Talk:North Florida Ospreys men's basketball

Lead

Per WP:LEAD, the article's lead section summarizes the article body. The current version does that; please stop removing information from it. Cheers,Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bsuorangecrush, once again, The intro summarizes the article body. Please read WP:LEAD and stop removing that information without discussion.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead should have the basic information about the team so school, stadium, conference and coach. To list everything else that is in the lead and then just repeat it all almost word for word in the history is completly redundant. Either put it in the lead or the history but not both.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. A brief summary of the article isn't redundant, it's, well, a summary. And nothing should be in the lead that's not in the article body. Please stop reverting.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that it was a summery if it wasn't so close to being exactly what is in the history section. It's almost word for word. If you read it in the lead then what's the point of reading the exact same thing in the history section? Really you are just clinging to the little or no history this program has. Plus wouldn't someone keep reading and get to the history section if they cared? The lead should have current information about the program and then meaningful events in the programs history. Changing conferences and getting to one conference final is not meaningful enough for the lead. And check your info, they have played in the A-Sun tournament (or playoffs as you put it) 3 times, not twice. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand what lead sections are supposed to be. For the last time, they summarize the article body. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you arbitrarily decide is "meaningful"; if it's a significant part of the article it needs to be summarized in the lead. And again, please don't edit war.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutly NO REASON!! to repeat that information right after it is already said in the lead! The fact that you can't understand that baffles me! The lead does its job. If this team actually had more history worth mentioning in the lead then fine, but none of that needs to be in the lead. To summarize something then immediately repeat it nearly word for word is redundant and completely not needed! And you want to know why I decide that is not meaningful enough for the open? Because IT IS REPEATED IMMEDIATELY WORD FOR WORD IN THE HISTORY SECTION!! Especially changing of conference's and divisions, that's basically a list of years so to repeat it is beyond dumb!Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, calm down. There are ways to clean up the wording without excising all details and useful information. Your current lead is sparse and uninformative, and gives no real indication of what the article will discuss. Please educate yourself about the purpose of a lead section before you remove cited and relevant material.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the title of the page let you know what the article is about? It's called the North Florida Ospreys men's basketball, isn't that enough information to infer what the page is going to discuss? I wouldn't read the title and the current opening and say "well I have no clue what this page is going to discuss, I wish there was more in that lead". The title and the lead do their job. If someone wants to know more about the page they will keep reading and find the history section. Or it can just all be included in the lead then repeated in little more detail because their aren't many more details to add due to the lack of history of this program. And don't patronized me on educating myself on leads, I've created over 500 sports articles and help to maintain and improve them which is what I'm doing here. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, the lead is supposed to give a summary of the specific information the reader will find in the article. Ie, a brief overview of the program's history; notable highlight, such as they are; key people; etc. It won't be the same in every article. Currently, the reader gets no sense of when the program was founded, when they entered D1, or anything else, really. It would never pass for GA or FA like this. The fact that you've done this at other articles is irrelevant, especially considering how weak most of our sports articles are.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this program has little to no history makes putting that in the lead seem overkill because it is just simply repeated in the history. When I first read this page I found it looked and sounded terrible to repeat so much information in the history that was already in the lead. I actually thought "why am I reading what I literally just read?" If you are going to have that info in the lead then the history section is useless. There just isn't enough information to have it in both sections. Why do you want it repeated anyway? It's a short enough article that it really does no good repeating info just to make it longer. Plus you don't seem to know much about the subject matter to begin with. You were wrong on how many conference tournaments they have been in and you kept calling it playoffs which yes it's a playoff but its never called that in NCAA basketball. And who cares about conference tournaments anyway? The fact that they have been eligible for 3 and have played in 3 proves its not a big deal. 90% of teams make conference tourneys. You're grasping for history. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue repeating myself. Your version is sparse and uninformative. It's possible to fix the (very minor) wording issues and errors without excising all information. Again, it would never pass for GA or FA in this bland state. The fact that other articles have more to summarize, or else have been kept in a similarly bland state, is no reason for this article not to follow the basics of decent article writing.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And your version is repetitive and grasping for significance. 166.137.209.34 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. At any rate, it like we'll just have to agree to disagree.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)