Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:58, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Member's list

Resolved
 – A member's list is already in place. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that an official member list should be created rather than just the category. This would make it easier to tell who the members of the project are and having the userbox wouldn't be needed. NBA Fan44 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a member's list, it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Participant List. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mike Grinnon for deletion

Resolved
 – Article deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Grinnon 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/Mike Grinnon 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:College

Does this template falls under this wikiproject? Or anyone from here constantly maintaining it? I was about to use the template for a lot of NBA articles such as the NBA Draft articles and in the Template:Infobox NBA biography, when I realize that the template links to the college's article rather than to the college's basketball article. The template also includes several non-U.S. colleges and also some high schools. Therefore, I'm planning to create a similar template exclusively for U.S. colleges which links to the college's basketball article (if they exist). The template would be very similar to the Template:College and would makes editing easier (For example: to produce VCU, we could simply write {{cbball|VCU}} rather than writing [[VCU Rams men's basketball|VCU]]) The template would probably be named Template:College basketball or Template:cbball, and would be based from the links in Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Master Table. This template could also be used in the Template:Infobox NCAA Athlete for college basketball players or any other college basketball articles. By using this template, we could have a consistent name and links for every college articles. For example, there are several articles with inconsistent name for the VCU Rams, some have VCU while some have Virginia Commonwealth. This could be easily avoided by using the template. Does anyone think creating this template is a good idea? All suggestions are welcomed. Thanks. — MT (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. It is a pain to type that every time.—Chris!c/t 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it's gonna be a pain to create the template for all Division I schools (more than 200 college?). Anyway my initial purpose on having this template is to have consistencies in the colleges' short name and the link rather than saving time in editing. Anyway, I already compiled about 100 college in an excel file, then I'm gonna put the codes into User:Martin tamb/Sandbox before moving them into the mainspace. With my work rate right now, it might take awhile to finish, so please be patient. — MT (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there are somewhere around 360 Division I schools. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to ask User:LOL if this is the best way to create this template. Maybe there is a more efficient way to do it. Just a thought.—Chris!c/t 00:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

One quick question, should I avoid redirects in the template? For a school that does not have a basketball article yet (e.g. UIC), should I write UIC or UIC (note the redirect on the second link)? Using my method now (copying and pasting from the Master Table), creating the latter would be a lot easier. — MT (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Make it with redirects. At worst, they'll redirect to the next best possible article or section of an article. At best, they'll eventually become real pages themselves. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working on the Master Table as well, so at the end all the red links on men's basketball article there will have at least a redirect to the relevant article. — MT (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential problem alert

Resolved
 – The anonymous IP from Indonesia's misguided attempt at removing colors, among other editing issues, resulted in an indef. block. No longer an issue. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I suggest that we keep an eye on the discussion located here: Template talk:University of Central Florida#Coloring. There is an IP user ("125.162.150.88") out of Indonesia who has randomly deleted the black and gold school colors used on several of the University of Central Florida navboxes, and is making the argument that all use of school colors is prohibited/officially discouraged based on his misreading of WP:Deviations. I found the discussion only today when I discovered that the black and gold school colors for the navboxes for UCF, UCF presidents, and UCF sports teams had been removed. (I have reverted these changes.) For those of us who have spent hours and hours working on college sports navboxes, this discussion and related navbox changes certainly bear watching. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad debate to have, but the guy is clearly going about things the wrong way by not trying to get some consensus on the issue instead of just making drastic changes. I disagree about the school color thing - as near as I can tell, using team colors has been in effect for as long as there have been templates on Wikipedia by pro leagues from the Spanish soccer league to Major League Baseball. This is a much, much bigger issue than college football or basketball. Rikster2 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Calipari and Vacated Wins

Resolved
 – This newly-created WP:CFB essay explains how to deal with vacated wins as they pertain to all college sports, not just football. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can a few editors please take a look at John Calipari to ensure the article correctly presents his win/loss record and appropriately notes his vacated wins? There has been some edit-warring lately in the article and I'm afraid I don't know how vacated wins are typically presented in our articles. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, there's been a related discussion going at WikiProject College football (regarding Pete Carroll and the 2004 BCS championship). It may be worthwhile to combine the discussions, to establish a uniform approach across college athletics articles. cmadler (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
A common approach for WP:CBB and WP:CFB for dealing with this problem would be best, and would set a precedent for other impacted NCAA sports. I believe that this now impacts football, men's basketball, women's golf, and men's track and field. I'm probably missing several more instances of the NCAA vacating wins or NCAA tournament appearances. Perhaps someone should start compiling a master list of teams, coaches and championships impacted by vacated wins, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I believe lists of vacated wins for each sport are listed in the NCAA Official Records Books. Those are linked here. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nolan Smith POY

Resolved
 – No further action needs to be taken, as they are trivial honors in the context of annual college basketball awards. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WEEI ([1]), Nolan Smith was FOX Sports, Yahoo! Sports and NBC Sports National Player of the Year. I can not find any other resource which confirms any of these, not even GoDuke.com.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are such minor POY awards I wouldn't spend much time trying to confirm them. Rikster2 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Should they be excluded from his bio?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, why? I have a source for Fox Sports. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 03:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

UND Fighting Sioux nickname discussion

Resolved
 – In the event of a nickname change, it will simply be added to the navbox akin to this example. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WikiProject College football about this. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#North Dakota Fighting Sioux nickname because it will have a direct impact on both of our WikiProjects. Input from the basketball editors would be welcome. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Canonical team page?

Resolved
 – No such standards exist for questions posed. I provided good examples to work off of, though. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a "template" for a season article; is there a comparable page to start a team page?--SPhilbrickT 17:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, and more importantly, is there a canonical format for an article about a coach?--SPhilbrickT 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
To answer your first question, no there is no "format" per se. However, a nice article to model after for stub-class team pages is Long Island Blackbirds men's basketball. For your second question, no such canonical format exists. Connie Yori would be a solid example to follow (full disclosure: I created/wrote that article, but IMHO it's a good one). Jrcla2 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed chnages to American college sports categories

Resolved
 – Swift and overwhelming consensus to keep as is. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Red Alert. Some over-eager category hound is proposing to rearrange the entire system of American college sports categories. Please voice your opinions and concerns here: [[2]]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

***Important***

Resolved
 – Enough individual coaching articles were created to satisfy the needs for this navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a Template for Deletion discussion brewing that will most likely have long-reaching impacts on WikiProject College football, WikiProject College Basketball, and WikiProject College Baseball. I encourage everyone to read Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 28#Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

AFD nomination of coach

Resolved
 – Article was kept unanimously. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

While the subject is not under the purview of this project, it is relevant as it concerns a college sports coach. If interested, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton L. Riggs. Strikehold (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I voted to keep. Sometimes AFD nominations like this are so bizarre that it's impossible for me to assume good faith. Using a throwaway IP to try and carpet bomb that article just doesn't sit right with me. Hopefully nothing gets destroyed because of this. I know I'd be pissed if I spent hours writing an article, carefully sourcing it, making sure it passed notability guidelines, and then some random IP tags it for deletion with a vague argument like, "It's almost notable.." Sorry that you have to put up with this. Hopefully we won't be forced to waste more hours on this AFD where the outcome should be obvious, but unfortunately even the most obvious keeps sometimes are prolonged to eternity if there's one user that fights long enough by reposting failed arguments over and over again. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 01:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Category: Horizon League women's basketball coaches

Resolved
 – Deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get some input on Category:Horizon League women's basketball coaches, which has been marked for deletion. While I don't think it should be deleted, I think the discussion is an important one that others should weigh in on. City boy77 (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Willy Fetzer

Resolved
 – Content merged into Bill Fetzer. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Willy Fetzer , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's National Championship templates

All- In working on some women's college basketball articles, I noticed that there are a number of national championship templates cropping up that mirror the men's in format. I think this is a great development and one I would support. However, the templates often have 1-2 linked players with the rest of the team not wikilinked at all (example). We went through a lot of this with the men's templates - navboxes are meant to navigate articles. It seems like the players on the template should include all notable players (per WP standards) and have them linked, rather than all players with some (many of whom will never have articles) not linked at all. These aren't banners to display on a person's page, they are navigation aids. I thought I'd put it here to see what people think instead of just making changes. On a side note, I have been aggressively completing articles for notable members of men's championship teams and would ask that if any are so inclined, I would love help creating these. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few months back I spent some time standardizing those templates (after all, the women's college basketball aspect still finds itself under the broad auspices of WP:CBBALL). The problem I ran into was spending the time necessary to determine which of the players on those templates would be considered notable. It just wasn't something I wanted to get distracted doing, because that could take some time. I figured I'd just leave them on there unless someone wanted to research each player. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Southland Conference navboxes

Resolved
 – Through much debate, the new version will remain (i.e. the navbox without two components). It reinforces standardization. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Southland Conference navboxes. I'm catching flack from an identity politicker. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

College sports template cleanup

Please see here for a discussion on a college sports template cleanup effort I'm working on. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2 proposed page moves

Resolved
 – Articles moved. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:UW–Green Bay Phoenix#Move? and at Talk:UW–Green Bay Phoenix men's basketball#Move?. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another navbox for deletion discussion

Resolved
 – Result was no consensus. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerned WP:CBB editors may want to comment on the navbox TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. The nominating editor wants to delete the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Syracuse Orange

I think this article could use some better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NCAA consecutive tournament appearances men's basketball

Resolved
 – Fixed Jweiss11 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the list of consecutive men's basketball tournament appearances, The University of Maryland had 11 consecutive from 1994-2004. It is more than enough to be listed with the other schools. Please consider this update. Thanks very much.

96.234.245.6 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Michael

Nice catch. It was listed at NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament consecutive appearances, but was indeed missing at NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship records. I have added it. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversion war at Michigan Wolverines men's basketball‎

I need neutral 3rd parties to check in on this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeremy Case for deletion

Resolved
 – Deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeremy Case 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/Jeremy Case 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Calipari controversies

In response to several edit wars that developed over the "Controversies" section at John Calipari, I've started a discussion about which controversies should stay and which should go. I hope this will provide a consensus to which we can refer editors who wish to either a) add everything remotely controversial about Calipari, his players, his recruits, people who signed his high school yearbook, etc. to the article in hopes of portraying him as a deliberate, habitual scofflaw or b) remove the entire section, claiming it was added by members of the previous group for the cited reasons, but who refuse to acknowledge that there have been some controversies surrounding the man. Your input is hereby solicited. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SIUE Cougars vs. SIU Edwardsville Cougars?

I would like active contributors here to weigh in at Talk:SIUE Cougars regarding the school nickname. I had moved "SIUE Cougars" over to "SIU Edwardsville Cougars" today because that's how all of our college sports WikiProjects have been referring to them (and the school itself had been using that naming convention). Another editor reverted my move and said to discuss the change over at its talk page. Upon further research, it does appear that "SIUE Cougars" is now how the school brands itself / they have shied away from the old standard of spelling out Edwardsville. My question, then, boils down to this: Should we argue to keep SIU Edwardsville because it is less ambiguous, or do we cede to the school's efforts in its abbreviated form? I'm on the fence about it. If we do think SIUE Cougars is correct (at this point), then all of the athletic categories will need to be renamed. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A) I may be a bit biased, in that I not only attended SIUE, but I also largely rewrote the SIUE Cougars article, with input from the University's Sports Information Office. B) The school has referred to itself over the years as S.I.U. @ Edwardsville, SIU-Edwardsville, and now SIU Edwardsville, but there has long been a locally familiar referral to the school as SIU-E or SIUE. C) Any way you look at it, SIUE is a whole lot easier to say or write than Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. For this reason alone, I have long put "SIUE" in the same category as "UCLA" and "UNLV".GWFrog (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Except nobody else does, and not ESPN or the NCAA, which in the context of its sports program are the two most important determiners. I can call myself User:JesusChrist all day long, but that's not how I'm known to every else on Wikipedia. What the school likes to name itself has little effect on what reliable third party sources call it. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for help

Seeking assistance for an article on the 2003-2004 undefeated Saint Joseph's Hawks. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. 5hane2012 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)5hane20125hane2012 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of help are you looking for? I might be able to help you get started and add a few things. You should create a sandox page for yourself to work on it (click here to start: User:5hane2012/Sandbox). That will allow you to get at least started before publishing the page. Rikster2 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I put in in the info box, a list of the players, and a sentence or two. I'm looking for people who can help me put together subheadings with information about the important games the team played, the 2003-2004 Hawks in the media, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5hane2012 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation despartately wanted

Anyone know where I can get a WP:RS for the fact that Tommy Amaker is 5–0 against the ACC at Harvard (including only the two wins against ranked opponents in Harvard history)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony, the Harvard Crimson website provides the 2011–12 men's basketball schedule here: [3]. You will note that there is a drop-down link for past seasons in the upper right. While it does list the complete schedule and scored, it apparently does not show the poll ranking of opponents. Hope this helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't help much. It does not provide rank or conference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Check and see if Harvard or the Ivy posts their weekly notes on line. That's the kind of factoid that often shows up there. Also check game reports of their most recent ACC win (FSU I guess?) as it may be mentioned there. If all else fails, email Harvard's SID. Rikster2 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have found the BC pregame notes. This note does state that they had beaten BC 3 times in a row, but does not state that they had beaten the ACC 4 times in a row under Amaker. Instead it notes that they had a 7-9 record against the BCS, which may be more meaningful, but less interesting. In the pregame notes for the final weekend you can see that the program is 2-5 against ranked opponents during Amakers run. Maybe I'll call the SID.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Spoke to SID by email and he said he may add the ACC numbers to the notes for the next game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a double double table too WP:CRUFTY?

At Royce White I created a double double table. I am wondering if this is too WP:CRUFTy a thing to include.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems a little much. Double doubles aren't that uncommon. A total would probaby be sufficient. Just my 2 cents, but I'm conservative about this stuff Rikster2 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Only one opinion on this matter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK seems applicable. Unless explanatory text is provided based on multiple sources, and not just WP:ROUTINE coverage of individual games. Id such coverage exists, a summary would be sufficient without game-by-game table.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus AA

If USBWA ever goes to a three-team AA squad will consensus go to three teams since all selectors will name three teams?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure anyone can answer that til it happens. I would bet not. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sporting News Freshman of the Year

At 2011–12 NCAA Division I men's basketball season there is a line in the Major freshman of the year awards, there is a line and a reference for "Sporting News Freshman of the Year". I don't believe that this award currently exists.

Yeah I'll be honest, I'm not sure that award exists either, and if it does it certainly isn't a "major" freshman award. I propose removing this award from all season articles that may have it. Anyone have thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I would not remove it from years where it was sourced, but don't know if it ever has been. I favor removing it from years like this year where the source is erroneously pointing to an WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
But this is the first year TSN hasn't named it - and we list all other TSN awards. I think they either discontinued it or they named Davis both and didn't differentiate it clearly in the release. I wouldn't delete it from the other articles, because the award has been clearly named in past years. Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless we have a source, we should remove it from Davis' article and this year's NCAA season article's awards section, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Rikster, my issue isn't whether it was formally named or not this year, but what makes this a notable major award? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it not at the same level as TSN coach of the year and player of the year? In the past they have all been named in the same release. Rikster2 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

College players declaring for the 2012 NBA Draft

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National_Basketball Association#2012 NBA Draft, a discussion regarding the list of college players declaring eligibility for the 2012 NBA Draft. — MT (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the issue is being raised here, can I call for other conferences that have season articles (mostly power conferences and mid-majors) to keep content like the following: 2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#2012_NBA_Draft.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability permanence

I am trying to figure out what to do about Mitch McGary. 3 months ago, he was considered the best big man in the national high school class of 2012 and was being followed in major publications. He has tumbled way down the recruit rankings to outside of the top 20 overall and only the 10th best center according to one ranking. In his school's games he is barely mentioned in the game summaries anymore. I was confident in his WP:N previously, but now wonder if he should even have a page. If you pass WP:GNG due to press coverage for a period, but later fall out of the news thereafter, should you still pass GNG? I had him penciled in as a starter for the 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, but with Michigan's current sophomore big man depth (Morgan, Smotrycz, Horford and even McLimans), I am wondering if he will see any playing time before 2014–15 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. Thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in keeping the article, at least till his Michigan career starts. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I see he just made Junior Select Team USA, so even though he is not "notable" enough for mentions in his high school team's game summaries, he must still have it going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary. Although there's not as much recent coverage, altogether there is more than enough to satisfy the GNG. cmadler (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

infobox for conference seasons

I believe that it would be nice for someone to create an infobox for the conference season pages such as 2011–12 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season or 2011–12 Big East Conference men's basketball season. It seems that most of these pages use the Template:Infobox sports season which seems to have been created more for professional teams. It has a lot of information in it that is not used for the college teams. Looking at these pages it seems that there is no specific standard of how to use this template and it is my belief that a specific template just for this (say Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Conference Season or some variation of this) would increase the standard. There is already one for the tournaments (see Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Conference Tournament), and with more and more conference season pages appearing why not create one for this too? Tnbailey09 (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Template:Infobox sports season used in college football articles as well? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to make timelines more consistent

I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.

for example, a school with a yellow bar means:

  • An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
  • A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
  • A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
  • A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
  • A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
  • A full member of the Big Sky


Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered. To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines

I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)

I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added. Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.

I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.

Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing this discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Davis (basketball) page move

Comment at Talk:Anthony_Davis_(basketball)#Requested_move.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Premature statistical champions?

It is my understanding that post season tournaments count in NCAA single-season statistical championships. However, I have noticed that an enthusiastic editor has declared a blocks and steals champion. He has also transcluded the blocks template. Is this premature?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You're correct that the postseason stats do count toward official stat leaders. But, it is ok to add Davis as the blocks champ because he cannot be statistically caught a this point, and neither can Fuquan Edwin, who is the steal leader. The closest active player who can catch Edwin is C. J. McCollum, but he'd have to record like 15 steals in their next game, in theory, to catch him. Once statistical leaders are uncatchable, it's ok to add them to the navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I just realized that both Jay Threatt and Fuquan Edwin have tied for the season steals leaders. Both averaged exactly 3.00 per game and both of their seasons are over. First tie ever in that statistical category. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If uncatchable counts, I am declaring John Shurna the Big Ten Scoring champ. Sullinger would need to average 43 points a game for his next 4 games to catch him and far more if OSU is eliminated earlier.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam accounts

Hello all – free HighBeam 1-year accounts are being given out at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. This might come in useful for this WikiProject's devoted editors. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Project to stub out all ranking pages

I just noticed that {{NCAA football rankings navbox}} has been stubbed out with final rankings. We should probably stub out {{NCAA men's college basketball rankings}} with final rankings as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 Partly done I've stubbed the ones back to the 2000–01 rankings.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 06:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Davis (basketball)

Does SEC Freshman of the Year belong in the infobox for a person who is NPOY and SECPOY. In fact, does SEC POY belong in the infobox? Will SEC DPOY belong if he is NDPOY?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Moving non-general topic to article talk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC))
Another Anthony Davis issue. An IP added the nickname "The Uni-brow". I see some references regarding the nickname such as http://sports-kings.com/?p=10293 and http://www.celticsblog.com/2012/2/26/2826397/how-good-is-anthony-davis, but I see no major WP:RS. I am reverting as unsourced but feel free to correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I note that Davis' infobox honors are reversing the year of award and description of award contrary to the standard infobox formatting shown in the examples at Template:Infobox basketball biography. The standard formatting describes the award with the year of the award in a parenthetical following the description, like this:

  • First-team All-SEC (2011, 2012)
  • SEC Player of the Year (2012)

As you know, this format is more space efficient because it permits multiple awards of the same honor to be recognized by simply adding another year to the parenthetical. I've noticed that the improper year-first formatting has become a recurring problem with a number of users across player infoboxes within WP:CBB, WP:NBA, WP:CFB and WP:NFL. In particular, this year-first formatting has taken over the current undergraduate CFB bios that use "Infobox college football player" and is now creeping into the NFL and NBA player bios. I would be grateful if you would correct this improper honors formatting when you encounter it, and explain the proper formatting to any users who are using year-first formatting in player infoboxes for CBB, NBA, CFB and NFL player biographies. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Further comment. I just realized that this bio is using Template:Infobox NCAA athlete, not Template:infobox basketball biography, and that the example honors for Infobox NCAA athlete are using the date-first format. It looks like we have a project level contradiction that needs to be addressed to determine consensus. Currently, the example honors for NCAA players and NBA players are being formatted differently. What does everyone else think of this situation? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
DL, although you mostly overloooked my issue of dominated award (Overall vs. Freshman or National vs. conference) inclusion, you have touched upon another issue that is near and dear to me and a dialogue that I would like to have because it may soon be relevant for Davis and has been an issue for the last Chicago native NPOY, Evan Turner. First, please comment on the dominated award. Second, here is my related issue on merging multiple lines. Evan Turner has the following infobox highlights and awards:

The article formerly combined multiple awards as follows

Do we prefer merging of mulitple lines and expression of detail like this as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I favor collapsing the NPOY awards (the second example) and just use All-American (Consensus) instead of listing those out at all. The individual awards can be listed more fully in the body of the article - we're just looking at an infobox here. As these guys get more accomplished as professionals there is no need to list a trillion college or high school awards in their infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I could endorse that and would look forward to that dialog, but what about players who are not consensus?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Then list them out like the second example. Rikster2 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I mostly agree with Rikster, but I think this needs to be revisited as a joint review/RfC by WP:NBA and WP:CBB. Back in March 2011, there was actually an RfC on point that was closed by a third-party administrator regarding what honors to include and how they were to be formatted for Template:Infobox basketball biography. That discussion is well worth reading. Among other points, there was an apparent consensus to omit virtually all high school honors (except the very highest, such as NPOY) and to include only consensus All-American honors (a little harsh, if the player was a first-team selection by one of the major selectors, but not consensus). As I read it, however, the bigger point of the discussion was that the infobox honors section is a "highlights" section and is not to be used as a comprehensive list for All-Everything NCAA players and NBA stars like Michael Jordan, whose complete list of awards could exceed the length of the article by several feet. Which comes back to Tony's original question: no, I would not include the Freshman POY honor when the subject was also NPOY, but it really comes down to a matter of space and priority. If you're listing more than 8-10 honors (not including repeat years for the same award) in the infobox, then you should really consider listing only the 8-10 most significant awards. I might also add that there was a pretty clear consensus for using the description-with-years-in-parentheses format that I mentioned above. Given the inter-relatedness of WP:CBB and WP:NBA, it would make sense to bring formatting practice for "Infobox NCAA athlete" into conformity with "Infobox basketball biography." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, I agree that the previous consensus on what to list in the awards of the infobox was too "harsh". IMO, it was hardly a consensus either. Those matters often seem best determined on an article-by-article basis based on the individual's players particular legacy. The basketball biography infobox seems to have taken on a rigid, NBA-centric lean that dismisses earlier career awards that may be notable for individual players. Becoming an NBA journeyman does not negate such awards, IMO. Perhaps these issues should be revisited.CrazyPaco (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments: NCAA Sweet Sixteen phantom appearances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear and overwhelming consensus of 14–0 or 13–1 (depending on how we count Jbfwildcat's evolving position) to delete all pre-1951 so-called Sweet Sixteen appearances and all pre-1951 Round of 32 appearances from college basketball team infoboxes. There is no consensus at this time to rename either "Elite 8" or "Sweet 16" segments of the infoboxes. Editors are welcome to continue to discuss the renaming of these infobox sections in a separate section below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, sports fans. I have a question for all of you WP:CBB editors: why are Sweet Sixteen appearances listed in the infoboxes for some college basketball teams, including Kentucky and North Carolina for the NCAA Tournaments in 1939 through 1950? As anyone who is familiar with the history of the tournament should know, the NCAA Tournament was an eight-team draw in its early years. Listing these years as "Sweet Sixteen" appearances for those tournaments is anachronistic, misleading, and frankly, a little bizarre. Someone want to take a shot at explaining this to me? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing for sure, I'd guess that those articles were created before WP:CBB became a WikiProject. There is no reason to have Sweet 16 appearances in infoboxes if no such thing even existed; they are erroneous. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's my reaction, too, Jrcla. I played follow-the-link for about 30 minutes last night, and here are the totals . . . Of the 50+ college basketball teams that participated in the NCAA Tournament from 1939 to 1950 when it was an 8-team draw, 47 of those teams have stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Eleven of those 47 articles list one or more "NCAA Sweet Sixteen" appearances in the team infobox when the Sweet Sixteen did not exist for those tournaments. These 11 team articles that list Sweet Sixteen appearances that never happened include Kentucky ('42, 45, 48, 49), Texas ('39, 43, 47), Baylor ('48, 50), North Carolina ('41, 46), Creighton ('41), Georgetown ('43), NC State ('50), Oregon State ('49), Penn State ('42), Utah State ('39) and Washington State ('41). Even more bizarre, the Creighton and Washington State team articles also list "Round of 32" appearances for 1941.
I would like to get the consensus of project editors on record that this is improper, and then remove these phantom Sweet 16 appearances from the infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete phantom Sweet Sixteen appearances (1939–1950) per comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per DL. When eight teams are in a tournament, why the hell would somebody claim they made it to the round of 32 or Sweet 16? Jrcla2 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems pretty obvious these should go Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above comments. ~ Richmond96 t • c 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete misinformation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur with all above. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete any Sweet 16 appearances prior to 1951. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Furthermore, the legit year-by-year listings in these infoboxes seems pretty bloaty to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    I have to disagree with you there. I like the year by year listings in the infoboxes. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete My guess is that someone just assumed the teams were in the Sweet 16 because they were among the final 8. Zagalejo^^^ 17:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete My guess it that Zagalejo is right.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Makes sense, just be sure to check the prose as well.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If it's a Elite-8, then it has to be a Sweet-16 appearance. However, if Wiki wishes to list Sweet-16 appearances from the 1950-51 season onward, that is the only change that would make any sense, as that was the first year that the NCAA went to 16 teams in the tourney. However, I've seen CBS, ESPN, Fox, Yahoo Sports, and NBC all use the figures for Sweet-16's dating back to the beginning of the NCAA tourney. You see, this practice, whether one agrees with its order of logic or not, is still compeletely FAIR and UNIFORM for ALL teams. Just leave it like it is, as it's not misleading anyone. Jbfwildcat (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It is misleading though. It implies there were more than eight teams to begin with, which is false. So far the consensus here is to remove all non-applicable Sweet 16 and Round of 32 appearances from teams' pages who claim them despite the fact that such rounds never existed. At this point it would also take a small miracle for this consensus to change. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Jrcla, I would like to keep this RfC open for a full seven days. Assuming that the current, clear trend continues, I will close and hatnote the RfC on March 26, and we can call the result WP:CBBALL consensus and official project policy. Before that happens, everyone concerned should have an opportunity to express their opinion, so that the result is airtight and binding for all articles under the WP:CBBALL umbrella. In the future, when an editor asks why we do things a particular way, we should be able to link to an RfC or other clear statement of consensus or policy and say "that's why." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Question: Does the NCAA credit teams with sweet 16 appearances prior to 1951? Rreagan007 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Apparently not, RR. According to this year's NCAA Tournament media guide (see early rounds section here, all sections here), the NCAA does not even start counting Sweet 16 appearances until 1975, when the tournament expanded to 32 teams, and every team had to win an opening round game to advance to the Sweet 16. Before 1975, the NCAA credits the Round of 16 as an opening round appearance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Here's the thing, if you only go from 1975, then you are going to have teams with far more Elite-8 appearances that Sweet-16 appearances. That doesn't make sense. Further, the NCAA counts Elite-8 appearances for each team dating back to the beginning of the tourney. In other words, there were only 8 teams in the tourney from 1939-1950, and if a team even made the tourney, then the NCAA counts it as a Elite-8 appearance. Therefore, if you are going change anything, then simply start counting Sweet-16 appearances starting in the 1950-51 season (the first year there was at least 16 teams in the tourney). Listen, the "Final Four" wasn't even called that until much later, but the NCAA counts Final Four appearances from the very beginning in 1939, correct?. See my line of logic here? Frankly, let's just leave this alone and simply put an asterisk or something. Like I said before, it's fair to everybody, and it stands to reason that if you are among the final 8 teams, you also are among the final 16.Jbfwildcat (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all Sweet 16s prior to 1975 Quoting from the NCAA guide linked by Dirtlawyer above: "Sweet 16 Records begin in 1975, the first year that all teams in the tournament would be required to win at least one game to advance to the Sweet 16." Jbfwildcat's point about teams having more Elite 8 appearances than Sweet 16 appearances is well-taken, and I think it looks strange on the face of it as well. However, again quoting the guide above: "Elite 8 Records begin in 1951, the first year that all teams in the tournament would be required to win at least one game to advance to the Elite 8." If this is how the NCAA counts them, why would we want to adopt any other standard? Because it looks strange isn't good enough, imo. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is that there is no uniform code? Just leave it the way it is, OR let's compromise, count Elite-8's and Final Fours from 1939, and count Sweet-16's starting in 1951. Deal? You have to understand, all the NCAA is saying about Sweet-16's is that they first started "referring" to them as a "Sweet-16" starting in 1975. Nothing more. Like I said, the NCAA didn't call the last 4 teams the "Final Four" until the 1970's, and yet they still count all Final Four appearances before that. It's confusing, I know, but really there is no solid protocol to go on. Just leave it alone for now, and then note the totals. That's fair to everybody, and also explains things. Trust me, if you start listing teams with more Elite-8 appearances than Sweet-16 appearances, you are going to see people editing this subject matter over and over on a daily basis.Jbfwildcat (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It's not about when the NCAA started using those terms, it's about when playing in that round is meaningful, i.e. when the round in question is no longer the first round. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of saying that a team made the Round of 64 in 1998; it's just an obfuscated way of saying they made the tournament. cmadler (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, this issue has become more complicated than it originally appeared to be. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, if there are only 8 teams making it to the tournament, then that should just count as a "tournament appearance" and not as an "elite 8 appearance". On the other hand, when only 8 teams in the country make it to the tournament, just making it to the tournament in and of itself is very meaningful, in other words "elite". Does the NCAA alone get to define what the "elite 8" is or do other reliable sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated get to as well? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The NCAA, all the way back to 1939, refers to an Elite-8 appearance as a "Regional Runner-Up". They shorten this to "RR" in most statistical cases. The term "Elite-8" is NOT originally a NCAA term, but instead, a media created term. However, it's just a "Regional Runner-Up". Therefore, there is nothing wrong with listing all of these as Elite-8's, as this has now become the accepted term for the round. I hope this clears things up. Jbfwildcat (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Further, media outlets such as CBS and ESPN have regularly used the practice of using the Elite-8 totals from 1939, not 1951. I also know for a fact that schools like North Carolina, Kentucky, and Kansas use the 1939 totals in their media guides, and it would be my guess that many other schools do the same. I'm telling you, if we change this (along with the Sweet-16 totals), then all of us are going to be damn busy fighting off all the edits that people are going to be making daily. Mark my words on this. Tell you what, let's just wait until after the Tournament before making a final decision. One week is not enough time to hash this out. This will also give more time to research other publications on these subjects.Jbfwildcat (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen, when the NCAA Tournament was 8 teams (1939-1950), and a team was selected, are they not one of the final 8 teams? Tell me, is a "final-8" not an "elite-8"? Further, if a team is one of the best 8 teams in the country, are they also not one of the best 16 teams? That's simple logic, my friends. Further, the NCAA just started using the terms, "Final Four", "Elite-8", and "Sweet-16" in the late 1970's. Are the older teams that earned their way into the Tournament supposed to be looked over? Is a "first round" loss in 1941 or 1955 the same as one today? After all, it was SO much harder to get into the Tournament back then, and I see no reason to discredit this era. In short, if you were among the "final-8", in ANY period, then you were one of the final 8 teams standing. Likewise, when the Tournament expanded to 16 teams in 1951, if you were one of the last 16 teams standing, then you were among the "final-16". IMO, if we go ahead with this overall change to Wiki, then we are discrediting the accomplishments of teams from 1939-1975, and frankly, there will be hell to pay every day with us constantly reverting edits. Is this whole thing really necessary? Keep in mind, the current criteria for both Sweet-16's and Elite-8's on Wiki is FAIR for ALL teams, and treats ALL eras in the same manner. What is so unfair about this?Jbfwildcat (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely not for removing any elite-8's or sweet-16's after 1950. The issue people have a problem with here is giving credit for sweet-16's when the tournament only had 8 teams in it to begin with. Can you actually give any cites to CBS or ESPN that credit teams with sweet-16's prior to 1951? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I second what Rreagan007 said. Pre-1951 Sweet 16 and and Round of 32 references should be deleted; they never happened. It's that simple. However, I am indifferent whether WP:CBBALL should recognize the opening rounds of 8 and 16 as "Elite 8" or "Sweet 16" appearances when the NCAA does not, but I certainly agree with Jbfwildcat that attempting to delete the pre-1951 opening rounds of 8 and the pre-1975 opening rounds of 16 will cause confusion and ongoing maintenance issue for project editors. I will abide by whatever the majority decides to do regarding these latter issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, let's just remove the Sweet-16's previous to 1951, and not the Elite-8's. That makes sense, and it's a compromise that everyone can see the logic in and live with, I believe. Once again, this is logical, uniform, and fair to ALL teams, past and present, and to ALL schools. Both of these things are of vital importance.Jbfwildcat (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete I've brought this up in the past and definitely think "phantom" Sweet 16 and Round of 32 appearances should be deleted prior to 1951. However, regarding the issue of whether or not an opening round appearance in the 16-team fields of the NCAA tournaments of 1951 and 1952, or in an opening round appearance when it was an eight-team field from 1939 to 1950 should remain listed as "Sweet 16" or "Elite 8" given a choice between listing them vs not listing them, I do believe they should remain listed. However, I would possibly suggest changing the names of those infobox fields to "Round of 16" or "Round of 8" or alternatively "Regional Finalist" in order to avoid confusion with modern jargon. In fact, I think the NCAA uses Regional Finalist as its official descriptor of the Elite Eight anyway. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. If a team was selected in the round of "16", then they are also "final-16" and "Sweet-16". You see, this was originally a MEDIA created term, and to discredit anything before 1975 is unfair to teams that made the NCAA Tournament before that. In short, if you were among the last 16 teams standing, in any era, then you should be credited with a "Sweet-16" appearance. Likewise, if you were among the last 8 teams standing, in any era, then you should be credited with an "Elite-8" appearance. To do otherwise means treating the teams from the past unfairly.Jbfwildcat (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I assuming that is directed to me? I am not actually disagreeing with you, nor am not attempting to discredit the achievement of getting to the tournament in those early years. To be clear, for example, I believe that given a choice between either listing a bid to the 1939 NCAA tournament as an "Elite Eight" appearance or as just listing it as an appearance, it should be listed as both an appearance and an "Elite Eight" (but not Sweet 16 or Round of 32). I do agree that you could consider it a "final 8 team". My suggestion was a discussion on whether the infobox field for "Elite Eight" should be renamed to "Regional Finalist" or "Round of Eight" since the modern day use of "Elite Eight" 1) has a different connotation today that could mislead/confuse the reader 2) was not utilized in that era 3) may not be officially utilized in the NCAA official records book. That goes for the using the name "Sweet 16" as well. As you said, those are modern media terms for promotional purposes, and aren't necessarily precise when considering the entire historic context of the tournament. However, I am not suggesting a removal of the teams listings of accomplishments in those categories (e.g. Elite 8) for those early years, just a possible renaming of it in order to move away from the media coined term. Renaming could remove any controversy. I hope that clarifies my point some. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1953-1975 Round of 32 appearances

Dirtlawyer1 said "There is a clear and overwhelming consensus of 14–0 or 13–1 (depending on how we count Jbfwildcat's evolving position) to delete all pre-1951 so-called Sweet Sixteen appearances and all pre-1975 Round of 32 appearances from college basketball team infoboxes." when he closed the discussion above.

I dont see any consensus on all pre-1975 Round of 32 appearances. I think there needs to be a new discussion for pre-1975 Round of 32 appearances. I think 1953–1974 when there was 22 to 25 teams it should be call "Round of 32" some teams just have byes.Theworm777 (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Worm, that was a typographical error on my part. I have corrected my closing comment to refer to "pre-1951 Round of 32 appearances," which includes exactly two problematic entries: Creighton's phantom Round of 32 appearance in 1941 and Washington State's phantom Round of 32 appearance in 1941. Both have been deleted from those team navboxes, together with all of the other pre-1951 phantom Sweet Sixteen appearances mentioned below. The problem of the Round of 32 appearances from 1954 to 1974 is minimal, because the vast majority of team infoboxes do not appear to include Round of 32 appearances at all. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that uniformly updating the infoboxes to include Round of 32 appearances is overkill. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1,Glad it was just a error. It should be pre-1952 for "Round of 32" there was only 16 teams in 1952. But I am not too worried about that. Thanks for clearing this up for me. Theworm777 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-1st team non-consensus All-Americans

There is often talk that including non-1st team All-Americans clutters infoboxes. Since I am the main editor, explain to me how Royce White, Trey Burke and John Shurna would be better without this infobox content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OT, but I just had to mention that I bumped into Royce White in Rome (technically, Vatican City) and we had a conversation, almost all of which was about Wikipedia.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about the "First Four"

In Wikipedia tables and such, are the "First Four" games of the NCAA Tournament (since 2011) supposed to be listed as the First Round? I'm not seeing consistency across all articles. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 19:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary of past discussion (good to revisit since it's been a year): call the "First Four" the "First Four", call the next two rounds the "Round of 64" and the "Round of 32". This avoids any ambiguity, since in different years each of those has been considered the opening/first round. This also future-proofs our terms, since the NCAA may someday expand the First Four into (gack!) the Round of 128! cmadler (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply! Zagalejo^^^ 05:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if someone could set a bot to change all the "1st Round" links or postseason notes to "Round of 64" and all the "2nd Round" links/notes to the "Round of 32" from 1985 to now on the CBB Yearly Records for Season by season result tables on team and coach pages. I am not too sure what to do before 1985. These are easy 1939–1950: 8 teams is Elite Eight, 1951–1952: 16 teams is Sweet 16, and 1975–1978: 32 teams is round of 32. But these years there was odd numbers of teams 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams, 1979: 40 teams, 1980–1982: 48 teams, 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament), 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament).Theworm777 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess from 1953–1974 is "Round of 32" some teams just have byes and the same from 1979-1984 "Round of 64" but with byes and play-in games are part of the "Round of 64". What does everyone think about this?Theworm777 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Call the Round of 64 the first round (which is still commonly called in most brackets) and the Round of 32 the second round. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of what I have said is that 1st round and 2nd round should not be used here at all any more. Because the Round of 64 is now the 2nd Round and the Round of 32 is now the 3rd round. Just cause people still commonly call it the 1st and 2nd rounds in most bracket dont mean we can do it wrong on wikipedia. Theworm777 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then, call the Rounder of 64 the 2nd round and Round of 32 the 3rd round. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really notable enough to have a navbox?

Is this notable? Really? Does it satisfy the navbox guidelines?


I thought I would give everyone an opportunity to speak their peace before I send this to TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Player pages

I am looking for a consensus on what page the player should link to. For example in the case of Kansas forward Thomas Robinson, in the statement saying "Thomas Earl Robinson (born March 17, 1991) is a college basketball player at the University of Kansas" should "University of Kansas" link direct readers to University of Kansas page or Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball page?--Rockchalk717 (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Rockchalk and I have been briefly discussing the issue, but there's inconsistency in how it's done across Wikipedia. I'm seeing "University of ___", "(team/nickname)", and the University name piped to the team article. I'd like to see a project guideline on this. Also, I noticed that a lot of articles don't mention the college career in the intro paragraph - that shouldn't be the case for American sportspeople articles in the major sports. --Mosmof (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
How about using something like "Thomas Robinson is an American [[college basketball]] player for the [[University of Kansas]] [[Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball|Jayhawks men's basketball team]]". That covers all the possible links. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of linking style, back-to-back links that appear to be a single link are disfavored (they are not prohibited, however, and are sometimes unavoidable). As someone who writes for a living, when I encounter a complicated or otherwise confusing sentence, the easiest way to fix it is usually to break the sentence into smaller, more straight-forward sentences written in the active tense. For example, "Thomas Robinson is an American college basketball player for the University of Kansas." Short, simple and direct, and avoids the back-to-back links problem. It's also important to keep in mind the purpose of the first sentence of the lede: it should be a concise statement of the subject person's notability
In the first sentence of the "college career" section in the main body text, I will usually include something like "Robinson attends the University of Kansas, where he plays for coach Bill Self's Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team." It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not written for college basketball fans, but for a general audience. We should take care to connect the dots for non-sports fans and non-Americans, and establish the relationship between a university and the university's sports teams. That's why I usually include the name of the player's university in the first sentence of the lead section—the university name is invariably more recognizable to non-sports fans than the team nickname, and it also helps to establish the relationship between the player, the university and college sports. The identification of (and link to) the specific team in the "college career" section completes the explanation of the relationship between university, team and player.
Rather than having a rigid formula for what we write in the lede for college basketball players, I would recommend that we create a CBB guideline as to what facts and links are generally appropriate to include in the lede, and what facts and links should be included elsewhere in the article. This way we can allow for variation from article to article, and not have a succession of articles that are all identically phrased. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, I think your statements make a lot of sense, particularly about trying to avoid back-to-back links with repetitive text (forcing links in but compromising sentence integrity) and not needing to have a rigid formula. Along those lines, and addressing the below comments, I would caution that for some international readers or those who are otherwise not familiar with collegiate athletics, that they may not intuitively know that "Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball" is actually the basketball team of the "University of Kansas" as opposed to some developmental/professional team. I've run across many people that are confused by the US collegiate athletics system. So I suggest having the university linked at least somewhere in the article. Like DirtLawyer said though, I do not think this has to be rigid, and flexibility should be retained for how circumstances might differ for different players and schools. I see both sides, but would suggest trying to somehow work in links to both the basketball program and school articles. However, if picking only one or the other for the lead, I think I would lean towards the idea below about first linking to the basketball program because that is why the individual is notable and likely, in most cases, the article of first interest for most readers. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If our concern is for readers who aren't familiar with the US collegiate sports structure (and we should be concerned for those readers), it seems, at least in the intro, piping would be the most elegant solution, i.e. say "University of Kansas" but link to the "Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball" article - that way, they immediately understand that the article subject played for a university, and if they were curious about the significance of playing for Kansas, they could understand with one click that it is one of the most storied programs in the nation. Linking to the university article would be less helpful, in my opinion. I think in the article body, we can talk about how the subject came to the University of Kansas to play for the Jayhawks under Coach Bill Self. --Mosmof (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer to link to the basketball team and team season articles. I am the main editor of 4 of the 58 players (only 37 currently have articles) who were AP All-American honorable mention or better. Three of them I created the article from scratch and those are all formatted the way I prefer. The fourth one, I never got around to reformatting as I prefer, but I think it looks less clean. For example.
  1. Trey Burke: Alfonso Clark "Trey" Burke III (born November 12, 1992) is an American college basketball point guard with the Michigan Wolverines basketball team who has completed his freshman season for the 2011–12 team.
  2. Royce White: Royce Alexander White (born April 10, 1991) is an American college basketball power forward with the Iowa State Cyclones basketball team who has completed his redshirt sophomore season for the 2011–12 team.
  3. John Shurna: John William Shurna (born April 30, 1990) is a Lithuanian-American college basketball player for the Northwestern Wildcats basketball team who has completed his senior season for the 2011–12 team.
  4. Anthony Davis (basketball): Anthony Davis, Jr. (born March 11, 1993), is an American college basketball player at the University of Kentucky. He is playing his freshman season for the 2011–12 Kentucky Wildcats. He plays power forward/center.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. These four (plus Tim Hardaway, Jr. and Glen Rice, Jr.) are all WP:GAs. Of the top college basketball players, I am probably the main editor of the majority of the GAed articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found another format among my GAs that seems cumbersome. Again this is a page I did not create from scratch:

Tony, you need to whack the piped "United States|American" links. Linking "United States" in any article that does not relate directly to the government or territory of the United States is now disfavored per WP:OVERLINK as a widely understood term that is unnecessary to link. Do include the player's nationality per WP:BIO, but don't link it unless you think it would be truly useful to the average reader—for instance, linking "Lithuania|Lithuanian" would probably be useful to most readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

All delinked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. WP:SPECIFICLINK mentions: Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link. In my opinion, these college basketball players are more related to the school's basketball program rather than the school as a whole. Furthermore, if a reader wishes to read about the school, they're one click away from the basketball program article (usually the link to the school can be found on the first sentence). If we use the link to the school, the reader has to navigate to the school's athletic program first before they can found the basketball program article (the basketball articles aren't usually linked from the school's article). — MT (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
{double ec both for Dirtlawyer1 and Martin tamb) P.S. Even for on-GA articles (Drew Crawford) I use this format. It would be good for the Robinson article although it is not a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The team page appears in the infobox though. In the opening or college career it should take you to the school's page. Regardless of what they accomplish on the court, they are still students at the school. I'm a former college student/athlete and I take great pride not I only where I played but where I went to school and some of these men do.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I have given less thought to which belongs in the infobox, but for the 4 above, the three I created (plus my two other GAs) all have the general university in the infobox and the fourth has the basketball program redundantly with the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
But for athletes who are notable enough to be Wikipedia subjects, their notability is as athletes, not students. Their enrollment is almost always dependent and secondary to the membership on the team - for one thing, as soon as basketball players complete their college career, they stop going to classes so they can prepare for the draft. Plus, I'd argue that a reader who's interested in, say, Kevin Love would be more likely to be interested in UCLA Bruins men's basketball, i.e. the team's history, arena, other notable players from the team, etc, over the University of California, Los Angeles, i.e. endowment, majors offered, etc. You have to ask, why are readers interested in this subject? It's not because of where they attend school. --Mosmof (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The thing about stopping classes, most 2nd semester juniors or first semester seniors have already gotten their bachelors degree. The infobox is about them as athlete so that's where the team page should go. In the opening, that's about the person behind the athlete. Too often people forget athlete's are just normal people and I know for a fact most college athletes, including Thomas Robinson, want to be treated as students more than athletes. There are exceptions, normally the thugs that come from the ghettos of the country. Again regardless of their gpa, regardless of what their major is, regardless of if they are Thomas Robinson, Jared Sullinger, Anthony Davis or a player like KU sophomore guard Niko Roberts who has played in only 7 games, they are still students at the school and it really gets me heated when people forget that.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Whether they want to be known as students, nice guys, good samaritans, role models or original gansters, the first sentence is suppose to summarize why they are notable as succintly as possible for the reader. We are not summarizing what they think of themselves, but why they are notable to the project. See WP:LEAD, especially the section at WP:BEGINNING.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. If he really wants to be known as a student, he should do what it takes to be an Academic All-American. He had his shot at being the Elite 89 winner (highest GPA at the final four), but it went to Aaron Craft. Even if he did post great grades, he would still be more notable as a basketball player. Look at Tyler Zeller, Matt Howard (basketball) and Cole Aldrich, the three most recent additions to List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year. None of them is known as a student.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
PS I'm gonna be out of commission for a few days so don't expect any replies for a few days--Rockchalk717 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Roster format

There seems to be competing formats for roster tables on season pages. Could someone provide a link to an example that is a model template?--YHoshua (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2011–12 Florida Gators men's basketball team. ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lefty Driesell Award

Is an award that receives no press coverage notable enough to include in the project. The Lefty Driesell Award was named on Friday and I can't figure out who won it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It was Anthony Davis http://www.dnj.com/article/20120401/BLUERAIDERS03/304010029. BTW Tony, aren't you the guy adding the "Elite 88 Award?". That's pretty small time IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Elite 88 Award, it is national. It has to be as big as the Big 5 award. We could open a discussion if you like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Difference is that the Big 5 POY and the Haggerty go back 50+ years. The Lefty Driesell is at least recorded in the NCAA record book. I've never even heard of the Elite 88, and I'll bet most basketball fans haven't. Rikster2 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Elite 89 Award is an NCAA award, making it more official than Lefty Driesell, which is a CIT Award, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"More official"? Let's not get into semantics, but something is either official or it isn't. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Official may be the wrong word, but the Elite 89 Award is an NCAA award and Lefty Driesell Award is not. In fact, in terms of scholar Athlete Awards, neither the Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year nor the Lowe's men's basketball Senior CLASS Award is an NCAA award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You might be the most exhausting person on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me make this simple. Look at Collegeinsider.com#Awards. The majority of Collegeinsider.com awards are not so notable it seems. I am not sure what to make of some of them. Davis won the Kyle Macy Award, but it doesn't even have an article, which is even worse than the Lefty Driesell Award that no one covers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony may be rather single-minded at times, but he doesn't even break the AP Top 25 of Most Exasperating Wikipedia Editors. LOL

All teasing aside, guys, I've been following your conversation for the last couple of days. I think it's important to keep in mind what the standard is for inclusion of stand-alone articles (and navboxes): notability, not whether the subject award is an "official" honor of the NCAA or other sports governing body. Notability of the award itself, not the notability of the affiliated or sponsor organization. And remember notability isn't just about Google hits----for purposes of establishing notability, the sources must be independent of the subject (e.g. NCAA press releases about an NCAA-sponsored award don't count for establishing its notability, although they may be a good source for its history, etc.), the sources must be meaningful and substantive (not routine mentions), and there should be more than one reliable independent source. Specifically for awards, there should be substantial and meaningful coverage of the award, not a routine two-sentence announcement that Jacques Jefferson was the 2012 recipient (that's "routine"). The GNG standard is actually a much tougher standard than most editors realize, and unfortunately, and a much tougher standard than we have often enforced at AfD and TfD. When the GNG standard is critically and properly applied, many of the so-called "national" sports awards would have a tough time surviving an AfD----let alone those at a conference or team level. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We had a big debate about the CollegeInsider.com awards when they were introduced three years ago. Ultimately we held off adding them until they showed up in the awards section of the NCAA men's basketball record book, which they did in the 2011 edition. That said, CI has about doubled the number of awards since then and personally I think their criteria, their selection and their marketing is pretty sketchy. You didn't hear anything about the Driesell because Anthony Davis won it in addition to about another billion honors. Last year it was a different story when Kent Bazemore won it and ODU promoted it because it was their only national award. personally, I'd be all for taking these off the season pages. And the Elite 89 Award is incredibly small potatoes IMO and shouldn't be on either. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever googled Elite 89 Award. It passes GNG easily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't really have a dog in this hunt, except that I would like to curtail Wikipedia college sports articles on trivial subjects of marginal notability. My bias in this regard is well known. That having been said, I have to agree with Tony regarding the Elite 89 Award. I just did a Google News search. Even setting aside all of the search hits that are non-independent publicity pieces generated by the NCAA and the award recipients' respective colleges, there appear to be plenty of substantive online news articles that describe the award and its qualifications in detail that were published by newspapers, TV stations and other independent news sources. Again, any source, even a perfectly respectable reliable source, that is not independent of their subject cannot be cited to determine Wikipedia notability, but that does not appear to be a problem in the case of the Elite 89 Award.
Guys, I hope we can critically apply this same standard to other college sports awards and honors, because I guaranty that other awards and honors will fail the GNG standard when we properly require substantial and meaningful coverage in independent sources. The fact that there are a gazillion Google News hits for a particular award is meaningless unless several of those hits are independent reliable sources that actually discuss the award in meaningful detail. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
So what if the award has a jillion ghits? Most of them were NCAA or schools promoting their winners of the award (which exists for every division, every sport). Why is the division I men's basketball version of this so meaningful that it should be one of a handful of awards that are listed at the end of every season article? Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Rikster, read my comment again: I'm agreeing with your first point. The number of Google News hits is irrelevant. For notability to be established, several of the "hits" must be reliable sources, independent of the subject, that provide substantial coverage of the award. Those exist. I just found them. Ignore the NCAA and college-generated pieces, and just look at articles from the real news organizations. There are more than enough independent articles to establish notability.

From my perspective, the second point that you raise is more interesting. Just because an award is notable does not necessarily mean that we should or must create a list article that includes every recipient of that notable award. The Purple Heart is notable, but Wikipedia does not attempt to list every one of the tens of thousands of recipients. By definition, the Elite 89 Award has 89 recipients every year, most of whom are not notable by any stretch of WP:GNG. For example, what are the odds the recipient of the award for Division III women's field hockey is notable? Probably pretty damn long. I would suggest to you that whether the award article is a merely list of recipients, or a narrative that includes a description of the award, its history and its qualifications, or a combination thereof, is a decision to be made either as a function of consensus determined here on the CBB project page or the article's talk page. Given the large number of annual Elite 89 recipients, I would think that navboxes would be impractical, especially since the vast majority of the recipients included in any navbox would be non-notable red links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect annual articles or templates will ever be created for this Award. It is most similar in notability of its subjects to Academic All-American and List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year. For most sports the winner is non-notable. For basketball, there is a good chance that the winner is notable as it has been for at least the last three years. The basketball winner have been notable. I don't think there is a reason to create a List of Men's Basketball Elite 89 Award winners, but I suspect the list would be as interesting as the AA-A list or the List of Lowe's Senior CLASS Award men's basketball winners.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

NCAA leader articles

I stopped by List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season 3-point field goal leaders and immediately noticed all the redlinks. Should we be using the percentage leader? In fact, should we have percentage leaders for free throws and field goals as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you checked the NCAA media guide, it shows made per game as the official statistic. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ESPN Insider

Are there any ESPN insiders who can read this article and tell me what it says about Michigan's latest recruit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am doing a WP:HOCKEY WP:GAC review. I am being told that I am the only WP editor that uses team season links. I am trying to figure out if other sports writers use them. In a sentence like "In season YYYY-YY he led the team to a playoff victory over TEAM X" Should you link to TEAM X or YYYY-YY TEAM X season (piped of course)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony, for college football players, I always start the section describing their college career with something like "Jones attended the University of Florida, where he played for coach Steve Spurrier's Florida Gators football team from 1996 to 1999." That brackets the player's college career with his first and last seasons, and then you can work other team season links into the text as notable to the particular player's career. If the subject is a professional player with a very long pro career, it may seem annoyingly contrived and repetitive to shoehorn in a team season link for every season the player was a member of the team. In that event, I would bracket his first and last seasons as I did above, and then use your best judgment for the other seasons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to get a feel for how many other editors try to link to team season in articles or if I am on an island. I don't really pay attention, but do most editors try to link to the season article or are we in the minority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I do generally link to the team season article when it is the most appropriate. I do this across college baseball, football, and basketball articles I work on. Billcasey905 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I link the season articles when appropriate, but usually not just the school name. If the original text shows the school name I either go with the full university link if using the full name in the article ("he attended the Univerity of Arkansas") or the basketball article if the short or disticnt athletic name is used ("he attended Arkansas" or "he played for the Arkansas Razorbacks"). Take a look at the Byron Mouton article I just created to see this in action (has a couple season articles linked). Not saying my way is the right way, but that's how I do it. Rikster2 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Mouton has no links where this would be an issue. Basically, I think you view it like I do, where transactions from one team to another link to the team articles. Then you describe a tenure with a team using season articles. Mouton has no instances in his article (as written) where any other teams' season articles would be relevant. It is a stub. I am talking about when he has accomplishments against other teams what would you link to. Do you think it is appropriate to fail a GAC if the editor refuses to use appropriate season links? At least now I am sure I am not the only WP editor who links to the relevant article. I know you guys are not Hockey guys, so I have to figure out what to do at Talk:Mike Vernon (ice hockey)/GA1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I do exactly the same thing. Not sure this practice (which amounts to personal preference really) should flunk a GA nomination, though. Rikster2 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't proper wikification fall under WP:WIAGA 1b?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The jury is out as to whether or not this practice is "proper" or not. It isn't mandatory, that's for sure. But this is a good example of why I don't worry about GA. You asked what our practices were, I told you mine. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that almost no GA/FA content uses team season links other than those I review or write?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Portland State

Our article on the Portland State Vikings men's basketball that it had no team from 1981-1996. But today, while looking at a number of NCAA Attendance reports checking to see on whether a Division 2 powerhouse would have higher attendance than an obscure low-major Division 1 school, PSU is listed in the attendance report (averaged 190 fans per game, which is beyond horrible and next to last in DI), but is still listed in the report. Which is correct? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the Portland State Media Guide (Page 83):

1995
Portland State Administration approves the Viking Athletic Program’s move to a full-fledged Division I competing institution. The result is the reinstatement of a men’s basketball program that had been dead since the conclusion of the 1980-81 season due to budget cuts. After a long winter void in PSU Athletics, and countless questions of, “will you ever bring back basketball?” the Vikings have their answer. Portland State begins play in 1996-97, and after numerous basketball publications predicted the Vikings would go winless, Head Coach Ritchie McKay leads PSU to a 9-17 record (6-10 in conference). In just their second season, the Vikings pull off a winning record (15-12).

So, no. No team from 1981–1986.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
And yet there they are, listed by the NCAA as Division I in 1990. Obviously either the NCAA or Portland State is wrong... cmadler (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Smart money is on the NCAA being wrong in this case. Rikster2 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. It's surprising (frightening, really) how riddled the NCAA is with mistakes. Go with the PSU media guide, they would know whether their own school fielded a basketball team. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with you in this case, but media guides are also often riddled with errors. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Early Entrants

Yesterday was the deadline to submit your name for the 2012 NBA Draft. Has anyone seen the final list? I have been checking places like ESPN and NBA.com. I can not find anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/17904025/2012-nba-draft-early-entry-watch-list Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Would this be it?  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither of those lists is final. The CBS list still has at least one player that it does not know the status of and the NBA list is not dated after April 29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
the CBS list is final. Terrell Stoplin declared at the last possible minute and he's on. Elias Harris is the only one updated and he's returning to Gonzaga. Rikster2 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

TfD of interest—Template:College sports rivalry

WP:CBB project members may wish to participate in this TfD discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 1#Template:Infobox college sports rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change format of game summaries in tournament articles

I decided to make a game summary box for college basketball similar to Template:Americanfootballbox. I believe it is better looking and contains more information than the current game summary boxes. (See 2012 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament). I also think it can be made into a template.

I'd like to know if it is okay to go ahead and change them out and if anyone has a suggestion for ways to improve it. Thanks! ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Current box example
CBS
April 2
9:23 pm
Kansas Jayhawks 59, Kentucky Wildcats 67
Scoring by half: 27–41, 32–26
Pts: T. Taylor 19
Rebs: T. Robinson 17
Asts: T. Taylor 3		 Pts: D. Lamb 22
Rebs: A. Davis 16
Asts: A. Davis 5
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
New box proposal
April 2, 2012: Kansas Jayhawks vs. Kentucky Wildcats – Game summary
Kansas Jayhawks (32–6, 16–2 Big 12) vs. Kentucky Wildcats (37–2, 16–0 SEC)

Standardize Won/Loss Colors

Please see Template_talk:Table_cell_templates#Standardize_Won.2FLoss_Colors. --ben_b (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Parade All-American team date

Does anyone know when the Parade All-American team comes out this year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It should have come out a month ago. I have a feeling they discontinued it. Rikster2 (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
According to this we can look for it in this Sunday's magazine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
nice find. Wonder why it was nearly 2 months later than usual? They actually have already posted it on-line: http://www.parade.com/news/all-america/2012/basketball-team.html?index=4 Rikster2 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:McDonald's AA Dunk Contest winners

Template:McDonald's AA Dunk Contest winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable players section in team articles

There is a discussion regarding "notable players" sections that can use input at Talk:San_Diego_State_Aztecs_men's_basketball#Notable_players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Image use

I'm having some trouble understanding when a university's athletic logo can be used on a page and when it can't. I know non-free images can't be used in userspace, but, for example, can file:BallStateCardinals.png be used in an infobox on Ball State Cardinals men's basketball? If so, can someone please help me explain this to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)? City boy77 (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My guess: It would be ok for the infobox at top for Ball State, the subject of the article. The objection seemed to be for a second infobox on rivalry with Butler, which is not the main subject and not on top.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There was a massive debate on this very topic a few years back, which never reached a clear consensus. A copyrighted logo is generally accepted under the non-free content criteria for the highest-level applicable article, so the Ball State image you link can certainly be included in Ball State Cardinals. Its use might be acceptable on a sport-level article, though it's better if there's a sport-specific logo (e.g. at EMU the school has a variant of the main athletic logo for football and another variant for basketball). Its use is probably not acceptable in an article about a specific season, with the most likely exception being the first season after a logo change, where the change is discussed in the article. Its use is almost certainly not acceptable in an article about a rivalry or a specific game (including bowl games), though if the athletic logo is incorporated in a rivalry or bowl game logo that might be acceptable. For other uses where a logo is desired but the non-free content criteria can't be satisfied, consider using one of the public domain logos listed at User:Buffs/FBS Trademarked logos. cmadler (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

NBA Combines

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#NBA_Combines.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In case this project is interested, there is a deletion discussion here regarding Template:Wolverine–Hoosier Athletic Conference navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Chip Hilton Player of the Year Award?

Did they stop giving this award and make no announcement about it? I can't find a single thing about it for the 2011–12 season. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOY infobox format

Since NPOY appears right now no articles with {{Infobox NCAA athlete}} and probably 100 with {{Infobox basketball biography}} and in this one-and-done era generally only appears on an NCAA athletes page for a little over 10 weeks before his infobox is converted, we are having a debate about the format of NPOY in infoboxes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Consolidating_College_POY. Please come discuss there. The three formats are (from Bill Walton)

Conference Player of the Year article effort - Update on Progress

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress in the last several months, and the following conference POY templates are complete: American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference and the WAC. The Metro, MWC, WCC, WAC and Horizon League templates/articles have been completed since the last update and we have seen real progress on several other conferences as a result of your efforts to date.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

Please take a look at the lists and feel free to create articles on any. Several reiging CPOYs are missing articles, with good biographical information readily available. We're making progress! Rikster2 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rikster, what is the progress on the two-time CPOYs who still need to be made? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you go:

Rikster2 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that among the 8 remaining Southwest Conference POYs (that we know about and are able to verify right now), half of them would be completed by writing articles for Lenox and Flemons. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the 8 includes Lennox and Flemons as one entry each. All counts are by number of articles needed, not number of redlinks. Rikster2 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team/archive2

Please comment at the above peer review. Thanks, ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jason Andreas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Andreas 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/Jason Andreas 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 template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

NCAA Basketball Tournament Most Outstanding Player

I just realized that this article is titled incorrectly. The award is officially called the Final Four Most Outstanding Player. I plan to move it but wanted to allow anyone who wants to dispute that to voice their objections. Here are a couple of references:

Rikster2 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is official name and then there is WP:COMMONNAME. Not sure about official name. http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/awards/ncaa-mop.html lists as "NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding". There are lots of ghits for both NCAA tournament Most Outstanding Player and "Final Four Most Outstanding Player". Not sure how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Classic

In 2012, there will be three games aboard aircraft carriers on the first day of the season. These games are shown on the Carrier Classic page, as they should be, but it looks like they are not being branded as the Carrier Classic this year. The one in Jacksonville will be called the Navy/Marine Corps Classic. I think we should move this page to something like College basketball games on aircraft carriers or something similar so that future games will be listed in the same article. The article will include details on each matchup, as well as last year's game. Sound like a good idea? ~ Richmond96 t • c 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like the other games (I think the other one is the Battle on (not of) the Midway) should be moved, and yeah either the article you propose or just a category might work? Oh, and the 2013 Carrier Classic with Michigan State just seems to be working off a rumor that went around after the first game in November. I'm going to go ahead and remove that. Mosmof (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else have any input on this? I think the article should be moved to List of college basketball games played on naval carriers or something similar. Because it is a notable event, a basketball game on a ship, but since this is an annual thing I do not think each game deserves an article. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Poll of Preference

Hello, I am not a member of this project but I am still seeking to help it improve. I know the question about whether the AP Poll or Coaches Poll should be used was apparently answered a few years ago, and the consensus was AP polls should be prefered. However, I noticed that several references, like the ESPN college basketball encylopedia give both. My question is, should we make it standard to do both on season pages. This not only would match the sources, but it would also prevent potential bickering between fans of the two teams over how the rankings should be displayed, and it would also ensure that a neutral point of view was being kept (as we would not be favoring sportswriters over coaches and vice versa). If this is a completely stupid idea, please inform me of why it is so, but if it is a workable idea please discuss it. 98.179.165.213 (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comment. I also think there is an inherent problem with the AP poll: there is no post NCAA tournament AP poll. As a result, the ranks shown on the AP poll do not adequately represent how the teams finish. So, in addition to my idea above, it may also be an idea to go back to the coaches poll. Either way, this second piece of information is certainly a very strong arguement in favor of including the coaches' poll somehow. 98.179.165.213 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think both polls is best - IF it can be represented cleanly in all the places it needs to be displayed (standings, etc). what I'd hate to see is templates, tables etc. look too clunky because we are trying to cram too much information in. If we have to use one poll (and I think in the past we determined this was the easiest course), then I would favor the AP. This is because the AP poll is older, which means if you favor one poll you get more mileage out of the AP historically. It's close, but I'd also argue that the AP is the default when most sources cite one poll. Important to note that the ESPN College Basketball Encyclopedia is not a completely unbiased source because ESPN sponsors the coaches poll - it is in their best interests to add as much legitimacy as possible to that poll. The argument about the poll after the tournament holds absolutely zero sway with me. This is not FBS football - post-tournament polls are meaningless and, in my opinion, distort the assessment of the regular season ending, which is what the polls actually measure effectively. Nobody cares who the post-tournament #1 was, because the tournament champion is the story. In 2011, Butler and VCU went from unranked the previous poll to numbers 2 and 6 in the post-tournament poll. That is silly and irrelevant. What is relevant is that these two teams made the Final Four. There is no point to a postseason poll in college basketball. Which is why schools like Kentucky hang banners for final AP #1 ranking, but not for coaches. If you are #1 in the final coaches poll, you generally just won the championship, which is exponentially bigger. Rikster2 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay I understand your arguement. I just have a couple more questions. Firstly, several pages are still on the Coaches' Poll, should they be edited? Secondly, team infobox's list there end of season polls. Should the Coaches' Poll be set to show their final ranking in the Coaches' Poll? 98.179.165.213 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS: Sports season formats, player tenures and season spans

There is a discussion occurring at the Manual of Style talk page concerning date formats for sports seasons and year spans here: Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68. For those of you NBA and CBB editors who thought this was a settled issue, you may want to chime in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:California Golden Bears men's basketball retired number navbox

Template:California Golden Bears men's basketball retired number navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK review needed

I am trying to get Glenn Robinson III's DYK on the main page during the NIT Season Tip-Off championship game on Friday. I need someone to review Template:Did you know nominations/Glenn Robinson III.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Game highs in schedule tables

Can we discuss these point/rebound/assist leaders columns that are being added to schedule templates? Does anyone else think that they make the page overcrowded, hard to read, and, well, kind of ugly?

Take a look at 2011–12 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team. Yuck. It's way too hard for me to tell the score of a game at a glance. Especially so if you have a smaller screen, because you will get a line break in the middle of the game score.

Now, look at 2011–12 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team. So much easier to read, right?

In my opinion, this is not necessary information anyway. Team stats can be better represented in a separate table, such as the one on 2011–12 Florida Gators men's basketball team..... Thoughts? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the leaders columns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No. No. No. No. What part of "no" don't these crufters understand? The essential information to be included in the season records table is game date, opponent and score; everything else is optional and needs to be prioritized for inclusion based on readability and space available. The inclusion of games stats is way, way over the line. The tables are supposed to provide information at a glance, not the team water girl's game-by-game stat book. If someone wants to create a separate table for game highs, I'm willing to look at it, but including game stats will clutter these tables to the detriment of their intended purpose. [Copied from original discussion started at WikiProject Basketball.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dirt, I am of the impression that you have not created very many CBB WP:GAs and thus may not understand why the detail at the level provided with high scorers is important. Often times things are not apparent in total statistics. E.g., without keeping track of highs by game you might not see the player who is not the high scorer who comes through in clutch games. Highs and team ranks are as important to telling season story as date opponent and score. Take DeShawn Sims in 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. Even though, Manny Harris led the team in scoring, Sims led the team in all three regular season wins over ranked opponents. You can not see this kind of stuff if you just roll everything up into totals. I've got plenty of other examples like that if you want em. Keep in mind that this is a feature copied from the NBA level. I don't think you will convince them that game highs are not important for season displays. They are as important for us even if you don't know how to use them. I am pretty certain most people who don't understand why game-by-game detail is important just doesn't know how to use the content. Trust me guys who know how to read game-by-game stats tables don't describe them like they are team water girl's stat books. They are as useful at the college level as they are at the pro level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a preference in this case, but you are overstating the importance of this information to making "good articles." Dirtlawyer is right about one thing - this is a preference issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
O.K., the reasons for keeping the detail has little to do with how many GAs one has created. However, this detail is really important. I can read game-by-game details to understand why players do or don't declare early and such. There are a lot of stories in game-by-game details. Look at 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and to me it explains why Trey Burke did not enter the 2012 NBA Draft. I look at the data see a point guard who was less and less able to control the flow of the game. Either the offensive gameplan changed to have Stu Douglass run the point and Burke play a little more shooting guard (which I doubt) or defenses figured out how to keep him from controlling the offense. Look at the last time he had more than 5 (1/24), 6 (1/11), 7 (1/5) or 8 (12/10) assists to see the story. To Dirt, the game-by-game detail is a bunch of gobbledy-gook that amounts to "team water girl's stat books". To a good statastician (I have a masters degree in Statistics), the explanation why Burke did not go pro is that Big Ten defenses were figuring out how to make him less effective at controlling the flow. Yes Big Ten teams are better, but a point guard who can't get more than 5 assists in his last 13 games might rethink whether he is ready for the next level. I would like to be able to see 2009–10 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team. I am pretty sure Evan Turner became NPOY because as the season went on he established his dominance as the season went on. If you could see the detail, it would probably show that as the team started playing tougher teams, they relied on him more and more to do what he does. As he showed more and more dominance over Big Ten opponents, he showed why he was NPOY and ready for the next level. Game-by-game stats are not gobbledy-gook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Tony, you are confusing the issue at hand with secondary considerations. Let's keep it very simple. The issue is this: what are the primary game data that belong in a Wikipedia season records table for a college basketball team? Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, sports trivia book, or a random collection of sports statistics. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; it is not a recruiting website or a draft prospect evaluation service. CBB season records tables exist to provide information to readers about the team's season at a glance. The season records table is not a game-by-game statistical analysis; if it were, the additional data would overwhelm its principal purpose, which is to present a list of the games played and their outcomes. Granted, Tony, I am not the expert you are with regard to deciphering the NBA prospects of a college basketball player based on whether he was the high scorer, leading rebounder, leading shot blocker, or led the team in field goal percentage in a particular game against a particular opponent. But, you know what? I don't need to be, because the NBA Draft prospects of a particular player are largely irrelevant to retelling the who, what, where and why of a Wikipedia article about the 1992 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team (or any other team you could pick). If your justification for including individual player stats in the team records table is that they contribute to your sophisticated analysis of the future draft prospects of players, my response is your sophisticated analysis has no place in a Wikipedia article because it's original research per WP:OR. And last time I checked, most Good Article reviewers tend to frown on original research, at least to the extent the reviewer even recognizes it as such.
Moreover, if these individual player statistical details are so important, don't they belong first and foremost in the article about the individual player? When a CBB team season records table stretches from monitor margin to margin, even on widescreen computer monitors, and has begun to line-wrap within its individual cells, I would suggest that it is past time to prioritize the table's contents to reduce it to a more effective "at a glance" size. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You are describing your preference. You prefer less information on college pages. I prefer more. There is no tablet on a mountain declaring what a college team season article is suppose to include. I would prefer that we include a similar menu of content as pro seasons. What you see as unnecessary extra statistical analysis, I see as primary content. To me team highs are more important than who won the game. You assume people read the season articles to find out about the team, while I believe the season articles also say a lot about the team's players. To me, having season articles tells you about which players were important to the team each year. To you season articles tell you how a team did each year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Tony, personal preferences. Contrary to your assertion, it's not that I prefer less information, it's that I prefer that it be prioritized and presented in the most relevant and useful manner to the reader. I will point out, however, that the content of CBB season records tables is not a matter of personal preference, but has been historically determined by WikiProject consensus and, IMO, that's what should continue to happen. I believe that's why Richmond96 brought the issue to the CBB WikiProject talk page for a determination of the current consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see Richmond96's either or suggestion as the proper way to view it. Both should be on well-constructed pages. I am a bit lazy with team totals tables. It does not mean that they are not important. They also tell part of the team season story. It is just not the whole story. A lot is missing without the game-by-game, IMO. I think a good reader should want both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If were going to compare to the NBA schedules, let me say that the NBA ones look way better. But the difference is, they don't have to include team ranking, game location, and conference record, which we do and they take up more space. On my computer, each game on the Michigan schedule takes up two rows, and one takes up four. The score of the game is split in to two rows making it nearly impossible to compare points scored across multiple games. My point is this: the readability of an article should take precedent over the inclusion of questionably important statistics. But I think that there are still ways to include the information, such as the season stats table, or if you want game-by-game you could do a game summary table like the one found at 2012 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament#National championship. This actually inclues more information, looks better, and solves the problem of unreadable schedule tables. ~ Richmond96 T • C 17:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
What resolution are you viewing at? What is our burden? Should we make pages readable for mobile devices? I would rather give up game location than team highs. There is a lot less information contained in that column of information. Just name the stadium and combine it with attendence like the pros. Once you say the stadium, you don't need to present the city in this table. Team highs are more important than the city given we say what the stadium is. Also, why do we need time of game (especially after the game has occurred). Time of game and city elimination should save us space. Why don't we combine time of game and attendance. Once the game has occurred replace the time with the attendance. This would save a column.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are all different arguments, which I'd be happy to discuss, but they are not related to the point I'm trying to make. I think we need to define the purpose of a team schedule. I believe it is to show the team's season at a glance, you believe it is to show individual statistics on a game-by-game basis. I think our mission now is to reach a compromise where we have as much information as possible, but at the same time presented in a clear, "readable" fashion. ~ Richmond96 T • C 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well how about considering my suggestion to ditch the "city, state" content and merge game time with attendance so that one or the other is shown. You don't need attendance before the game and you don't need game time after it. Game time and game city are far less important then game highs after a game has been played.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think city, state is necessary because in college there are a lot of neutral site games as well as tournaments. Removing game time will not free up that much space. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
But isn't city, state redundant with arena? Why do we need both? Also, do we need the network after the game. We could combine game time with network and remove them for attendance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could reach a compromise by only including the player's last name. (2011–12 Alabama Crimson Tide men's basketball team). The full name is already recorded earlier in the article. That is more palatable, IMO. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was going to mention that, but on my pages I only mention full name on first instance. That will help save space, I think that, time and either city, state or arena should get you a lot of space. You did not comment on whether you think arena and city, state are redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think they are redundant. I think they are both important because of the number of neutral site games and tournaments that are played in college. Also, smaller schools may not have an article for their arena. BTW, even if you only include the full name on first occurrence it will still make the whole table wider. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not understanding your point about a neutral site. If we know what arena the game was played at, why do we need to state the city if we are space constrained. You are not really making much sense. Are you misunderstanding me or am I misunderstanding you. The arena defines the city and state. Why state it again? The fact that there are neutral games does not relate to the redundancy of city and arena in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I have my own opinions about game time and city/state parameters, but why don't we open a WikiProject RfC and get more of the regular WP:CBB contributors like Rikster, Jrcla, Xlee, Jweiss, Cbl, Cmadler et al involved? There should continue to be one standard set of data points for CBB season records tables, per project consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Rikster already said he was neutral. We are essentially debating the issues of an RFC now. Doesn't an official RFC call in a lot of outsiders?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. If you have opinions about game time and city/state why don't you express them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No, project RfCs have not really been any sort of problem. We've done RfCs on the WP:CFB and WP:Baseball talk pages all the time. Virtually no one from outside the projects ever cares enough to participate, but we should solicit participation (in a neutral manner, of course) from all of the CBB regulars on their user talk pages. As for Rikster, he may have an additional opinion or two when he knows we were talking about rearranging other standard parameters of the established table format. And, for the record, I'm all for deleting the game times for all but the current season, but this needs to be done by consensus, otherwise we are going to have a lot of irritated CBB editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if we are expanding scope of the discussion I would want to be involved. Rikster2 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
)ec) What about Bryce Jordan Center and University Park, PA. Do we need to say both? What about having attendance overwrite game time once it is populated in the current season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably not, but I think we need to say Sports and Fitness Center and Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. It helps people identify. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think regardless of whether it is ambiguous, foreign or unfamiliar just provide the arena.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we need to prioritize (by consensus) what should be included in schedule tables: Individual statistics or game locations and times. I think (I think) we all agree that when we include both we get an unreadable mess. Maybe we can change the template to allow each page editor to choose their preference? By the way, if I had to choose, I would rather eliminate TV than city/state. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

TV is more important than game time or redundant location info, but I would eliminate it before game stats.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is my recommendation: somebody set this up as a clearly labelled RfC below (this discussion has gone on so long it would get confusing to add it here). Notify the active WP:CBB editors, and maybe some CFB and NBA guys too as they might have good perspective. There are also a couple of editors who create/update CBB schedule tables a LOT - guys like Bearcats fan, Bsuorangecrush and Bigdan11 - they should be invited in as well. It would be nice to get some standards in place. Rikster2 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
My perception on the entire debate above is the following. The prevailing use of the current template is causing display (line wrapping) problems due to the width. People want a consensus on how to address this issue.
  1. Initial solution: Wipe out game stat leaders.
  2. Counter solution: Eliminate other fields (game time and network), which become less important after the game has been played and either the arena or the city/state which seem to be redundant with each other in terms of conveying the location of the event. Additionally, make it a policy to pipe all game stat leader names to only the last name.
There are two different ideas in terms of eliminating fields. Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) suggest eliminating fields only in past seasons. I TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) think it would be better to merge game time and network and then when the attendance field is populated have it overwrite this field immediately. I think this could summarize what an RFC should consider.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those sound like good solutions to me, as long as the option to keep time, location, and TV is made available for articles where game leaders are not included. ~ Richmond96 T • C 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Game leaders not available? That is a wierd-arsed exception. It seems like you are just trying to make a mess of a simple set of alternatives. What do you mean? I guess you are talking about pre internet games where you might have to track down a newspaper. Can you provide some examples?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about current and past articles. We would have to allow all the current fields until we can go around and modify the tables. ~ Richmond96 T • C 21:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the RFC should present the two main proposals. Interim/transition formats will get confusing. Obviously, we may need some transition formating should we approve the alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the question at hand ("what should be included in the schedule table?") should be asked and the options presented be put on the table as proposed solutions by a small group of editors, but the question at hand is what should be debated, not choosing from a couple of narrow options. If we go through the trouble of getting a group together, let's wrestle the table standards to the group once and be done ith it. Rikster2 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In my personal experience, you present the problem in the first round. After gathering the opinions and fostering some discussion, then the time may then be ripe to present two or more alternatives. If needed, every prospective table parameter may be addressed individually with a separate Yeah or Nay vote, perhaps with the understanding that only the top Yeah vote-getters will be included based on available space. Force the issue of prioritization. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think the main objective here is to prioritize what is included, because we clearly cannot include everything. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • O.K. so a less directed debate would summarize the previous discussion something like this then.

The prevailing presentation of college basketball schedules is causing display issues (line wrapping). Previous debate has mentioned the following solutions:

  1. Removing columns that collectively take up the most width (game stat leaders)
  2. Piping all game stat leader names to just present last names
  3. Removing columns that are of little use after the game has been played (game time and network)
  4. Removing columns that include redundant content (arena or city/state)

We are open to general discussion and any additional suggestions for consideration. I will make two herewith.

  1. Change the font or font size of the table
  2. Shorten full tournament names (the site column causes the most wraparound)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that open enough?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I admittedly only skimmed the massive thread. It does seem to be a pain to find the score in the table. Aside from trimming/removing some columns, an interim solution might be to move the score further left e.g. after the opponent. See NBA example at 2012–13_Los_Angeles_Lakers_season#Game_log.—Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Populating CBB Schedule

I was thinking that I should convert the season schedule in 2012–13 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team to use the standard CBB Schedule templates. Is there any semi-automatic way to fill in the templates if I have the schedule information on Excel, or does it all have to be done manually? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year article effort - Update on Progress

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress in the last several months, and the following conference POY templates are complete: American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League and the WAC.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

Please take a look at the lists and feel free to create articles on any. Several reigning CPOYs are missing articles, with good biographical information readily available. We're making progress!

2- or 3-time CPOYs:

Rikster2 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Transfer rules

As the biographer of Glen Rice, Jr., I am getting frustrated. Most players who were transfers from last college basketball season have moved on. He was booted from the team in March of 2012 toward the end of his junior season. I can not find any news on him transferring. I am trying to understand what Rice's options are. Can he stay in school to graduate with his class and then use his last year of eligibility as a graduate student next season? If he does not move to a new school until January or next September, what are his options? Most people transfer to a new school right away, but I can not find any news. I know he could go to Europe and he has been drafted by the D-league. What are his NCAA options given that he has not yet transferred?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Or is he pulling a Marcus Jordan and surrendering his senior season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything about Rice - I am checking some contacts in the "real world" - but if he was drafted in the NBDL Draft he probably notified their front office that he was available, meaning he wasn't planning on playing for another college. Rikster2 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Rice has gone pro. He's at the Rio Grande Valley Vipers camp, they have not announced their final roster, but the NBDL season starts Friday so it should be soon. If he doesn't make the team, I assume he'll try to catch on internationally. Here is a link to the RBV camp roster: http://www.nba.com/dleague/news/training_camp_rosters_2012.html Rikster2 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Game highs in schedule tables

Can we discuss these point/rebound/assist leaders columns that are being added to schedule templates? Does anyone else think that they make the page overcrowded, hard to read, and, well, kind of ugly?

Take a look at 2011–12 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team. Yuck. It's way too hard for me to tell the score of a game at a glance. Especially so if you have a smaller screen, because you will get a line break in the middle of the game score.

Now, look at 2011–12 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team. So much easier to read, right?

In my opinion, this is not necessary information anyway. Team stats can be better represented in a separate table, such as the one on 2011–12 Florida Gators men's basketball team..... Thoughts? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the leaders columns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No. No. No. No. What part of "no" don't these crufters understand? The essential information to be included in the season records table is game date, opponent and score; everything else is optional and needs to be prioritized for inclusion based on readability and space available. The inclusion of games stats is way, way over the line. The tables are supposed to provide information at a glance, not the team water girl's game-by-game stat book. If someone wants to create a separate table for game highs, I'm willing to look at it, but including game stats will clutter these tables to the detriment of their intended purpose. [Copied from original discussion started at WikiProject Basketball.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dirt, I am of the impression that you have not created very many CBB WP:GAs and thus may not understand why the detail at the level provided with high scorers is important. Often times things are not apparent in total statistics. E.g., without keeping track of highs by game you might not see the player who is not the high scorer who comes through in clutch games. Highs and team ranks are as important to telling season story as date opponent and score. Take DeShawn Sims in 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. Even though, Manny Harris led the team in scoring, Sims led the team in all three regular season wins over ranked opponents. You can not see this kind of stuff if you just roll everything up into totals. I've got plenty of other examples like that if you want em. Keep in mind that this is a feature copied from the NBA level. I don't think you will convince them that game highs are not important for season displays. They are as important for us even if you don't know how to use them. I am pretty certain most people who don't understand why game-by-game detail is important just doesn't know how to use the content. Trust me guys who know how to read game-by-game stats tables don't describe them like they are team water girl's stat books. They are as useful at the college level as they are at the pro level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a preference in this case, but you are overstating the importance of this information to making "good articles." Dirtlawyer is right about one thing - this is a preference issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
O.K., the reasons for keeping the detail has little to do with how many GAs one has created. However, this detail is really important. I can read game-by-game details to understand why players do or don't declare early and such. There are a lot of stories in game-by-game details. Look at 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and to me it explains why Trey Burke did not enter the 2012 NBA Draft. I look at the data see a point guard who was less and less able to control the flow of the game. Either the offensive gameplan changed to have Stu Douglass run the point and Burke play a little more shooting guard (which I doubt) or defenses figured out how to keep him from controlling the offense. Look at the last time he had more than 5 (1/24), 6 (1/11), 7 (1/5) or 8 (12/10) assists to see the story. To Dirt, the game-by-game detail is a bunch of gobbledy-gook that amounts to "team water girl's stat books". To a good statastician (I have a masters degree in Statistics), the explanation why Burke did not go pro is that Big Ten defenses were figuring out how to make him less effective at controlling the flow. Yes Big Ten teams are better, but a point guard who can't get more than 5 assists in his last 13 games might rethink whether he is ready for the next level. I would like to be able to see 2009–10 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team. I am pretty sure Evan Turner became NPOY because as the season went on he established his dominance as the season went on. If you could see the detail, it would probably show that as the team started playing tougher teams, they relied on him more and more to do what he does. As he showed more and more dominance over Big Ten opponents, he showed why he was NPOY and ready for the next level. Game-by-game stats are not gobbledy-gook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Tony, you are confusing the issue at hand with secondary considerations. Let's keep it very simple. The issue is this: what are the primary game data that belong in a Wikipedia season records table for a college basketball team? Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, sports trivia book, or a random collection of sports statistics. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; it is not a recruiting website or a draft prospect evaluation service. CBB season records tables exist to provide information to readers about the team's season at a glance. The season records table is not a game-by-game statistical analysis; if it were, the additional data would overwhelm its principal purpose, which is to present a list of the games played and their outcomes. Granted, Tony, I am not the expert you are with regard to deciphering the NBA prospects of a college basketball player based on whether he was the high scorer, leading rebounder, leading shot blocker, or led the team in field goal percentage in a particular game against a particular opponent. But, you know what? I don't need to be, because the NBA Draft prospects of a particular player are largely irrelevant to retelling the who, what, where and why of a Wikipedia article about the 1992 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team (or any other team you could pick). If your justification for including individual player stats in the team records table is that they contribute to your sophisticated analysis of the future draft prospects of players, my response is your sophisticated analysis has no place in a Wikipedia article because it's original research per WP:OR. And last time I checked, most Good Article reviewers tend to frown on original research, at least to the extent the reviewer even recognizes it as such.
Moreover, if these individual player statistical details are so important, don't they belong first and foremost in the article about the individual player? When a CBB team season records table stretches from monitor margin to margin, even on widescreen computer monitors, and has begun to line-wrap within its individual cells, I would suggest that it is past time to prioritize the table's contents to reduce it to a more effective "at a glance" size. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You are describing your preference. You prefer less information on college pages. I prefer more. There is no tablet on a mountain declaring what a college team season article is suppose to include. I would prefer that we include a similar menu of content as pro seasons. What you see as unnecessary extra statistical analysis, I see as primary content. To me team highs are more important than who won the game. You assume people read the season articles to find out about the team, while I believe the season articles also say a lot about the team's players. To me, having season articles tells you about which players were important to the team each year. To you season articles tell you how a team did each year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Tony, personal preferences. Contrary to your assertion, it's not that I prefer less information, it's that I prefer that it be prioritized and presented in the most relevant and useful manner to the reader. I will point out, however, that the content of CBB season records tables is not a matter of personal preference, but has been historically determined by WikiProject consensus and, IMO, that's what should continue to happen. I believe that's why Richmond96 brought the issue to the CBB WikiProject talk page for a determination of the current consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see Richmond96's either or suggestion as the proper way to view it. Both should be on well-constructed pages. I am a bit lazy with team totals tables. It does not mean that they are not important. They also tell part of the team season story. It is just not the whole story. A lot is missing without the game-by-game, IMO. I think a good reader should want both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If were going to compare to the NBA schedules, let me say that the NBA ones look way better. But the difference is, they don't have to include team ranking, game location, and conference record, which we do and they take up more space. On my computer, each game on the Michigan schedule takes up two rows, and one takes up four. The score of the game is split in to two rows making it nearly impossible to compare points scored across multiple games. My point is this: the readability of an article should take precedent over the inclusion of questionably important statistics. But I think that there are still ways to include the information, such as the season stats table, or if you want game-by-game you could do a game summary table like the one found at 2012 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament#National championship. This actually inclues more information, looks better, and solves the problem of unreadable schedule tables. ~ Richmond96 T • C 17:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
What resolution are you viewing at? What is our burden? Should we make pages readable for mobile devices? I would rather give up game location than team highs. There is a lot less information contained in that column of information. Just name the stadium and combine it with attendence like the pros. Once you say the stadium, you don't need to present the city in this table. Team highs are more important than the city given we say what the stadium is. Also, why do we need time of game (especially after the game has occurred). Time of game and city elimination should save us space. Why don't we combine time of game and attendance. Once the game has occurred replace the time with the attendance. This would save a column.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are all different arguments, which I'd be happy to discuss, but they are not related to the point I'm trying to make. I think we need to define the purpose of a team schedule. I believe it is to show the team's season at a glance, you believe it is to show individual statistics on a game-by-game basis. I think our mission now is to reach a compromise where we have as much information as possible, but at the same time presented in a clear, "readable" fashion. ~ Richmond96 T • C 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well how about considering my suggestion to ditch the "city, state" content and merge game time with attendance so that one or the other is shown. You don't need attendance before the game and you don't need game time after it. Game time and game city are far less important then game highs after a game has been played.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think city, state is necessary because in college there are a lot of neutral site games as well as tournaments. Removing game time will not free up that much space. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
But isn't city, state redundant with arena? Why do we need both? Also, do we need the network after the game. We could combine game time with network and remove them for attendance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could reach a compromise by only including the player's last name. (2011–12 Alabama Crimson Tide men's basketball team). The full name is already recorded earlier in the article. That is more palatable, IMO. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was going to mention that, but on my pages I only mention full name on first instance. That will help save space, I think that, time and either city, state or arena should get you a lot of space. You did not comment on whether you think arena and city, state are redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think they are redundant. I think they are both important because of the number of neutral site games and tournaments that are played in college. Also, smaller schools may not have an article for their arena. BTW, even if you only include the full name on first occurrence it will still make the whole table wider. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not understanding your point about a neutral site. If we know what arena the game was played at, why do we need to state the city if we are space constrained. You are not really making much sense. Are you misunderstanding me or am I misunderstanding you. The arena defines the city and state. Why state it again? The fact that there are neutral games does not relate to the redundancy of city and arena in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I have my own opinions about game time and city/state parameters, but why don't we open a WikiProject RfC and get more of the regular WP:CBB contributors like Rikster, Jrcla, Xlee, Jweiss, Cbl, Cmadler et al involved? There should continue to be one standard set of data points for CBB season records tables, per project consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Rikster already said he was neutral. We are essentially debating the issues of an RFC now. Doesn't an official RFC call in a lot of outsiders?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. If you have opinions about game time and city/state why don't you express them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No, project RfCs have not really been any sort of problem. We've done RfCs on the WP:CFB and WP:Baseball talk pages all the time. Virtually no one from outside the projects ever cares enough to participate, but we should solicit participation (in a neutral manner, of course) from all of the CBB regulars on their user talk pages. As for Rikster, he may have an additional opinion or two when he knows we were talking about rearranging other standard parameters of the established table format. And, for the record, I'm all for deleting the game times for all but the current season, but this needs to be done by consensus, otherwise we are going to have a lot of irritated CBB editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if we are expanding scope of the discussion I would want to be involved. Rikster2 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
)ec) What about Bryce Jordan Center and University Park, PA. Do we need to say both? What about having attendance overwrite game time once it is populated in the current season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably not, but I think we need to say Sports and Fitness Center and Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. It helps people identify. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think regardless of whether it is ambiguous, foreign or unfamiliar just provide the arena.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we need to prioritize (by consensus) what should be included in schedule tables: Individual statistics or game locations and times. I think (I think) we all agree that when we include both we get an unreadable mess. Maybe we can change the template to allow each page editor to choose their preference? By the way, if I had to choose, I would rather eliminate TV than city/state. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

TV is more important than game time or redundant location info, but I would eliminate it before game stats.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is my recommendation: somebody set this up as a clearly labelled RfC below (this discussion has gone on so long it would get confusing to add it here). Notify the active WP:CBB editors, and maybe some CFB and NBA guys too as they might have good perspective. There are also a couple of editors who create/update CBB schedule tables a LOT - guys like Bearcats fan, Bsuorangecrush and Bigdan11 - they should be invited in as well. It would be nice to get some standards in place. Rikster2 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
My perception on the entire debate above is the following. The prevailing use of the current template is causing display (line wrapping) problems due to the width. People want a consensus on how to address this issue.
  1. Initial solution: Wipe out game stat leaders.
  2. Counter solution: Eliminate other fields (game time and network), which become less important after the game has been played and either the arena or the city/state which seem to be redundant with each other in terms of conveying the location of the event. Additionally, make it a policy to pipe all game stat leader names to only the last name.
There are two different ideas in terms of eliminating fields. Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) suggest eliminating fields only in past seasons. I TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) think it would be better to merge game time and network and then when the attendance field is populated have it overwrite this field immediately. I think this could summarize what an RFC should consider.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those sound like good solutions to me, as long as the option to keep time, location, and TV is made available for articles where game leaders are not included. ~ Richmond96 T • C 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Game leaders not available? That is a wierd-arsed exception. It seems like you are just trying to make a mess of a simple set of alternatives. What do you mean? I guess you are talking about pre internet games where you might have to track down a newspaper. Can you provide some examples?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about current and past articles. We would have to allow all the current fields until we can go around and modify the tables. ~ Richmond96 T • C 21:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the RFC should present the two main proposals. Interim/transition formats will get confusing. Obviously, we may need some transition formating should we approve the alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the question at hand ("what should be included in the schedule table?") should be asked and the options presented be put on the table as proposed solutions by a small group of editors, but the question at hand is what should be debated, not choosing from a couple of narrow options. If we go through the trouble of getting a group together, let's wrestle the table standards to the group once and be done ith it. Rikster2 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In my personal experience, you present the problem in the first round. After gathering the opinions and fostering some discussion, then the time may then be ripe to present two or more alternatives. If needed, every prospective table parameter may be addressed individually with a separate Yeah or Nay vote, perhaps with the understanding that only the top Yeah vote-getters will be included based on available space. Force the issue of prioritization. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think the main objective here is to prioritize what is included, because we clearly cannot include everything. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • O.K. so a less directed debate would summarize the previous discussion something like this then.

The prevailing presentation of college basketball schedules is causing display issues (line wrapping). Previous debate has mentioned the following solutions:

  1. Removing columns that collectively take up the most width (game stat leaders)
  2. Piping all game stat leader names to just present last names
  3. Removing columns that are of little use after the game has been played (game time and network)
  4. Removing columns that include redundant content (arena or city/state)

We are open to general discussion and any additional suggestions for consideration. I will make two herewith.

  1. Change the font or font size of the table
  2. Shorten full tournament names (the site column causes the most wraparound)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that open enough?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I admittedly only skimmed the massive thread. It does seem to be a pain to find the score in the table. Aside from trimming/removing some columns, an interim solution might be to move the score further left e.g. after the opponent. See NBA example at 2012–13_Los_Angeles_Lakers_season#Game_log.—Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Populating CBB Schedule

I was thinking that I should convert the season schedule in 2012–13 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team to use the standard CBB Schedule templates. Is there any semi-automatic way to fill in the templates if I have the schedule information on Excel, or does it all have to be done manually? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year article effort - Update on Progress

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress in the last several months, and the following conference POY templates are complete: American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League and the WAC.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

Please take a look at the lists and feel free to create articles on any. Several reigning CPOYs are missing articles, with good biographical information readily available. We're making progress!

2- or 3-time CPOYs:

Rikster2 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Jrcla2 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (so Miszabot doesn't auto archive it)

College basketball team season articles - Schedules

The prevailing presentation of college basketball schedules in team season articles is causing display issues (line wrapping). Resolving this issue will involve assessing the content of the schedules and its formatting. Please comment below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have not and do not intend to do individual talk page notifications.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

Previous debate has mentioned the following solutions:

  1. Removing columns that collectively take up the most width (game stat leaders)
  2. Piping all game stat leader names to just present last names
  3. Removing columns that are of little use after the game has been played (game time and network)
    1. Eliminate column
    2. Replace after game has been played (with score or attendance)
    3. Remove after season is completed
  4. Removing columns that include redundant content (arena or city/state)
  5. Rearrange templates so that scores are further to the left
  6. Change the font or font size of the table
  7. Shorten full tournament names (the site column causes the most wraparound)
  8. Separate out game summaries as presented at 2012–13 BYU Cougars men's basketball team
  9. Move game stats to a separate table.

Discussion

Above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Game_highs_in_schedule_tables the initial discussion presented eliminating game highs as if it was the only solution. In that debate, I expound on why game statistical leaders is important content. I personally find many other parts of the template less important. I have suggested that certain columns are important before the game and others are important after the game. However, the current layout keeps both types. My suggestion is to merge the game time and network (to something like ESPN 7:30). Then when the score or attendance field is populated overwrite the game time and network with the attendance. This would lessen the number of columns for all team season articles, although it would require some programming. Another solution is to remove those columns only after a season is completed, which means that the current seasons will always remain problematic. I also feel that the location of the game does not require both the arena and the city state. I feel these are redundant parameters since once you know the arena, you know the city and state. I feel eliminating the city and state would be fine since most arenas are linkable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that your assumption that "once you know the arena, you know the city and state" is incorrect. There are so many neutral site games and tournaments in college that I feel it is necessary to include both. I understand that you can just click on the arena to find out where it is but why go through the extra steps? Now, if it is determined that game stats are indeed worthy of inclusion in the schedule, then I would be ok with eliminating the city/state to save room, but as of now I feel that it is more important than game stats. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I continue to be confused. Why does the fact that there are neutral site games mean that you need to know both Madison Square Garden and New York, NY. Once you have arena, I think city-state becomes redundant. Can you explain why the fact that a game is on neutral court means that you need both arena and city/state?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
These are the games I am referring to: Bridgestone Arena • Nashville, TN, Sprint Center • Kansas City, MO, BankAtlantic Center • Sunrise, FL. These arenas are not easily recognizable as MSG and the game location provides important context, such as Florida plays K-State in Kansas City, Air Force in Sunrise, and the SEC Tourney is in Nashville. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Arena only is not acceptable to me. I agree with Richmond96 on this. Rikster2 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If Richmond96 is worried about wraparound, isn't the column that is the most problematic (in need of pruning) the site?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Question - What is the overall purpose of the schedule table? I know it is to document the season, but is it also considered a viewing guide for readers if the season is currently underway (as an alternative to the team website, ESPN, etc.)? I ask because the purpose may (probably should) drive the content. If the purpose is not to serve as a viewing guide, then maybe we don't need time or network - as these fields serve no historical purpose. Just a question. Also, Bagumba has a great suggestion in the previous discussion to move final score to the left to make it more prominent. I second that suggestion. I also agree that arena is not sufficient for venue. Though I think City/state could suffice if you had to choose. Rikster2 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Until the game has been played, the team season article does serve as a sort of viewing guide, but once the game has been played, that purpose is obsolete. Otherwise the team season article is suppose to summarize the team's season. The schedule augments that by detailing more than the overall won-loss record. Similarly, game stats augment the season total statistics. They present a lot of information for the readers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I do use the Florida Gators season schedule on Wikipedia to keep up with the team (other teams, too). I would definitely miss game time and network if they were removed, especially before the game is played. In my opinion, city/state alone is not sufficient, because there are sometimes multiple arenas within a city. (Georgia Dome/Philips Arena, Superdome/Hornets Arena). ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe you need to have the Team, Ranking, Arena, City, Score, and Record in tact for the schedule. However what I have done over at the BYU page could resolve some of the problems with groups like the totals and points. Instead of including the Game Highs up on the schedule, I have a separate section that has all the Game Summaries. The Game Summaries box used is the same as those shown for the Final Four and NCAA Championship boxes. It has the TV Network, High Totals, and attendance totals, making them an unnecessary addition on the schedule. It also makes it where the top portion is used to provide an outlook on the season while the bottom part gives you more detail and links to articles on the games.
Another thing people need to watch out for though is when you create the !colspan=12 part of the schedule, you only need the number of boxes you are going to use listed after the = sign. If you aren't going to post the Game High Totals on the schedule part, you automatically need 3 less spots. If you drop the highs and attendance, it should be changed to !colspan=8. 12 spots is only needed if you include Date, Time, Opponent, Rank, Site, TV, Result, Record, Attendance, and Game Highs. Making a change to the number of spots you actually use makes the boxes proportionate across the schedule page. Bigddan11 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: I like the game summaries, but I think the one at 2012 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament#National championship looks cleaner overall. Do others see this as a possible alternative to game highs in the schedule? ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that format presents the information very professionally. However, when the data is stacked so you can observe streaks, it is much easier to interpret. The game summaries present individual games in a more professional manner. However, the season of games is harder to interpret. It is difficult to see hot streaks and such in this format. If a player leads a team in scoring 10 games in a row, it is much more apparent in the current format than with the game summaries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I knew someone might bring that up. However let me point out something. There is a section called other stat on those Game Summaries that typically doesn't get used. I've used it for special occassions, like showing a new individual high score, the 5th or 6th double double of the season, etc. I agree that it might be harder to view that way, but when you go and look to see how most Game Notes are, the way we show it already simplifies it to a major degree since most of them only mention the high scorer, high rebounder, high assist man, and special occasions in the summary and not on the schedule sheet itself. Bigddan11 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not like the summary style in the championship games. I'm still thinking through how best to portray all the desired info, but this would not be a step forward.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Has anyone else noticed that no other sports website, whether it be ESPN or team websites, lists individual statistics in their team schedules? Why do we do it at Wikipedia? Just a thought. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually they do present the individual stats. Last time I checked, most of the team schedules has a link to the box score from the previous game that showed all the individual statistics for the game, and some teams even do it for the entire season. Furthermore ESPN has always shown the individual highs for the previous game if you go to the team page and not to the schedule page. The schedule page is actually a separate section at ESPN compared to the team page. Bigddan11 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
But the purpose of a Wikipedia team schedule is not to be a box score, its a recap of the team's season. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of the display issue where line wrapping is occurring? I looked at 2011–12 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team mentioned earlier, which has (I believe) the superset of all columns being discussed, and it is displaying fine on my smartphone. Even if we left the columns as is, space could be saved by removing the jersey # of the players, and by having multiple leaders in the same game on separate lines.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Jersey number? Are you talking about the parenthetical that counts how many times the player has led in that stat. P.S. Can you show us what it looks like on your smart phone?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Scratch my jersey # comment, I obviously was not playing close attention. You can come over and check out my phone :-) It looks the same as on my computer (I dont want to bother uploading the picture somewhere). Do you have a different experience?—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the content of the "site" and "result" columns wrap, but the row itself for the game entry does not wrap. Is that the wrapping being referred to?—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The wrapping is likely different for different articles and displays, but the reason it occurs in the first place is that the table is too wide. The solution would be to eliminate whichever columns that we feel are most expendable. (I think it is individual stats). ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
When line-wrapping occurs depends on the pixel-width of the monitor. And I concur with Richmond96: we should prioritize the items to be included, and we only build the table to no greater than the most common monitor width. I further concur that the lowest priority of any of the existing or proposed table items are the individual player stats for individual games. If these player stats are deemed to be truly that important, then they should be included in separate table that includes points per game, rebounds, field gold percentage, foul shot percentage, etc. Singling out one particular "game high" player statistic for inclusion in the season records table is practically meaningless for the purposes Tony has suggested, and only serves to clutter the table and distract from its primary "at a glance" purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think most people here are familiar with the ESPN Bottomline. When they include upcoming games they include the network and time (and possibly an odd location), but after the game they present the score and often times the statistical highs. I have never seen them report network, attendance, game time or location after a game. What consumers of sports information want is the score. After the score, the next most important summary of a game is statistical highs. This is pretty much the order of priority in all sports reporting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the wraparound a real issue, because I am not having a problem on my phone or my old 17-inch tube monitor.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
At a high-level, I would think most readers want to know what happened during the season. Game-by-game scores are a must, individual game leaders are probably for more advanced readers but still helpful. I doubt that many are looking for game-by-game attendance, exact venues, game times, and TV network. WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY seem applicable to make those columns the lowest priority.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Bagumba, I only think game time and broadcast network are important for the current season, and could be easily removed from all past seasons. I think attendance is a very low priority. Arena/city/state are relevant to the extent they tell whether the game was home, away or neutral site; the "at" and "vs." designators are redundant when the arena/city/state are provided. In any event, the most common form of the arena name should be use per WP:COMMONNAME (Rupp Arena, not Adolph Rupp Arena). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I just think individual statistics are way to in-depth for inclusion in a Wikipedia team schedule. If people want to know this, they can go to a sports website. If we took out the stats columns, none of this other discussion would be needed. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • At a minimum, option 3.3 seems clear-cut achievable, although I would personally advocate option 3.1 as I cannot see the encyclopedic value nor the rationale for trying to replicate TV Guide. --Nouniquenames 05:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As currently displayed, some people find the player information useful, as some find the TV info useful. I think most will agree that the TV info becomes obsolete as each game is played, while the player info has long-term relevance. Saying that "they can go to a sports website" is as convincing as a response as "they could go to a TV guide". Would following suggestion No. 5 at a minimum alleviate the initial complaint that it was too difficult to find the game score?—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, it would be nice to be mostly consistent with {{NBA game log section}}, which does list player game highs. I'm not sure if WP:BASKETBALL has any standard that might also be considered.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Question. Coming here from outside, this may be naive, but if you know the city, don't you also know the stadium? (I suppose there might be rare exceptions, but they could be handled as exceptions). And how frequent is it that a regular season game is played elsewhere than at the regular stadium for one of the two teams? Perhaps that whole column could be eliminated, and the exceptions handled as footnotes. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it is the other way. Many cities have several stadia that can host college basketball games, but a stadium can not be in more than one city. If you present a stadium with a link, it defines where the game was played. There is some problem with multiple venues sharing names and with names changing (while few cities change names). Still, I prefer just the stadium.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think venue information is information needed only by a small niche. Most readers would only need the opponent and the score, and whether it was a home/away game. A team usually has a fixed home arena, which the team/season article already lists for those few that are interested. Exceptions for neutral sites and alternative homes can be denoted by footnotes. I believe inclusion of this information only serves to clutter key information; at best, the less essential columns should always be further to the right.—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a lot of teams play a few games a year in some bigger venues. I think NC State plays a game or two off campus in Charlotte. I think some NYC teams play a few home games at Madison Square Garden and such. I think it is common for a team to play a game or two a year offcampus at an NBA home arena in their area. The city will not always tell you what you need to know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I proposed that exceptions should be denoted with footnotes that can have the full arena/city/state info. In fact, it's easier to find these exceptions to the norm if they are footnotes as opposed to searching for them in a column that repeats the same venue information for most home games.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's please keep in mind what the goal is: conserving horizontal table width so we may include the highest priority data points within the table. Sure, we can save space by simply using "home" and "away" for game venue, and then footnote them when "home" or "away" games are not played in the usual locations. Please note, however, that most of the better teams are playing up to eleven games per season in neutral site venues because of early season invitational tournaments (up to 2 additional games), conference tournaments (up to 3 additional games), and the NCAA tournament (up to 6 additional games). Add the neutral site games to home and away games played in atypical locations, and suddenly we're going to need to footnote over half of all the games played by some teams. I'm not sure that's an improvement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Tourneys usually have multiples round in the same venue, so footnotes can be reused through <ref name=xxx/> syntax, so the 11 games you refer to may only need 3 or 4 footnotes total. Also, home/away/neutral seems to already exists in the "Opponent" column via "at" (away) and "vs" (neutral) designations.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Since it looks like we will not be able to agree on whether or not to elimanate individial stats columns, I think we should work to reach a compromise. I have a few ideas in mind that may get us going:

  1. Abbreviate month names (November -> Nov.)
  2. Use player last names only and if there are two or more leaders, use "Tied"
  3. Keep arena name, city, and state before and after the game is played
  4. Include time and television before the game is played only. (Something similar to college baseball schedules would work, put the time and television in the game leaders columns before the game.)
  5. Keep attendance
  6. Elimanate how many times in a season a player has led a respective stat

I think that doing the above would solve the problem of excessive table width while still keeping the important information. Is this an acceptable compromise? ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A date formated MMM.spaceDD,spaceYYYY is 13 characters. Why don't we cut it to MM/DD/YY which is 8 rather than eliminate the number of times a player has led the team in a stat. That is would save 5 characters without loss of information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. 30% of the Jan, Feb and Mar games will only by M/D/YY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Because the number of times a player has led the team in a stat is not necessary for a TEAM schedule. It's already a stretch to include individual stats, which is why we are compromising. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I propose we first consider whether the information—independent of its location—is notable to the team article. If the consensus is yes, it would seem preferable to include it in the same table to avoid having to build a similar table listing opponents and dates; however, space and clutter of a single table may dictate a separate somewhat-duplicate table.—Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The original concern was: "It's way too hard for me to tell the score of a game at a glance." Everything else being discussed (date format, TV schedules, etc) IMO seems to be side issues. If we want the score to be easier to find, move it from the current far-right location to something more on the left, e.g. after "Opponent" column like in 2012–13_Los_Angeles_Lakers_season#Game_log, where it will be an earlier column and easier to find..—Bagumba (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Roger that. Regardless of what else we may decide to modify, we really need to move the score to the far right column of the table. The opponent and score are the two most important data points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
I assume you meant move the score to the far left and not far right, correct?—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The main cause of me not being able to easily tell the score is that the table is too wide and cluttered. Moving the score will not help much, if at all. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading from left to right, it's easier for me to correlate the column heading with the row I'm looking at for the left-most columns, as opposed to having to look at the top-right of the table, and then having to match it back with the row and opponent name on the far left. I think it will provide some help, and should be easy to implement in the template without changes to 100s of articles. The other alternatives can continue to be discussed in parallel.—Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion tallies

I'm going to keep my opinion simple and put 'agree' or 'disagree' next to each of the bullet list suggestions above: (1)disagree (2)agree (3)disagree (4)disagree (5)agree (6)neutral, although smaller might be better (7)disagree (8)neutral. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

On (3) there have been a range of suggestions. I am not sure what you disagree with, so I have added a subset of ideas for clarification. I am not sure what you disagree with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should create a table, although I'm not sure how many columns it should have.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Tallies discourage discussion on pros/cons to help come to an informed solution.—Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC not properly listed

Why isn't Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#College_basketball_team_season_articles_-_Schedules listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. Please comment there if you know why.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

{{WikiProject College basketball}}

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#.7B.7BWikiProject_NBA.7D.7D on the following issue:

While researching another issue I have found that there has been no effort to tag talk pages with {{WikiProject NBA}} and {{WikiProject College basketball}} for lottery pick type players. I was looking at 2010 FIBA Under-17 World Championship squads regarding another issue and noticed that people like Bradley Beal, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Marquis Teague are all without these templates on their talk pages. I know a lot of people make sure that the articles get the proper roster templates and as well as categories for X Team players and X Team draft picks. There should be some effort to tag talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Age group medal boxes

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Age_group_medal_boxes regarding medal boxes for U16-U21 FIBA medalists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

John Shurna playing abroad

As I have noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#John_Shurna_playing_abroad, I think Shurna is playing abroad. I need help updating his latest career moves.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture series in articles

I have started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Picture_series_in_articles regarding adding picture series to articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of merger discussions regarding overforking of basketball terminology

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Overforking_of_articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Shot clock

Did I overdo the WP:CAPTION at Shot clock? Feel free to revise it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Penrose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Penrose 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/Chris Penrose 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 template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bracketology and March Madness pools

I have a question about Bracketology and March Madness pools. I meant to post it here but somehow ended up at the main basketball project. Anyway, if anyone can help with this, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Bracketology and March Madness pools. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rob Sawicki for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rob Sawicki 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/Rob Sawicki 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 template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Article request

This is unusual, but I am requesting that someone else create Tony Mitchell (basketball, born 1992), who is the 2012 preseason choice for Sun Belt Player of the Year. here is at least one article about him. He is also the recipient of this dunk by Phil Pressey who is an article I just wrote. I can't put a hatnote at Tony Mitchell (basketball) (born 1989, former All-SEC 2nd team) until it is no longer a redlink, AFAIK. I don't have an interest in the 1992 guy except as the subject of a dunk. I would prefer someone else create the article. He is projected as a 2013 NBA draft selection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I will add him to my list, but I have a number of other players (even current ones) ahead of him - he has definitely gotten enough coverage to satisfy notability. I have a lot of work in the queue, though and may not get to it for awhile. That could change if it looks like he's a lock to with the SBC POY a bit down the road. Rikster2 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm almost finished making Tony Mitchell's article. It'll be up within a day or two. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Interest in creating a college basketball player infobox?

All - I like what WP:College football has done for active players in creating a specific infobox (See Template:Infobox college football player, or Giovani Bernard to see it populated). Is there any interest in doing this for college basketball? I personally think Template:Infobox NCAA athlete doesn't look great and it is a hassle to convert to Template:infobox basketball biography once the player goes pro. I am kind of limited technically on WP, but have some passion around this (maybe its a chance to learn). What do others think? Rikster2 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to just use Template:infobox basketball biography for college players? Looking at Template:Infobox college football player, I see that fields for class and major would need to be added. If those are addressed, is there any other compelling reason to have a college-specific template?—Bagumba (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Other issues would be how to handle tournaments, championships, records, honors and awards. In addition basketball biography probably needs to have fields for coaches. Think about how to convert Trey Burke into Jabari Parker. There is a lot more than majore and class that needs to be addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand that there are currently separate fields for tournaments, championships, records, honors and awards, but couldn't those be organized under the generic "Career highlights and awards" in Infobox Basketball Biography? As for coaching, Infobox Basketball Biography currently is used for professional coaches as well as players. I think consolidating at all basketball levels would make maintenance easier (one template, no need to reformat once pro career starts), and offer a consistent presentation (an NCAA tournament is treated the same as playoffs in pro, records treated the same, etc)—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I personally like the use of school colors on the football example. I know the basketball template brings in NBA and Euroleague team colors but the ability to manually add school colors is desireable IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The college football template does not allow manual entry, it is populated based on the team specified. The manual option could be added as a backdoor, but ideally editors shouldn't normally have to deal with color coding.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, all I'm saying is color is an important consideration IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest modifying the college football player infobox so it could accommodate both college football and basketball players? It would be great if we had more commonality among college sports articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think using either the basketball or the college football templates would be a good idea. The college football one might be easier since it is already coded for school colors. I do think if the template is broadened there needs to be joint oversight of it between the two projects. I don't have any specific concerns at this time, but sometimes the two projects differ on approach and in those cases we'd need to be able to come to agreement with WP:CBB having some say as well. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thought on college basketball infoboxes - No matter what we decide (and I'd love to see more input) I think this should ONLY be used for current NCAA players and that historical players should shift to Infobox basketball biography even if they never played professionally. That infobox is cleaner and easier to read and would help differentiate from active players. Rikster2 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the best approach would be to first decide what we ideally want to see in the infobox, regardless of how it is implemented. Only after should we apply limitations due to technical reasons or ease of effort. Is the only reason to go with college football player infobox is to save time? I would propose that investing in the incremental effort once to add college colors and fields for class and major would be a lot easier long-term than constantly converting college basketball players to the basketball bio template, especially if you are proposing all former college players will be converted eventually anyways. The beauty would be more consistent presentation among all basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what is important in my eyes:

  • Primary importance - Name, position, current school, a place to cleanly display any former schools (transfer cases), high school (with city), academic class (senior, junior, etc),DOB, place of birth, height, weight, nationality, jersey #, highlights and awards section (we can parse out what that means/how to use later - the standards for inclusion would vary significsantly from the pro infobox though)
  • Secondary importance - School colors (though I think these are very desirebale), major,
  • Not important - Conference (I realize this may be different for other folks, but I just don't think it is crucial), separate space for championships and tournaments

I would also like to see a way to standardize the link to a players' school bio. Every player has one, but obviously the links are all different. Maybe something that just displays "Official profile" or something at the bottom of the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I start separate discussion threads below for specific fields that are not standard with the current infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference

I looked at three stat sites for Doug McDermott and none feature the school's conference prominently.ESPNSports ReferenceDraft Express. Not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Academic class

I dont check them closely, but is this field consistently updated in articles, or would it be easier to do without it? That being said, class in college is probably more notable than number of years in the pros. Can live without, but easily added if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally this field gets updated year to year - I know I personally did about 30 at the start of the season. It is one of the things that is important to college players but has no applicability to pro players and one of the reasons I think the pro infobox may not stretch to fit college players. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Major

Not listed on stat sites. The concept of the student-athlete is touted by the NCAA, but frankly a players major gets little coverage in the grand scheme of things. They are notable for being an athlete. Not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Colors

Just looks nice, and is standard w/ sports infoboxes. Needed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate championships and tournaments from highlights

If pro levels dont list playoffs in their infoboxes, not sure why NCAA tournaments should be any different. Championships can be placed in highlights. Not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_basketball/Archive_3&oldid=1259720548"