Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Kings Relocation
ResolvedAt what point should the Sacramento Kings page be moved to Anaheim Royals or at least Anaheim NBA Team? With the BOG meetings taking place later this week and the relocation deadline in 7 days, I figured now would be the correct time to create a consensus on this. Should we wait until the move is actually approved, or just when relocation is requested? I wasn't around when the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City so I am not aware of any long standing precedent on the subject of franchise relocation. Thank You. --CASportsFan (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, not until it is official. At this point, the relocation has not been approved by the league yet.—Chris!c/t 19:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- We can't violate WP:CRYSTAL, so it would be premature to move the article when relocation is requested. —LOL T/C 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Going further, the page shouldn't be moved until the team moves. If they remain in Sacramento for even a day after they are permitted to move, they're still the Sacramento Kings at that point. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
WNBA?
ResolvedI am curious to know, are WNBA categories and templates under the auspices of WP:NBA? If not, no big deal, but if the WNBA does fall under this WikiProject, lots of categories and templates need to be tagged. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since WNBA are basically run by the NBA and until the WNBA Wikiproject is formed, I think it's acceptable to include them in here. — MT (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sweeping changes without consensus
ResolvedThe IP 198.102.153.2 is making sweeping changes to all of the NBA's and D-League's draft templates without any consensus. I plan on reverting all of the edits and letting the user know that something like that requires consensus, most appropriately from WP:NBA. I'll link to this thread to get the discussion started here regarding the edits. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- My concern here is not that this user (herein referred to as "he") is being bold, but it's that he didn't even attempt to get consensus on sweeping changes to all NBA Drafts and NBA Seasons' templates. Looking a little further back to the beginning of his NBA-related edits, he first altered {{NBA Drafts}} by stating "minor style tweaks". He then used this particular edit that he made as justification for unilaterally altering all NBA Draft templates with the edit summary of "match Template:NBA". That initial edit does not give credence to all further unilateral edits.
- My secondary concern is the fact that no explanation was provided for the color scheme changes in the first place, aside from "minor style tweaks" which doesn't really say anything at all. I think the NBA's dark pink templates for the Drafts and light tan for the Seasons are quite distinctive, and, at this point in Wikipedia history, quasi-institutional. Whenever I see that dark pink NBA Draft template at the bottom of a player's article, it pops out to me that he was selected in an NBA Draft. By defaulting the templates to catch-all blue (womp womp) it loses appeal. Why do people love McDonald's? A big reason is that they can expect to find the same general menu and the same general restaurant layout no matter where they go on this planet. With NBA templates, its the same thing. The color schemes are instantly recognizable and don't require any further looking-into to see what their purpose on the pages is. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have an issue with the color change and actually don't really care about what the color is. On one semi-protected template I actually approved the requested change. But if anyone has an issue, then perhaps the status quo should be restored.—Chris!c/t 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- So what is the reason for the current color scheme of for {{NBA Drafts}}? It seems like the IP was just trying to make them all a bit more color coordinated, which although seems very bold, does seem like a sensible idea. I would support just using the default for {{navbox}} for most of them (except for ones that are tied to individual teams). Did the IP change any team templates or just the generic ones? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, it appears that not even the NBA Draft templates match, since are two different colors ({{2002 NBA Draft}} vs. {{NBA Drafts}}). The coloring used in {{1946–47 BAA season by team}} is equally strange, mixing Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really care about color for generic templates although they should be more consistent. Maybe the only templates that should have special color are team templates and Template:NBA (mainly because the current color looks real nice!). But if colors are retained, then each category of templates should have consistent color. For example, draft templates have pink and season templates have light purple, etc.—Chris!c/t 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Right, I think Template:NBA looks fine. The coloring is mostly the default for navbox, but there is some deviation to show Eastern and Western, which is perfectly fine. I just don't any reason for the pink and the cream coloring. The light purple is just the default, and comes from Mediawiki:common.css. The nice thing about leaving most of it up to the common.css file is that the average user can override these defaults using his/her own skin.css file. Also, it ensures that the color scheme will match when multiple navigation boxes are at the bottom of the same page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and it would also be nice to take the colors for Eastern/Western used by Template:NBA and use them in the season templates, like {{1946–47 BAA season by team}}. I find the current coloring in that template hard to read. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really care about color for generic templates although they should be more consistent. Maybe the only templates that should have special color are team templates and Template:NBA (mainly because the current color looks real nice!). But if colors are retained, then each category of templates should have consistent color. For example, draft templates have pink and season templates have light purple, etc.—Chris!c/t 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, it appears that not even the NBA Draft templates match, since are two different colors ({{2002 NBA Draft}} vs. {{NBA Drafts}}). The coloring used in {{1946–47 BAA season by team}} is equally strange, mixing Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- So what is the reason for the current color scheme of for {{NBA Drafts}}? It seems like the IP was just trying to make them all a bit more color coordinated, which although seems very bold, does seem like a sensible idea. I would support just using the default for {{navbox}} for most of them (except for ones that are tied to individual teams). Did the IP change any team templates or just the generic ones? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have an issue with the color change and actually don't really care about what the color is. On one semi-protected template I actually approved the requested change. But if anyone has an issue, then perhaps the status quo should be restored.—Chris!c/t 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Chris and Plastikspork on this. I think the colors should be more consistent throughout an NBA Wikiproject. Until you brought this up, I never noticed that the colors ( ) used in ({{2002 NBA Draft}} and {{NBA Drafts}}) are different. They should definitely use the same colors for more consistency. I also support on the use of lighter colors for Eastern/Western ( ) in season templates. My personal preferences is that all the templates should use the default, for the reason mentioned by Plastikspork above. But I wouldn't oppose the use of fancy colors to improve the appearances of the articles. — MT (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the bold edits. I didn't think there were so many until I got started. Clearly, I support changing the base color scheme to be the default. I also like the idea of lightening the coloring used in the season templates. By the way, just a minor correction, I never changed Template:NBA, and this was the basis for my decision to change the colors. I figured that that was the main template, and hence the others would match that one. Thank you for pointing me to this project page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good reason to start putting some of the navbox and key colours into a meta-template like {{NBA color}}. —LOL T/C 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Adding the Western/Eastern colors would be a good idea. I don't think we need more than that though. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, to start the process of making color more consistent, I changed the color {{NBA Drafts}} from to . I did not want to change color on all yearly draft templates, so that why I change {{NBA Drafts}} instead. I will start fixing the East/West color later.—Chris!c/t 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great. How's this for the season templates? If this looks good, I will do the rest by AWB. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Look good. If you are doing it, then I will sit back and go watch the games. :)—Chris!c/t 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- It looks great. Anyway, I changed these templates: {{NBA All-Star Games}}, {{NBA seasons}}, {{NBA Playoffs}}, {{NBA Finals}} and {{NBA Development League Drafts}}, to match the color used in {{NBA Drafts}}. Any idea on the colors for {{NBACoach}}, {{NBAOwners}} and {{NBAgeneralmanagers}}. I think the conference colors could be used here too. — MT (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for matching the colors. However, I think we would be better off just removing the title color all together. The MOS for accessibility has a section on WP:Deviations. Basically, it has no connection with the NBA, and it prevents users from overriding the default navbox coloring used by MediaWiki:Common.css. For example, you can put lines in Special:MyPage/skin.css which redefine the color used by navboxes to improve the color contrast for the visually impaired. I say we just cut the all together. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead and remove them, I personally prefer the default colors anyway. — MT (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for matching the colors. However, I think we would be better off just removing the title color all together. The MOS for accessibility has a section on WP:Deviations. Basically, it has no connection with the NBA, and it prevents users from overriding the default navbox coloring used by MediaWiki:Common.css. For example, you can put lines in Special:MyPage/skin.css which redefine the color used by navboxes to improve the color contrast for the visually impaired. I say we just cut the all together. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- It looks great. Anyway, I changed these templates: {{NBA All-Star Games}}, {{NBA seasons}}, {{NBA Playoffs}}, {{NBA Finals}} and {{NBA Development League Drafts}}, to match the color used in {{NBA Drafts}}. Any idea on the colors for {{NBACoach}}, {{NBAOwners}} and {{NBAgeneralmanagers}}. I think the conference colors could be used here too. — MT (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Look good. If you are doing it, then I will sit back and go watch the games. :)—Chris!c/t 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Awards being listed for NBA players that don't even exist
ResolvedI just looked at 2 NBA player's articles and I noticed that they both had awards listed that were faulty and wrong. For example, Omri Casspi had listed that he won an Israeli cup and a Euroleague championship in a year that he was not even playing in the senior team of Maccabi, but was in their YOUTH squad. Also, Andrei Kirilenko had two MVP awards listed that were not true. He was listed as being the MVP of the 1999 Under-19 World Championship, but that is not correct. Juan Carlos Navarro was the MVP of that tournament. Kirilenko was also listed as being the MVP of the 1997 Under-18 European Championship, when there was not even a tournament that year. I fixed these errors but I am now wondering how many more NBA player's articles have the same problems. For instance, fake or made up "awards" for players from Europe or whatever. Because most Americans would not know the difference, these fake awards are probably easily being added and no one is catching them. I am just wondering if this needs to be checked for other current NBA players to see if they also have awards listed that they did not actually win. I suspect they do as just the first two I looked at did.173.216.234.214 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch there, I'm sure there are several others players with incorrect awards listed but my knowledge about European leagues and competitions are really minimal. Also, the problem here is that the league articles, such as Russian Basketball Super League does not have enough information to confirm Kirilenko's Russian Championship 2000 MVP award. Anyway, I don't think youth championships awards and honors are notable enough to be included in the infobox which mainly focus on a player's professional career. — MT (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's little coordination among editors who are interested in European basketball (in part, I'm sure, because of language issues). I bet there are dozens of errors like the ones you've mentioned. I'm afraid to look closely at Vassilis Spanoulis, which has a history of random, unexplained edits. Zagalejo^^^ 04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Celtics Team Project
ResolvedI just marked the Celtics Team Project as inactive. Soxrock24 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, I think that Celtics WikiProject should be converted into a task force of WP:NBA. JJ98 (Talk) 07:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
"Officialize" playoff stats pages?
ResolvedHey everyone, I was just wondering if one (or some) of you could go through the career playoff statistical leaders pages I created and "officialize" them in the discussion section with whatever template that is used in the career regular season statistical leader pages. I'm not sure if this is something I'm "authorized" to do, especially since they are all pages I made from scratch. But I'm going to start updating them tonight once the Mavs/Blazers game is over! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you can do that yourself.—Chris!c/t 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Lists of leaders
ResolvedThere is an AfD for baseball Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_2000_hits whose topic may be of interest here regarding WP:NOTSTATS and WP:ROUTINE. The NBA lists seem to be consistent about listing top 50, e.g. List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders. How did 50 come to be the cutoff? —Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is because basketball, unlike baseball, does not have some sort of notable executive "clubs" for statistics. So all of our statistics pages use cutoff that is often difficult to argue for or against because it is arbitrary. So yes, the 50 cutoff is arbitrary. I don't know. Maybe, that could be a good thing because I don't think anyone will nom List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders arguing that it is not notable.—Chris!c/t 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we are following common sense. Some list should exist, NOTSTATS aside, because there is notability to the leaders. At worst people can argue to change the cutoff. On a different note, I've seen career achievement pages for indiv players where I definitely think NOTSTATS should apply. —Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think career achievement page that documents major statistics of a major player is fine like List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant. But if it contains all sort of weird statistics, then yes NOTSTATS should applies and the page should be trimmed.—Chris!c/t 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I should have been more explicit that I was comment on the content of the pages, and not the principle of a player's achievement page itself. List_of_career_achievements_by_LeBron_James#Career_highs listing records by game quarter and half seems obsessive IMO. —Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think career achievement page that documents major statistics of a major player is fine like List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant. But if it contains all sort of weird statistics, then yes NOTSTATS should applies and the page should be trimmed.—Chris!c/t 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we are following common sense. Some list should exist, NOTSTATS aside, because there is notability to the leaders. At worst people can argue to change the cutoff. On a different note, I've seen career achievement pages for indiv players where I definitely think NOTSTATS should apply. —Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've been the one editing the career statistical leaders pages for about the past three seasons and when I first started on them, they were way out of order and not updated consistently and were all a top 40...but I decided to make it top 50 since it's just a nicer, rounder number. I guess as far as the career scoring list goes, the big milestone is always 20,000 and with rebounds it would probably be 10,000...but there's really no important milestone for any of the others that would include a decent amount of players. (For example, 10,000 would be the big mark for career assists...which has only been reached by 4 [likely 5 by the end of Steve Nash's career] players...so the next logical step would be 5,000 career assists which has been accomplished by, I think, 51 players?) So I decided to consistently keep each stats page as 50...and then when I made the playoffs stats leaders, I decided to do the top 25 just to make them shorter. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Wizards new logo and jersey
ResolvedI was wondering, whether this logo ("The Wizard") is the new Wizards primary logo? Judging from the logo they used in their website and the logo they used on the shorts of their new jersey, I believe that the new primary logo is the DC logo with the hand and ball ("DC Hand Unity"), while "The Wizard" logo is only an alternative logo. But I'm not sure which color combination is their primary logo and should be used for the infobox. On the other hand, does these pictures (home and away jersey fulfills the criteria for non-free media use? I think it's better if someone can recreate the jersey image for the infobox. — MT (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct, as far as I can tell. The "dc" logo is the primary. I would use the blue text version, as it's the version used on the home uniforms. But it definitely needs to change; the current infobox is,plain and simply, factually incorrect. As for the jersey images, drawing up a version using the infobox parameter template would be great, but danger if I know how to do it. oknazevad (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- And, as it turns out, the wizard and moon logo is the primary. See Talk:Washington Wizards for the link to the source. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
NBA roster templates
I was just wondering, why won't we include the players' date of birth (DOB) and their number of years in the NBA? Both of those statistics are shown on all of the official team roster lists, for example [1] and [2]. This is what it would look like if we include both:
| Players | Coaches | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Roster | |||||||||
I don't mind if the DOB is in there, but I strongly support having the years in the NBA on the template. This is because it tells readers how experienced the player is, and how experienced is the team overall. Any thoughts? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- If people are willing to do the work, I don't see why not. Zagalejo^^^ 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just fyi, MOS:DATE states that the mm/dd/yyyy format shouldn't be used; use yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) instead. —LOL T/C 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed to accommodate MOS:DATE. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I like the "DOB" and "Years in the NBA" addition, it can show how old and how experienced the team is. On the other hand, I question the need of "From" column there. With the "DOB" and "Years in the NBA", the template became too wide for some resolution. Even though "From" is interesting, I don't think it's necessary to have colleges/high schools/countries listed in the current roster. The links in the template are to the college articles, not the college basketball articles, which I think are more relevant. Also, there is no explanation on why some college/high schools has the asterisk (*). This comment also applies on the coaches' college info. I know that this template follows the NBA.com roster pages, but there is no reason why wikipedia could not have a different format for current roster. — MT (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I checked the resolution problem, and if we include everything, then resolutions with the width 1280 or higher are ok. That's about 85% of computer screens. To include the width of 1024, we'd have to remove either the additions of the DOB and years in NBA, or the Schools. I think that's maybe why DOB and years in NBA wasn't include onto the templates in the first place. Hmm... --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I like the "DOB" and "Years in the NBA" addition, it can show how old and how experienced the team is. On the other hand, I question the need of "From" column there. With the "DOB" and "Years in the NBA", the template became too wide for some resolution. Even though "From" is interesting, I don't think it's necessary to have colleges/high schools/countries listed in the current roster. The links in the template are to the college articles, not the college basketball articles, which I think are more relevant. Also, there is no explanation on why some college/high schools has the asterisk (*). This comment also applies on the coaches' college info. I know that this template follows the NBA.com roster pages, but there is no reason why wikipedia could not have a different format for current roster. — MT (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the section is currently dying, I need to revamp it again. I decided that with the current font size, the options we have are:
- Add both the DOB and Years in NBA and remove the schools
- Keep it the same
We can't have all three because it would be too wide for 1024x768 resolution screens. But if we have a small font size, additions of either or both can be possible. If the font size is:
- 85% = Include either DOB or Years
- 70% = Both
IMO, the best way to do this is to make the font 85% and include only Years. Here is what it would look like:
| Players | Coaches | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Roster | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here are the current options:
- Add both DOB and Years (not compatible with screens lower than 1280)
- Add both DOB and Years while removing the From column (compatible with 1024x768)
- Add DOB with 85% font size (compatible with 1024x768)
- Add Years with 85% font size (compatible with 1024x768)
- Keep it the same (compatible with 1024x768)
34 --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)- Comment. I don't recall seeing any guideline on resolution, so I can roll with any of the above options, but I think we should be careful about how small the font can get for the sake of elderly readers. If we choose to reduce the font size to 85%, then I recommend removing {{small}} and <small></small> from {{player2}}. —LOL T/C 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- 3 — IMO, DOB contains more information rather than Years. Years are a little bit misleading for a D-League players who often get called up for a really short stint in the NBA. For example, in the template above, Trey Johnson had 1 year in the NBA which actually only a 20-day stint with the Cavaliers two years ago. However, if it's possible I'll support the inclusion of all DOB, Years and From columns. — MT (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 3 —Chris!c/t 03:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that I meant to vote for 4, which was adding the years, but since I guess everyone else wants the date of birth instead, then I guess that's consensus. I will be doing at least the Western Conference teams during the weekend, and hopefully doing all of them. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done Western Conference. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Phil Jackson
ResolvedShould we update our articles regarding his status? His tenure with the Lakers seems to end today when he had a press conference talking about his retirement. I updated several articles, but was reverted. I am not sure what considers an official announcement in this case.—Chris!c/t 21:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest treating this like a player transaction, unless there's something particularly particularly different about a coach's retirement. —LOL T/C 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think Jackson's retirement could be considered official, his contract expires this season and he already said that he would not return. Furthermore, there are reports about Lakers searching for a new head coach. — MT (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Creating new team seasons pages, and the box problems therein
So, first I went through the existing individual season pages for the Indiana Pacers, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Orlando Magic, just to add their draft picks in the proper table. (BTW, I think a 10% width for the round and pick number is less unwieldy than the 15% I often encountered, but that's neither here nor there).
Now I'm going through the Orlando Magic seasons, and I noticed that a page hadn't been created for the 1996-97 season, which is the one immediately after Shaq left. As it's an important one in their franchise history, I figured I'd get the ball rolling, at least, on creating that page, so I did. However, after creating it, I went back to the page for the previous season, and it doesn't have a created hyperlink for the newly-made page in the infobox at top right. Nor can I see a way to add it. How is that accomplished? ekedolphin (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I figured it out. I used a dash instead of a hyphen! D'oh! OK, I need 1996-97 Orlando Magic season deleted, since I created 1996-1997 Orlando Magic season. ekedolphin (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You mean you used a hyphen instead of a dash. ;) As per Wikipedia convention (WP:DASH), I redirected the hyphenated page. —LOL T/C 03:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Celtics Project merge
ResolvedJut merge the Celtics Wikiproject. The question on the talkpage about it was answered a month ago. And I was the first reponder when I just came across it by chance a few minutes ago. Definitely merge, its that inactive. SOXROX (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it's completely inactive. It should just become a task force, similar to the other team task forces on this wikiproject.NBA Fan44 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Player stats
In case someone is looking for something to do, a lot of NBA bio stat sections could use updating. If players are still competing in the playoffs, we can hold off on their pages, but we might as well try to update the other pages.
Just FYI. If everyone grabs a team or two, we could get through this pretty quickly. :) Zagalejo^^^ 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't just for player stats, but also for every other statistical list, such as head coaches lists, all-time roster lists, and team seasons lists. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- All head coaches lists have been updated by me, so no need to worry about those. Zagalejo, what team's players haven't been updated? If you let me know, I will help.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think we're done with the players from non-playoff teams, and I've checked through the Pacers, 76ers, and Grizzlies. I know the Hawks articles definitely need updates. Some of the
Knicks,Celtics, Lakers, Thunder,Blazers,Hornets,Nuggets,SpursandBullsarticles still need updates (in some cases just the playoff stats). Zagalejo^^^ 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think we're done with the players from non-playoff teams, and I've checked through the Pacers, 76ers, and Grizzlies. I know the Hawks articles definitely need updates. Some of the
- If you guys don't mind waiting a while, I still have a script that can generate the stats tables. After using it, updates just become a matter of copypasting and there's a lower chance of human error. —LOL T/C 13:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since we're talking about player stats, I have a question about the bold career high. For a player who played for more than one team during a single season, how to determine his career high? For example, in Rasheed Wallace's career stats, his career high in PPG and FG% occurred during a 1-game stint for the Atlanta Hawks in the 2003–04 NBA season. I think that's really weird to have a career high season on a 1-game stint. I believe that a career-high should be observed for a full season, which means that his best scoring season occurred in the 2001–02 NBA season where he averaged 19.3 ppg. In the 2003–04 NBA season, when he played for 3 different teams, he only averaged a combined 16.0 ppg. My question is, how do we deal with combined seasons stats like this, could we a tables similar to the [basketball-reference.com] player stats, where the partial season stats could be hidden and are not included in the sorting. Also, does the career high really necessary? I'm suggesting that the bold career high should be removed to prevent misleading information like this. The stats table is already sortable so people can easily find the player's career high. — MT (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I'm suggesting to anyone doing a manual update to add "
|-class="sortbottom"" before the Career total and All-Star rows and to prevent those rows from moving when the table is sorted. Example can be seen in Trey Johnson's career stats. — MT (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC) - I'm not sure if combining partial season stats would solve all of the problems like this. For example, a player may spend an entire season with one team, but only play a handful of games due to injury/suspension/whatever. Zagalejo^^^ 21:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I agree, there is no immediate solution for this, but it's been bothering me for awhile so I brought it up here. Anyway, this only impacts small number of players, but for players like Rasheed, it's really weird that he has a career high of 100%FG. — MT (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I'm suggesting to anyone doing a manual update to add "
- Since we're talking about player stats, I have a question about the bold career high. For a player who played for more than one team during a single season, how to determine his career high? For example, in Rasheed Wallace's career stats, his career high in PPG and FG% occurred during a 1-game stint for the Atlanta Hawks in the 2003–04 NBA season. I think that's really weird to have a career high season on a 1-game stint. I believe that a career-high should be observed for a full season, which means that his best scoring season occurred in the 2001–02 NBA season where he averaged 19.3 ppg. In the 2003–04 NBA season, when he played for 3 different teams, he only averaged a combined 16.0 ppg. My question is, how do we deal with combined seasons stats like this, could we a tables similar to the [basketball-reference.com] player stats, where the partial season stats could be hidden and are not included in the sorting. Also, does the career high really necessary? I'm suggesting that the bold career high should be removed to prevent misleading information like this. The stats table is already sortable so people can easily find the player's career high. — MT (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One thing I noticed is that the years in the playoffs section is not accurate. For example, it is 2010-11 instead of 2011. The former is not accurate since the playoffs doesn't apan across 2 years. But this is easy to fix.—Chris!c/t 04:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, they did the exact same thing in those Sporting News player registers you used to see at bookstores. Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, scratch that - most sources (NBA.com, basketball-reference, etc) seem to list playoffs as "2010-11". Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well frankly, the way they display this is not clear for those who know nothing about the NBA. I think for them, this could be confusing.—Chris!c/t 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I support a single year for playoffs stats, because there is no 2010–11 Playoffs, there is only 2011 Playoffs. — MT (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Martin...playoffs go from about April to June of the same year. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- People can change it if they want. I just don't think it's a huge deal, myself. Zagalejo^^^ 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Martin...playoffs go from about April to June of the same year. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I support a single year for playoffs stats, because there is no 2010–11 Playoffs, there is only 2011 Playoffs. — MT (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Miami Heat Task Force
ResolvedThere are task forces for other teams including the Lakers, Bulls, Suns and Cavaliers. The Heat are a team that have drawn a lot of interest over the past year and it seems like a Heat task force would help organize all the articles relating to the Heat. NBA Fan44 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think any of those existing task forces are particularly active. We simply don't have enough editors available to have specialized subprojects. Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessary per Zagalejo.—Chris!c/t 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- After looking more into the topic, Zagalejo is right. None of the the other task forces are particularly active. NBA Fan44 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessary per Zagalejo.—Chris!c/t 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently raised a discussion about Template:College (which are currently used in the roster templates, specifically in Template:Player2) and a suggestion to create a similar template exclusively for college basketball articles in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Template:College. I'm planning to use the new template for the NBA Draft articles and the infoboxes, so to produce VCU, we could simply write {{cbball|VCU}} rather than writing [[VCU Rams men's basketball|VCU]]. Using the template would also decrease the consistency about the college name, whereas now some articles have VCU while some have Virginia Commonwealth. Anyway, if any of you are interested about this, please participate in the discussion there. Thanks. — MT (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Featured Article Drive
It's been over two years since the last FA for our project. I think we need to have one this year. I just noticed a discussion back in November 2010 about making the Lakers article an FA. Now, I am saying why not make an attempt! The main contributor, User:AaronY is not as active right now, but I am sure he'll help if he can. I propose User:Chrishmt0423, as the most active contributor, to nominate the article after AaronY will give his blessings first. I challenge every member of WP:NBA to help out during the nomination. Any objections?--Cheetah (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can nominate, but don't expect me to be able to deal with every prose concern that could come up during the nomination. Don't get me wrong, I want to help, but I am not capable to fix everything myself. So I propose those who are willing to help out to list their names below, so that we have an idea of who can participate and commit to the FA nom.—Chris!c/t 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive my ignorance, but what is FA? Featured article? I'm always willing to help out. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I've changed the heading to avoid unnecessary sweating. Thanks for offering your help!--Cheetah (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ready to help as much as I could. I'm not confident with my writing skills but I'm willing to help with other things such as formatting and referencing. — MT (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't edit this project much anymore, but I am willing to help. YE Tropical Cyclone 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will try helping as much as I can on the article. NBA Fan44 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have Jerry West relatively close to being ready for FAC, just have to add in peer review corrections, as well as double check what his latest bio has that the article may not, so if both are nom'd soon at least one should be able to pass. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like AaronY has been inactive for a while, but he mentioned here that he didn't mind who nominated as long as the nominator was active. Let's just review the article by ourselves for the next couple of days and if everything's all right, just nominate it.--Cheetah (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No offense to Chris whatsoever, but I don't think he himself should nominate the FAC. I definitely believe AaronY should be the one nominating. Yes, he isn't active, but he is the primary contributor. User:GoPurpleNGold24 should also nominate with AaronY, since he is the one who nominated it for GA, and is also a primary contributor. I've had a few featured list nominations where I actually nominated the FLC with an inactive primary contributor, like this for example. If both of the users I mentioned above aren't active, then we can all nominate ourselves together as the Los Angeles Lakers task force. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- By FAC's rules, I heard that a project can't nominate, it can only be a co-nominator. The nomination has to have one editor(human being) as the main nominator. As for User:GoPurpleNGold24, I just saw that he's the 2nd most active contributor(I thought Chris was). I'll definitely ask him to comment here.--Cheetah (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Period 1 elements had their WikiProject nominate, but I guess FTN is different. I would be happy if GoPurpleNGold24 would accept being the nominator. Sorry if this caused any trouble, but I really REALLY am optimistic on who nominates what, and if they deserve the nomination of not. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion of who should nominate the FA is a waste of time, given that being a FA nominator is a serious role. The nominator doesn't really have to be the most active editor, but he/she has to be willing to deal with all the concerns that come up in a FAC. If User:GoPurpleNGold24 is willing to accept that role, feel free to let him nominate. If he is not, then he definitely should not nominate, no matter how active he is on the article.—Chris!c/t 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mind if User:Chrishmt0423 nominates it by himself since he did most of the work at the end so it could become a GA, also I don't really edit NBA related articles anymore. GoPurple'nGold24 19:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, Chris, you can nominate it anytime you want during the next week. I don't see any reason to put it off. Just add our WikiProject as a co-nom and all the editors who participated in this discussion will help you.--Cheetah (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mind if User:Chrishmt0423 nominates it by himself since he did most of the work at the end so it could become a GA, also I don't really edit NBA related articles anymore. GoPurple'nGold24 19:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion of who should nominate the FA is a waste of time, given that being a FA nominator is a serious role. The nominator doesn't really have to be the most active editor, but he/she has to be willing to deal with all the concerns that come up in a FAC. If User:GoPurpleNGold24 is willing to accept that role, feel free to let him nominate. If he is not, then he definitely should not nominate, no matter how active he is on the article.—Chris!c/t 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Period 1 elements had their WikiProject nominate, but I guess FTN is different. I would be happy if GoPurpleNGold24 would accept being the nominator. Sorry if this caused any trouble, but I really REALLY am optimistic on who nominates what, and if they deserve the nomination of not. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- By FAC's rules, I heard that a project can't nominate, it can only be a co-nominator. The nomination has to have one editor(human being) as the main nominator. As for User:GoPurpleNGold24, I just saw that he's the 2nd most active contributor(I thought Chris was). I'll definitely ask him to comment here.--Cheetah (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No offense to Chris whatsoever, but I don't think he himself should nominate the FAC. I definitely believe AaronY should be the one nominating. Yes, he isn't active, but he is the primary contributor. User:GoPurpleNGold24 should also nominate with AaronY, since he is the one who nominated it for GA, and is also a primary contributor. I've had a few featured list nominations where I actually nominated the FLC with an inactive primary contributor, like this for example. If both of the users I mentioned above aren't active, then we can all nominate ourselves together as the Los Angeles Lakers task force. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like AaronY has been inactive for a while, but he mentioned here that he didn't mind who nominated as long as the nominator was active. Let's just review the article by ourselves for the next couple of days and if everything's all right, just nominate it.--Cheetah (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have Jerry West relatively close to being ready for FAC, just have to add in peer review corrections, as well as double check what his latest bio has that the article may not, so if both are nom'd soon at least one should be able to pass. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will try helping as much as I can on the article. NBA Fan44 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't edit this project much anymore, but I am willing to help. YE Tropical Cyclone 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ready to help as much as I could. I'm not confident with my writing skills but I'm willing to help with other things such as formatting and referencing. — MT (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I've changed the heading to avoid unnecessary sweating. Thanks for offering your help!--Cheetah (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive my ignorance, but what is FA? Featured article? I'm always willing to help out. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, an ip editor keeps on adding unsourced content to the article. If you look at my talk page, you will see that I try to explain why his/her edit is problematic. But he/she refuse to listen. So hopefully someone can help.—Chris!c/t 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't bother to talk some sense into him. User:LOL has brought this into WP:ANI.[3] Perhaps an admin will take a closer look on this. — MT (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pushing aside the IP's bullying, POV pushing, and OR, the bigger question is whether there is any merit to the question that the article incorrectly paraphrased its sources, or if there are conflicting accounts of who hit/pushed who. I'll see if I can take a look at some other sources before I'm offline for a few more weeks. —Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have read all the sources presently in the article and think that the article paraphrased them pretty well. But of course there are always rooms for improvement.—Chris!c/t 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chris: hope you didnt take my comment as a criticism. Your edits and response to the IP look fine. I mostly meant there might be more sources not already in the article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not. I am just saying the paraphrasing currently looks pretty good IMO.—Chris!c/t 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was bold and changed "punched" to "attacked". If you read it closely, the NYT article doesn't specifically say that Artest punched *that* guy. Zagalejo^^^ 19:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not. I am just saying the paraphrasing currently looks pretty good IMO.—Chris!c/t 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chris: hope you didnt take my comment as a criticism. Your edits and response to the IP look fine. I mostly meant there might be more sources not already in the article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have read all the sources presently in the article and think that the article paraphrased them pretty well. But of course there are always rooms for improvement.—Chris!c/t 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1975–76 NBA season
Does anyone know why in the 1975–76 NBA season[4], the Detroit Pistons qualified for the playoffs, while the Los Angeles Lakers, who had better record, did not qualify?? — MT (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that is because they played in different divisions. Pistons was second place while Lakers was fourth. And it seems like there is a minimum of 2 teams coming out of each division. That would be my guess.—Chris!c/t 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, the first two teams in each division automatically made it to the playoffs. See [5]. I don't know how long that playoff format was in place, though. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh okay, thanks. I was confused because there is no mention about that format at all in NBA Playoffs article. Thanks. — MT (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, the first two teams in each division automatically made it to the playoffs. See [5]. I don't know how long that playoff format was in place, though. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive?
Scrolling down to the bottom gives me a headache. :P Shouldn't half of this be archived? SOXROX (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Go for it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Infobox question ("League" field)
Here's a problem I've noticed with the George Gervin page. (I'm sure it occurs in a few other pages, too.) The "League" field of the infobox says "both", which refers to the NBA and the ABA. I believe this is necessary to make the "Career statistics" line read "Career NBA and ABA statistics", and not just "Career NBA statistics". However, Gervin played in a few leagues beyond the NBA and ABA, so it's not really correct to list his league as "both" (or NBA/ABA, or anything like that). We can't simply remove the "League" field, because then the "Career statistics" line will say "Career NBA statistics" by default, which is an incorrect description of the stats being displayed.
As a more general point, what exactly do we want to achieve with the "League" field in retired players' articles? Many players end up playing in several leagues, especially nowadays. Zagalejo^^^ 21:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the parameter league should be removed, the recent change in the infobox (i.e. adding league information for non-NBA teams in career history) have made the league parameter redundant. In Gervin's article, the infobox should have (ABA) after the Virginia Squires. About the Career statistics line, I think that it should be exclusively for NBA statistics and the ABA statistics should be excluded. — MT (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I could go along with most of that. I do think there is some value in combining the ABA and NBA stats, although that's not a crucial issue. Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone else have an opinion? Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed that league parameter should be removed.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here's an idea if we want to preserve the "Career NBA and ABA statistics" line. After all, the ABA is part of NBA history. Perhaps the league parameter shouldn't be removed, instead it should be hidden from Career information section and the code should be positioned just above stat1label and stat1value parameters to make it clear that the league parameter is only used for that purpose. — MT (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds interesting. Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe renamed leaguestat to prevent misunderstanding. — MT (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here's an idea if we want to preserve the "Career NBA and ABA statistics" line. After all, the ABA is part of NBA history. Perhaps the league parameter shouldn't be removed, instead it should be hidden from Career information section and the code should be positioned just above stat1label and stat1value parameters to make it clear that the league parameter is only used for that purpose. — MT (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed that league parameter should be removed.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone else have an opinion? Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I could go along with most of that. I do think there is some value in combining the ABA and NBA stats, although that's not a crucial issue. Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Team season page
Following a disagreement on List of Dallas Mavericks seasons, it is agreed that division finish should be added to team season pages. It provides more info to readers and clarifies the difference between conference and division finish. I will incorporate this change to team season pages that are already FLs.—Chris!c/t 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Championship templates
Now there are no clear criteria for inclusion of players in the championship templates. Sometimes those are included who had at least one game in the playoffs, sometimes all those who have been in the team roster at the end of the season, even if they have not played single game in a playoffs. I think that we should include everyone who played for the team at least one game either in the regular season or in the playoffs. And it doesn’t matter that a player is traded to another team during the season, so at the end of the season he has been a part of another team. We should include such player too. What do you think about it?--92.100.183.108 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Only players in the team's playoffs roster can be included in the templates.—Chris!c/t 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? Regular season is a part of championship season alongside playoffs. So, players who were in roster only during regular season helped their team to qualified for the playoffs. The champion’s title isn’t possible without a qualification for the playoffs, of course.--92.100.183.108 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand what you're getting at, but it's too unwieldy to include regular season players in the championship templates. Imagine if every single player who appeared in at least 1 regular season game for the championship-winning team were included. You'd have the 7-10 regulars, players traded off of the team mid-season, players traded onto the team mid-season, numerous NBA D-League call-ups, etc. Do you honestly think a D-League call-up who may have played less than 10 minutes in a single game actually contributed to the championship? Let's not get semantic about this – only players who were on the official postseason roster get included. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but actual contribution to the championship victory is subjective criterion but playing at least one game either during regular championship or during playoffs is objective criterion. Your criterion is presence in postseason roster, but what about players who were in such roster but not played in the playoffs? So they played only during regular season. But what the difference regarding the actual contribution to the championship victory between such players (were in playoffs roster, but didn’t played) and players who played approximately 50 games during regular season but than traded to another team?--92.100.183.108 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll keep this simple: who gets a championship ring at the first home game the following season? Those on the playoffs roster, not those who "played at least 1 game for them the year before". Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, those played at least 1 game for the team "contribute" to the championship, but they do not get a championship ring because they aren't on the playoffs roster. There is nothing subjective/objective about that.—Chris!c/t 21:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can we explain what we mean by playoffs roster? Someone can still get a ring even if he is not active during the course of the playoffs. Caron Butler will be getting a ring, for example. Zagalejo^^^ 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- According to this, "each team that qualifies for the NBA Playoffs must submit a list of its players eligible to compete in playoff games on the day following the end of the regular season". So, playoffs roster is a list of players the team designated as eligible for playoffs contention. I believe Butler is one of those players even though he didn't play a single game in the postseason.—Chris!c/t 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the concept of a playoff roster has changed over time. Nowadays, a team can activate and deactivate players from a 15-man roster throughout the playoffs. But back in the late 1990s, the playoff roster was strictly limited to 12 players, so some of the regular season players had to sit things out. Here's a snippet of an article about that. Guys like Rusty LaRue and Joe Kleine were not considered part of that Bulls playoff roster. However, they did receive rings (and they do appear in the templates). Zagalejo^^^ 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the ip seems to suggest that players like Alexis Ajinça be included in the Mavs championship template. But he shouldn't be included because he is not on the playoff roster.—Chris!c/t 03:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the concept of a playoff roster has changed over time. Nowadays, a team can activate and deactivate players from a 15-man roster throughout the playoffs. But back in the late 1990s, the playoff roster was strictly limited to 12 players, so some of the regular season players had to sit things out. Here's a snippet of an article about that. Guys like Rusty LaRue and Joe Kleine were not considered part of that Bulls playoff roster. However, they did receive rings (and they do appear in the templates). Zagalejo^^^ 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- According to this, "each team that qualifies for the NBA Playoffs must submit a list of its players eligible to compete in playoff games on the day following the end of the regular season". So, playoffs roster is a list of players the team designated as eligible for playoffs contention. I believe Butler is one of those players even though he didn't play a single game in the postseason.—Chris!c/t 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can we explain what we mean by playoffs roster? Someone can still get a ring even if he is not active during the course of the playoffs. Caron Butler will be getting a ring, for example. Zagalejo^^^ 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, those played at least 1 game for the team "contribute" to the championship, but they do not get a championship ring because they aren't on the playoffs roster. There is nothing subjective/objective about that.—Chris!c/t 21:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll keep this simple: who gets a championship ring at the first home game the following season? Those on the playoffs roster, not those who "played at least 1 game for them the year before". Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
So basically only those who were on the roster during playoffs, active and inactive, should be included. I doubt that anyone or any news agencies would call Aleksandar Pavlović as the first Montenegrin to win the NBA title. Same thing with Alexis Ajinça and Steve Novak who already left the Mavericks. Sure they contributed in the Mavericks' regular season success, but they contributed nothing to the Mavericks' playoffs success and they're definitely won't receive any ring and will never be recorded in the history book as NBA champion with the Mavs. On the other hand, Caron Butler and Dominique Jones, who were inactive throughout the playoffs, were part of the roster during playoffs and contributed during practice or from the bench and they will definitely receive the championship ring. Same thing occurred in 2009 where Sun Yue received a championship ring from the Lakers despite only playing 28 minutes in the regular season and none in the playoffs, but he was there when the Lakers lifted the championship trophy. On the other hand, Vladimir Radmanović and Chris Mihm, who were traded before the playoffs, did not receive the championship ring. (See this article about Lakers championship rings in 2009) — MT (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- But as I know championship ring isn't official award which players are received from NBA. Typically, owners of winning franchise decide who gets the championship ring. Owner may decide that no оne gets a ring as award, championship award for players may be another. So, receiving of the ring is not objective criterion.--95.55.116.133 (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that is true, Cuban's statement about the rings made me realize that the rings are not the official award from the league. I have no argument against that. However, this implies that the team itself (Lakers) did not consider those players (Mihm and Radmanović) as part of the championship team. I also doubt that the player (such as: Novak, Ajinça, Pavlović, Mihm, Radmanović) would consider himself an NBA champion. Also, I doubt that news agencies would refer them as "Mihm, one-time NBA champion" or "Pavlović, the first Montenegrin to win NBA title". I wonder if the NBA has a list of players who has won the NBA titles.
But if they don't, then we should form a consensus on whether to include or exclude those players.— MT (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)- Well if the team does not award them any form of championship award (meaning the team doesn't recognize them as NBA champion) and they are not on the playoffs roster, then they are not NBA champion. There is no need to form consensus. Wikipedia does not and cannot determine who is NBA champion.—Chris!c/t 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, scratch that, I wasn't thinking correctly at the time. — MT (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well if the team does not award them any form of championship award (meaning the team doesn't recognize them as NBA champion) and they are not on the playoffs roster, then they are not NBA champion. There is no need to form consensus. Wikipedia does not and cannot determine who is NBA champion.—Chris!c/t 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that is true, Cuban's statement about the rings made me realize that the rings are not the official award from the league. I have no argument against that. However, this implies that the team itself (Lakers) did not consider those players (Mihm and Radmanović) as part of the championship team. I also doubt that the player (such as: Novak, Ajinça, Pavlović, Mihm, Radmanović) would consider himself an NBA champion. Also, I doubt that news agencies would refer them as "Mihm, one-time NBA champion" or "Pavlović, the first Montenegrin to win NBA title". I wonder if the NBA has a list of players who has won the NBA titles.
Lists of NBA PLayers
I've been looking to revamp the alphabetical lists of NBA players, following a style similar to List of foreign NBA players. Below it's an example of the kind of table I thought of using. I'm still not sure if "Final Team" is clear enough, in any case I think that column could show extra information regarding that player's career, I chose to show the last (or only) team where the player made an appearance, as it is the common denominator between players as opposed to honors or any kind of awards. I later added the third cell coloring to highlight mostly players like Askins or Alvan Adams who had long runs (let's say, 8+ years) in the league and stayed with the same team their whole NBA career, but I'm still not sure about highlighting all the other cases (rookie players, or those with up to three or four seasons of experience). So, if anyone can pitch in I'd greatly appreciate it, I don't want to start editing until I can get some kind of consensus out of this. Thanks in advance! Xaviersc (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
| Pos. | G | F | C |
| Position | Guard | Forward | Center |
| ^ | Denotes player who has been inducted to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame |
| * | Denotes player who is still active in the NBA |
| ¤ | Denotes only (and / or first) team in the player's NBA / ABA career. |
| Nationality[a] | Player | Pos. | Career[b] | Seasons | Draft (pick) | Final Team [c] | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 United States
|
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar^ | C | 1970–1989 | 20 | 1969 (1st) | Los Angeles Lakers | |
 Turkey
|
Ömer Aşık | C | 2010–present | 1 | 2008 (36th) | Chicago Bulls¤ | |
| United States
|
Keith Askins | G / F | 1990–1999 | 9 | Undrafted | Miami Heat¤ |
- a Nationality indicates a player's representative nationality.
- b Career in the NBA.
- c For retired players, indicates final appearance. For active players, last appearance up to the end of the 2010–11 season.
- I think having the season played column is enough to show player's experience in the NBA. I don't think color is necessary. Team is tricky to include. I guess include the last or only team is a good idea.—Chris!c/t 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I personally don't like the idea of having the last team, especially for players who have retired. It would be weird for some players who are better known for their stint in their first or second team. For example, Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon would have Orlando Magic and Toronto Raptors listed here, but they're better known for their stint with the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets respectively. Maybe it's better to have current team for active players and blank cell for former players. Since there are thousands of players, I suggest a simpler table to reduce the amount of work needed, probably without nationality or team. However, I wouldn't oppose if you're willing to do the extra work and includes those columns. After all, more information is better. About the highlights, I think active players and Hall of Famers is enough. Other cases such as rookies and up to three or four seasons of experience can be easily sorted by number of seasons. — MT (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not that comfortable with the final team usage in those cases either, but then there's players like Clyde Drexler or Shaquille O'Neal who had succesful stints with two teams. Oh and by "other cases" I meant highlighting the team in case it's their first team (rookies) or if it's the only team in the player's NBA career (no matter how short). Xaviersc (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno... to me, it all seems like a lot of unnecessary work. I think big lists like these, which mainly function as an index, are best when they are kept simple. Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- One suggestion to reduce the amount of work, use general reference (see Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award#References) rather than individual reference. You can use these two websites: NBA.com Historical Player Search and Basketball-Reference Players List. Both will serve a similar purpose with individual references in each entries. — MT (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the references are just one small part of it. There's still going to be a huge amount of work involved. And we'll never be completely done, because there's still the problem of maintaining everything. I just think there are better things we could be doing. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- One suggestion to reduce the amount of work, use general reference (see Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award#References) rather than individual reference. You can use these two websites: NBA.com Historical Player Search and Basketball-Reference Players List. Both will serve a similar purpose with individual references in each entries. — MT (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we should just include the most vital info only like this:—Chris!c/t 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
| Player | Position | Career[b] |
|---|---|---|
| Kareem Abdul-Jabbar^ | C | 1970–1989 |
| Ömer Aşık* | C | 2010–present |
| Keith Askins | G / F | 1990–1999 |
- Yeah, maybe it's better to list it like this. I'll see if I can start editing a few pages today.
- Even this is more complicated than it looks, though. Specifically, the "Career" part. It's not always obvious from basketball-reference.com if someone played a full season with a team, or was only around for part of the season. You might have to do a lot of research to figure out what the precise beginning and ending dates should be. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep harping on this, but I really do think this is going to be a big time sink, and a luxury we can't afford. We need to focus more on the articles that appear in the lists than on the lists themselves. Zagalejo^^^ 06:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- While I think the first table with all draft and team info seems a bit complex, I like Chris' suggestion for a really simple table. About "Career" part, basketball-reference.com has improved their transactions info at the bottom to see when a player joined or left the team, but obviously it still needs an extra work to find that out. Although I agree that we need to focus more on the players' article, improvement in the list itself wouldn't hurt. One question though, will the NBL and ABA players included? If yes, how are they going to be listed? — MT (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even realize that basketball-reference added those transactions sections. It doesn't seem like they're 100% complete, but that's still nice to see. Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that complete for older transactions, but the recent ones seems quite complete. I usually use prosportstransactions.com for more detail. Anyway, do you have any opinion about the NBL and ABA players, if the revamp is going to be done? You seems to be the only user maintaining those List of NBA players. — MT (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm still opposed to the revamp in general. But if we go through with it anyway, I'd prefer to at least include the ABA players, because that's the convention that's been established for these lists elsewhere (basketball-reference, the NBA Encyclopedia, etc). I'm not sure about the NBL players. They have as much of a "right" to be in these lists as the ABA players, but the NBA Encyclopedia doesn't include them unless they also played in the NBA. (The only major sources that do include all of them are the book Total Basketball and the APBR's downloadable database.) There's also a good possibility that many of the NBL bios will never be created anyway, because few of the necessary sources are available online. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe listing NBL players with BAA/NBA experience? Hm, this is going to be a little more difficult than I thought. Xaviersc (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just as a modification, the * on most lists is used on the Hall of Fame names and the ^ is used on the active player names. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe listing NBL players with BAA/NBA experience? Hm, this is going to be a little more difficult than I thought. Xaviersc (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm still opposed to the revamp in general. But if we go through with it anyway, I'd prefer to at least include the ABA players, because that's the convention that's been established for these lists elsewhere (basketball-reference, the NBA Encyclopedia, etc). I'm not sure about the NBL players. They have as much of a "right" to be in these lists as the ABA players, but the NBA Encyclopedia doesn't include them unless they also played in the NBA. (The only major sources that do include all of them are the book Total Basketball and the APBR's downloadable database.) There's also a good possibility that many of the NBL bios will never be created anyway, because few of the necessary sources are available online. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that complete for older transactions, but the recent ones seems quite complete. I usually use prosportstransactions.com for more detail. Anyway, do you have any opinion about the NBL and ABA players, if the revamp is going to be done? You seems to be the only user maintaining those List of NBA players. — MT (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even realize that basketball-reference added those transactions sections. It doesn't seem like they're 100% complete, but that's still nice to see. Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- While I think the first table with all draft and team info seems a bit complex, I like Chris' suggestion for a really simple table. About "Career" part, basketball-reference.com has improved their transactions info at the bottom to see when a player joined or left the team, but obviously it still needs an extra work to find that out. Although I agree that we need to focus more on the players' article, improvement in the list itself wouldn't hurt. One question though, will the NBL and ABA players included? If yes, how are they going to be listed? — MT (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)