Talk:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball

Malcolm Thomas Pepperdine stats

Malcolm Thomas is listed under career leaders for rebounds and minutes, but his stats include his Pepperdine numbers in 2007–08, which shouldnt count in an SDSU article.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed him from the respective lists. Someone might want to update the lists so that it lists the top 10 (as there are only 9 now).—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK--JOJ ^Hutton 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable players

Will the editor who keeps removing the "Notable Players" section, please explain why they think that the section is OR. Seems to be a gross misrepresentation of the guideline. I could not find your quotes from your edit summery, which I assume you are using to validate your argument.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to a question with a question: Who deserves to be in this section? Jrcla2 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Really?? You have been around long enough to answer your own question, but I'll humor you. How about any former player who has gone on to notable success after leaving the school. Usually if the player is notable enough to warrant his own article on wikipedia, then that usually is enough to warrant inclusion. Still like to know why you feel the inclusion is OR. --JOJ ^Hutton 17:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Too vague, you're missing the point. Define what "notable success" entails. As it stands, you are arbitrarily deciding who qualifies (= original research). If criteria is used (example: SDSU players who have been officially drafted by an NBA team), then there's no disputing who should be on the list. Your argument that as long as they are notable enough to have an article then they're notable enough to be a notable alumnus is erroneous because (a) the notability to them as people does not necessarily correlate to them as notable basketball players, and (b) you would be forced to include every single player in Category:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players, which in itself is vastly incomplete and has no criteria other than they once suited up for the school. There are no parameters, no criteria, and it's completely your discretion as to who should be included, period. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Further: You have been on Wikipedia long enough where you should know what original research means (whether or not it's explicitly spelled out in WP:OR as it pertains to this discussion), and also the fact that you still don't know how to properly categorize (evidenced here). If anyone's editing and/or understanding of some of these policies should be called into question, it's yours, not mine. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been around long enough to know what OR is. Long enough to recognize when its being misrepresented. It seems your concern is more with notability than with OR. As far as notability is concerned. Wikipedia is a community of editors, so its not fair to say that notability is at "my" discretion, just as it would be unfair to suggest that not having this information in the article is at your discretion as well. I just fail to see the logic of OR, as there are numerous verifiable sources confirming that all of these people played for this team.

Inclusion based on notability is another matter, and you made an argument earlier, that if we are forced to include based on whether or not the person has an article, then we would be forced to include all players with an article. That is a fair argument. How about including players that have had notable success outside of playing basketball for SDSU? Striking them all seemed a bit much. Still does. Tony Gwynn and Art Linkletter were excellent example of this. In the end, you don't get to decide, by yourself, what goes in and what does not go into an article. You removed information and you were reverted. You should have begun a discussion per WP:BRD, but you decided that you wanted to edit war. I didn't take your bait, although you are in the wrong, per WP:BRD. You can continue to misrepresent WP:OR, but it seems your main concern is WP:Notability, which is a more fair argument.

As far as the CAT at Marshall Faulk, I'll admit that I'm not a technically savvy Wikipedian when it comes to CATS and other minor stuff, but I never saw anything that prohibited or even discouraged this category. I looked at the link you provide at WP:CAT, but failed to see how you come to your conclusion. I'm sure its there, I'd just like to read what it says. --JOJ ^Hutton 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue here is that when building a list on Wikipedia, whether stand-alone of as a section of a larger article, the scope of that list should be defined as discreetly and as objectively as possible. If you are going to define the list as "Notable San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players", then you have include everyone in Category:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players and any others who should be in the category. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The list seems indiscriminate as it's subjective who is notable and who is not. A more discriminate list might be former players who played in the NBA. Someone like Gwynn might be better suited in "Team history" section to mention as the all-time assist leader. Did Linkletter have an impact on the program, or he is just trivia?—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The list is not indiscriminate, but a list of actual players. The guidelines say that these list are acceptable based on Wikipedias notability guidelines. WP:DISCRIMINATE is not a guideline but an essay explaining the difference between what is discriminate and indiscriminate. I don't know why this is being contested so vigorously here, since many sports teams, colleges, cities, and towns have these types of lists. Doesn't seem to be against any guideline at all. Its not WP:OR since that argument was rejected in the failed guideline proposal Wikipedia:Noted players.

It is indiscriminate unless it is defined what notable players are included and which one are excluded. For example, you could say Aztecs who played in the NBA and then it is clear what the criteria are, and it will be easy for any editor to come in add who to add to the list. Otherwise, "notable" is quite subjective. If the intent is a list of all Aztec players, there is a "see also" to Category:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players, so the contents would only be duplicated.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody clicks on the Cats. Not sure it should even be in the See Also section. WP:LISTPEOPLE only defines notability per Wikipedias notability guidelines. If they are notable for an article, they are notable for a list. It doesn't say that the list needs to be defined. That is your definition.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The entry criteria for the list has not been defined, and "Players considered notable by Jojhutton" is not anymore of an objective criteria than "Players considered notable by Bagumba". If the contents of the list are not defined, they cannot be verified.—Bagumba (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote WP:LISTPEOPLE only defines notability per Wikipedias notability guidelines. The guideline defines the inclusion in a list if The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. It's not my definition or yours. None of the guidelines says that the list must be defined, but in fact the list is defined. It's defined as notable players. Thats the definition. So its a discriminate list.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

D. J. Gay has a standalone article. An editor can come and say that makes him notable, and demand that he be included on the list. Because "notable" is subjective, the list is indiscriminate because people opinions will differ as to who belongs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm only saying what Wikipedia guidelines say. It says that if the person is notable enough for his own article, based on Wikipedias own notability guidelines, then they are notable enough for a list. It's not for me to say who goes in or out of a list, if they are at least notable enough for an article. If Gay was added to the list, that addition would be supported by guidelines. Why would anyone be against added a notable player? It's not for me to say who goes into or out of the list either.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming also says "words like 'complete,' 'famous' and 'notable' are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles)." WP:LSC says "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective". If your intent is to allow any entry of a person who played basketball for SDSU, I propose naming the section "Former players" and have a brief intro like "The following list contains former players with Wikipedia articles." If the intent is to have more selective criteria, a more objective description besides "notable" is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it might say that in theory, but not really in practice, as "notable" is used in many articles to describe a list of notable residents, players, or alumni. I'm not sure why you wish to fight me on every single edit I make to this page, when I am sure you have so many more important things to do with your life or with your time on Wikipedia. It's not hurting the article, nor does it hurt any article that a similar list is placed within. The word "notable" or "famous" is used in headings of many high traffic articles including, but not limited to Harvard, Yale University, El Cajon, California, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, USC Trojans football, Waco, Texas and many many more. No one seems to have a problem with the wording of the sections in those articles. Because Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming is either out of touch with the reality of Wikipedia or out of date. It would seem that practice has outlasted theory in this case.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not own this article. "Other stuff" is not always the strongest argument, as those articles may need cleanup as well. Let's discuss the use of "notable" here on its own merits. Jrcla2 raised an issue in this thread earlier, so I'm not seeing where "No one seems to have a problem". I kindly ask you to gain consensus for changes to this article without repeatedly reintroducing the same text as you have at [1][2][3]. I will ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball to get more opinions on this section.—Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Jojhutton here for inclusion of this embedded list. There is a lot of Wikilawyering going on here and misrepresentation of the spirit of links like WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming. "Notable players" is a fully defined, unambiguous categorization of the list. Creating lists of notable people who have been members of sports teams is widely practiced and has plenty of supporting consensus. As for this point being WP:OTHERSTUFF as argued above: Read- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". But more importantly, only one argument has been made specific to this article and it falls short. To argue that including all 19 items on the Category:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players proves some sort of vague inclusion criterion is disingenuous. Lists and categories often provide redundancy for topics, and adding 19 members to this list would not in anyway detract from the greater article, which is more or less already a list page. All 19 should be added because they are both WP:Notable and former team members (citations for team membership should be provided) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the list is pretty redundant with Category:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players, which is also assured to be updated as new articles are created. You could easily just link the category and direct people there to see all "notable players" without danger of the article section getting out of date. My personal opinion is that this section would be better served to just list players with tangible achievements (All-American, All-Conference, NBA draft picks, etc). Much more likely that this will be maintained. At the end of the day, Wikipedia notability isn't that interesting to people using the article for encyclopedic purpose, it's just a standard for includion or not. The only real use the section has is to direct interested users to articles of players for the school - an aim better served by linking the category. Listing players based on achievements actually gives the reader information as well as giving them a link to most notable players. Rikster2 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. If we applied OTHERSTUFF in comparison to articles with Good Article status (e.g. Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football, Maryland Terrapins football}, they all follow Rikster's proposal to list players with tangible achievements as opposed to a broad "notable" umbrella. This is my preference as well; however, if a list of all former players with articles is desired, then I do not understand why it is just not renamed "Former players", an objective criteria without the guise that there is any selective "notable" criteria being applied.—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally want to get embroiled in this debate again, which I clearly began in the first place and thus my stance is already known, so I'll just add this. My only other thought that would counter Jojhutton's proposal to include anyone under the blanket "notable" context is: By that rationale, and by that very loose standard, all 719 players found in Category:Michigan Wolverines football players would need to be included on Michigan Wolverines football in their own subsection. Seven-hundred-and-nineteen. Not to mention Cbl62 is a prolific Michigan football player article creator, and within six months from now I wouldn't be surprised if he's made 35 or 40 more. Is he, then, responsible for maintaining the proposed "Notable players" subsection? Or would another editor like to step up and try to cross-check every single player in the category versus who's on the article list? Quick, raise your (digital) hand if you want to volunteer for that. No? Nobody? Ahh I see. Therein lies the problem with the "if they're notable enough for an article, they deserve to be in a Notable players section" – a difficult to manage, subjective list whose parameters make for unfriendly navigation and tenuous encyclopedic connections. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary"
• Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF wouldn't apply to a comparison of this list and say Golden Gophers' basketball because of list size. 19 items easily fits in an embedded list whereas 76 Golden Gophers players would not.
• As for Jrcla2's reference to Wolverines' football, I clearly don't follow. There is a list of all notable members of the team at List of Michigan Wolverines football players which is easily maintained, so I am not sure what you are arguing against. If it is simply an argument between an embedded list and a stand alone list, then this debate has been way off topic. Typically, the only reason to break a list of players down is because the all-inclusive list is too big for easy navigation. I never consider 19 items to be too big. And 19 also isn't big enough in my opinion to warrant a stand alone list. It should be an all inclusive embedded list on this page, possibly tabulated to highlight specific relevant achievements like NFL play. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of embedded list

Leaving the issue of the final content of the list to the main thread above, if it were to be decided to have a list with all former SDSU players with a WP article, why not use the name "Former players" for which objective criteria could be applied, as opposed to the open ended, ambiguous "Notable player" title. Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming says "words like 'complete,' 'famous' and 'notable' are normally excluded from list titles." What are the reasons to ignore this? There are others aside from myself who are concerned that it is not unambiguous. Is there evidence that this is widely practiced in quality articles to have a generic "Notable players" list without describing the notability criteria of its entries?—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Two recent Main Page featured articles, Gillingham F.C.and Malmö FF use the word "Notable" in the heading, Malmo, not once but twice. Like I said before, its not the "Wiki Sin" that you continue to make it out to be. It's obvious that "practice" has outlasted "theory" and Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming is most likely outdated and no longer applies in many cases, especially if FA articles get on the Main Page.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Both FA articles, though they use "Notable" in their titles, have specific criteria for their lists in the opening sentences. I think the spirit of the whole discussion has been the criteria of the entries. Can we at least agree to listing the criteria?—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines, that have previously been linked, describe the criteria as the same as Wikipedia's general notability criteria. If they are notable enough to have a stand alone article, then they are notable enough for the list. Guidelines say that these lists can exist. The lists can include any notable person with a stand alone article. "Practice" dictates that list headings can use the words "notable", as already suggested in two high quality FA articles featured on the Main Page. There is no guideline, however, that says that there needs to be a defined criteria for the entry, other than a stand alone article, which the links would imply. If the section gets too long, however, a stand alone article could be created as has been established with List of Michigan Wolverines football players. Don't think we need to create an article for that here, just yet.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bagumba, your adding portions of this discussion to the WP:OWN comment list, in order to prove your point, is highly inflammatory in my opinion and has brought your entire position into question. There is no Wikipedia policy preventing addition of this list; and your efforts to argue that WP:notability is not a sufficient inclusion criterion are not supported by any policy. I fail to see what you objection to the addition of this embedded list of 19 items could be given the entire article is bassicly a list page. Embedded list sections of this article like "Single season leaders" have way more than 19 entries, so adding a list of notable players seems completely logic to me. If it were a bigger school with more notable players, then the list would be its own stand alone list page. But that is not the case here and with only 19 items, there isn't much reason to dissect it into smaller lists. I ask that you take a few days to consider you position before responding. I am busy now, but would be glade to take a moment after the weekend to create an embedded list the incorporates your desires for a breakdown of recognition. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that adding to OWN was inflammatory in response to accusation of "fighting" and IMO not assuming good faith in "I'm not sure why you wish to fight me on every single edit I make to this page, when I am sure you have so many more important things to do with your life or with your time on Wikipedia." Anyways, it's not about Jojhutton or Bagumba, let's get back to the article content. If I wasnt clear in starting this new sub-thread, I can agree to the full list on the condition that it be renamed "Former players" with a concise sentence describing its contents. Obviously, I am one person and others are needed for consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bagumba, I appreciate you getting back to the content and not escalating this further. I think your most recent proposal is reasonable. To incorporate your desire for a breakdown of reasons for notability, the list could look something like the 'Single game leaders' section, with side by side tables of each grouping. With the "lead" or reason for notability being the title of each table. That would fit with the thematic layout of the rest of the page. Maybe one of us could layout possible groupings here and how many of the 19 items would go in each group. That way we could see if this would even work. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ref Improve?

What exactly is the concern about the citations, or lack there of, in the article? Each section has ample citations. There are no Citation Needed tags in the article, so its difficult to know where the concern about citations are.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Southern California JC conference

I see from this edit that most citation neededs are addressed with footnote #1 in the article. However, #1 doesn't appear to support "The Aztecs first began playing during the 1921-22 basketball season as part of the Southern California JC conference." Is this covered by another existing source in the article. Or if I am mistaken, please provide the relevant quote and page number. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable players table

It took me a bit to get back to this, but as promised, I turned the section into a table format. The three tables are broken down by reasons for notability, but they can be refined and new tables can be added. I will leave it up to the other editors to refine it and add the players from the Category:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball players. There also needs to be a good lead for the section. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Promising start to addressing everyone's concerns over "notable players" being ambiguous. Even without a lead, the table headers provide a reasonable hint in the interim.—Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325091349/http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/naia/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/mensd1champhistory.pdf to http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/naia/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/mensd1champhistory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)