User talk:Bagumba

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Bagumba}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Bagumba's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

My planned contributions to NBA articles

Good day. I am a frequent contributor to National Basketball Association (NBA)-related articles, including one of the NBA players, LeBron James. Now, I am planning to work on the following articles so that they can eventually reach Good article status, and soon, Featured article status:

Kobe Bryant (target TFA date is April 13, 2026, coinciding with the 10th anniversary of Bryant's last career game)
2016 NBA Finals (target TFA date is June 19, 2026, marking the 10th anniversary of Cleveland's win in the NBA Finals)
Stephen Curry (target TFA date is December 14, 2026, five years to the date Curry became the all-time leading 3-point scorer in the NBA)
LeBron James (I am one of the contributors to the article; target date may be the anniversary of LeBron becoming the all-time leading scorer in the NBA)

Please note that in the first two articles, you were a significant contributor to the articles. Both WP:GAI and WP:FAC state that: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Will that be fine if I work on the articles above, and I will nominate those on your behalf. I also promise to mention you when I mentioned that I nominated those with permission. I will also work on other articles not listed here. Thank you. ScarletViolet t c 13:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I am planning to work on the following articles ... @ScarletViolet: There's no ownership of articles, so you're certainly invited to work on it. I don't know of any specific issues with those pages, but I haven't reviewed it, so am not endorsing it either. Consider me neutral. Perhaps you'll work on it and become a significant contributor. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violette page move

I don't agree that there is no primary topic. None of the other entries comes close to the given name (and surname) IMO. I'm just having trouble figuring out how to handle this. Wikipedia:Requested moves#Contested page moves says to not add entries directly. So I may have to add it to "Uncontroversial technical requests" and then you can move it to the Contested subsection. What say you? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I had looked at the pageviews of the base page (which was the namelist), and the other leading Violette terms have page views on par. Thus, I concluded the name was not a PT, based on views. —Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violette Szabo alone averages 300+ views daily. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Sure, but the namelist itself was getting only 20 views/day, so few readers would end up at the namelist and end up at Sbazo's page. Looking at the base page's click data, its outbound traffic is primarily going to the dab. —Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collectively, the people so named dwarf everything else. ~~I'm going to add it to "Uncontroversial technical requests" and then you can move it so others can decide.~~ Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Greatest"

Hey, ever considered drafting up something like an MOS:GREATEST essay to clarify how the word should be used through the lens of policies and guidelines? Maybe it can be a subpage of WP:SPORTS just like with WP:SPORTSTRANS. It's a pretty ubiquitous word on top athlete articles, and it's not clear if editors know how to use it properly (even I could probably benefit from improvement in that matter). Just some food for thought. Left guide (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: Considered? Sure. But the devil is in the details. At least when I started WP:SPORTSTRANS, it was already an informal standard that I was merely documenting. (It's still informal as an essay) Can't say I know how others feel about "greatest", not that it's required to start an essay. —Bagumba (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well how others feel about the word isn't nearly as important as how its usage squares up to policies and guidelines. I'm going to start WP:WikiProject Sports/Using the word "greatest", wanna help? Left guide (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: If I feel the urge. You can reference Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 5, the last related in-depth discussion that I'm aware of. I kinda got burnt out on the topic after. Basically, I look for multiple reliable sources that say "widely considered" or the like, so that it's reasonably that the sources considered the general view, not just their own opinion. —Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I feel you, skimming that discussion makes me less motivated to work on this too. It eerily reminds me of the vitriol of American sports debates on social media, YouTube comments etc, too many fanatics. But paradoxically it's the type of discussion that calls for a centralized WikiProject essay backed with policies and guidelines. Left guide (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, MOS is reserved for actual MOS guidelines. —Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent additions. I could see this potentially morphing into a more general site-wide essay or guideline since "greatest" claims certainly exist in other fields like art, film, music, video games, etc. There are established list articles like List of films voted the best and List of video games considered the best. You might be interested in the second paragraph of WP:VG/POV (which is part of an official MOS guideline) since it seems to address this issue in its own topical context. Any thoughts? Left guide (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I can see both sides. MOS:WEASEL seems to says "widely regarded" can be ok, so I assume that is the wider consensus over the narrower VG guideline. Then there's WP:INTEXT which says that when you only cite a few sources with in-text attribution, it's misleading to the reader if it really is a widely-held position. —Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just realized there's policy section WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which also directly addresses this issue, very interesting. Left guide (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: Yeah, there's related guidelines on this that could be more tightly aligned. —Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of an aside, but "one of the greatest" is even more WEASEL-ly than "greatest" since it's not quantifiable and therefore unfalsifiable. For "greatest", at least it refers to only the #1 ranking. But "one of the greatest" could allude to the greatest half (or even 90%) of the NBA players, and it's not wrong. Catch my drift? (p.s. if you think I'm inadvertently distorting or twisting the meaning of what you're writing in the essay with my edits there, please do call me out on it) Left guide (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I'd just get rid of all the "one of the greatest" claims and leave it to a HOF induction to WP:SUBSTANTIATE it. HOFs dont determine GOATs though. —Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's best to let readers make their own judgments and not push a particular point of view on them. If you're up for it, 1998 New York Yankees season is one that might benefit from further examination in this regard. Ironically, that's the team that beat Gwynn in the WS. Left guide (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I deal more with bios, but those consensus-building tasks are anyways further down my list (for my own sanity LOL) —Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the longest time, I've actually had the idea of creating an article on rankings of greatest NBA players since it seems like a topic that's received widespread RS coverage. In addition to the aforementioned film and VG lists there's also Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, so it seems like something the encyclopedia is equipped to handle provided there's sufficient coverage. What do you think would be the top-level sources for such a page? Left guide (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: See WP:TOP100. Those lists are generally creatively compiled and copyrighted. They probably shouldn't be mass re-created.—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections if I move it to WP:Subjective superlatives to make it a general essay? (which would also warrant removing the WP sports cat and talk banner) There's nothing actually sports-specific in the essay, and I don't think there needs to be; seems like it has useful guidance applicable to other fields. Left guide (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide No problem. —Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Athlon Sports reliable? It appears often in searches to directly corroborate "widely regarded" and "widely considered" claims for the greatness of NBA players. Can't find any info at WP:RSNBA or the RSN archives. Left guide (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I would have assumed yes before, but they seem to have undergone some changes (if u trust the WP page), so I dont have an opinion. —Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: As an aside, would you consider self-deleting the WP:RSNBA redirect? The RS prefix gives the impression that its an actual guideline related to WP:RS. —Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, tagged. Would you mind performing the deletion? Left guide (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. —Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been wondering if/when it would be appropriate to nominate the essay for {{supplement}} status. IMO, it mainly expands upon MOS:WEASEL and MOS:PUFFERY. The template doc page indicates it should be raised at the relevant guideline talk page, in this case WT:WTW. Do you think it's a reasonable idea? Or should we just keep it as a normal essay? {{information page}} is another option, and the documentation for that doesn't seem to require discussion. Any advice or thoughts would be appreciated. Left guide (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: Sorry, I don't have any experience in this area. I had always assumed it was just another essay—guess not. —Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God I would love a page relevant to this. It's frustrating seeing it constantly used in so many various contexts. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: If you haven't already, see WP:GREATEST, the new essay Bagumba and I have co-authored. Feel free to add to it also. Left guide (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Mavericks vandalism

I think this /64 needs a timeout, or at least page protection(s). Slow-motion vandalism over the past few days, including at the Dallas article. It's the same old "owner" nonsense that was rampant enough to earn its own edit filter. If you look through the various user talk pages on the range, they've already received three or four total warnings for the recent Mavericks-related vandalism. Left guide (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I placed pending changes protection. —Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 20–50 club

On 28 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 20–50 club, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rickey Henderson was the first American League baseball player to join the 20–50 club? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/20–50 club. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 20–50 club), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little help here

Hi B. Just wanted to run this by you. First, I'm not undoing everything I just did this week. Second, do I have a leg to stand on regarding the MOS for birthplace? You must have been seeing what I've been doing, and today I received my first message. I took extra special care not to remove the birthplace if it was NOT in the infobox. Some I removed and even added it to the infobox. I've actually received a thank you here and there, one by @WikiOriginal-9, which like yourself, is a stamp of approval in my book. The message seemed like 'screw MOS'. If you say I'm wrong, I'll stop, but I thought I was spot on, not to piss anyone off doing this. Thanks in advance. P.S. Honestly, I'd like to continue, but not at the risk of someone reverting all that I did. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looks like there is a discussion at WT:MOSBIO about it but no replies yet. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: It's fine w.r.t. the MOS, but they're suggesting the WP:PRESERVE policy, which would be to move the presumably verifiable info, and perhaps even source it. See a past discussion at User_talk:Bagumba/Archive_36#Place_of_birth_after_date. If the birthplace was incorrect, you could call it out in the edit summary, but then it should also be wiped out from the ibx. —Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer here. I just wanted to know if I was correct. I did the same thing that I was doing with other sports. I'm not wanting to get others into trouble here, I just want to know if I'm correct. I wanted to continue this for another month. Now I look like a ******* jackass. Am I correct? Someone had to see what I was doing before that message earlier! Bringingthewood (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: WP:BOLD says Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. Don't kick yourself too hard. It's more important what you do after you know than what you did (or did not do) before. People pick and choose what they do, so what you didn't hear before is not a 100% reliable indicator either. Dont worry about being perfect; nobody is. —Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Bold crap again. I can continue doing what I did, I just wanted to know if someone would follow me. Not the way it's stated here. I'm not computer oriented, as they say, but I'm not a God damned moron. I needed someone to back me up. If you say I can make my own decision by being bold, they don't know what ******* bold means. Thanks for all the help and I'll act accordingly from here on forward . John. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: I think you have a decent argument that you are correct. Most readers go straight to the infobox for birthplace so I don't think anyone is harmed from it being removed from the lead. It would look a little silly to start an "Early life" section on a two sentence stub to just add birthplace. I wouldn't keep removing them though if I were you. Best to see what happens at that discussion first. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, that's why I turned the computer off earlier, lol. Having friends with cooler heads really does help. Thank you all! John. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: If it's any consolation, people can probably similiarly take me to task on "former Americans" (wait, they already have). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HA! If they take you to task .. I'll take them behind the wood shed!! No problem there. Funny you say that, I thought of you when deleting the places of birth and amending ... A 'RETIRED ITALIAN' or a 'FORMER BELGIAN' cyclist. I couldn't let it go, lol. Thanks again, to you and WO-9 for always being there. Bringingthewood (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]