Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Dear basketball experts: This article has a link to a player profile, but the names don't match. Can someone who knows about basketball please fix this? Presuming, of course, that this is a notable player; the stats section isn't filled in. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I fixed the link. Didn't really check if he was notable or not.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This recently created article could use some attention from an experienced basketball editor to resolve the listed issues and apply some further polishing. I know (next to) nothing about basketball, just stumbled over this new article by pure chance (aka "Random article" surfing). GermanJoe (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Countries and infoboxes
I propose that, in case someone adds a country next to the team a certain player has played in the past, one adds the words "2nd", "3rd", "4th" et. al. right next to the team's country, of course with a link to said league. F.E.:
Player X played last year for, let's say CB Prat. This is a team from the Spanish LEB Oro, the second tier of the Spanish basketball league system, so, his infobox would go something like this:
Of course, only if the league is on a second or lower tier. If that guy, say, went to Baloncesto Málaga, a team from the Liga ACB, the Spaniard first tier level, it wouldn't be necessary to add "1st", it would be like this.
The reason for this would be that teams in several FIBA leagues, specially at Europe, tend to play on promotion/relegation systems and this way the reader not only would have an idea of where that player has been playing, but also, of what kind of basketball kind of level has he been playing, which is, in my opinion, useful information. I know some of you might think that most wouldn't know what it is referring to, but I believe most readers could infer without much difficulty that it means levels or tiers and with the link there, they would be a little more encouraged to investigate, to inform themselves more about the subject. I've actually been told that it might overload the infobox, but, being quite honest, save for very few cases, three or four extra characters don't make that much of a difference and it they did, we could substitute "2nd" "3rd" "4th" for just "2" "3" "4" What would you guys think of this, what would you propose? Intruder007 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should follow WP:IBX re: infoboxes: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I'm wary of adding information that won't generally be verifiable in a bio. The info at best will be in the team article, but I find little with citations in a lot of those articles. I don't think it's intuitive if the 1st, 2nd, etc is in relation to the country, or some sort of world rankings. There is no key, and doubt there is room to add a labeled column. Finally, there was an earlier concern that even a lot of the leagues were often not linked correctly from the country.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- 2nd-3rd-4th, I don't think it is as vague, specially if just put our minds into writing the right link, and most of the league articles say in the first or second paragraph which level on said country's pyramid it is, so it wouldn't be that hard for the reader to confirm that info and about the leagues not being linked correctly, that would be more of the editors' fault (it's one of the reasons I dislike redirects). To help that, we could, for example, open a thread in one of the wiki talk pages listing the different leagues with their proper levels and the correct leagues. I know it might sound a bit ambitious, but it can be done and wold be quite helpful. Intruder007 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, only basketball athletes lists the country of the league in the infobox; other sports don't. While I like this feature, having another field for it's level on the pyramid might be a tad too much. Also, some countries don't have proper "pyramids" so if we'll be doing this for those countries, it would be made up. –HTD 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the case of countries with no pyramids, I guess it would depend. If it only has a single league, that would be no problem, it just wouldn't have a number and if it were countries with different leagues that are not arranged like that, we could just write the initials of the league, for example Japan has the bj league and the NBL, but both leagues are alternate, no promotion or relegation, akin to the NFL and AFL on the 60's. To fix that, we could have two options.
- And in case we had any sort of doubt, we could use this template as a basis: Template:Professional Basketball Leagues. Intruder007 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the case of countries with no pyramids, I guess it would depend. If it only has a single league, that would be no problem, it just wouldn't have a number and if it were countries with different leagues that are not arranged like that, we could just write the initials of the league, for example Japan has the bj league and the NBL, but both leagues are alternate, no promotion or relegation, akin to the NFL and AFL on the 60's. To fix that, we could have two options.
- FWIW, only basketball athletes lists the country of the league in the infobox; other sports don't. While I like this feature, having another field for it's level on the pyramid might be a tad too much. Also, some countries don't have proper "pyramids" so if we'll be doing this for those countries, it would be made up. –HTD 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- 2nd-3rd-4th, I don't think it is as vague, specially if just put our minds into writing the right link, and most of the league articles say in the first or second paragraph which level on said country's pyramid it is, so it wouldn't be that hard for the reader to confirm that info and about the leagues not being linked correctly, that would be more of the editors' fault (it's one of the reasons I dislike redirects). To help that, we could, for example, open a thread in one of the wiki talk pages listing the different leagues with their proper levels and the correct leagues. I know it might sound a bit ambitious, but it can be done and wold be quite helpful. Intruder007 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's where I am on this: I think adding the league or country is trying to cram a lot into a relatively small space and I don't add this info when I create articles on contemporary players today. That said, I am not that hard over on it so I usually just leave whatever formatting already exists on existing articles I edit. I think the information is somewhat useful, but once you get into the nuances of how to display (for example, what link do you use to "Spain" if a played was with a club through 2-3 relegation/promotion actions?) it is "more trouble than it's worth." Tenure and team seems sufficient, especially if the team has a Wikipedia article that a reader could click to if they weren't familiar with the league (and the stint should be in the article with more exposition anyway). Like I said, I am pretty ambivalent about which way to go. However, I am not ever in favor of adding "NBA" after NBA teams. It is the top league in the world, and the only one I know of that has a worldwide TV contract. Rikster2 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose adding anything to these already lengthy infoboxes that will potentially add another line of text to them. At present, virtually all team names and tenures can be stated on a single line of text within the infobox. With the addition of leagues and countries, team tenures are often going to require two lines of infobox text -- and this is an unnecessary extravagance. Infoboxes are not supposed to include every factoid (and more) included in the main body text; they are not a bullet-point restatement of the article in every detail. League and countries can easily be stated in the text; squeezing them into an already lengthy and cramped infobox ignores the primary purpose of what infoboxes are supposed to do: focus on the core, at-a-glance data, not regurgitate the entire article minus verbs and adjectives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, the existing consensus both in practice and via past discussion is to list the country if non-US (yes, it's American-centric). WP:CCC, but unless there is agreement to remove it and people change them en masse, you'll get the no-win situation of other-stuff editors thinking it's missing and wanting to put it back in.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have to say that's a pretty old discussion and I think actual usage is split on the topic. But I know that in Wikipedia-land it doesn't matter that the editor mix has changed drastically in 5 years. Rikster2 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- There wasn't much interest to overturn consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_21#Noting_professional_leagues.2Fcountries_in_infobox or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball/Archive4#Propose_eliminating_the_.22country.22_after_team_names_in_Infobox:_Basketball_Biography. Frankly, there wasn't much input period, so status quo remained. Personally, I always hated the parentheses, but was ok with leaving it if people thought it was helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- True. But worth noting that Intruder007 probably started this discussion based on the near edit war over this issue at Miroslav Raduljica. The issue may be coming to a head. Rikster2 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- There wasn't much interest to overturn consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_21#Noting_professional_leagues.2Fcountries_in_infobox or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball/Archive4#Propose_eliminating_the_.22country.22_after_team_names_in_Infobox:_Basketball_Biography. Frankly, there wasn't much input period, so status quo remained. Personally, I always hated the parentheses, but was ok with leaving it if people thought it was helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have to say that's a pretty old discussion and I think actual usage is split on the topic. But I know that in Wikipedia-land it doesn't matter that the editor mix has changed drastically in 5 years. Rikster2 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, the existing consensus both in practice and via past discussion is to list the country if non-US (yes, it's American-centric). WP:CCC, but unless there is agreement to remove it and people change them en masse, you'll get the no-win situation of other-stuff editors thinking it's missing and wanting to put it back in.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
To be crystal clear, I oppose adding league and/or country parentheticals to the teams listed in the career history section of player infoboxes. As I said above, the player infobox is already too damn long, and adding another line of text for each team entry in the career history section is going to make them even longer. If clarification of the league and country is required, this should be done in the text; if users can't be bothered to add another sentence (or even a half sentence) to the article text, they don't need to be creating infoboxes that are longer than the actual article. Seriously, folks, the priority is writing coherent article text, not creating ever-longer infoboxes. Is there anyone who wants to argue this point?
As for the existing "consensus," I see two linked discussions above in which virtually no one participated. I would suggest this issue remains wide open for discussion and determination for present consensus. If needed, start an RfC on point and start pinging WikiProject members on their talk pages to participate. It's time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Notification of this discussion was left at WT:NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Though I've posted links to discussions on past consensus, I'm generally neutral on whether or not the country is listed. This includes listing "D-League" or "ABA", when it is a US, non-NBA league. If someone wants to be bold, a simple test might be to take a sample of popular NBA articles where a team's league/country is listed, remove it, and see if anyone objects. Candidates are Hassan Whiteside, Dennis Rodman, J. R. Smith, Allen Iverson, Roy Tarpley, Pau Gasol, Yao Ming, and Jeremy Lin.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dirtlawyer - I don't disagree that it is not preferable to have infoboxes longer than articles. However, I see the answer to be expanding stubs/short articles, not removing information that we'd want included in an infobox to compensate for a short article. Tom Brady's infobox is incredibly long - even though he's only played for one team in his career. But his article is also long so it doesn't look out of place (in basketball, that is true of the Tim Duncans and LeBron James as well). I'd be all for eliminating the league, as I have stated. I'd also be up for a sensible discussion of limiting awards (or even - radical idea ahead - eliminating awards from navboxes altogether. I'm not going to devote a lot of time removing countries right now, though. I'd rather write articles and convert the 400+ WNBA navboxes first. Rikster2 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- The awards conversation should probably take place at WT:NBA, with a notification here. FWIW, current consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#NBA_highlights. And WP:CCC.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Rikster2: I do agree that infobox shouldn't be shortened merely to compensate for a short article.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dirtlawyer - I don't disagree that it is not preferable to have infoboxes longer than articles. However, I see the answer to be expanding stubs/short articles, not removing information that we'd want included in an infobox to compensate for a short article. Tom Brady's infobox is incredibly long - even though he's only played for one team in his career. But his article is also long so it doesn't look out of place (in basketball, that is true of the Tim Duncans and LeBron James as well). I'd be all for eliminating the league, as I have stated. I'd also be up for a sensible discussion of limiting awards (or even - radical idea ahead - eliminating awards from navboxes altogether. I'm not going to devote a lot of time removing countries right now, though. I'd rather write articles and convert the 400+ WNBA navboxes first. Rikster2 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
scoutbasketball.com
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_20#Template:Scoutbasketball regarding this website.—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Lithuanian book on basketball?
I stumbled upon Basketbolo žaidimas (krepšiasvydis) ir Lietuvos sporto lygos oficialės basketbolo taisyklės 1926-27 metams. First of all, shouldn't book titles be by main title only, not sub-title included? Secondly, what is the main title? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe this is the main title. Even though it is that long. The first part says "Basketball game" and the second one (written in the same size font) says "Lithuanian sports league official basketball rules for 1926-27 years". Essential thing of this book is that it is the first book in which basketball rules were introduced for Lithuanians. -- Pofka (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
TfD: Template:United Basketball League proposed for deletion
There is a pending TfD deletion discussion regarding Template:United Basketball League at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 9#Template:United Basketball League. You are invited to provide your opinions in the discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox national basketball team
Hello, I have recently tried improving this template to make it similar to the football one. I included new headers: "First international", "Biggest win", "Biggest loss", but there is some kind of problem with it, which I'm unable to sort out. The problem is that when you add another data, the previous one is not shown in the template. Could anyone more experienced check it out? I'm currently editing Lithuania national basketball team and already added information about these games. -- Pofka (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that navboxes were limited to teams that medal. However, I see that Category:2012 Summer Olympics basketball squad navigational boxes and Category:2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup squad templates has perhaps a navbox for every participating country. Is this considered trivial or template creep for non-medal teams, or is any national team that notable? I'd hate to see this for US men's team, though they typically medal, but not sure how people feel about other countries.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Navbox creep. Delete. Most of these non-medalist national team navboxes will also not have a season- or year-specific team article to support them, either, contrary to one of the basic criteria of WP:NAVBOX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- It'll suck so bad for Lithuania's fans which have all of the FIBA World Cup navboxes to remove 2014 because they blinked in the free throw shooting contest that was the 3rd place playoff. If FIFA World Cup has them, I don't see why basketball should be restricted to just the teams with medals. This is once in 4 year and not every national team gets in. That's hardly navbox overkill. –HTD 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I think it should just be for medalists, but this isn't something that keeps me up at night. But the fact that WP:FOOTY does it isn't a good reason IMO. God help us if we start assuming automatic notability for minor league players as they do or if we ever start doing "Milwaukee Bucks starting point guard" navboxes along the lines of the American football QB navboxes. Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd guess there's something more important on national team player participating in a World Cup (or Olympics) vs a minor league player, or the starting center of a club team such as the Charlotte Bobcats. Either way, you could try out a test TFD on {{United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship}}. –HTD 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's not keeping me up at night. There are just lots of navboxes out there on sports articles of all stripes. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's always "Links to related articles" to hide those navboxes away. TBH, national team navboxes are standard fare on other sports articles. What I'd rather delete are those minor awards navboxes (should be limited to MVP). I'm on the fence on "championship" navboxes, leaning on keeping those. –HTD 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's not keeping me up at night. There are just lots of navboxes out there on sports articles of all stripes. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd guess there's something more important on national team player participating in a World Cup (or Olympics) vs a minor league player, or the starting center of a club team such as the Charlotte Bobcats. Either way, you could try out a test TFD on {{United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship}}. –HTD 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I think it should just be for medalists, but this isn't something that keeps me up at night. But the fact that WP:FOOTY does it isn't a good reason IMO. God help us if we start assuming automatic notability for minor league players as they do or if we ever start doing "Milwaukee Bucks starting point guard" navboxes along the lines of the American football QB navboxes. Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- It'll suck so bad for Lithuania's fans which have all of the FIBA World Cup navboxes to remove 2014 because they blinked in the free throw shooting contest that was the 3rd place playoff. If FIFA World Cup has them, I don't see why basketball should be restricted to just the teams with medals. This is once in 4 year and not every national team gets in. That's hardly navbox overkill. –HTD 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the U.S. 6th place finish template for TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_24#Template:United_States_Squad_2002_FIBA_World_Championship.—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Image feedback
The surprising results of recent image feedback requests, has helped me to become a better photographer for wikipedia. Honestly, I have been surprised at how much people prefer frontal views to the peak of the action. I don't know if I will learn anymore from more feedback, but I request your image feedback on the latest images from this weekend at Talk:Jalen_Brunson#Post_IHSA_main_image_candidates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- We could use more action shots as pictures for basketball concepts (like Four-point play or defensive formations like Box-and-one defense for example), so that little of your efforts would be wasted. –HTD 15:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
McDonald's All-American Boys Game draft articles
If anyone is interested in completing all the McDonald's All-American Boys Games at Template:McDonald's All-American Boys Games, I added Draft:2002 McDonald's All-American Boys Game and Draft:2002 McDonald's All-American Boys Game as drafts for this project. It just requires someone to fill out the rosters, box scores, etc. We now have 2004-2015 even though it goes back to 1978. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ricky81682, if you could add a WP:IC or two to serve as WP:RSs, you could move it into main ariticle space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The newly created Allonzo Trier article seems to be quite deficient. It is absent any sources and full of grammatical errors. I don't think we should put it up for deletion, because the article can sourced. However, the article is in terrible shape. It will soon fall under WP:CBBALL, but does yet fall under that project. I will drop them a note, but am not sure where to get help for this article. I don't have time to get involved and know that WP:PROD and WP:AFD are inappropriate. What else can be done to get this article cleaned up?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it was a blatant copyvio, so there was no option but to delete it. If he meets GNG, anyone can create a non-copyvio version.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Underbelly 50 has been using Category:African-American basketball players for all the players with dark enough skin for him to feel that they belong in the category. I have dropped him a note at User_talk:Underbelly_50#Category:African-American_basketball_players. If anyone wants to follow up on this issue, that would be great if he decides to ignore my advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- As Underbelly 50 hasn't even commented nor edited since your post to their talk page, I'm not sure why we are taking about about advice being ignored. I'd suggest identifying some specific edits that you are contesting, and having UB50 discuss those and their general selection criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted the edits at the pages that I am the main editor for: Caris LeVert, Tyus Jones, Cliff Alexander as specific examples.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bagumba, Now that Underbelly 50 had attemped to revert and blank the related discussions and ignored the message, what should we do?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Have there been further edits that are not verifiable?—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bagumba, Now that Underbelly 50 had attemped to revert and blank the related discussions and ignored the message, what should we do?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted the edits at the pages that I am the main editor for: Caris LeVert, Tyus Jones, Cliff Alexander as specific examples.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I will not add this category to anyones page from now on. I haven't in the past few days. Didn't mean to ignore. Hope everyone is well.User:Underbelly 50
- @Underbelly 50: It's OK to add if it's verifiable. Happy editing.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Basketball World Series
Looking for coverage of the 1955 NBA Finals as a/its/the "world championship series", I found this ("//" represents paragraph break):
- "Basketball World Series opens Mar. 27", Baltimore Afro-American, March 19, 1955
- "The Harlem Globetrotters will wind up their regular season in Pittsburgh next Saturday, March 26. // Then the next day Abe Saberstein's quintet appears at Madison Square Garden for the first game of the 1955 World Series of Basketball against the College All-Americans. // The Globetrotters and All Americans will clash in the sixth annual World Series, battling in 21 cities from coast to coast. [... // ...] Almost two million fans have turned out during the past five years. [1955 schedule follows]
--P64 (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"draft_league" field in basketball infobox
This field was added to accommodate the WNBA draft (see discussion above on this page) as well as possibly drafts in other countries (such as Korea). It is now starting to be applied for the CBA (see Kelvin Upshaw), NBDL (see Chane Behanan), etc. I'd like to suggest that we amend the documentation to only be used for top-level professional leagues (which in the US would mean the NBA or ABA). First, a number of players are selected in both the NBA draft and a minor-league draft and there is a risk that editors will choose the one that makes a person looks better (ie - a player is a second-round NBA draft pick but the number 2 overall NBDL pick). I also think for NBA players it is more notable that a guy went undrafted than he was drafted by a minor league. Last, I'm not so sure that minor-league drafts even get enough coverage to meet GNG - good luck finding a CBA draft for any year for instance. There is also the risk that people will start to use third and fourth tier leagues (like the current ABA) if no clarity is provided. What do others think? Rikster2 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- How about use the current team he's playing for? Or maybe that's a bad idea. I dunno. Also, from what I know, non-Koreans playing in the Korean league would have to be drafted. So that means those who were drafted in NBA (if ever) would be drafted anew in the Korean league. How would you deal with that? –HTD 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dunno. The field was actually created just to be able to convert from the WNBA infobox that had a WNBA-specific draft field. But the suggestion was that the field could be used in countries that also has a draft (like Korea). Can we run down the "top-level vs minor league" question first then tackle this issue about being drafted in two top-level leagues? Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- We could add more draft entires if it makes sense, but I vaguely remember we didn't want to overload the infobox with too much draft info. Maybe we should only list a league the player has played in if there is an existing general article on that league's draft, otherwise list the NBA. Can decide on a per-case basis players that are drafted in multiple leagues and actually play in each of those league. My guess it'll be a subjective decision on which is most notable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- However, I'm not sure if it's more notable to mention which year they were undrafted in the NBA, versus info about a D-League draft. A player that was undrafted by the NBA but plays in the NBA should presumably list that the year they were undrafted in the NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- We could add more draft entires if it makes sense, but I vaguely remember we didn't want to overload the infobox with too much draft info. Maybe we should only list a league the player has played in if there is an existing general article on that league's draft, otherwise list the NBA. Can decide on a per-case basis players that are drafted in multiple leagues and actually play in each of those league. My guess it'll be a subjective decision on which is most notable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dunno. The field was actually created just to be able to convert from the WNBA infobox that had a WNBA-specific draft field. But the suggestion was that the field could be used in countries that also has a draft (like Korea). Can we run down the "top-level vs minor league" question first then tackle this issue about being drafted in two top-level leagues? Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- "draft_league" is also used for PBA; there were some PBA-specific parameters before, which still work, but just not documented anymore to simplify things.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is it even notable that someone was drafted in the D-League draft? I don't know, I kind of think not. Seems to me a hard line rule is the way to go where possible. PBA uses the fields a lot, no issues there at all (and very little overlap with other drafts), plus it is a top-level league. Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- If some never plays in the NBA, I probably don't care if D-League is there or not. You could always say there is WP:NOCONSENSUS yet if you want to remove it, which defaults to past convention to not have it. For Kelvin Upshaw, who played in NBA, I'd say it's more notable to mention he was undrafted in NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- About the PBA, after being drafted 1st (with a rather interesting aftermath), Japeth Aguilar tried his luck out at the NBA draft but was undrafted, then was later drafted 109th in the NBA D-League draft, but didn't make the cut. The thing is, his infobox says he was "picked in the 7th round" in the NBA draft when he clearly wasn't, and that the drafts are in the wrong chronological order (the "NBA draft" is shown first despite it being the second draft of Aguilar's career).
- Perhaps in cases such as this making the draft parameters on the teams section (such as "2002-03 New York Knicks (drafted 5th in 2002)") might do the trick, but it could word wrap text into two or more lines and could be unsightly for some. We could also make contingency plans for undrafted players that made the cut and drafted players that didn't. For a great of majority of NBA players, this could be a major adjustment on how the infobox looks, but it could help for other Americans playing elsewhere that joined leagues that had drafts, and had to be drafted multiple times in different leagues. –HTD 02:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Aguilar was using the old PBA draft params, which are no longer documented, but still work. Based on the new documentation, only one draft entry is possible. For the few people that are drafted in multiple leagues, I'm almost thinking it's not worth the effort to support multiple drafts in the infobox. Leave it to prose?—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Very, very few American NBA players would ever get to be drafted multiple times (even if you discount the D-League draft), but it could get handy for some players who play elsewhere who have to encounter such regulations. The basketball bio infobox supports up to 40 professional teams; I'd guess there'd be more players that'll be drafted more than once than play for 40 spells in different teams. –HTD 03:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would vote that the template support just one draft and we figure out what the criteria is (examples could be - top level league only, home country league takes priority, NBA always takes priority, or similar). The 40 club thing is just ensuring there is space to cover a players' entire career in a long-standing section of the infobox. It doesn't really matter what's more likely in my opinion. We've had 60s/70s players who were drafted by both the NBA and ABA for years. We just used the NBA draft as the default. Rikster2 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd submit to whatever's agreed upon, but having multiple draft parameters would be great help for the players that find themselves in that situation. Heck we could even add ABA Drafts too. That saves us the trouble of formulating any criteria that would be arbitrary in the end. –HTD 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Most if not all Wikipedia infobox guidelines are arbitrary. I would say most WP policies that aren't based on some universally accepted set of rules are arbitrary. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- We're pretty much not discriminatory when it comes to "teams played", for example. Although I'd agree that things such as awards have to be trimmed down in infoboxes. Drafts are a different thing, because it's rare for a player to be drafted multiple times in the post-merger era. That usually means he isn't good enough for the NBA and has to play elsewhere. This is a rare instance so, as what I've said, I'd go with anything that you guys come up with, but I'll agree for the listing of multiple drafts, or even a "Draft history" section at the infobox if it's more than one. –HTD 13:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Most if not all Wikipedia infobox guidelines are arbitrary. I would say most WP policies that aren't based on some universally accepted set of rules are arbitrary. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd submit to whatever's agreed upon, but having multiple draft parameters would be great help for the players that find themselves in that situation. Heck we could even add ABA Drafts too. That saves us the trouble of formulating any criteria that would be arbitrary in the end. –HTD 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would vote that the template support just one draft and we figure out what the criteria is (examples could be - top level league only, home country league takes priority, NBA always takes priority, or similar). The 40 club thing is just ensuring there is space to cover a players' entire career in a long-standing section of the infobox. It doesn't really matter what's more likely in my opinion. We've had 60s/70s players who were drafted by both the NBA and ABA for years. We just used the NBA draft as the default. Rikster2 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Very, very few American NBA players would ever get to be drafted multiple times (even if you discount the D-League draft), but it could get handy for some players who play elsewhere who have to encounter such regulations. The basketball bio infobox supports up to 40 professional teams; I'd guess there'd be more players that'll be drafted more than once than play for 40 spells in different teams. –HTD 03:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Aguilar was using the old PBA draft params, which are no longer documented, but still work. Based on the new documentation, only one draft entry is possible. For the few people that are drafted in multiple leagues, I'm almost thinking it's not worth the effort to support multiple drafts in the infobox. Leave it to prose?—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- If some never plays in the NBA, I probably don't care if D-League is there or not. You could always say there is WP:NOCONSENSUS yet if you want to remove it, which defaults to past convention to not have it. For Kelvin Upshaw, who played in NBA, I'd say it's more notable to mention he was undrafted in NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is it even notable that someone was drafted in the D-League draft? I don't know, I kind of think not. Seems to me a hard line rule is the way to go where possible. PBA uses the fields a lot, no issues there at all (and very little overlap with other drafts), plus it is a top-level league. Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A well-crafted infobox requires that the editor make choices. A well-crafted infobox by its very nature is selective; it does not include every fact about the article subject. The infobox should include the most important facts, and avoid trivia. The most relevant draft information for a professional basketball player is the draft information for the first league in which he plays. If a given player first played in the old ABA, include his ABA Draft information. If he first played in the NBA, as most NBA-drafted players do, then include the NBA Draft information. Likewise, if he first played in a foreign league, include the draft information for that league. Other draft information should be included in the article text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Standings templates
If anyone's noticed, football pages have begun using the new version of their ranking tables. These are now universally used from domestic leagues to international tournaments. Perhaps we could do the same for basketball? We have some templates already such as {{Bs cl2 header navbar}}. We could make some more options here such as removing "Points" (reportedly the Euroleague doesn't use them), and adding PCT, aside from having the qualification columns and colors. Also there are some season articles that have hardcoded results tables, so there's already something to work on.
Of course we need someone who knows to write templates, which would make it so much easier for the rest of us. –HTD 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: and myself have worked to create this module. @Asturkian: has implemented Module:Sports table on a variety of European basketball pages. Module:Sports table/WL has some functionality already, including removing points, having win percentage and even implementing games behind. Colo(u)rs can be omitted without problem. @Howard the Duck: If you need any help implementing them, or if you want to see an example, then let me know. CRwikiCA talk 15:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: If you want to look how do they work, I implemented them in several European men's national leagues of this season with all kind of features like percentages, points per win or not, averages or point ratios (see Template:European Basketball Season 2014–15). Asturkian (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is great. Ultimately, the vision, at least for basketball, is to make this universal. That means all basketball competitions at all levels will use these templates, from FIBA sanctioned tournaments to the NBA and US NCAA. If that's ever to be done, additional columns such as Home, road, divisional and conference records would have to be added (see {{NBA team standings}}).
- As for colors, I would've wanted the use of green for wins instead of aqua (as what is currently being used now). Seeing 2014–15 ACB season, it looks weird to see greens for playoff teams and wins for "Positions by round" while it's aqua for results. Also, if possible, perhaps new shades for wins and losses via overtime and forfeits should be added (for example on how this is being done, see 2014 PBA Commissioner's Cup). An additional problem for forfeits is that for competitions that use the "points" system, it's worth 0 points (and not 1) and the current {{Bs cl2 header navbar}} template has a clunky way of dealing with this.
- If these could be done, we would be using this for this summer's Olympic qualifiers, and for the next basketball season for all competitions. –HTD 16:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: You note road and home W/L for the NBA, yet the table only displays W/L itself, so why the distinction? Is your colour comment is with regard to the results table, rather than the standings? In that case, MOS:COLOR discourages using colours for that. CRwikiCA talk 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Re: Home and road W/L: It seems American sports add information for home and road records. AFAIK this doesn't matter on how teams are ranked, but I guess this would be needed if ever universality would be met.
- If MOS:COLOR discourages it for results tables, why is it allowed at standings tables? Would it have to be discouraged for both instances? –HTD 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- The module allows for the introduction of "new styles" and makes it relatively straightforward to have alternative column design while maintaining overall functionality. The relevant part of that is "Do not use color alone", so the standings tables include the line what happens for that position in addition to the colour. A legend is different in that sense, because you need to be able to recognize the colours. Having different shades would make it hard to see what is going on, I would use letters to indicate over time etc when needed.
Does a forfeit typically count as a loss for the team, in that case points can be subtracted (besides how often are games forfeited on this level. Do you have a link for the Olympic qualifier article as it is now? CRwikiCA talk 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)- I see. However, as there are no draws in basketball, one could deduce that the gray color that's used for the standings table must stand for a win. Also, I'd recommend on still having a legend either at the bottom or top of the results tables just to further reinforce the point.
- As for shades, again, we're using this for football standings templates (green1/green2, yellow1/yellow2) already. Either way, I've been denoting overtime games with asterisks (the number of asterisks correspond to the number of OT periods) on results tables I've set up, so I guess this should solve the OT issue.
- Forfeits, which happen if a team doesn't show up, or prevents the game from being held (most of the time, this means a team walks out of the game) are quite rare. A forfeit loss is a loss. But unlike an ordinary loss where a team still gets one point, they get nothing and a 0–20 scoreline. See 2012 FIBA Asia Under-18 Championship#Group C for an example. The current template already allows you subtract points but this method could be seen as unwieldy. Either way, I'm OK with this method by now. –HTD 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, several basketball teams have their own season articles, with standings tables transcluded. If possible, I'd like to retain the functionality of having the subject team highlighted (see 2013–14 Los Angeles Clippers season). As we're using colors now, perhaps using other types of visual cues such as arrows (←→) could be used. –HTD 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Let's leave the results tables out of this for now, that is a different discussion I think. Okay, if deduction points work for you, then we don't need to change that. All functionality would carry over. Teams are highlighted by bolding their entire row, which works well in my opinion, because it quickly draws the eye, without introducing unknown symbols. CRwikiCA talk 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- The module allows for the introduction of "new styles" and makes it relatively straightforward to have alternative column design while maintaining overall functionality. The relevant part of that is "Do not use color alone", so the standings tables include the line what happens for that position in addition to the colour. A legend is different in that sense, because you need to be able to recognize the colours. Having different shades would make it hard to see what is going on, I would use letters to indicate over time etc when needed.
- @Howard the Duck: You note road and home W/L for the NBA, yet the table only displays W/L itself, so why the distinction? Is your colour comment is with regard to the results table, rather than the standings? In that case, MOS:COLOR discourages using colours for that. CRwikiCA talk 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you still interested in implementing this, and if so, which article(s) would you want to start with? CRwikiCA talk 15:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still interested. What articles did you try this out on? We could have a pilot test with that/those first. –HTD 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have not tried it on basketball articles, but on a range of articles in other sports. CRwikiCA talk 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you could try it out first somewhere? –HTD 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you have a particular article you frequently update, I can convert that table and post it in this thread as an example. CRwikiCA talk 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone updates this, but could you try it out at 1954 FIBA World Championship#Preliminary round? I was going to suggest 1950 FIBA World Championship, but teams advanced to the final group round on a knockout format (a reversal of what's usually done). –HTD 19:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you have a particular article you frequently update, I can convert that table and post it in this thread as an example. CRwikiCA talk 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you could try it out first somewhere? –HTD 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have not tried it on basketball articles, but on a range of articles in other sports. CRwikiCA talk 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: These tables would look as follows CRwikiCA talk 15:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC):
| Pos | Team | Pld | W | L | PF | PA | PD | Pts | Qualification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Brazil
|
2 | 2 | 0 | 160 | 114 | +46 | 4 | Qualification to final round |
| 2 |  Philippines
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 126 | 151 | −25 | 3 | |
| 3 |  Paraguay
|
2 | 0 | 2 | 104 | 125 | −21 | 2 |
| Pos | Team | Pld | W | L | PF | PA | PD | Pts | Qualification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  United States
|
2 | 2 | 0 | 132 | 88 | +44 | 4 | Qualification to final round |
| 2 |  Canada
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 105 | 117 | −12 | 3 | |
| 3 |  Peru
|
2 | 0 | 2 | 109 | 141 | −32 | 2 |
| Pos | Team | Pld | W | L | PF | PA | PD | Pts | Qualification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Uruguay
|
2 | 2 | 0 | 113 | 98 | +15 | 4 | Qualification to final round |
| 2 |  France
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 113 | 118 | −5 | 3 | |
| 3 |  Yugoslavia
|
2 | 0 | 2 | 112 | 122 | −10 | 2 |
| Pos | Team | Pld | W | L | PF | PA | PD | Pts | Qualification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Formosa
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 115 | 113 | +2 | 3 | Qualification to final round |
| 2 |  Israel
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 98 | +2 | 3 | |
| 3 |  Chile
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 117 | 121 | −4 | 3 |
- Thanks. This is great. Now I'd be interested on how you'd apply these to the final round, where there aren't any further knockout rounds to determine the winner? –HTD 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- This table can be formatted as follows:
| Pos | Team | Pld | W | L | PF | PA | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
United States (C)
|
7 | 7 | 0 | 482 | 300 | +182 | 14 |
|
Brazil
|
7 | 6 | 1 | 418 | 341 | +77 | 13 |
|
Philippines
|
7 | 5 | 2 | 438 | 406 | +32 | 12 |
| 4 | France
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 371 | 392 | −21 | 10 |
| 5 | Formosa
|
7 | 2 | 5 | 345 | 405 | −60 | 9[a] |
| 6 | Uruguay
|
7 | 2 | 5 | 422 | 446 | −24 | 9[a] |
| 7 | Canada
|
7 | 2 | 5 | 433 | 498 | −65 | 9[a] |
| 8 | Israel
|
7 | 1 | 6 | 330 | 451 | −121 | 8 |
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) head-to-head record; 3) head-to-head goal ratio.
(C) Champions
Notes:
- You could highlight gold/silver/bronze if wanted, but that wasn't done in the original table, also
|use_goal_ratio=yeswould use point ratio/average rather than differential (if that is to be preferred). CRwikiCA talk 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)- I personally dislike highlighting gold-silver-bronze for a table that has more than 3 columns. I'd rather go with
. Also, goal ratio used isn't actually overall goal ratio, but only the goal ratio amongst teams tied (ergo it has to be manually computed). Also, the first tiebreaker used is actually head-to-head results. In that tournament they went to goal ratio since the head-to-head records were also tied. Can that be incorporated too? –HTD 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I made the suggested changes to the table, I don't know whether those medals should be used, or just use regular 1, 2 and 3. CRwikiCA talk 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I guess the icons is an alert to the reader that the teams won the said medals. Regular 1-2-3 doesn't convey that. Colored rows do that too but could be ugly. I guess the job is to make sure these medal icons are to be used appropriately. –HTD 18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- 1950 FIFA World Cup#Final round uses the colored rows method and I don't think it looks great. Also, I don't think it passes WP:COLOR. –HTD 18:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I made the suggested changes to the table, I don't know whether those medals should be used, or just use regular 1, 2 and 3. CRwikiCA talk 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I personally dislike highlighting gold-silver-bronze for a table that has more than 3 columns. I'd rather go with
- You could highlight gold/silver/bronze if wanted, but that wasn't done in the original table, also
- Shouldn't
gf_Xandga_Xbepf_X/pf_X? As there are basketball points not soccer goals (although confusingly, FIBA has the "goal average" tiebreaker). –HTD 17:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)- @Howard the Duck: You are right, I made the change. The tables can list goal ratio(/average) instead of difference if that is the tiebreaker. CRwikiCA talk 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Infobox and accessibility
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Accessibility_with_infoboxes that is related to Template:Infobox basketball biography having data inside a header, such as the current placement of the player's number and team.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Similar to the link issue above at #Current team in Infobox basketball biography, the titles of colored navboxes are also not obviously links. For example, Template:Alaska Aces 2003 PBA Invitational Cup Champions or many/most of the navboxes at Category:Basketball rosters navigational boxes don't have title that are noticeably linked. Options are to remove the custom coloring, using a white background with team colors are borders only, or repeating the title as a link somewhere else in the navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- What about underlining the link? Example below (The red on black needs to be fixed too). ~ Richmond96 T • C 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the underlining is hard to see though. MOS:BADEMPHASIS does say: "Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page." I guess this could work for wikilinks?—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted TfD for Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship
The TfD for Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship has been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_3#Template:United_States_Squad_2002_FIBA_World_Championship. Regardless of your position, it would be good to get more participation to close this one way or another. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Current team in Infobox basketball biography
ResolvedA recent discussion for college football brought up the issue of links in infobox headers that are not obvious. Template:Infobox basketball biography has this issue with the current team in the top header e.g. "Chicago Bulls" in No. 1 below is white, like non-linked text. College football currently has left the team in the header, but unlinked it. Do we want to go that direction, and have user hunt to the bottom of the career history? Alternatively, it can be moved out of the colored header, but still in the top section. Please !vote below.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
| 1. Current {{Infobox basketball biography}} | 2. Modified with team link in top section | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option 1: Remove team link from colored header; no other changes
- The current team is linked in the club history and the lead, it doesn't need to be linked at the top of the infobox. Option 2 looks horrible to me. having the number and team at the top in team colors looks sharp. Rikster2 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with Rikster: delete hidden team link in first section header per MOS:LINK and WP:COLOR. Current team name and jersey no. in first section header is standard practice for all baseball, CFB, NFL, CFL and all basketball bio articles. It is space-efficient, and avoids repetitive links to current team in infobox. It also looks better, and the "Current Team Name – No. 12" first section header also functions as a sub-header for the player's name immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Option 1. Per Rikster2, the club history has the link, and presumably the lead should too. It isn't much of an inconvenience for the reader to find a link to the player's current squad. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- This one per my comments at WT:Accessibility. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is the most simple solution after all. And simplicity is good. Dodoïste (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 2: Modified with team link in top section
Note: Additional prototypes will be !voted on if Option 1 is not the consensus.
- If the team is important enough to be on top, have it linkable. Don't make users have to hunt down to the bottom for it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Imitate the soccer infobox. Have the team link on top, remove the league. –HTD 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Format for Finals and notable games?
As in football games there is an specific format for the finals (like for example here), in basketball tournaments there is not a rule for this kind of games. We have several options:
- No format for details at NBA Finals (2014)
- A format created by H-Hurry for the Euroleague Final Four (2014 Euroleague Final Four#Final and past seasons) and improved by adding stats for the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup Final by Howard the Duck
- A format that I personally dislike for the 2014 FIBA Intercontinental Cup, using a big table for stats and separating it from the rosters.
Is there any possibility to create a template for this kind of games? Asturkian (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- We could. I really liked the 2014 Euroleague Final Four presentation, although I'd think it'll only work for final(s) of a maximum of three possible games (one among these: one-off final, two-legged tie or best-of-3 series). If it's four or more possible games, I'd rather have a series stats at the end rather than a per game list.
- If one likes a boatload of stats there's already a template for that. Check out 2013 FIBA Asia Championship Final. –HTD 13:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are you requesting that all individual basketball games use the same format. I think the format at both 2014 FIBA Intercontinental Cup and 2014 NBA Finals is quite good. Both present full rosters in a very formal way. One summarizes the box score and the other gives complete detail. Note that 2004 McDonald's All-American Boys Game just puts the box score in a regular table. These articles might very well pass WP:GAN. Note that not all important individual games include rosters. Look at 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game, which does not even include rosters. I am not convinced that a complete box score is required for an individual game although at WP:FAC it might be required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think a full blown box score may have the WP:NOTSTATS people grab their pitchforks. A simplified box score would be OK enough, and that it has the added benefit of presenting the entire roster. –HTD 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be OK for a full box score for a single championship game. I wouldn't recommend it for something like the NBA which is not single-elimination and is a best-of-7 series.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- For a best of 5 series or more, I'd recommend a stats summary at the end like what's being done for the NBA PLayoffs articles, plus perhaps a full stats summary for every player on the roster. If the series has a maximum of three games, maybe a summarized box score would work, while a full box score could work in a single game final. With what P64 says below, full box scores can take up two "screens" or more, as opposed to a box score of only points, rebounds and assists, plus a team summary, that can compress the information into one screen. –HTD 02:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be OK for a full box score for a single championship game. I wouldn't recommend it for something like the NBA which is not single-elimination and is a best-of-7 series.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think a full blown box score may have the WP:NOTSTATS people grab their pitchforks. A simplified box score would be OK enough, and that it has the added benefit of presenting the entire roster. –HTD 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Our article 2014 NBA Finals covers 13 screens for me now, of which the 12th and 13th comprise the WP:FOOTER. Among them, the 4th screen is a tabular presentation of the complete 2013–14 season standings. The 10th and 11th screens --completing the body of the article-- are navbox presentations of the complete 2013–14 San Antonio and Miami rosters that are silent regarding who played in the final series or who was eligible. I dislike those features a lot. Too much space that pertains to the series too weakly.
BTW, complete season standings pertain better to the related article 2014 NBA Playoffs, but are not necessary and do not appear there. --P64 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the 2013–14 standings are overkill; at least remove the teams not even in the playoffs, if nothing else (though that requires some work as it's currently a transclusion of regular season templates). I think full rosters are OK for background information. I think you are asking to additionally have a stats summary for each player in the series, which is probably more a matter of effort as opposed to a consensus not to include it.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and no. The "statistic" that should have priority, in my opinion, is simply who played in contrast to who sat on the bench and who was a member of the team earlier during the season. That might be deemed background information rather than statistical summary. Perhaps that much can be incorporated in the regular season template by some distinguishing mark, face, or font for the playoff roster.
- I should have added that this problem, as I see it, is not general to the entire NBA Finals series of articles. On the contrary: so recently as 1970, for instance, no part of the season standings are duplicated in 1970 NBA Finals and 1970 NBA Finals#Team rosters may be too short rather than too long.
- Concerning another matter raised in this section, I agree that no single game in a final series is so notable as a single championship game such as the Olympics, FIBA World Championships, and US collegiate championships provide. It's plausible to me, altho not obviously right, that a single championship game deserves a box score and a series does not. --P64 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game image selection
As you may have noticed, I added images that I took to the 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game and 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game articles for each player. This year I again took hundreds (over 1800) of pictures at the 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. I have uploaded 160 of them at Commons:Category:2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. I am looking for feedback on which images to add to the article at Talk:2015_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting. Keep in mind that the image that we choose is very likely to appear in three articles (here, the team season recruiting section and the player bio). Please give me some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Stray whitespace atop some NBA Finals articles
Perhaps another set of eyes, or three, will see why some of the NBA Finals series such as 1953 NBA Finals and 1970 NBA Finals display several lines of whitespace at the top of the page. 1952, 1954, 1969, and 1971 all display normally, as I expect. --P64 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1953 is fixed now, but you can still see the error in the 70er article. Looks like it has to do with "radio announcer" (clearing the parameter removes the additional whitespace), but I don't see the problem in the code as well. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. FYI that stray lead whitespace now appears at 1970 NBA Finals, 1972 NBA Finals, and 1973 NBA Finals, alone among articles in this series from 1947 to 1986--where my scan ends, leaving the last 30 years to others.
Note to self: lead text reads YYYY NBA World Championship Series except 1960–64 and 1970.--P64 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Lead sentences from 1955 to 1985 and no others now use "YYYY NBA World Championship Series". For more about that rather than stray whitespace, see Talk:NBA Finals#NBA World Championship Series. --P64 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)- There was a formatting problem in the template when referees_1 was not specified. I fixed it. —Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That fixes 1970 and 1972, not yet 1973 NBA Finals. --P64 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- There was a formatting problem in the template when referees_1 was not specified. I fixed it. —Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes to the graphics for Template: Medal
There is a template talk page discussion regarding the graphics used for medalists in infobox medals tables occurring at Template talk:Medal#Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3. As this discussion is within the scope of WP:Basketball, you are invited to make your comments on the recent graphics changes there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
u-X national teams
Does anyone recommend a naming convention for under-X national teams? There are currently three types of teams:
- Under-16 (Youth teams; competes in Under-17 the next year)
- Under-18 (Junior teams; competes in Under-19 the next year)
- Under-20 (Europe only)
Previously there were under-22 ("Young men/women") teams but I don't think people would start making articles for those. So who should they be named? There are currently two conventions:
There are several options.
- Since U16 and U17 are basically the same team, you could group them into one article. Same for U18 and U19. Either you go with the Turkish example, the Spanish example (naming it after the U17 team) or maybe even calling it "Germany national youth basketball team". Do you guys have any suggestions? –HTD 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't read much in this area, but if U19 for example, is how it is commonly referred to, then it should be OK per WP:COMMONNAME without requiring "under".—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, there is USA Women's U16 and U17 teams and USA Women's U18 and U19 teams.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mmmm. There's not even a USA U17 men's team (see 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship#Final standings). Other countries have it linked to the senior national teams. Pretty much elsewhere, the naming standard is "<country> <men>/<women>'s national under-<age> <sport> team". Of course we could go with a completely different naming convention (hence "Germany national youth basketball team"). I'm asking for guidance on how they would be titled because I'm planning to create categories and they're a pain in the ass to rename/move/change, aside from standardization, of course. –HTD 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at Category:Youth sport, the categories names are of the format "Under-<xx> sport". If you didn't want to rock the boat, see if there's any commonality under those cats (which you might have already done).—Bagumba (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's pretty much split between the Turkish and Spanish example above, although I think the Spanish example has more... "adherents". –HTD 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it's just going to be a list of results like the above examples, I'd advise to follow WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Just add it to the general national team article, and split if off if it ever actually gets too big. In the meantime, a redirect can be created to the general article with whatever U-XX flavor readers might enter.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's pretty much split between the Turkish and Spanish example above, although I think the Spanish example has more... "adherents". –HTD 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at Category:Youth sport, the categories names are of the format "Under-<xx> sport". If you didn't want to rock the boat, see if there's any commonality under those cats (which you might have already done).—Bagumba (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mmmm. There's not even a USA U17 men's team (see 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship#Final standings). Other countries have it linked to the senior national teams. Pretty much elsewhere, the naming standard is "<country> <men>/<women>'s national under-<age> <sport> team". Of course we could go with a completely different naming convention (hence "Germany national youth basketball team"). I'm asking for guidance on how they would be titled because I'm planning to create categories and they're a pain in the ass to rename/move/change, aside from standardization, of course. –HTD 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation guideline for Tony Parker
There is Tony Parker, the French player in the NBA, as well as Tony Parker (college basketball), the American player currently in college which used to be at Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tony Parker (college basketball)#Page move to discuss the conventions for disambiguation of basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- While I prefer the eventual result of "(basketball, born 1993)", I would've preferred the natural disambiguator "(basketball player)" instead of "(basketball)" which I would prefer to actual famous basketballs and basketball concepts. –HTD 09:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"draft_league" field in Infobox:basketball biography
If there are no objections, I am going to add direction to the template that this field should only be used for top-level leagues. Using it for the CBA and D-League is kind of silly. In the case of the CBA it is hard to verify and there aren't any yearly draft articles to link to. There are also a ton of cases where players were drafted in both a minor and a major league draft. At the end of the day, being drafted into a minor league doesn't seem like it's notable enough for the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Couple of WP:RM
See Talk:FIBA EuroBasket and Talk:FIBA Africa Championship. –HTD 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Gary Williams listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gary Williams to be moved to Gary Williams (basketball). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
FIBA Africa Championship listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for FIBA Africa Championship to be moved to AfroBasket. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss infobox suggestions for Christian Laettner
at Talk:Christian Laettner#Infobox. Major changes are being introduced, seemingly just for this article. Rikster2 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Persondata has been officially deprecated
Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of basketball players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for basketball players: Joakim Noah and Michael Jordan. If you have any questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Standard format for Euroleague and domestic league statistics
Another user (AirWolf) has repeatly re-edited Euroleague player statistics and deleted domestic league player statistics I have posted citing a "standard" format as explanation for the first and that domestic (and Eurocup) statistics were not supported for the second, for an example see Aaron Jackson's page history. Having seen no such support to prevent domestic league stastistics from being added I assume there is no guideline against their use. It would help for me if it was clarified that it is admissible to add domestic league stastistics to player articles if they come from a reliable and regularly updated source, if not I'd like to hear the arguments against their inclusion. There is also a supposed consensus towards adopting the "NBA style" presentation of stastistics for the Euroleague ie 29.0% field goal accuracy is written as .290, I have yet to encounter a single league in Europe that presents its stastistics in that way. European stastistics, including the ones from the "Euroleague" all present them with the 29.0 format, I don't see why they should be presented differently in Wikipedia and for me the formatting standard for stastistics logically has to mirror the source.
I am not trying to settle a personal score here, I have discussed with the user and explained my reasonning but it has unabled a consensus, other disagreements between us can be resolved elsewhere but this one concerns a guideline that concerns the whole WikiProject in my opinion. ArmstrongJuliantalk
- Firstly, a response to ArmstrongJulian's "charges": I (also a creator and someone who made Euroleague statistics in more than 350 articles - around 80% of all of them) have just modified the Euroleague statistics to make them correct. Your career stat column was totally incorrect. Carefully insert them as they go live and may give reader a wrong presentation of the player's stats. While you have done your maths homework and now correctly input mpg parameter, you keep the less common format of the FGP and 3FGP. I'm not saying that it is incorrect, it is just very rare. The one I support more is widely accepted (meaning all the other Euroleague and NBA related player articles have them) that we write .311 (.000–1.000) instead of 31.1 (0-100) and any exceptions would lead into wrong direction. The accusation that I've deleted your domestic league stats LAST time in the named page is just a huge BS (article's history proves it).
My opinion: The current statistics (NBA, Euroleague) should stay in this format. Every parameter. The argument that Wikipedia should reflect source's format may be OK, but not in this case. 438 Euroleague articles should be re-written, and more than 1000 NBA stats-related pages. And why? Because someone like it more? It is the same. Even the field goal percentage articles simply describes this: "Instead of using scales of 0 to 100%, the scale .000 to 1.000 is commonly used."
Also, I am strongly against the domestic league coverage, Eurocup and other minor competitions. Only 1-st tier Continental (NBA, Euroleague) for the NA/EUR region supported as it is now in vast majority of the articles. Not only that there are only few contributors ready to create and maintain them, but it would be complex for the readers to keep track of all the leagues, as most of them know for Euroleague and eventually few extra domestic leagues in Europe and NBA. Nt to mention that the Euroleague is the most representative and toughest European league. Even NBA D-League stats are very rare as second most popular league in NA region. What is the biggest question here, is it wise enough to insert Euroleague tables for all the players ever played it, as in the last 3 years since creation we have only ONE major contributor (we never know am I going to quit it now or then), and few (3-4) minor who edit only up to 20 players (even that mostly incorrectly)!? I don't know if you see it, but you are putting even more pressure on me. I don't mean to threaten the Community, but is it your interest to lose the coverage for the Eurolague as widely recognized 2nd-best league in the world. The current tables are there, but will there be someone to maintain them correctly?
What is my suggestion for ArmstrongJulian is, apart from this discussion, make your edits "more factual and concise, with more references". We value your edits, but you must understand that you don't own articles. None of us do. Also, external links are not article's references, but the "natural addition" of information presented to the reader.--AirWolf talk 13:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I did not say AirWolf deleted domestic stats in the Aaron Jackson the "LAST" time, I said he had done so beforehand and on a number of other articles. Again I admit his math skills are superior to mine and have changed the tables accordingly after he pointed out mistakes, if they are more I'm more than willing to listen and ammend them.
However this is not a content or editor behaviour discussion but a guideline one. In that sense I need to stress that I do NOT wish to change the format for NBA stats ie the ones that use this format Template:NBA player statistics start and are used for NBA player pages, that format is widely used in the U.S. and it makes sense reflecting that in wikipedia. But I do feel that the format that has been used for Euroleague stats ie the ones that use this format Template:Euroleague player statistics start and are used for Euroleague player pages does not make sense in the European basketball context. Contrarily to what's been stated above, this format is not "rare" but is the default format used in nearly the whole world outside of North America, from "FIBA" to, again, the "Euroleague". The argument that is it used in the majority of Euroleague articles does not hold, AirWolf himself stated he has inserted around 80% of them, hence it reflects mostly his own usage. I am not saying everything needs to be changed instantly, there is no deadline on wikipedia and the stats remain the same, only presented differently, a change when updating the stats would be viable, and in all cases we're talking about moving the commas on 3 sets of stats, not a herculean task.
As for the second point about domestic league stastistics I still have not understood the objection raised against their use, if they are not updated regularly and/or each player article doesn't have them should not constitute a reason to not include them, at least per my understanding of wikipedia rules, they are correct when they are posted, I don't see how time would change that. Yes the Euroleague is the top competition in Europe, it can only loosely be defined as a league though and there are lots of wikipedia notable players that have not played in it, adding domestic stats to their articles helps flesh them out and serve as an information support, it's correct and relevant information and should be used.
I really do not understand why the "major contribution" paragraph is included in the argumentation, no one owns the Euroleague section as I do not own the articles I've contributed to, it would dishonest not to recognise that AirWolf has contributed vastly to this WikiProject but I am not asking him to leave, or trying to "take over" a section, just trying to establish consensus about these issues, I would very much appreciate other users' contributions to this debate. ArmstrongJuliantalk — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I won't go in further argument with you, just want to mention one thing. Field goal percentage clearly says and it is really a fact that such format is more common, especially within the wiki's boundaries. Template:NBA player statistics start use such format. End of discussion. Is such format valid? It is. Do NBA.com, euroleague.net, fiba.com etc. use 0–100% format? They do. I don't see the constant push for it, other than personal preference. But, however, if you go and change f.e. 5 articles in the format you prefer, it will be an exception from the general use, which is, in my opinion, not OK. If you go and edit all the 438 such stats, I would say it is disruptive editing, if previously not gained consensus. Other arguments already given up there. Like you've said, let's now, with nearly all raw arguments given, try to make a consensus.--AirWolf talk 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd give primacy to local sources. I've been reverted when I changed, say 14–30 in field goal shooting, to 14/30 because apparently Americans use – instead of / in separating shots made and attempted. Even winning percentage is labeled (PCT, Pct. Win%, etc.) and displayed (.450, 45%, 45.0, etc.) differently. It could be confusing for a someone who's used to another country's system but people shouldn't be confused when another country's system is used for their own country. –HTD 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- What about, for example American player, who has played in the leagues of UK, Australia, Spain, Russia, China, nearly all with different systems? We need universal standards and not specific.--AirWolf talk 15:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Use the standards the league is using. I don't think Americans would know how awesome the NBA rejects are at the Euroleague, but Euroleague fans checking out their favorite (American) player's stats would be dumbfounded on how to parse things. Remember, we follow what reliable sources say. –HTD 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The article about Field goal percentage (a stat used more often in North America by the way, internationally 2FG is more common) has one source, that does not even state what's in the article, funny how you nitpick through everything I write but that doesn't bother you, the stament "Instead of using scales of 0 to 100%, the scale .000 to 1.000 is commonly used", beyond being grammatically incorect (it should state "is MORE commonly used") does not specify where or by who.
Again if you agree that we should "Use the standards the league is using" as H stated, and I do agree with this, then we should use the format the Euroleague uses hence using 61.3 over 0.613. I did not know the NBA also used that format, I do not follow the NBA much and this is not the WikiProject NBA, they can set the formating standards they feel are the best, those standards (including height and weight in inches and lbs) are not suited to International basketball that has clearly accepted another common standard, as proved by it's use in the immense majority of non-North American leagues. You say we need an universal standard, that is exactly what I'm pushing for, besides the NBA (a league of it's own) and it's derivatives, every international basketball stastistic should be formatted the same to aid comprehension for the reader, this is the reason why I started this discussion, as a European I find the "American" style harder to read. ArmstrongJuliantalk — Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I, as a European, don't find it hard to read. My final statement is that we should leave such format in the Euroleague statistics, because of the named reasons. I am also against domestic leagues as I don't see any willingness from other contributors to maintain such tables. And because of other named reasons. I really don't see any good enough reason to support such additions to the articles. For example, the current format of domestic leagues (created few days ago, currently implemented in total of 4 articles) is completely confusing to me. Please, let other contributors express their thoughts, because if different we can't reach consensus and it would be just a waste of time. If not reached, it will stay as it is, unfortunately or not.--AirWolf talk 19:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see why domestic statistics should be removed if it's there already. It means somebody worked (and might be working) on it. Wikipedia is never complete; we could have the stats date stamped "as of xxx" so if it's quite a long time already since the last update, the reader would be notified. NBA player stats are supposedly updated after every season so perhaps other editors are doing that for other leagues. –HTD 15:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is, realistically speaking, there are no such editors, other than for the NBA and the Euroleague (NA, EUR region leagues).--AirWolf talk 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- If someone took the effort to add them, the best that we could do is to wait until the season is over and see if someone would update it. Wikipedia doesn't usually removed outdated info, it just tags them. –HTD 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't read the whole discussion, but I really wish Wikipedia would move away from the practice of having so many detailed sports statistics, since other websites are always going to handle that data in a much more effective manner. Manually updating these sections is ridiculous when you can just link to basketball-reference.com (or whatever). There were a couple years when I personally updated the majority of NBA player stat tables at the end of the season. I wish I had those hours back. Zagalejo^^^ 04:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can see your point and to be totally honest in the case of Euroleague and NBA stats, which are easy to find and well organised/presented, it might make sense. It's more complicated for domestic stats, logically they are hosted at different areas (no sites have thorough and precise stats from different leagues, including basketball-reference), not in english and formatted in a different way (for example the Spanish league presents rebounds as totals not averages, the Italian league has games started on a separate page from games played...). As for using stats at all, I think if it's done reasonably (ie league/playoffs of 1st divisions only) then it serves a purpose, statistics are much more viable as a performance indicator in basketball than in other sports, of course my preference is to have good article text over stats but both are possible (if time-consuming indeed, but then that's wikipedia). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't read the whole discussion, but I really wish Wikipedia would move away from the practice of having so many detailed sports statistics, since other websites are always going to handle that data in a much more effective manner. Manually updating these sections is ridiculous when you can just link to basketball-reference.com (or whatever). There were a couple years when I personally updated the majority of NBA player stat tables at the end of the season. I wish I had those hours back. Zagalejo^^^ 04:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- If someone took the effort to add them, the best that we could do is to wait until the season is over and see if someone would update it. Wikipedia doesn't usually removed outdated info, it just tags them. –HTD 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is, realistically speaking, there are no such editors, other than for the NBA and the Euroleague (NA, EUR region leagues).--AirWolf talk 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see why domestic statistics should be removed if it's there already. It means somebody worked (and might be working) on it. Wikipedia is never complete; we could have the stats date stamped "as of xxx" so if it's quite a long time already since the last update, the reader would be notified. NBA player stats are supposedly updated after every season so perhaps other editors are doing that for other leagues. –HTD 15:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)