the Rochester Royals won the championship in 1951 and the Cincinnati Royals were a powerhouse because that's where Oscar Robertson played for so the history of significance of the Kings in Sacramento pales in comparison to the Royals. I think that each incarnation of a team should have its own page (Vancouver and Memphis Grizzlies should be separate, Minneapolis and Los Angeles Lakers should be separate), but if we're going to do that then we'll have to somehow find a way to make new, full, thorough pages for the lesser known incarnations like the Kansas City-Omaha Kings that existed for 3 years before becoming just Kansas City. The New Orleans/Oklahoma City Thunder for two years in post-Katrina, and even the Chicago Packers, Chicago Zephyrs, and Capital Bullets that each only existed for one season (all are Washington Wizards franchise). It's a lot easier to have separate pages for the Minneapolis Lakers and Seattle SuperSonics than, say, the San Diego Rockets or Fort Wayne Pistons. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It most certainly warrants having its own page . . . Memphis and Vancouver are 2,000 miles away from each other for goodness sake!! I understand that it is technically the same franchise, but when a team moves to a different market it effectively becomes a new team whether or not they actually change the team's name or even hold onto the team's history from the previous city. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anaheim Amigos/Los Angeles Stars discussion

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Anaheim Amigos about which name the article on the ABA's short-lived Southern California franchise should use. More input would be appreciated. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was in favor of using Anaheim Amigos/Los Angeles Stars as the name of the page, HOWEVER, I was informed that that was against Wikipedia guidelines. I personally believe if the article MUST have one name or the other, then it should be after the original name of the franchise which was a charter franchise of the ABA. There is nothing else like this in the history of sports when a team moved within the metropolitan area between two areas that really don't want anything to do with each other and changing their name completely. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure there is: the New Jersey Americans becoming the New York Nets, at the exact same time. That's not what I'm responding to though. The discussion should stay at Talk:Anaheim Amigos where I describe my position. I needn't repeat myself. More importantly, per WP:BRD, when a bold move is made (your initial copy & paste move) and then reverted, the original, reverted-to version stays in place until the discussion concludes, as it is up to the person proposing the change to demonstrate consensus for it. Despite that, you keep reverting to you're preferred version. It's borderline tendentious editing, plus your moves were all copy & paste, which causes issues for the page history. See WP:RM for the reasons and proper procedure.
I will, as an act of good faith leave it as is for now, but if there's no supporting consensus in one week (and that includes no one else commenting, as you and I obviously don't agree), I'll move it back. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please get a third opinion on this; it's turning into a revert war, which I do not want. The question is straightforward: should the article be at Anaheim Amigos or Los Angeles Stars. Or should there be separate articles? Please comment at Talk:Anaheim Amigos. oknazevad (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected both titles to encourage discussion and discourage the edit-warring. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


I think I noticed a mistake with the players national flags in NBA all star game. I don't know if anyone could clearify this on the talk page for me Talk:2011 NBA All-Star Game#Flag. Spongie555 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppressing profile field in infobox

Resolved: Done—Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: how exactly does one suppress the "profile" field in the NBA infobox (if it is possible)? I've noticed lots of people using the NBA infobox for non-NBA players, which results in links to non-existent profiles. I suppose I could just replace the infobox with a non-NBA version, but I was wondering if there could be a quicker fix. Zagalejo^^^ 03:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pass something into the league parameter. I never really understood why we started with different templates for each basketball league. —LOL T/C 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll try that. Zagalejo^^^ 06:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Carmelo trade

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What should we do with this? This trade isn't official until Tuesday, but people already prematurely updated everything. Should we leave them alone or revert?—Chris!c/t 05:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. For the sake of our sanity, it might be best to just ignore all those pages for the time being. :) This will be a particularly difficult situation, because has gotten into the habit of publishing third-party reports of trades before the trades have been officially completed. (Why does have to rely on David Aldridge to report on the NBA's own transactions! Aaaargh!) Plus, anything involving the Knicks will bring lots of new users out of the woodwork. Zagalejo^^^ 06:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's the first story on the front page of ESPN's website and it's already Tuesday morning, so I think we can let it go. —LOL T/C 08:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The future of Template:Current sport-related on sports team articles

A discussion has been recently initiated regarding the future persistent use of {{Current sport-related}}, and other similar templates on sports team articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Current event templates#Premature deprecation of the template for sports team articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NBA Draft history by team

I want to know what you guys think about List of Houston Rockets first and second round draft picks and List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks being different than the rest of the lists at {{NBA Draft history by team}}. The rest of them are called "XXX draft history" and list all draft picks, not the first and second round picks only. In NFL and MLB-related lists, there are first round picks only. In NHL-related lists, there are all draft picks. You see, they are consistent, they all have the same scope. What I am proposing is to create Houston Rockets draft history and Los Angeles Lakers draft history pages and list all draft picks in there. I hope you give me some advice (new ideas, maybe?) and later approve my proposal. Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a good idea.—Chris!c/t 00:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I support your proposal. The list should be about all draft picks and the information about them can be easily obtained from I have one suggestion that might improve the lists: since the list is about one specific team, maybe there should be highlights for draft picks who played his entire career for the team that drafted them, for draft picks who never played for the team that drafted them or for draft picks who never played in the NBA. This might shows the readers a general idea on how successful the draft picks are and how well the team use their draft selections. — MT (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I need more advice. The first hurdle that I have is that both of those lists are FLs. Secondly, I don't know if I should move the "list of xxx first and second round draft picks" to the "XXX draft history" page and add the rest of the picks. OR I should leave the one we have and create a "XXX draft history", where I list the rest of the picks. Thoughts, questions?--Cheetah (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you create the complete list in your sandbox, copypaste it into the mainspace article, and then move the page? —LOL T/C 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I can start working on that. Thanks.--Cheetah (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What I would prefer is to list the first and second round draft picks, and then list the rest the are notable (with a Wikipedia article or something similar), cause listing all the draft picks would take up a bunch of space, plus it wouldn't be consistent with the annual drafts (ex. 1973 NBA Draft). All that researching will be gone! :( --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point. There will be too many draft picks from the later rounds who have never played in the NBA and does not have a wikipedia article. That's why I only list later rounds picks who have played at least one NBA game in the annual draft articles. It's too much work for me to list each and every one of them, also their playing position were not listed on basketball-reference and it took more research to find them (their position usually can be found on their college website or media guide). However, if someone is willing to do the extra work and list all the draft picks, I wouldn't oppose that. — MT (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

chris webber picture

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone change chris webber's picture to him playing in a game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rams8008 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not have a free one available. Note that we cannot upload random images found in the Internet as they are copyrighted.—Chris!c/t 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Durant

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a third opinion here about the Kevin Durant article? Should we split the Sonics and Thunder in the career history section of the infobox? (Like this?) Or should we leave it like this? Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely keep it as the same franchise (Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Thunder) because it is the same franchise and all SuperSonics history and records are officially those of the OKC Thunder (so technically, yes, the OKC Thunder have won a championship...just that it was in 1979 as the Sonics just like the Sacramento Kings have won a championship...back in 1951 as the Rochester Royals). That's how I've been doing it with all other franchise relocations/moves that changed team names on the career stats pages (example, Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers, Buffalo Braves/San Diego Clippers, or Cincinnati Royals/Kansas City(-Omaha) Kings). Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Zagalejo and Coulraphobic. Even though it doesn't look as tidy, I think a new list entry makes the franchise's relocation look like a player transaction. I disagree with Beast; it's the same team with a different location and name. By the way, WP:SLASH says the slash should be spaced. —LOL T/C 04:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Should not split per above.—Chris!c/t 04:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What LOL said is correct, it just does not look tidy. It's such a small change and yet as usual Zagalejo just cannot let it slide. Yes they represent the same franchise, but they are two different teams. The Seattle SuperSonic were active from 1967 - 2008 and played in Seattle, Washington, they then were relocated to Oklahoma and became the Oklahoma City Thunder. If you want to be technical, it can be viewed as a transaction, listed as Rights transfered to Oklahoma City Thunder after Seattle SuperSonic's relocation or something of that nature. All it states is that from 2007-2008 he played for the Seattle SuperSonics and from 2008-present he plays for the Oklahoma City Thunder, they both have seperate articles, so what is the big f'n deal? Beast from da East (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not a small change and we shouldn't let inaccuracy slide. That is a wrong mentality to have as we should strive for what is accurate. Please see Martin tamb's detailed explanation on why they are the same team. Having separate article doesn't mean they are different team.—Chris!c/t 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Seattle SuperSonics and the Oklahoma City Thunder are the same team which was moved and renamed. The franchise was owned by Clayton Bennett since 2006 when they were still playing in Seattle. The players, coaches, staffs, all remained when they move to Oklahoma City. Seattle SuperSonics' records, championships and history are transferred to the Thunder.[9] The Thunder 2010-11 Media Guide All-Time Records started at 1967, when the Sonics were formed. So technically, they're the same team and Durant was never traded or changed teams. Syracuse Nationals and Philadelphia 76ers also have a similar case with the Sonics/Thunder and they are always considered a same team. Dolph Schayes, who played for the Nationals/76ers, was considered played his entire career with one franchise according to APBR[10] and CNN[11]. — MT (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you're saying we need to split up Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder, then we'd have to split up Vancouver Grizzlies and Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Hornets and New Orleans Hornets, and the Minneapolis Lakers and Los Angeles Lakers...since the Sonics and Thunder are the same thing with the same history...just like the Grizzlies, Hornets, and Lakers etc., it should stay as one line as per accuracy. It seems like there's a general consensus for this except for Beast...this should be considered solved. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Establishing consensus for Template:Infobox NBA biography

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inviting everyone to take a look in Template talk:Infobox NBA biography#Establishing consensus. Due to recent edit conflicts on how the information should be presented in the infobox, I have initiated a discussion to discuss them. Please participate in the discussion so that the consensus can be reached and the infobox would have consistent format. — MT (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If everyone can revisit some of the discussions, that would be great. Some topics that require more discussion on how to list certain things including D-League assignment, NBA All-Star Weekend events honors and college/HS awards.—Chris!c/t 04:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Once Again

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

While I can except that the Durant situation and the separation of the All-NBA teams do make sense, there is still some things that just don't make sense. First off why not keep the teams section in chronological order for player who have more then one stint with the same team? It can really be confusing, which is the reason the MLB and NFL projects adopt to keep it in chronologic order. For the awards section it makes zero sense to keep the small font or have the seasons linked rather then All-Star games. Beast from da East (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See the above thread.—Chris!c/t 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Career games played

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I just got done doing a full edit of the career games played list. For the most part, I left it in the same format, only now it'll be updated after every night along with the rest of the career stats pages and I also got rid of the international flags. I will soon be making one for career playoff games played, as well. If you would like to go through it and take a look, request possible changes, tell me about errors, then that'd be much appreciated! Also, is there a way to keep the names column from auto-wrapping (so that names like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Clifford R. Robinson stay in one line)? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I added style="white-space: nowrap;" for the two names you mentioned, but it's not a very elegant solution. —LOL T/C 01:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
So there's no way to apply it to the whole table? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Another option is to provide enough space for the name column, so it does stay in one line.—Chris!c/t 01:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should be applied to the team column. You could apply it to the entire name column, but what happens when we add somebody with a really long name? —LOL T/C 01:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
How do you apply it to the whole name column? I'm just not too sure of the syntax as to how to "size" the width of the columns individually. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You can apply it to the whole column by copying the style attribute to each cell in the column. As for width, you can use the CSS width property, which only needs to be applied to one cell (preferably the heading). Sample syntax: ! style="width: 10em" | PlayerLOL T/C 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the syntax...I applied it to the tables...looks great for now...I'll go through everything tomorrow and make sure all the teams and links are correct and everything. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox NBA biography

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, all discussion on Template talk:Infobox NBA biography has been closed by User:Dabomb87. So now, we should follow consensus established on that page regarding how info should be presented in the infobox. Thanks everyone for commenting.—Chris!c/t 00:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the career history section. Are we putting the years in columns as suggested? In that case shouldn't the template be updated? Xaviersc (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we're definitely sticking to the separate columns format, but I added the code for it. Check the documentation. —LOL T/C 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it out! Xaviersc (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So far, I've implemented this in 3 articles: Jeremy Lin, Kobe Bryant, and Juwan Howard. See what it looks like and then we can discuss whether to implement this or not.—Chris!c/t 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the Years/Team header is unnecessary. The info is self-explanatory.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If we were still going to add the country column later, then a header will be needed anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking that we should just use parenthesis for the country/D-league. So another column is not needed. This is basically what I did for Jeremy Lin.—Chris!c/t 21:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the use of parenthesis to list the leagues/countries, I don't know if there's enough space for an extra column anyway. Xaviersc (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I just took out the header and I really think the infobox looks nicer without it.—Chris!c/t 00:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I've update the template doc for most of the other consensus items that don't depend on columns. —Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, I forgot to do that.—Chris!c/t 21:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Team/years updated now too. All items should be done now. —Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
How about since we're including international teams played in the player box, then for those international teams that players played for (like Besiktas for Allen Iverson and Lottomatica for Brandon Jennings), how about we put the little flag label for that country next to it (Turkish flag next to Besiktas and Italian next to Lottomatica)? Just a suggestion I thought of this morning. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if that is going to work? There is an entire guideline on the use of flagicons and it says "as a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes."—Chris!c/t 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In order to reduce the amount of time spent having to potentially rework the infobox of thousands of NBA players, it would be ideal to eventually generate a permanent infobox to be used for all professional basketball players (with NBA & non-NBA affiliation). Although it may be a mute point to say this now, for the record I advocate for holding off on moving to a new infobox templates until an all-inclusive basketball infobox is created.

I agree with the consensus results listed in the Infobox NBA biography Talk page, however here are some thoughts that may need further clarifications:

  • Career highlights and awards:
    • Strict chronological order (ascending or descending) for list?
  • Years listed in column
    • Has this format been agreed upon yet? I think this should be standardized (either all infoboxes should use the columns or none) in order to preserve uniformity
  • Infobox NCAA Athlete
    • Somewhat of a related topic, but wanted to see how everyone feels about articles on NBA players (with an NBA Biography infobox at the top of the page) that also contain an NCAA Athlete infobox for (within their college section) for articles containing a lengthy college section. I like including it, as it its high visibility clearly lists individual and/or team records which may either be buried within the college section or that may not be included in the article all together. This has been used for Stephen Curry, as well as Darrin Hancock and LeRon Ellis. Your toughts please. Djrun (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I will answer your question in the same order:

  • That has not been talked about, but everyone seems to agree that awards should be ordered by importance, with NBA awards first then college awards. Yes, I know that is a little subjective, but I don't know if chronological order is necessarily better. I think it make little sense to for example list a college award before an NBA champion.
  • Pretty much yes. We are slowly implementing columns to many players already. I agree that this should be standardized, but conversion will take some time.
  • Not sure what others think, but I oppose inclusion of that infobox. To give high visibility to college honors without cluttering the article, I instead think that we should create a career achievement page for players that list all honors clearly. Maybe a link to the career achievement page can be added to the infobox. This definitely needs more discussion.

Chris!c/t 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For anybody who intends to help standardize the columns format for a player's team history, I don't recommend spending too much time on manually doing it. I intend to write a script for that in a few weeks as long as there isn't any major opposition to it. Just apply the columns format moderately (preferably to high-profile biographies), and hopefully a "good" number of people will see that we're trying to standardize the template by the time before I write the script. —LOL T/C 06:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

D-League call-ups

Resolved: Chris!c/t 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently tried the new columns format for the Career history section and I need an opinion about the D-League call-ups. Several D-League call-ups, such as Othyus Jeffers, played two or more different stints in the D-League this season due to unsuccessful call-ups to the NBA which made them return to the D-League. I wonder whether these separate stints should be listed separately or combined. Here's Jeffers' career history for the 2010–11 season:

Started the 2010–11 season with Iowa
Called-up to San Antonio on March 4
Returned to D-League and played a game on March 13[12]
Signed with Washington on March 17[13]

2010–2011 000 Iowa Energy (D-League)
2011 00000000 San Antonio Spurs
2011 00000000 Iowa Energy (D-League)
2011–present 0 Washington Wizards

I was wondering whether these separate stints should be listed separately? Should the second stint combined with the first stint as 2010–2011 0 Iowa Energy (D-League) because both stints are technically occurred in the same season? There are a lot of players who have this similar situation, being called up for a couple of 10-day contracts and then returned to the D-League. On the other hand, if the D-League stint before and after the NBA callup is combined, it may resulted in a strange chronological list such as in Trey Johnson, where 2010–present 0 Bakersfield Jam (D-League) is listed above 2011 0 Toronto Raptors. Any thoughts on this? — MT (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would list it all in one row like this: 2010–2011, 2011 Iowa Energy (D-League). Infobox should be simple. People should read the prose if they want to know the actual chronology.—Chris!c/t 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)