Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

References for NCAA stats

I have been adding NCAA career statistics to articles about some players. As an example see this article:Shanavia Dowdell.

I include a reference to the source but the reference is imperfect. If you try going to the reference, it brings you to a page where you can input information to get to the statistics but not the page with the statistics themselves. Obviously, it would be better if someone clicking on the link would arrive at the page with the player statistics.

Three options occurred to me:

1. Someone who knows how the NCAA pages are organized might know how to create a direct link to the specific page. My guess is there is no such thing — when you go to the search page the system does a query against the database and creates a temporary page with the statistics, and there is no permanent page with that particular players stats.
2. Do nothing. The link is provided will allow the reader to find the information with a small but not unreasonable extra step.
3. Supplement the reference with a footnote that explains that the reader upon reaching the search screen must enter the players name, click on search, and choose from the list.

I prefer option 1 if someone knows how to create such a direct link. Failing that, I prefer option 2 but I’d like to know if editors who have encountered similar situations feel that it is necessary to include the instructions on how to get to the data.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Heads up - the NCAA stats database is sometimes wrong

I am posting this as a separate section because it is a separate issue.

On occasion, the stats in the NCAA database are incorrect. The example I gave above is one such example.

If you go to:

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch

Enter “Dowdell” as last name, Shanavia as first name, then search, you can click on Dowdell, Shanavia to see the stats in the data base.

The problem is, it shows zero points for her senior year, which also means the career total is wrong. It is easy to reconstruct that she scored 575 as a senior, so the career total must be changed from 1024 to 1599.

This leaves us with an awkward period when the supporting reference doesn’t support the numbers used, but I forward such errors to the NCAA, and they eventually correct the database.

I’m mentioning this just in case anyone else uses the NCAA database for data – just a heads up to be careful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Input requested on WNBA draft templates

All- Trying to reach consensus on how many rounds should be displayed on yearly WNBA draft templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/Archives/2020/April#WNBA draft templates. This discussion could use more and broader input to get to a guideline. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This chap's achievements

Please can someone who understands basketball take a look at Ram Kumar (basketball). I've addressed all sorts of issues in the article already, but I don't know too much about basketball and would be grateful if someone could confirm whether all of the things listed as such toward the bottom of the article, really are international achievements worthy of recording in an encyclopedia? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of tallest players in IBL Indonesia history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tallest players in IBL Indonesia history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

FIBA Americas Championship

I want to ask if we should rename the article FIBA Americas Championship to the new name FIBA AmeriCup or create another article for it? Borikén (talk · ctb) 03:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's still the same tournament, it should just be moved to the new name. Is there a source that described the relationship between the two names?—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Check FIBA Borikén (talk · ctb) 06:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not explicit that it's the same, though it's implied since it's in 2017? (I'm not too familiar with FIBA). Americup is also not listed yet at http://www.fiba.com/americas/competitions —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

They (FIBA) doesn't update the calendars until next year but I found this: Calendar 2017 Borikén (talk · ctb) 07:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl FA review

I have nominated 2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TempleM (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game images

I have finally hastily edited and winnowed down the thousands of images that I took at the 2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game to about 200. I am welcoming feedback on which images to use for each of the 24 players in various articles. Please stop by at Talk:2016_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting to select preferred images for each player.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hey folks, thanks for contributing toward consensus building on these images. 18 of the 24 players now have an image supported by a majority of respondents. I would still appreciate some feedback on Bam Adebayo, De'Aaron Fox, Jarrett Allen, Josh Jackson, Markelle Fultz, and Sacha Killeya-Jones who remain difficult decisions. Recall that the top 3 guys in the 2016 NBA draft, 2 of the top 3 in the 2015 NBA draft and a total of 21 players in those two drafts (plus Cliff Alexander who went undrafted) had our MCDAAG images as the main image on draft day. Thus, this set of images is important to the project as a whole. I especially encourage people who have commented on some players, but not all of these 6 that remain undecided (DaHuzyBru, SantiLak, Bagumba, Jorgeriverez) to please consider them. These pictures are very likely to be our representation of these players on their NBA draft day (whether they are drafted or not).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Rikster2--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing MCDAAG images

I have been spending time attempting to add player categories for the 4 years of images that we have for the Boys' McDonald's All-American Game so that we can use {{Commons}} on all MCDAAG players. I am including categories for players are the focus of the action or whose face appears in the cropped image. However, I did a really bad job at selecting images in 2013 and we have a lot of images that were never cropped. As a result, these uncropped images have many subjects in them and may be considered relevant to many player categories. I am not really sure how to handle 2013. 2014 is a little better, but the categories may include minor picture appearances. 2015 and 2016 are better, IMO. I could use some feedback on whether I am overdoing the categorizations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Commons has any guidelines on this. I usually just categorize players who are clearly visible in the picture for efficiency, but sometime I categorize everyone too like here, even if there faces are obscured. It probably boil down to how much time you are personally willing to spend on it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba, In the example that you give, the dunkee and the coach that are clearly visible are not categorized, but you consider it an example of everyone being categorized. Why is this? Is it because of the dunkee's notability being such that a category for him is unlikely? With MCDAAG images redlink categories are probably going to be useful so I include them. P.S. I too ignore the sidelines for the categories.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Richard Amardi is tagged, but I didn't bother creating a category in Commons because he didn't have an article in WP, thus was presumably not notable. In your case, one could argue that a McD AA can generally can meet GNG, and maybe should be categorized. Again, I'm not sure if Commons has any guidelines on this, but it just seemed unwieldy if we categorize non-notable people. However, Amardi was tagged in the photo. As for the coaches, if you recognize them (I didn't and did not invest the time to Google them), feel free to categorize them.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei at the William Jones Cup (Taiwan/R.O.C./Chinese Taipei?)

Officially like most Taiwanese national teams in sports competitions the Taiwan national basketball team competes as Chinese Taipei in FIBA-sanctioned tournaments. However in the Taiwan-organized William Jones Cup, the Taiwan is not listed as "Chinese Taipei" but 中華白 (Republic of China) at the official website. Should the Chinese Taipei basketball teams listed as Taiwan of Republic or China in William Jones Cup tournaments? Listing them as Chinese Taipei would be inaccurate. The tournament is one of the biggest non-FIBA sanctioned events in Asia.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about recruit box templates in bios

Please joint the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Recruit_boxes_in_bios.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Naismith HOF templates

Hello - I have been doing some maintenance on articles for Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inductees and have noticed that for each of these two templates are present. First the generic Template:Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, then a template for the Induction class (example - Template:1973 Basketball HOF). It seems needless to me to have two templates for one achievement (three if a person was inducted more than once - like John Wooden). I propose TfDing the year-specific induction class navbox. I believe it is more defining that someone is in the HOF than who they were inducted with. Would save a lot of extra templates. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The first thing I looked at when I saw this post was a random NFL HoFer and a random MLB HoFer. Both Tony Dorsett and Willie Mays have similar templating. I find value in the at a glance navbox contributions of both templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Tony - that is sort of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There are many areas where the sports projects disagree and I would argue that both the baseball and football projects are even more navbox-crazy than we are. It just feel like having more than one template for the same honor is overkill, especially when we have had numerous discussions about trying to cut the number down. Rikster2 (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'd support aTfD, as it fails WP:NAVBOX No. 2: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". That aside, it just seems like template creep per redundancy reasons Rikster2 mentions. I'm not sure if the NFL and MLB ones are needed either, but I don't even feel a basketball player's induction class is mentioned as much as it is in the other sports.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Game log template problem

Someone wrote to Wikimedia identifying a problem with the game log in 2008–09 Golden State Warriors season I can see signs of a problem (why is there a link to the 2012 – 13 season) but I'm not quite sure what the solution is. I'm hoping someone in this wiki project has more familiarity with those templates.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Same problem in 2008–09 Los Angeles Lakers season --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Current team" listed on Olympic rosters

Hello - An editor made a bold edit edit to the Olympic basketball rosters at Basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters. The templates had previously listed the players with their last club (e.g. Kevin Durant with the Oklahoma City Thunder). User:Kraucrow added notes to denote signings (e.g. "signed with Golden State Warriors") after the old club (example). This (in my opinion) unnecessarilty clogged up the template so I reverted to their 2016–17 teams and this has been reverted twice, so clearly this needs discussion. I was not the only editor to revert these changes (example). We need to decide two things:

1. Should more than one team show on the roster - in essence the old team and new team?
2. If only one team should be shown, should it be the last team played for or the team currently under contract - it is inconsistent today

My feeling is that the current team (that the player may have signed with this offseason) is what should show because teams are already promoting their new players' participation (example) so to me "old team" is somewhat irrelevant. But I feel more strongly that a limited-space roster template should only show one club. The point isn't to talk about the players' offseason movement, it's to show who was on the national team. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I can add things I already said about Club in previous discussion:

Having club they've singed inbetween seasons is not accurate because they played zero official games with that club and does not truly represent where they come from. "Limited space" is not really an issue and by adding extra info it makes more accurate and not crowded. We can compensate for some "crowdiness" to make information more accurate. If it was all by my way I would only add club they've played last season keeping new singed club totallly out of the picture. I'm making adjustments by allowing new club being listed there. If someone's reading rosters in 2018 or other future years then he would be confused and misinformed about clubs players played before the tournament

Kraucrow (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Column's title is "club" and there is special note in legend "Club - describes last club before the tournament" to make it clear wee need real representaiton of where player comes from. And that's last club he played for last season.Kraucrow (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Please stop making the bold edits until a discussion has occurred, and a consensus is reached. This would mean more than just you and I weigh in. Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Use last team under contract e.g. Kevin Durant would be Golden State. We can make it clear in the navbox if there is a concern listing one team is misleading. Seems undue to make it more complicated for trivial information. The player is representing their country, not their pro team or the country they play in professionally. FWIW, why not remove the team and country altogether?—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The club and country are used by the official FIBA rosters (example) so maybe that was the model. Note that FIBA uses the updated teams as well. Rikster2 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd definitely give more weight to how sources present the information. Unless other sources show the Olympic roster and use OKC for Durant, I don't see the motivation to be different.—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Only one comment. For example, at football rosters is written The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament. (e.g. UEFA Euro 2016 squads). If that could help you… Asturkian (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing two teams is just a bad idea and looks horrible. What team is used, new/old, I don't care, but not both. Kante4 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I would follow the criteria used in football (last team where he/she played before the OG). It's usually to call players that made a good performance in the last season; not for where are they going to play in the next one. Asturkian (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Old team seems more suited as explained above. Kante4 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with old team, so long as we are consistent. I have a much stronger opinion that only one team should be listed. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think new team should be listed, but I agree that at least only one team (not both) should be listed and wording in the legend should remove any ambiguity as to which club (last played or currently signed) is being listed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, there appears to be consensus that only one team should be listed. I will make these changes, but am expecting that the original edition who added them will not respect consensus and revert. Rikster2 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone can't read and doesn't give a f*** about this consensus. I hope more editors will join me in keeping all rosters under control. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Somebody should put a note on the templates like exists with football. Rikster2 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That would only act as a disclaimer at best, but I'm sure most people will not read the fine print and change it to the more (IMO) intuitive current team.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure where to add this comment. It makes most sense to me to use the team the players are currently under contract to, but there have to be minor exceptions either way. Domantas Sabonis has not actually been signed by the Thunder, and therefore is not currently under contract with any club. Ben Uzoh last played in 2014 for the Canton Charge, making that team his "last team played for", but I don't think anyone is arguing that the Charge should be listed as his team. Whatever we decide, we need to make it clear, though. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It need to be "last club played for" in the roster templates, not "club"

You guys really need to explain something like this top all editors before you decide on it. I made edits to correct the rosters to the current teams the players play on, in all cases they were signed on these teams BEFORE the Olympics even began. I don't know if this is why, but another editor sent me a message saying I was making disruptive edits and threatened to have me blocked. I did not even know someone here had decided that only a previous club could be listed there. Which is EXTREMELY confusing, because the roster templates say "club", and not previous club or last club played for. I was threatened with being blocked over that I think. Because I sure did not make any "disruptive edits" here. IUf this is how the roster templates are going to be, then 1`00% there needs to be a change to all the templates, where it says "last club played for". Because as it is now, is very, very bad and misleading,and is going to cause people to get blocked, just for making correct edits.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, so it's excessive to say that you are being disruptive if you didn't know about the discussion. I will add that another indication that using the old team might not be intuitive is that Template:2016 Summer Olympics United States men's basketball team roster‎‎ was stable for a month with Durant listed under Golden State and Barnes with Dallas, but there has been multiple reverts everyday since this recent push to not use their current team. It's folly to force a "consensus" among a few editors if it's not intuitive and other editors are constantly reverting it, especially when it was stable before the edit.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like FIBA and Olympics are using the current team, as the teams listed. I think it would make more sense to just use current team. Or if not, as I said, at least I think we should change the template then from saying "club" to something like "last club played for". But I think that would take up space on the template, and yeah, I think just listing current club makes more sense.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Club is fine as it is, because if you look at the legend on the right, it clearly says – Club – describes last club before the tournament. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be ambiguous - Does "before the tournament" mean "before joining the national team" or "before the first game of the tournament starts"? Prcuvu (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am all for current team if that is the consensus. It makes more sense to me that way too. But having them all over the map is stupid and unencyclopedic so we should make a call, document it on the templates and move on. Complaining that somebody will always change them is done. That's true for the vast majority of WP consensus decisions, but at least a consensus says an agreement was reached and some discussion was had. Rikster2 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it means that there was no consensus on which team should be listed? The only agreement was that only one team should be listed? Then I don't understand why some editors tell that listing "last team played for" is considered as consensus. I myself thought that this is the consensus, but after reading this whole discussion I'm confused now. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rikster2: No doubt someone will always edit something against consensus, so it's not a reason not to try to form a consensus. However, this seems like an extreme case where we're enforcing something that is not intuitive to drive-by editors or anyone who doesn't read the fine print. The Design of Everyday Things says that the best designed things are those that are intuitive and require minimal (if any) instructions. This is neither. It's good we decided to only list one team. However, unless people want to continue this endless reverting, we should change to the current team as well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it seems like that is fodder to just agree to use the current team. Why is everything on this damn site so hard? Pick a friggin' date (like the date of the opening ceremonies or start of the basketball tournament) and just say "team as of this date." That is intuitive. Andre Iguodala still says Philadelphia 76ers for his team on the 2012 template when he was traded prior to the games. If soccer can pull this off why the hell can't this project? Rikster2 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All older templates use last team played for so I see no reason in changing it. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Current template does not included played; it says: "describes last club before the tournament"—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We need a resolution

I know this is a big and lengthy discussion. Someone claimed that there was a consensus reached here for everyone to use the "last club played for before the tournament", but I for one couldn't see a consensus being reached here and the discussion seems to be ongoing instead of completed. I for one am strongly against using the players' past clubs as they, at the beginning of the tournament, weren't representing their former clubs anymore. I believe the purpose for us to create Wikipedia articles is to make a reference at a point in time of our history. It simply doesn't make sense to use information that's isn't valid anymore. I reckon whoever created the legend in the beginning probably didn't word their sentence properly, I think the original editor probably wants to describe "the club the player represented just before the tip-off of the tournament", as in theory, a player could still be signed by another club during a tournament. Anyway, I have made my point clearly. If we are still divided about which way should we go, then let's do a voting and make a final resolution to this problem. 120.16.220.109 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There supposedly was a consensus until someone decided to revive this discussion after 2 days. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not semi-protect these templates

It seems that people just don't notice the discussion and make "disruptive edits", and some are still confused with the consensus. I would suggest putting these templates under semi-protection until the final resolution is reached, and people won't need to revert edits over and over again. Prcuvu (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Prcuvu: Semi protection wouldn't work, because it's not just IPs changing it. Feel free to request full protection at WP:RPP.—Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was set to current team right before the Olympics (or any other national team tournament) started, then there would not be a need for all the editors changing the templates, and then other editors reverting them. It's obviously mainly happening, because it is confusing to people. I know it surely confused me, as I just made some edits to update teams, as I was thinking that some edits just were not updated, or some editors just did not know they changed teams. At a minimum though, if it stays as is, then the template just saying "club" and having a note that is hard to see and really makes no sense, needs to be changed.Bluesangrel (talk)

@Bagumba: The request has been declined. Prcuvu (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined I hear your frustration but this isn't at the level for full protection yet. A hidden comment linking to the talk page consensus or a note at the top of the page could help. Katie^talk 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a consensus? I haven't seen one. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My assessment is that there is consensus to list just one team, not both, which was originally the biggest issue. There was a rough consensus to use the old team among 5 !voters. However, consensus can change, and further comments here suggests there is no consensus based on discussion alone, but a strong preference to using the current/new team based on actual edits at the templates.—Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This so-called consensus is a joke, why not just use the clubs before the tip-off of the tournament? 101.186.115.9 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Player3

Some user decided to add Template:Number table sorting, which broke the format of Template:Player3 on many teams' rosters. Hyphens (-), ndashes (–) or mdashes (—) couldn't be added anymore to teams' rosters. Of course I reverted such change, but that user argues that it's needed and keeps re-adding it. Any thoughts? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The section of the Template:Player3 is for the number of the players. When nobody add hyphens (-), ndashes (–) or mdashes (—), the sortable table breaks (without the Template:Number table sorting). So the Template:Number table sorting is important to check that the sortable table works correctly. For the players that does not have number yet, we can put a whitespace. –Vasconia (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Streetball players

Just an FYI that there seem to be a number of questionably notable streetball player articles being created lately. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've really got to question there notability. James Speedy Williams and Larry Williams (basketball) have been AfD'd, and several others probably merit it as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Shareef Abdur-Rahim

Can someone check the recent edits to this article out. Via OTRS we have a complaint that the stats and accomplishments in the infobox have been vandalized but as I have no knowledge of basketball it needs checking out by someone competent. Nthep (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to last good version. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Nthep (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

List of championships in infobox

Going back and forth on Tim Cone and would like project input. A series of IPs (likely the same person) keeps expounding the list of championships in the infobox to include a separate bullet for each championship (diff). I have tried to preserve format consistency and what I think is the intent of the infobox by moving the detailed list to the body of the article and restoring the list in the infobox to its condensed form (diff). Obviously there needs to be more input as going back and forth isn't a great option. What is the opinion of the project - the condensed list (with or without a full list in the body) or full list in the infobox? Thanks in advance for your input. Rikster2 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I like your format better, but its nothing to edit war over. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Your format is used in thousands of basketball articles and should stay that way. Even Template:Infobox basketball biography supports your format. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Syntax and order for championships in infobox medal template

I recently noticed a some edits (this pair and this one) to pages that I watch changing medal chronological order to reverse chronological order and changing "FIBA U19 World Championship" to "World U19 Championship". Was there a discussion about these changes somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember any discussion about this, but at least here, here or even here it was always listed in that order as in Okafor's article – youth tournaments are in the bottom of the infobox.– Sabbatino (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Most achievements are in order of importance vs. chronological in the infobox. All of the international tournaments are FIBA events so I don't feel like that needs to be in there (though I don't care that much about it). Rikster2 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

1966–67 FIBA European Cup Winner's Cup to 1990–91 FIBA European Cup Winner's Cup

Surely the apostrophe is misplaced in these article titles? (Compare UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, African Cup Winners' Cup, Asian Cup Winners' Cup, Arab Cup Winners' Cup etc.). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't misplaced according to FIBA website – Sabbatino (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely incorrect usage, possibly arising from translation error, but if that's what they choose to call it in English, so be it. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Question on notability of Harlem Globetrotters players

Is there a particular guideline on players who were involved with the Globetrotters? In other words, does playing for the team constitute notability? Since the organization is an exhibition team, I would not consider players to be notable (unless there is significant coverage or they also played professionally) but I could be wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to give my two cents, since the vast majority of Globetrotter games are exhibitions and their most notable games were exhibitions, I would say the same rules should apply as those for professional wrestling - need to go to WP:ENTERTAINER. That is not to say that, for example, if a player had a college career to meet WP:NCOLLATH that the sports career is ignored. I would just say their Globetrotter play is outside of WP:NSPORT. RonSigPi (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Revised WP:NHOOPS guideline

A discussion has started (see here) on the pitfalls with WP:NHOOPS. Basically, the issue surrounds confusion from "or a similar major professional sports league" and that may be overly used by editors. Rikster2 suggested just removing the language, but I have concern that it would be too much (e.g., fix a broken finger with amputation). It was suggested I bring a proposed list to the project, so here I am. For a baseline I would suggest the following:

Proposal

Basketball figures are presumed notable if they:

   1. Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, Greek Basket League, Adriatic League (and its predecessor the Yugoslav Basketball League), or the VTB United League (and its predecessors USSR Premier Basketball League and the Russian Professional Basketball Championship).
   2. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft.
   3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League.

Rationale

Only criterion 1 is changed. The logic is this - add Greece since it is one of the big 3 European leagues. Add the current and historic Soviet and Yugoslav leagues. Internationally those are the strongest Eastern European leagues and have had success on the international stage. They are major sports in those countries and have sustained success in Euroleague. I don't think there is a doubt that these three added leagues have the coverage necessary to give a presumption to all their players.

To me, the other leagues to consider are Israeli Premier League and Turkish Basketball Super League. If these are included, then that covers all the leagues with Euroleague A licenses. These are historically strong leagues and I can see a case for their inclusion considering their notability and coverage. Additionally, maybe some less "quality" leagues should be included because they are well covered (notability is not the same as good). The main examples of this to me are LNB Pro A and the Philippine Basketball Association (to me these seems similar to the National Basketball League (Australia) where the league is of a lower quality of play standard than the rest, but it is well covered). Its up to the project (which I am not part of), but these are my thoughts. One final reminder - for those that argue for no change, that means the "or a similar major professional sports league" will stand. That is probably the least helpful outcome. RonSigPi (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Feels like a reasonable start. I agree with the Greek League, but need to look further at the Eastern European leagues you recommend. I have no real concerns they are of high quality play, but I do question how well these are/were actually covered by press (and likely to yield sources) – keep in mind that adding leagues to the list is saying that every player who has played even one game is likely to meet GNG. Do you have data on this? I would also recommend adding Eurocup teams in addition to Euroleague. Last, I think it is highly likely that the PBA generates the press necessary for all players to meet GNG. I actually follow LNB A and I feel certain that 100% of its players are not notable. In addition to the Israeli and Turkish leagues, I think the Chinese Basketball Association should be explored. I'd like to stress test some of these leagues though. Rikster2 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point on China. The problem with a lot of the leagues mentioned is that they are non-English based leagues so source checking can be hard. I question how much all leagues in other sports have been actually vetted. Sometimes it feels more like people use broad knowledge of a sport to make good judgments. How much spot checking has been done to see if the players in the 1951 Albanian First Division (2nd level league) are notable? How about for the 1905 Calumet Miners of the International Professional Hockey League (note this team represented two towns totaling about 10,000 people)? For the St. Paul Saints (UA), a major league baseball team that played 8 games as a replacement team in 1884, all their players have articles, but only 2 of their 11 players have anything more than baseball databases as their references. Seems like for a lot of these leagues, a general determination is made that if the league is of high enough quality/notoriety, then a presumption is made that sources exist. This looks to be done for either really old leagues or non-English/non-Western based leagues as the source checking of those can be rough. Just my thought when comparing with other sports and leagues. RonSigPi (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the two sports that have thorough league lists I think did indeed as you mention use board knowledge to start off with. And overtime the lists of leagues and where they place has changed. They are living breathing lists, the soccer one especially is constantly evolving as they go digging deep for sources, but they also still follow the out dated model "fully-professional" where any fully professional league has its players as notable. So for them they are mostly just finding sources that prove or disprove the league is fully-pro. The hockey list on the other hand is definitely more attuned to the levels as which we have found we can't find sources for all players. More leeway as mentioned is given for early era teams/players where the news papers that would have had the coverage are hard to find or no longer exist, which is really the point of why NSPORTS exists. So as long as you don't treat whatever list you come up with as permanent and static then I think anywhere is a good place to start and can be tweaked as holes or gaps are found. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplify NHOOPS, leverage GNG more: Remove "or a similar major professional sports league". I feel NSPORTS tends to be more prescriptive than it needs to be. Ideally, all articles would be obvious to a non-domain expert that the subject meets GNG with a few varied, sizable sources cited. To me NSPORTS should only be a backup in cases where people in popular leagues are being mass-created as stubs (e.g. NBA, NFL), and these notable subjects are in turn being mass nominated for deletion. NHOOP would justifiably be is to avoid needless churn. If this isn't happening, we are spending time developing a solution for a theoretical problem that doesn't exist in reality, and encouraging stub creation for articles that may likely never grow, when they could already be created (with perhaps more substance) with GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, and I see this with the baseball criteria (which is the best example of being too loose and relies on GNG too much) for example is that the opposite happens, articles that should be created and encouraged are rapidly deleted because they don't meet NSPORTS even if they do meet GNG and can easily be shown to do so. NHOOPS could definitely benefit from getting more explicit in what the wording means. -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think a great use of NSPORTS and other guidelines when taking into consideration WP:BIAS. Take baseball. since it was mentioned above. Modern MLB players all meet GNG. The problem is something like the KBO League. Finding Korean sources from the 1980s is almost impossible. Few English speakers speak Korean and can evaluate sources. Until the late 90s, at best, even sources in Korean wont be online. To make a full encyclopedia, a judgement has to be made on what to do. We (the editors) know Korean baseball is very big and well followed, its just tough to get sources to prove it. Therefore, databases, like baseball reference, need to be relied upon. Therefore, we have the guidelines. Could probably make the same point I just made even more strongly for baseball in Japan. I think guidelines exist more for cases where we know it will be near impossible to find sources, but we are confident they are out there. In this case, I think that is why adding these basketball leagues makes sense. I think the stature of the Russian, Yugoslav, and Greek leagues is known. But actually finding sources will be tough. What Wikipedia editor has access to 1950s Soviet basketball league coverage and can read Russian fluently? Hard to find those, but they league was good enough to produce the teams that finished 2nd at the Olympics. I think judgement must be made that know the sport well. I think that is the real benefit to the guidelines - to help fight national/language bias and to help with the challenge of finding pre-Internet age sources. RonSigPi (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Result

Not a ton of input, but the input seems to form consensus to make the change as articulated on the project page. I will give 24-hours to see if anyone thinks my interpretation is incorrect. RonSigPi (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a suggestion, but if these leagues are going to be listed, then 100% for sure the EuroCup Basketball, and Basketball Champions League must be listed. They are both higher level leagues and more covered and more followed, and more important than any national league in all of Europe.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@RonSigPi: "Not a ton of input" implies no consensus. I see Rikster2 explicitly agreeing with Greek, but no explicit support for the others. I'm going to be bold and be conservative and remove the other leagues as no consensus for now. Feel free to get an uninvolved closer if you feel strongly there is a consensus for the others.—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba I would not say it implies no consensus. Many deletion discussions and other decisions have been made with far less. I think what you did was far too restrictive in that not only did it only add one league, but also removed the "similar league" provision. If there is no consensus, then no consensus and no change should be made. I gave a 24-hour window to rebut the change and it took you three days. In addition, I am not ok with a unilateral decision that changes the language to something that was never proposed. For example, I do not agree with removing the Yugoslov and Russian-based leagues and removing the similar language. I think most editors would agree that a unilateral change, even if trying to compromise, is not the way to go. In view of all this, I have undone your edit. I have no intention of starting a WP:WAR, but it seems far better to go with something that at least someone believes is consensus than something that is clearly not the consensus. I am trying to communicate this with WP:CIV, I just don't think your solution is the proper course of action. I actually think it is the worst option. If you want to go to an uninvolved closer, then that is fine and I would support that. However, I can see only these as suitable options keeping the change, only adding the Greek league and the other league language, or just keeping it the way it was. RonSigPi (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the close does sum up the opinions in this section but since I commented I can't comment as an involved admin closer. But I don't think RonSigPi was off the mark on the closing. I would have came to the same conclusion. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cliff Clinkscales/archive1

Can I get some help at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cliff Clinkscales/archive1. This article has a very unencyclopedic tone, IMO and borders on WP:CRUFT. I am having trouble bringing it up to par as a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

100-point scorers list order

@Rikster2:, @Zagalejo:, @TonyTheTiger:, @DaHuzyBru:, @Bagumba:, @Sabbatino:, @X96lee15:, @Bluesangrel:, @Jweiss11: —

Do you think the lists in List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game should be ordered by (a) chronological order from earliest to most recent, or (b) by total points from highest to lowest? I think chronological makes more sense, but another editor disagrees. Before it ends up as an edit war, I wanted to gauge "basketball regulars" opinions. Thank you. 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. I can see both sets of logic. Rikster2 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Sort by points. I think most people are interested in who scored the most. Whatever is decided, the other column is sortable anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Listing non professional (semi pro, minor league, and many times amateur and youth teams in player's infobox under "professional" teams

I have noticed this in many, many basketball player articles for international players, particularly for European players. When the players were playing in some youth club, some cadet school, some minor league team from a 4th division in their national country, etc. these teams and years are listed as under professional career. I see many cases of articles of European players for example that list from when they were 13-14-15 years old and playing in youth training academies and under-16 age leagues, etc. I don't understand how this can be considered "professional" because it absolutely is not, and none of these examples is actually professional. But I see it in so many articles of European players here. I think either the player infobox needs to just say something like "list of teams played for", or if it stays as the criteria of professional listing, then only actual professional teams need to be listed there. Playing in the 3rd Croatian division at age 14 or whatever is not professional, but it will be listed that way here in so many articles. So this has to be changed.

I realize part of the problem is in USA sports media, they always say when talking about European players that "so and so started playing professionally at age 14, or age 15", or whatever. You hear this said also about a lot of Latin American players. US sports media and the in game NBA announcers make these claims all the time, even you will see it in NBA.com bios. But it's not actually true. The vast majority of the time, what they are calling "professional" is a minor league, or it is actually a youth league. So there is no way that should be counted as professional, especially when you have players playing in NCAA basketball even after they supposedly "played professionally since age 15 in Europe". But no, they didn't. If we are going to have the templates list clubs and years of play as "professional", then it actually needs to be professional. It's a problem, because so many dozens of player articles have this issue.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If they're paid, it's professional, or at least semi-pro, which still renders them ineligible for strictly amateur competitions. That's what is being refered to, the idea that the player has been paid for their talents. (And minor leagues are professional, by the way. "Professional" ≠ major.) oknazevad (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to just list the teams at the highest level they competed at. Hockey for example only will only list the NHL and the top league of any European league pyramids once they play a single game in either. Up until that point they list the highest minor-pro league. Junior/Amateur teams are never listed in the former teams area. That being said we title the section as Former teams for that very reason. Perhaps a section rename is needed? -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer we keep minor league teams, but there is probably a threshold. I don't see the need for youth teams, etc. The issue gets muddied in that for many leagues teams are relegated/promoted, which is similar to playing in the NBA one season and the D-League the next. It also makes it tough to know if a team was "highest level" when the person played for them - especially once you go back 10 years or so. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Youth teams is really stretching it. However, minor league may be acceptable under some circumstances. If a player is paid to play, they are professional. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually I forgot we do add minor teams now as long as they are professional. Was too early in the morning when I posted that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, a lot of articles list youth teams, and from when players were like 14, I even saw some listings from when the players were at like age 10 if you can believe it being listed. Clearly, this makes no sense to do that, yet that's how many articles are edited.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so suggest a guideline. I am not in favor of eliminating minor-league stints like the NBA D-League or LEB Oro. Rikster2 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither am I, and LEB Oro is considered full pro actually, so not a minor league. D-League I think is one step up from a minor league also, in terms of US basketball, but probably just semi-pro in terms of the salaries. I am just saying that listing YOUTH clubs is ridiculous. It would be like listing junior high and AAU and things like that for American players.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Both the D-League and LEB Oro are "minor league." Minor league just means it isn't the top-level professional league in its country. Rikster2 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Error i saw but didnt know how to fix because of coding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Golden_State_Warriors_season&wteswitched=1

The link is to a Wikipedia page about the 2013-14 Golden State Warriors. I noticed Klay Thompson is not in the roster section. I know he was apart of that team. even on his personal Wikipedia page there is information about his 2013-14 season with Golden State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.196.214.73 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Nick VanderLaan AfD

Hi all. I would appreciate comments from the basketball community at the following AfD on Nick VanderLaan. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Saint John Riptide

Recently the Saint John Mill Rats were replaced by the Saint John Riptide in NBL Canada. The league's initial announcement is title "Franchise Under New Ownership" but then in the article it states the Riptide "will be replacing the former team, the Mill Rats" and never explicitly states that the new ownership bought the old franchise. The title certainly seemed to indicate it was franchise transfer but recently a Saint John-based shifting IP has been deleting all Mill Rats history claiming that it is a new franchise. Since basketball and its operations are not my area of expertise, I thought I would ask the wikiproject for their opinion on the situation. (The IP was making incorrect edits regardless, so I reverted them. If the Riptide are to be considered a new franchise, the page should probably be moved back the Mill Rats name, to keep edit history, and the Riptide info should be split out.) Yosemiter (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent WP:NHOOPS changes

There was a recent decision on the changes to WP:NHOOPS based on discussion here. There were multiple mentioens by people that the Israeli Basketball Premier League should be included in the list of leagues. This was mentioned by several people but no one seemed to acknowledge it while closing the debate. Due to this there is currently an AfD discussion going on about a player who is only notable for his time in Israel. The Israeli league gets plenty of coverage around the world, and many top players have come through it. I see no rationale for excluding it from the NHOOPS list. I propose adding it into the list. - Galatz^Talk 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

An announcement about such discussion would be nice in the future. Looking at the "notable" leagues listed, I don't see many top-level leagues from Europe (Lithuania, France, Germany, Spain, Turkey to name a few). It looks like the guideline is U.S.-biased, which is silly as Wikipedia is supposed to be an international project. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

eh, that's not true. The NBA and its ancestor leagues are on there, then the Spainsih, Australian, Italian leagues. It is just a conservative standard compared to others, I don't think it is particularly biased. We have tried to add top European leagues a number of times but can't get agreement beyond Italy and Spain Rikster2 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I somehow missed the ACB, but that still doesn't change my opinion. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Galatz and Sabbatino. For the particular issue in question I agree that the Isreali Premier Legaue should be explicitly added. And so should several other leagues that used to be implicitly included by virtue of being similar to the leagues listed. Rlendog (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. With Galatz. 2604:2000:E016:A700:B55A:89B6:4E2F:9B51 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• The French League is probably the 4th most historic national league in Europe, after Spain, Italy, Greece. So it should probably be included also. And whay would current European-wide leagues like EuroCup Basketball and Basketball Champions League not be included? EuroCup is way better overall than the Liga ACB, and even Champions League probably is also.Bluesangrel (talk)
  • I know the French League pretty well and I do not believe that ALL players would meet GNG. Starters and top reserves probably would, but end of the bench guys just don't get that much press. That's the kind of thing we need to keep in mind, that adding it to the guideline is saying that anyone playing even one game in the league is likely notable. I do agree that EuroCup should be added. I'd need to learn more about the Champions League. Rikster2 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • IMO, the Champions League deserves the same notability than the EuroCup. Asturkian (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

French League players that are prominent should probably qualified. So, if a guy is a main rotation player, I think that qualifies. As far as Champions League, it's basically the same level league as EuroCup (except for some teams at the initial stage), and it actually has far more press, and media coverage and far more money into it than EuroCup. In terms of the amount of budget, the press, the coverage, the media aspect....much bigger than Spanish League or EuroCup.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I guess it is impossible with the one game notable as Rikster said, for French League. Too many players that should not be notable would qualify. Still it's a bit vague, because I think a main French League player would be somewhat notable.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Harlem Globetrotters

The teams roster really needs updated. It hasn't been in a year. I just updated the link to the roster page. But other than that, the player list is 13 months out-of-date. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Poor color contrast

I have updated the automatic table generated in the documentation for Module:Basketball color to add the contrast ratios for the primary and secondary color combinations. the higher the number the better, and anything under 3 is bad per WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines. many were easy to fix, but some remain. you can find the bad ones by sorting the table by the values in the last two columns. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Why were these deleted?

Rosters of the FIBA World Cup are definitely notable. There was no reason for that to be deleted entirely from the site ---> Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship

We need to have a discussion about this.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

These should be WP:DRVed, at the very least. The delete votes supposedly were built on solid foundation, but cited absolutely zero policies lol.

Note that I'd be less than willing to bet on women's competitions though. Do we have similar consensus for rugby union and cricket world cups? –HTD 00:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've successfully asked the user who closed the discussion to relist it. You can comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 29#Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship. –HTD 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be good for all of us to have the possibility to be notificated when any article related to the WP:HOOPS is discussed for move, deletion, etc. Asturkian (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Asturkian: You can add Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Article alerts to your watchlist. This will be updated anytime a page tagged by the project is affected. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Article alerts.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Having things like this deleted, without anyone from the basketball project even aware is a big problem. Especially since in the actual delete discussion, and the new discussion that has been reopened, there are plenty of people voting for delete that clearly from their comments have almost no knowledge of basketball and clearly have no idea what the FIBA World Cup even is.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked some users (about 5-6) that do a lot of editing in European / international basketball, in NBA articles, and or both, to give their thoughts on this. I only asked for the input of users that I see regularly editing basketball articles and that have also been participating in the basketball project talk for a long time. That way we can get the input of people that understand the subject better.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: Be careful with the perception of WP:CANVASSING. It's one thing to notify the project, but contacting individual editors can give the wrong appearance unless it's something less subjective like blindly taking from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not canvasing to ask for people that know the subject to give their own thoughts and opinions on the matter. That is in no way any violation of anything. Simply to notify people well versed in the topic and to give their own 100% personal view on the matter. That is in no way at all even remotely canvassing.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So I am 100% in full compliance with site rules.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:PBL Arenas

Hello - in the course of doing other stuff, I found the template PBL Arenas (PBL being Premier Basketball League) attached to a school's article. One of the team names is a redlink, so I started investigating, and found that the template is about 4 years out of date. The league has had many changes in the past few years. An industrious member of your project might take on the task of updating articles and templates related to the Premier Basketball League - for another example, History of PBL teams is also in need of updating. Cheers, PKT(alk) 15:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

EuroBasket roster templates being nominated for deletion

Please join the discussion, as EuroBasket roster templates in the dozens are being nominated for deletion. so it isn't just people without any basketball knowledge. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 8Bluesangrel (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)