Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

New dunk contest format

Have any of you guys heard about the new dunk contest format being a team battle? What will this do to the infoboxes. Should we add co-slam dunk champion to the 3 members of the winning team or the "dunker of the night" which will be voted by the fans? Should we just not put anything in this year? What do you guys think? (T23tran (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC))

From what I can tell here, there are now two teams, and there will be both a team award and an individual award. I'd say definitely no for the team award. I know there was some sentiment to not list the dunk contest even before this, maybe we'll need to reconsider that. AFAICS, there isn't much prestige to it as there once was (even before these changes).—Bagumba (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't watch it, but reading this writeup, it appears the team is the "champion", while the individual is just "Dunker of the Night". Have no idea what to do with this, or maybe we just remove all All-Star Weekend events altogether from infobox. There was talk of that before at Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography#NBA_All-Star_Weekend_events_honors_.28such_as_Slam_Dunk_Champion.2C_Shooting_Stars_Champion.2C_H.O.R.S.E_Competition_Champion.29_should_be_listed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Vlade Divac playoff statistics

If anyone is so inclined, Vlade Divac's article needs some attention. Over time the playoff statistics section has gotten way incorrect. I don't generally deal with stat tables, but right now the info doesn't match basketball-reference at all. Rikster2 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The playoff years were all off by one year when the stats table was added in November 2013. It seems that an IP later tried to fix things, but gave up and blanked the section. I think things are OK now, but I've only done a spot check. Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Zags. Good to see you back, if even for a short time. Rikster2 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

John Wall

John Wall is the official 2014 dunk contest champion so I went ahead and removed that from Paul George's and Terrence ross' infoboxes. (T23tran (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

Sportsman of the Year in infoboxes

Is Sportsman of the Year something we want in infoboxes for bios with a lot of highlights? It's been added to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and a few others recently. We generally limit entires to major ones once a player has >= 5 entries per Template:Infobox basketball biography. I'm thinking this award is not major enough to be an exception to be added.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw it on LeBron's page so I added to some other players. Whatever you guys want to do is fine with me.-T23Tran —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What are the examples of the least crowded infoboxes that include it. I have to think that almost anyone who has one it has a lot of other stuff in the infobox and that it is likely we could have a general rule against including them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This "Sportsman of the Year" could be the only not-basketball-exclusive sports award an NBA player could have so... –HTD 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Using Lebron_James#Other as an example, there's similar awards from AP, Sporting News , and Sports Iiustrated. For brevity, I'm thinking mention in the body would be sufficient. Not sure if any bio mentions these in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's removal was reverted at LeBron James, though the explanation of "No consensus has yet been reached" is unclear whether its purely procedural because WP:SILENCE as consensus was assumed, or there are other arguments to keep it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

FYI

There is an WP:ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DJSkippyB_not_engaging_in_discussions regarding edits of WP:NBA-related articles by DJSkippyB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Your input is welcome.—Bagumba (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Template:Infobox basketball biography

FYI

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_17#Template:Infobox_basketball_biography that you are invited to participate.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

NBA venue/arena categories rename at CfR

I highly encourage you all to visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 21#NBA venues to take part in a mass category renaming proposal I created. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagging D-League players

Are D-League players under scope of this project? I would assume yes since the league is under the NBA (though I admit I personally don't do much with D-League articles.)—Bagumba (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never considered them under the umbrella of this project, but what you say makes sense. The danger is you'd suddenly expand the project to a huge number of players and it seems like that would diffuse focus. NBA draftees aren't covered under the project unless they play in the league. I probably won't tag any D-League player articles with this project, but I won't remove the tags either. Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't tag any additional ones unless people express interest. As I said, I personally won't be editing many pure D-League players to care if they get tagged or not.—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagging WNBA players

Related to #Tagging D-League players, should WNBA-related articles be untagged from this project? There was weak support at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball/Archive4#WNBA to not include them here, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball has since been created as well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A question

For the sake of respecting another editor's request, I'd like to know if it's OK to put in a player's infobox that they were inducted to the Basketball HOF for being part of the 1992 Dream Team?

I would think that being a 2-time inductee (as all Dream Teamers are except for Christian Laettner) would be a no brainer as something notable, but I'll ask to see if consensus is with me or not just to be safe.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, in the Rock and Roll HOF, The Beatles are inducted as a band, and all but Ringo Starr are also inducted for their solo careers. Same principle here...The Dream Team got inducted as a team, and all but Laettner are also inducted for their individual careers. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer we didn't. There is already a flag for HOF induction as an individual in the infobox so adding a bullet to somebody like Magic Johnson that says "2x HOF inductee" seems like a waste. I don't think it is important that guys like Laettner or Allen Kelley (a member of the 1960 team) show team HOF induction in the infobox given everything else in there (it is certainly worth adding to the article or to any list of accomplishments contained in the article though). It gets particularly tricky when you consider HOF teams like the New York Rens or Harlem Globetrotters, which have multiple members over many years - the format wouldn't hold up. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the team induction is career defining to warrant cluttering the infobox. The first thoughts people have of Laettner is not a a HOF member; the team inductions are more for trivia, worth a mention in a sentence in the body of the bio, and more in the article about the team itself. If there actually was consensus to add this to the infobox, it should be consistent w/ the format of display of others inducted both as player and coach (i.e. Lenny Wilkens & Bill Sharman. Showing "2× Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame" to me is contrary to WP:ASTONISH. Weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but 1960 United States men's Olympic basketball team members have not been marked as team inductees in their bios either.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even really other stuff, as it doesn't appear the RnR HOF is listed in musician infoboxes at all. If we were to do it, I agree that an indicator of "Basketball HOF as a team member" (consistent with others) is the way to go. You have to think through the application, though. Does PJ Carlesimo get the Dream Team HOF indicator? Does Wilt Chamberlain get one for the Globetrotters? Rikster2 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See if the edit I made to the Lenny Wilkens article would be the way to go for the others, if not, then I'll drop the issue. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to do it (and my vote is still that we don't), then there needs to be a new field added "HOF_team" which would displays reading something like "Basketball HOF as a team member." Otherwise, in the Wilkens example, there are 2 marked flags (player and coach) and one that just says "Basketball HOF" which appears extraneous. Also, in no way should the template for the HOF class of the team be added to the article. Wilkens (in this example) is not on the template. Which may just be another reason not to do this. Rikster2 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Category:Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inductees should NOT be applied to Laettner. That really is misleading. The category has been applied to 1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team, which is where it belongs. Rikster2 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't heard a compelling reason why it's considered significant enough to be added to the infobox. We can deal with how to display it later (if needed).—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I said if the Wilkens edit didn't pass the test I'd drop the issue, and I'm a man of my word.
User:Vjmlhds (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: If its not worthy of the infobox, I also don't think it's worth cluttering the lead of the article either, like your recent edit to David Robinson and all the other 1992 team members. Also, it would be more accurate to say he was a member of the 1992 team that was inducted, instead of saying he was inducted twice. Look at http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-index/, people like Lenny Wilkens have two entries—for player and coach—but none of the players inducted as a team have their own personal entry for "team". The two-time inductee verbage should be reverted, and the team entry should be mentioned in the body and not in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I think we're quibbling over semantics here. The Dream Teamers (sans Laettner) all have 2 HOF rings. They were inducted twice into the HOF, once individually, and once as part of a team. I also think it's a little subjective on your part to say that the individual HOF induction means more than the team induction. At the end of the day, an HOF induction is an HOF induction. Others should weigh in here, and if they agree with you, I'll change it no problem. But I don't see the issue here. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I've never seen "two-time inductee" used, it's typically "inducted as both a player and a coach". If there is consensus to mention the team, it should be "as a member of team" and not "two-time" or "three-time inductee." Secondly, how many sources include the "team" induction when describing a player's career? [This book], for example, doesn't list team induction under people's names. We need to apply due WP:WEIGHT.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why this is such a big deal. There's no argument that everybody discussed has been inducted multiple times (The Dream Teamers twice, and Wilkens 3 times) If somebody wins an award or a championship, they're a two-time, or three-time this that or the other. I say this as respectfully as I can, as I know you're coming in good faith, but what this is becoming is an argument about phraseology, and not about the facts. You bring up WP:WEIGHT, and I can say that you're not giving the group induction the recognition it deserves. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be OK with team induction if enough sources indicate it is more notable than I believe it is. As for terminology, I'm not sure why we would refer to it as "two-time inductee" if the convention in sources is to say "inducted as a player and a coach". Sure it's technically correct to say 2×, but what would be the motivation to not use common terminology? Again, sources that demonstrate usage of 2× or 3× in reference to basketball HOF would quickly resolve this.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an article from the New York Times covering the death of Bill Sharman, where they refer to him as a two-time HOFer. There are others that I found as well, but if something as highly regarded as the NY Times can use the term "Two-Time Hall of Famer", then there's no reason it can't be used here. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be WP:SILENCE here, so I'm not inclined to pursue this. Does seem strange that we'd be ok with it in the lead but not in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Glen Davis' weight also listed in stone?

Resolved

 – Stones removed

Hi,

I was just looking up Glen Davis to see if anything had been added about his recent signing with the Clippers. I noticed that article's lead lists his weight in lbs, kg, and stone (st.). I'm not really sure why it is necessary to list his weight in stone and I haven't seen that unit on the pages of any other current/former NBA players. It seems unnecessary to me, so I'm just curious if there is a special reason for doing so. I've already posted about this on the article's talk page, but figured I'd add something here too since NBA players are covered by your project. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AC Green most consecutive games played

Should we really have his most consecutive games played streak i his infobox? It's in his bio already which I believe should suffice. We don't have any other 'consecutive game records' in any other peoples infoboxes. (T23tran (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

I think you made the right call deleting it. It's notable for the article, maybe even the lead, but does not need to be in the infobox in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think something like this would be an achievement notable for an infobox, but I'm not completely pressed on it. It is a borderline infobox-worthy achievement and one of the main reasons I've re-inserted it numerous times is because User:T23tran was going around and mass-deleting notable awards/honors from basketball players' infoboxes at a delirious rate. Re-inserting this AC Green info was partly knee-jerk. If the consensus is to have it removed, that's fine too. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get in the middle of anything, I see both sides. T23tran is clearly learning his way around an infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this record is the exception, as it is a large part of his notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be based on the rationale of why a given record should be in an infobox, not that all records need to blindly be in there, or that all should be deleted. Infobox IMO should summarize key highlights of the lead, as another alternative to having to read the whole article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

weellllll ... Green was notable before he ever suited up for an NBA game as an All-American at Oregon State. But your point is valid in that many people first associate the record with him. But his notability is about many things (NBA All-Star, star college player, multiple NBA championships, public stance on abstinence, etc.) and I wouldn't agree the record is necessarily a "large part" of his notability. Rikster2 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it because he has awards of notable nature already. Plus, if we were going to have records that are most associated with players we would have things like 'Twyman-Stokes award named after him' in Jack Twyman's infobox. Isn't that what the biography is for? I just don't think we should cram information like that in the infoboxes because 1. It will retract from the importance of the biography. and 2. There'll be too clutter and it will look sloppy. Presentation is key, folks! I believe infoboxes should be strictly awards. Those go down in history and can never be taken away from that player. Records will always be broken. (T23tran (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

Until the notable record is broken, it should remain in the infobox. Being an NCAA season scoring leader, for example, cannot be broken, so I'm not sure how that rationale holds up for annual statistical leader achievements. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think major records, of which this is borderline, will always get added back by someone, so to an extent I accept it to save stressing on constant reverts. If there is consensus to police these, then so be it—I just think it's a battle with minimal downside.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Touche on "large part" (I've struck "large'), but no doubt it is a part. Inexact test: I took the first article from a Google search[1], and the streak was there.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames in player article leads

One thing I noticed with basketball player articles is that often, nicknames are the first thing that's mentioned in the opening paragraph. Which makes sense for someone like Shaquille O'Neal, who can basically go as "Shaq" and his full name is often an afterthought. But in cases where players are known by their legal names, why would you open an article with a sentence like, Kobe Bean Bryant (born August 23, 1978), nicknamed the "Black Mamba"... Here, what we're implying is that his "Black Mamba" monicker is Kobe Bryant's most notable identifying feature after the fact that he's a living human being. The hierarchy of information seems a little effed up here. You can see something like Joe Dumars, LeBron James or Adrian Dantley, or something a little more ridiculous like Hakim Warrick, where editors can't even choose between nicknames that hardly anyone uses, and the less egregious one like Harrison Barnes, where the "black falcon" nickname is mentioned at the bottom of the article.

I believe the O'Neal article should be the exception that proves the rule - unless the nickname is used so commonly that it can replace the real name, then sure, mention it in the first paragraph. But otherwise, the notability and commonness of nickname are so loosely defined, fluid and unverifiable that we should avoid mentioning it in the first couple of sentences, and generally not in the opening paragraph. Thoughts? Mosmof (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, drive-by editors blindly apply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS all the time, while not exercising editorial control. It's kind of a losing battle unless there is enough of us policing it. I'd sign up for partial duty if there was some level of support.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In the hockey project, if its a nickname they are known by more than their normal name (or atleast on par with) we add it in as Joe "Monster" Smith right in the bolded name as the style guide suggests. If is a name that is just a short form of their name such as John for Johnathan then we don't really mention it at all because the article is usually titled that way already. If it is something like Smitty for someone with the last name Smith we don't list it at all because pretty much every sports player has some "y" or "ie" version of their name that teammates will call them in interviews etc so they aren't really nicknames. Shaq is a bit unique in that it is a one word nickname that is also a short form so I could see mentioning it near the beginning. But for nicknames that are rarely used. I wouldn't put it in the lead at all, I would mention it in the prose, ideally somewhere around the time they would have started being called it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Is there a way to standardize this? I.e. don't mention a nickname in the lead unless it's a sobriquet like "Shaq"or "Big Baby", or it has popular culture cachet outside of basketball? And they should only be mentioned in the body unless it's in context, i.e. teammates calling Ray Allen "Jesus" and wearing "J. Shuttlesworth" on his jersey because of his movie role. Mosmof (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

People add nicknames so often, I currently only bother removing if they are unsourced and not easily verified at basketball-reference.com. If we wanted to pursue this, I'd suggest cleaning up the NBA articles first to at least dissuade people from being copycats. We could then consider documenting something at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines that follows the accepted practice. If someone is really ambitious, WP:R#PLA and MOS:LEAD#Usage_in_first_sentence could be enhanced to address nicknames.—Bagumba (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Front Cover

Resolved

LeBron was not the 2012 NBA All-star game MVP. It is on the front cover over WikiProject NBA so can somebody take it off?

Robert4565 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

2008-09 Indiana Pacers season Improvement

I took off the roster because it was the incorrect roster and is the roster for the 2013-14 Indiana Pacers season. I have completed the correct roster, but I have missed numbers and possible injuries of players. I could not find references for the numbers. Can anybody help fix those things on the roster and add it to the page?

Indiana Pacers roster

Players

Coaches

Pos. No. Name Height Weight DOB From G/F 17 Dunleavy, Mike 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m) 230 lb (104 kg) Duke G 5 Ford, T. J.  6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) 165 lb (75 kg) Texas C 10 Foster, Jeff  (IN) 6 ft 11 in (2.11 m) 250 lb (113 kg) Texas State G/F 33 Granger, Danny  (IN) 6 ft 8 in (2.03 m) 228 lb (103 kg) New Mexico C 55 Hibbert, Roy 7 ft 2 in (2.18 m) 278 lb (126 kg) Georgetown F 32 McRoberts, Josh 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m) 240 lb (109 kg) Duke F/C 3 Murphy, Troy 6 ft 11 in (2.11 m) 245 lb (111 kg) Notre Dame G 25 Rush, Brandon 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) 210 lb (95 kg) Kansas G 1 Jack, Jarrett 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) 200 lb (91 kg) Georgia Tech G/F 10 Graham, Stephen 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) 215 lb (98 kg) Central Florida, Oklahoma State G 12 Diener, Travis 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) 175 lb (79 kg) Marquette F 5 Baston, Maceo 6 ft 11 in (2.11 m) 230 lb (104 kg) Michigan G/F 6 Daniels, Marquis 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) 200 lb (91 kg) Auburn C 8 Nesterović, Radoslav 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m) 255 lb (116 kg)

Head coach Vacant Legend (DP) Unsigned draft pick (FA) Free agent (S) Suspended Injured

Robert4565 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I just went into history of Template:Indiana Pacers roster and grabbed an old copy and cut/pasted it into 2008–09 Indiana Pacers season. Hopefully that version was correct at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Professional career"/"NBA career" format

Hi,

Just wondering if there's set format that your project recommends using for Professional Career or NBA Career. Some NBA player articles (e.g., Carmelo Anthony, Luol Deng, etc.) seem to do it strictly on a per team and per season basis like this

Professional Career

Team Name

Season YYYY-YYYY

But others (e.g., Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade, etc.) seem to do it on a per team and per notable events/accomplishments basis like this

NBA Career

Team Name

Highlights (YYYY-YYYY)

Not sure really if one way is better than the other, but just curious if one is preferred over the other. Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the ideal case would be something like Michael Jordan. Some seasons for a player are more important than others, and it would be even better to divide their career into notable eras.—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Bagumba. I think it's certainly much more interesting when things are laid out as they are in the Jordan article. It also makes for a shorter TOC when multiple seasons are grouped together as such, and it's easier to find key points in a player's career. I can, however, see the attraction in doing things on a per season basis, especially for players with fairly short careers, but that style seems to become a bit unwieldy after a 5 or 6 seasons. Kind of reminds me of the back of a baseball card. Anyways, I was just curious as to whether this project has a particular format that it recommends. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Per-team sections are easiest. IMO, unless there is a lot of text for each season, a section for each season with little more than a sentence or two is overkill.—Bagumba (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba Agree 100%. I'm not really a member of this project, so maybe it's not my place to say, but I think that should be the recommend format for all NBA player articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bucks–Bulls rivalry

An IP editor changed this from a redirect back to an article even though it is pretty much a copy/paste of National Basketball Association rivalries#Milwaukee_Bucks_vs._Chicago_Bulls, which itself is unsourced. Should it be redirected back? For that matter, is this even a rivalry worth keeping at National Basketball Association rivalries?—Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would argue most people don't see this as a rivalry of significance. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

^ I second that. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to the AfD opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucks–Bulls rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Another rivalry AfD has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nets–76ers rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image input

Could use some opinions at Talk:Pau_Gasol#Infobox_image regarding which image to use in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

NBA DL record book

While editing Manny Harris, NBA DL records have become a curiosity. What are the single-game, single-season and career scoring average records for the NBADL? I can't seem to find a league record book.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also for the NBA DL, how many of the 50 games does one have to play to qualify for a statistical championship.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, in March 2012 the NBA DL single game record was 53 by Morris Almond according to this article. Not sure if that is current.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I can't find averages, but it seems Blake Ahearn set the total points record in 2012.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, would this help? BR has some stuff. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Harris may have set the NBADL single-season and career scoring records. It is just a matter of whether he has the qualifying amount of games. The ss record of 29.07 was set by someone who only played 15 games so there is a strong chance that Harris' 13 games with 30.6 is going to be the record and his career scoring of 25.4 is better than the D-League record of 24.93. The question is whether Harris' 30 games qualifies.

I love Harris as a player and Michigan fan, but I see here that he may have a D-League game not suited for the NBA. The 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team beat 3 ranked opponents. Harris led the team in scoring that year and was one rebound shy of the team lead, but it seemed in the big games he was not the leader. The link shows he scores a lot of bunnies and free throws. Probably against better college teams and in the NBA, they may be able to defend him better inside without fouling. I don't think his D-League excellence means much in terms of his NBA future. I watched about five minutes of the Lakers Bulls 2 nights ago and I saw Harris get swatted twice trying to take it inside. Unless he becomes an outside shooter or reworks his inside game, I am not sure what he will be able to do in the NBA. However, hopefully, he will be the D-League single-season and career scoring average record holder when this season is over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

However, Pierre Jackson's 29 points per game this season would give him a higher career number than Harris. Harris may only get the season number.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• It now seems that although the source above only requires that a player play in 25% of the games, the league's website stat engine seems to require that a player play in half of his team's games to qualify for stat leaders. Manny Harris has played in 21 games and is averaging 32.1 ppg. So if he can play in 4 more games and keep his average above 29.07, he may have a record coming.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

NBA Rising Star

'NBA Rising Star' should not be included in players infoboxes. It's not an award or accomplishment. The Rising Stars challenge is just a different name for the rookie-sophomore game and those aren't players infoboxes. The Rising Stars MVP is an actual award so that can stay, but I say we remove the 'NBA Rising Star'. Again, not an accomplishment. You guys agree? (T23tran (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

I do agree. Being selected as one of the 10-12 "best" rookies or sophomores could be mentioned in prose, but is not really that big of a deal to be in the infobox. Think about it: if a player gets chosen to be a Rising Star, there's an excellent chance they'll be an actual star at some point. Their awards and accolades are almost undoubtedly going to follow later in their careers, so don't clog the infobox with a Rising Stats selectee honor. I do think the Rising Stars MVP award should be kept, however, since one player in a group of the best rookies and sophomores earns that. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. It really doesn't make sense to have it on there. I'm still new on here so how many people have to agree to make this happen? (T23tran (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not !vote on anything (see WP:NOTAVOTE). Decisions are made through consensus among editors via logic and explanations, not be "5 people voted agree, 1 voted disagree, thus it passes." If those 5 agrees don't provide explanation and just say "Yep", that amounts to nothing. And so if the 1 disagree provides rationale reasoning, the consensus should be considered 'disagree.' Jrcla2 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. So will all the editors eventually see this post and give their input? Or is there something else I need to do? (T23tran (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

There is no deadline, so it's always good to wait for input. Nobody should reasonably object to a discussion that has been open for a week. With experience, you can sometimes tell if less time is needed. About the only thing to do besides wait would be to WP:CANVASS, but its not always needed.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing Rising Stars and the associated MVP. I just don't think it gets mentioned much after the WP:ROUTINE coverage a few days after the event.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are almost no standardization rules that have made sense for infoboxes. Accomplishments that are meaningless for some players are the highest accomplishment for others. Probably the majority of the Rising stars will be All-Rookie and many will be All-stars, but some will not. Probably almost all guys who are rising star as rookies will be All-rookie. However, many guys who are only Rising Stars as sophomores never were All-rookie and may never be All-star. Rising star might be the highest accomplishment for some of these guys.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The name "Rising Stars" makes the event sounds more important than it really is. So I am not against removing Rising Stars.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't mind removing it for players who were All-Rookie, but if an above average rookie has nothing else in his infobox, it is almost misleading to omit it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Module:Basketball biography

FYI, the Template:Infobox basketball biography/style template collapsed under the weight of the massive nested switch complexity. luckily, I was ready for the collapse, and merged all the various basketball color templates into Module:Basketball color. the actual data is in Module:Basketball color/data. we may want to add some protection to these modules if someone comes along and breaks them. but, until that happens, it might be good to simply watch them, and revert any edits that screw it up. the modules are self-testing, with the tables in the documentation generated automatically, so it should be easy to see if something has broken. hopefully, everything is documented well enough to understand how to manage the colors. I realize the actual module might need some additional documentation, but the data template should be readable. Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Early entrants to NBA draft

Is a player's family member (e.g. parent) a sufficient source for adding that a player is leaving college and entering the NBA draft? These players are adults, so I'd personally rather wait for the player to declare it himself, like Andrew Wiggins at a scheduled press conference, or the NBA acknowledging the papers have been received. On the other hand, some sources have lists saying its "official" based on parents info.. The specific examples I'm looking at are Kyle Anderson (basketball) and Zach LaVine, there might be others. I've removed it from their articles, but others like 2014 NBA draft remain.—Bagumba (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally should probably be an announcement, but good luck given that legit sports sites like Sporting News, Fox Sports and Sports Illustrated have both players (as well as some others who I don't think have officially declared) listed on the early entry lists. Seems like a losing battle, but knock yourself out. Rikster2 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it blows my mind that Sporting News calls their list "official". I'll save the hassle of arguments that reliable sources are not always reliable, but will support anyone that wants to fight the battle.—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I guess school should be removed from infobox and cleaned up in respective lead sections if they really are done in college.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and it isn't just Sporting News, it's pretty much all of them. In my opinion, sports journalism has gotten ridiculous - it's all about the scoop and social media is now seen as news. Wikipedia is just on the business end of this shift - I think a lot of notability and sourcing policies (particularly in sports) ought to be reviewed in light of the changes just in the last 5 years. As for changing the navbox, I have been closing the colege years but not making other changes. Some other editors remove the colors when the clock hits 0.0 in their last games and another editor last year scolded me for changing infoboxes before the NBA draft. Rikster2 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources like Bleacher Report have good content at times, but I'd only use it if I recognize the name from a prior old school media outlet (e.g. Howard Beck, Kevin Ding, etc) Not sure how to objectively filter what is reliable on those and similiar sites.—Bagumba (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rikster2: What was the nature of the changes to the infobox that you were told not to change before the NBA draft? I was wondering if colors should be removed, and if they should be called "former college players" in the lead if people are going to add an end year to a player's college tenure.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It was when we were using different infoboxes for college and pro last year. I converted Jeff Withey of Kansas a couple of weeks before the draft and a KU fan kept changing it back insisting that he was still a college player until drafted (apparently how football does it). It wasn't worth the fight. Part of the issue is solved since we have migrated to one infobox, but I would assume that same editor (and maybe others) would object to closing the college career sooner. Not that this means we shouldn't do it - just sayin' Rikster2 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just about anyone with a chance to be drafted who declares will have an article in ESPN. That is what I go by. Don't trust stories from parents. Although the parents are usually right, the athletes don't like to have their press conferences preempted. Wait until they officially announce. I haven't seen parents be wrong, the athletes want to declare on their own schedule.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NBA Depth Charts

There is a site that is powered by NBC Sports here that gives up to date information of each of the players that don't have the same problem as ESPN or Yahoo. It list where the players are in the line up as well as the injuries which can be accessed by hovering over the injury icon. Can we agree that this site can be used to update depth charts? I believe that for both novice and experience sport readers alike who are trying the understand which players makes up the bench, the starters and which players are out for the season would be a great addition to the encyclopedia. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 18:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that depth charts for the NBA are too simplistic. For example, a lot of teams don't use a true center; look at Miami's depth chart and Chris Bosh is not listed as spending time at center. That one from rotoworld.com doesn't handle the fact that some players play multiple positions.—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the teams will list some of the player playing more then one position

http://www.nba.com/heat/roster/2013

• For Center they have
• "Chris Andersen F-C"
• "Chris Bosh C-F"
• "Greg Oden C"
• Andersen and Bosh are at time assigned both Forwards and Centers

With Oden as the only true Center. I don't see a problem as long as the line up is an up to date in the depth charts, I think depth charts have merit enough that they are included in so many sports sites.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 20:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no consistency from one site to another to reach a consensus on the actual depth chart, and nobody is going to spend the time on WP:NPOV to explain the differences. This and other issues were discussed before at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_21#Depth_charts. It would be one thing if the team published their own depth chart; accurate or not, at least we could say this is what the team reports (kind of like what we do with height/weight); however, that doesn't exist.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that websites are inconsistent, some teams change their starting lineups too frequently to have a stable "depth chart". This isn't like rosters which are, for the most part, mostly stable. –HTD 22:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If date was the only issue, a note like "Updated as of ..." would suffice. Unfortunately, its the least of our concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This would be too much work devoted to information that would only be (theoretically) valid until the next game. There's a reason why the player stats are not updated every game. –HTD 23:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a matter of interest I suppose. There's some baseball editors that are big on daily updates. It's not my thing, but to each their own.—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Stegas4

So I noticed that several Brooklyn Nets players articles were edited by Stegas4 (talk · contribs). The user is clearly editing in good faith and the edits are generally sourced, but I also find them riddled with errors and needlessly wordy, often using three sentences where one short sentence would suffice. I've gone and reedited, but I'm sure there are some articles that could use cleaning up. Please review the articles when you can. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And I'm pretty certain the user also edits as 98.165.79.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 206.209.103.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - edits are generally marked by excessive wordiness and overuse/misuse of "would". Mosmof (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're pretty confident you can prove behavior that would stand up in a WP:SOCK case, the good-faith approach would be to inform them perhaps with {{Uw-login}}, in case they didn't know not logging in when they have an account is not advisable.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the user is editing in good faith, and isn't logging in or out to avoid detection. I did leave a {{Uw-login}} message, and I'm cleaning up articles, basically by searching for the word "would", which seems to be the telltale mark of this user. 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't look into the edits in detail; generally I'd be OK if it was meaningful content but with some grammar issues as long as it outweighed not having the content at all, i.e. is the article better of with more content but with grammar issues, or with less content but perfect grammar? It probably depends on how well developed the article was to begin with. It's also good if the editor is acting in good faith, which you say they are, and if they are receptive to feedback and making an effort to improve. It gets tricky when WP:COMPETENCE is questioned.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

2015 NBA All-Star Game

There are two 2015 NBA All-Star Game articles. Which one should be deleted? Robert4565 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch. I redirected the typo 2015 NBA All Star Game‎ to 2015 NBA All-Star Game. The content was generally the same, but feel free to merge anything that might be significant.—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Peković

Need help on this article as some users are constantly making changes on his nationality. They say he is a Serb based on his "Serbian tatooes", and him "raising three fingers" which in Serbia means gesture that he respect and like Serbian people, kind of patriotism salute widely spread.AirWolf (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It would help if his nationality was verifiable with prose in the article. Maybe an "Early life" or "Personal life" section to describe his nationality?—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree there. AirWolf (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Quincy Miller

I am about to go asleep. I will be offline for about 5 hours. Help me watch Quincy Miller, who got crossed up and was on the wrong end of a #SCTOP10. I suspect this will only be a vandalism subject while the replays are airing. Probably 12 hours from now we will be in a new news cycle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I semi-protected for a day.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags in rosters

The previous consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_18#Nationality_in_the_NBA_roster_templates was to not add flags to rosters. Some editors have been added them back, and an edit war has started at Template:Detroit Pistons roster after another editor removed it once, and then I removed it twice. Has consensus changed, or can someone help remove them?—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, consensus has not explicitly changed. And I support previous consensus not to use flags in this case. Rikster2 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably should create an {{NBA player}} template that uses the {{player2}} template but doesn't take the nat parameter. The player2 template allows the flag icon in its documentation. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate code is generally wasteful, more work to maintain, etc. Besides, I don't think having to change "NBA player" to "player2" would be that big of a deterrent. 15x30=450 entries were changed anyways, so effort was not an issue.—Bagumba (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No duplication of code. The new template would use the player2 template directly. I think the new template is necessary since the IP technically has a point since the player2 template documents and uses the nat parameter. If player2 was only used on NBA rosters, I'd just say, "remove the nat parameter." Since it isn't, I think a new template is needed. Or don't allow any template that uses player2 to use the flag icons. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think some leagues have limits on foreign players on a team, where I can see it would be helpful. I can see making it more intuitive when to use flags and when not to, but there is also the notion of getting consensus when making mass changes that perhaps there was a good reason it was not already done. I'm all for WP:BB, so its understandable that this can happen, but am waiting for those editors to discuss now that they have been notified. If someone wanted to make a wrapper for player2 specifically for NBA and replace all instances in articles (I guess a bot could help), I wouldn't oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it isn't much of a problem to have the nationalities if we just reach a consensus when it comes to double nationality. I'm thinking, if we go with something like, going for the country the player represents on FIBA tournaments and then country of birth, independently of the nationality of the parents/spouses, etc, etc, etc is easy and clear enough.187.252.106.177 (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

One of my previous objections was the ambiguity of a nationality column. In some cases, it represents the player's national team, in other cases the player has never played on a national team but gives the impression that he has. I oppose overloading a column to have multiple conditional meanings. the surmountable problem would be MOS:FLAG, which says flags should somehow have the written country name also (not everyone is a flag guru)—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily for the flags to have the country name written, the reader just has to place the cursor on the flag and the name appears.187.252.106.177 (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

See MOS:FLAG#Accompany_flags_with_country_names, where accessibility concern is raised; I can see this as a problem for touch screens as well. Really, the bigger concern is trying to cram multiple meanings into nationality e.g. national team and citizenship.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We could always leave a little note clarifying the criteria, I mean, F.E. by the nation said player is part on at FIBA competitions and if he hasn't participated, by birth place. To be honest, the nationalities are present pretty much in all league formats, not just on basketball, but other sports like football and ice hockey and they do just fine, I just don't see a real reason to NOT have them on NBA pages as well.187.252.103.226 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We could go cookie cutter and force nationality on here; however, it really isn't emphasized that much in the coverage of the NBA, aside from the NBA wanting to market itself as a so-called global league. I think NHL nationality is stressed more, perhaps MLS too, but in NBA, MLB, and most-definitely the NFL, it is not. Maybe its an American-centric view, but these are— for all intents and purposes—American leagues. Therefore, it seems WP:UNDUE to add it for the NBA. It's not even like an NBA season gets interrupted for international competition like other leagues, where maybe readers want to know where their player is going. Then you tack on the MOS issue, which I guess the other projects just ignore , and I dont see the need to spend time on it to come up with an elegant solution.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags are going to be a constant headache. There are too many complicated cases (Joakim Noah, Ben Gordon, anyone associated with Serbia-Montenegro). And nowadays, it seems like any decent American player can find an obscure country to give them a spot on their national team. Zagalejo^^^ 04:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I (tediously) removed it from every team's roster per rough consensus. If there are no objections, I will consider adding an editnotice informing editors of this prior consensus, and encourage them to discuss before doing mass changes.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nationalities

Why are Canadians considered foreigners in the NBA, if the league is described as North American and not US league (although FIBA considers it as the "national governing body for basketball in the United States")? For example, there: List of foreign NBA players.--AirWolf (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's based on the sources cited in that article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the NBA per se is subject to the laws of the U.S.; the Raptors though are under the laws of Canada at home, same for teams visiting Toronto. I dunno where you got "FIBA considers it as the "national governing body for basketball in the United States", as that is USA Basketball of which the NBA is a member. –HTD 07:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For HTD: You have it in the general description of the NBA. Are you trying to say that 29 US-teams are foreign while playing their games against the Raptors? Fair logic, you will agree. Then, if you are looking that way, Canadian people can rightfully ask why aren't US-born players considered foreigners in the NBA.--AirWolf (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The league is described as "North American" solely because it is played in two North American countries, that's it. Now, to the question that it is a "North American championship" is open to interpretation; FIBA classifies the NBA as an "international" league along with the likes of the Euroleague and Adriatic League. There's even an interpretation that the NBA is just a "United States" or domestic championship.

Now as for your first question, that 29 US-teams are foreign while playing their games against the Raptors? Perhaps, yes. It depends, you've got to ask the Raptors. I dunno if the Raptors are even connected to the Canada Basketball. Now as for your second question on whether Canadian people can rightfully ask why aren't US-born players considered foreigners in the NBA, the answer would be derived on how would the NBA views itself? It views the NBA Finals as the highest competition in the sport of basketball, akin something to a world championship. But how does it view itself as an organization? Does it view itself as a league in the United States that happens to have a team in Canada, or a league for the USA and Canada? If the answer is the latter, then both Canadians and Americans are "locals" in the NBA; if it's the latter, then all non-Americans are foreigners.

Let's compare how the NBA and the UEFA Champions League are described:

• "The National Basketball Association (NBA) is the pre-eminent men's professional basketball league in North America..."
• "The UEFA Champions League... is an annual continental club football competition organised by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)", in which UEFA is described as " UEFA is the administrative body for association football in Europe".

The NBA is a basketball league in North America; the UEFA Champions League is the annual continental club football competition for Europe. The location of the competition in former is just a consequence; for the latter, it is the cause. –HTD 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent review. I just haven't understand this: "if it's the latter, then all non-Americans are foreigners."; that doesn't make sense for second option, but for first it absolutely does. And based on how the things are looking now, it seems like the people took the first option for granted and implemented it in all articles related to the NBA, right? Once again, great review, so neutral, but with big question left how to understand it's organisation, which is, as I can see, unanswerable. And what was the point in comparing NBA and UEFA Champions League (also any other great European competition) when it is incomparable? Meaning there is no dilemma whether European competition is on continental level or not.--AirWolf (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The comparison is that the NBA is a sports league in North America; the Champions League is a sports league both in and for Europe. This distinction gets lost if it's phrased as "The NBA is a North American league"/"The Champions League is a European league". AFAIK, the NBA isn't restricted to Canada and the US; there was talk a couple of years ago for a separate division for European teams, which could be possible perhaps in the next decade. It doesn't matter where the team is as long as the owner has the money, unlike the Champions League where a team has to be within the league system of a UEFA member.

Perhaps a better comparison would have been the NHL: widely considered Canadian, but based in New York (as is the NBA). –HTD 01:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

For Bagumba: I haven't seen anywhere sources say about these players that they are foreigners, tell me if I am wrong. They are all presented as Canadians and not foreigners. Also note that sources you are telling me about are coming US-media. The whole point of my writing is that uncertainty whether the NBA is an American or North American league, which further may have even more uncertainties; for example, should we call Mexican players the foreigners. My opinion, as a man of European descent is that NBA is North American league (where teams from USA and Canada forms it), which implies that Canadians are not foreigners in their own league. Thanks.--AirWolf (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the first four citations in List of foreign NBA players. For example, the ESPN source says "NBA VP of International Relations Terry Lyons explains that after encountering several tough cases, the league simply decided to "draw a circle around the fifty states" and say that if you weren't from there (by birth, upbringing, passport, etc.) you counted as an international player."—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The NBA announced the number of international players in the opening day roster every year (e.g. 2013–14, 2012–13, 2010–11). In those press releases Canadian players are considered as "international players" and were counted towards the total. Based on this and the first four citations that Bagumba mentioned, it is clear that the league has its own definition of "international players". However, I agree that the article seems a little bit confusing with the word "foreign". I suggest that the article to be moved to List of international players in the NBA and we change the lead to make it clear that whoever listed in the articles follows the league's definition of "international players". — MT (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

NBA player statistics

IP addresses have been adding in the current season's statistics on players' articles, the ones that are not protected anyhow. Don't we have a policy on this? This isn't a wise process for several reasons, and it needs to stop. It is impossible to keep current and is misleading.Hoops gza (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm for deleting all statistic tables on all articles. That's what nba.com and basketball-reference.com is for. — X96lee15 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless someone can design a bot that can take care of the work, our stat tables will always be inferior to those at other websites. Even if you wait until the end of the season to update everything, you're still looking at several hours of tedious labor, and your work will only be accurate for a few months. In light of all the other messes to clean up on Wikipedia, it's just not worth it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally think prose provides more value, and would encourage others to spend more time there instead of stats. However, some editors might have no other interest other than to update stats; for those, any edits seems better than no edits. WikiProject Baseball removed all yearly stats from bios, leaving only career stats, and I've grown to find their good and featured articles deficient, requiring another tab or window to be opened for the external stats while I am reading the prose. I think WP:NOTSTATS to an extreme can also be detrimental.—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be OK with having stats tables for retired players, because those won't require constant maintenance. Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone else wants to maintain it, I see more of a benefit than a detriment to allowing it. The minimum I expect is that it's clear though which date the stats are valid; reverts are fair game when it is not clear.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck getting around and removing the stats from every current player that has them in their article (i.e. not just current NBA players) and maintaining others from not adding or re-adding the stats. What's really the big deal with people updating them during the season? Most of the time, people add "correct as of" on top. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I know I've been out of the loop lately, but in my experience, most drive-by editors don't add "correct as of..." Many don't even edit a complete line of stats; they'll just edit one or two things. Today, I noticed that the infobox birthdate at Isaiah Thomas was malformed, so I went in to take a look. Examining all the changes since my last edit, it turned out that only two specific elements in the stat table were changed in that timeframe: his career mpg and ppg. [2] And I don't even know if 28.3 and 12.3 were ever correct to begin with; they're certainly not correct now. I reverted back to the table as it was at the end of last season. (There were plenty of other problems with the article on top of that, but I tried to fix the most blatant errors.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How we deal with it on the hockey project is we remove anything that is current season stats wise in a player article. If a page gets hit repeatedly we then put an HTML comment in indicating that we don't add current season stats to player articles. Ever since doing that we don't really have an issue with it anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

NBA Infobox Order

Hi all,

I think the order for the list of achievements in the NBA info box should be changed. Specifically I believe the awards for DYOP (7) & scoring champion (11) should be moved to scoring champion (4), DYOP (5). Frankly I think DYOP & scoring champion are two awards that are only superseded by NBA championship, Finals MVP, and MVP. Thoughts on this?

The info box list is found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#Infobox_highlights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence5 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Players are generally more often referred to as All-Stars as opposed to scoring champs or former DPOYs. All-NBA is less of a popularity vote, though less cited than an All-Stars appearance, so I think it makes sense to group them together.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then why not move them behind All-Star and All-Star MVP? I maintain that DYOP (7) & scoring champion (11) are highly respected achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence5 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside from All-NBA, DPOY is the next highest as far as suggested order. Scoring champion could arguably be a higher honor than ROY, but the thinking was that it was more intuitive (or just earlier) to group all the stats titles together.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK but NBA All-Rookie First Team & NBA Rookie Challenge MVP SHOULD NOT be higher than DYOP & Scoring Champion. Come on that makes absolutely no sense. Divergence5 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

POV should be taken completely out of it and just do it alphabetically. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Or the hockey route of just removing all highlights from infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is my preferred route, but when I suggested that in the past I was shot down so I didn't bother mentioning it this time. At least I think it was here I mentioned it. I know I mentioned it when baseball was having a big debate over what goes on theirs and people were having a hard time agreeing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Divergence5: DPOY was already ahead of ROY, so that is not an issue. Again, scoring champion is grouped with the other stats champions; that does make some sense, though scoring leader may be more notable than ROY. If there is consensus, it can change. Either way, we're not talking about it moving that far up.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Then my suggestion would be to move scoring champion to (7) with DPOY. Divergence5 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DPOY should be grouped with complimentary All-Defensive Team. So at best you could argue is No. 9 for scoring champion ahead of ROY/All-Rookie. IMO, the effort to find the few players this might apply to outweighs the minor at-best benefit to reach a new consensus. Still, I have no problem if others support the change.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox stylistics

People have been editing infoboxes that I watch in ways that seem unusual to me.

• First at Tim Hardaway, Jr. someone has changed (1st team: coaches; 2nd team: media) to First Team, which to me seems misleading.
• Then at Trey Burke someone has changed the single bullet point National Player of the Year (AP, NABC, Naismith, Robertson, SI, Wooden) (2013) to a line by line bulletpoint for each POY. Plus, they did a similar smudging of information regarding Big Ten Freshman of the Year to hide the fact that he split the award with Cody Zeller. I.e., it formerly said (media, TSN), which leave coaches for Zeller. Now it does not have such a parenthetical.

What do we want to have?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I believe the average reader doesn't need to be bogged down in an infobox with the details of the specific agency that awards an honor. Save it for the body. For National Player of the Year, Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#College_and_high_school_highlights doesn't currently recommend listing the various flavors; however, that was for the specific case where a player already had 5+ professional honors listed. I'd be OK with making it a general rule.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba, I see you made that section of the guideline up. Was it based on consensus somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

They were compiled from past discussions, not "made ... up". See Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#References.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)