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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
What exactly is Jamaal Magloire's current role with the Raptors? Recent news articles about the cup thing have been calling him an assistant coach (eg, [1]), but he's not included as a coach on the Raptors' own website. This NBA.com article calls him a consultant. Zagalejo ^^^ 01:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
When the dust settles could someone go clean that article up? It should shown the teams the players were selected by, not the teams they will ultimately be traded to in a few weeks (for example, DeAndre Hunter was actually selected by the Lakers, not the Hawks. A lot (if not all) of reported trades are incorrect as I type this. I will be mostly offline for a couple weeks so I won’t be correcting it. Rikster2 ( talk) 04:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please add 2019 to {{ NBA Draft template list}}? SportsGuy789 ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we add Spicy P and Mafuzzy Chef as nicknames for Pascal Siakam and Serge Ibaka, respectively?
There are plenty of reliable sources for both nicknames. Not just that, but Ibaka has a YouTube series on his cooking. Johnny Au ( talk/ contributions) 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking for opinions on what should and shouldn't be included in the infobox of the 2019 NBA Finals article, as well as other years. Infinite mission ( talk) 01:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Player2#Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2019 regarding a request to add a new column to the display the number of years of experience for each player on the roster.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't seem to agree on a standard for the importance of NBA Finals series.
Top: 2017–19 (
WP:RECENTISM??)
High: 2002, 2008, 2014–16
Mid: 1991, 1996–98, 2000–01, 2003–07, 2009–10, 2012–13
Low: 1947–50, 1954–56, 1967, 1971, 1975–80, 1982–83, 1993–95, 1999
Unassessed: 1951-53, 1957-66, 1968-70, 1972-74, 1981, 1984-90, 1992, 2011
There doesn't seem to be a clear reason for some of these year-by-year importance disparities (what makes 2002 and 2008 more important than the rest of the 00's, why are 1991, 1996, 1997, and 1998 more important than the rest of the 90's, etc.). The importance scale suggests that Finals games are High-importance—should all of these pages be reassessed as such?
400spartans (
talk)
05:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:NBA_Finals#Year_span_of_Warriors'_dynasty regarding an edit war over the year span of the Warriors "dynasty".— Bagumba ( talk) 07:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why awards like the Rising Stars/Rookie Challenge MVP or the NBA Hustle Award have been excluded from players' info boxes. I know the Hustle Award if fairly new, but the Rising Stars/Rookie Challenge MVP had been included for several years now. Would appreciate any feedback and/or opening up a proper discussion. Jay Starz ( talk) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say please keep in mind now that Anthony Davis is a Laker it's probably time to add a new header for both of the Lakers history articles... Even though it's not official till free agency. Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 01:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
What a shame to deny. I think most of y'all knew the whole time but whatever. Be it. Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zagalejo I get the patience but I still don't think 2016-present: Post-Bryant era should still be as the current header. They have a good roster right now with 2 superstars in LeBron and AD, Kuzma on the rise. That's a title contender.
LeBron James
Anthony Davis
Kyle Kuzma
DeMarcus Cousins
Danny Green
Quinn Cook
Rajon Rondo
JaVale McGee
Jared Dudley Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I really need to go convince others to support my idea. Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering, may we create a server for this Wikiproject? In my opinion, interesting discussions and more productivity can occur if we make a server. If yes, the invite is https://discord.gg/e9kjnKp DerpieDerpie :D 23:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5#Clippers about Clippers currently being targetted to Los Angeles Clippers.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I made edits to replace the infobox in the Finals articles with one that to me seems to only include pertinent information, appropriate for an infobox. I'd like to get some opinions. Infinite mission ( talk) 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
[[File::2019 NBA Finals logo.png|frameless]] | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Dates | May 30 – June 16 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MVP | Player X | |||||||||
Hall of Famers | Player Y and others | |||||||||
Eastern finals | Raptors defeated Bucks, 4–2 | |||||||||
Western finals | Warriors defeated Trail Blazers, 4–0 | |||||||||
Can you please hold off on making more mass changes to this template until you establish consensus? I had to fix your removing the bolding for the champion. Are you using the existing testcases? This should have been easily caught in the sandbox. Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe that once a transaction is official, it can be found here. But User:Sabbatino said that even if it is already included in the NBA transactions page, as long as there is no team announcement or an NBA news article, the transaction is not official. Can someone shed a light on this? Baby miss fortune 09:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to build consensus on how the relationship between [[ Exhibit 10 contract players and the team that they have signed with. Currently, they are often listed as still being free agents similar to other participants in the Summer League, most of whom are invited to participate but are not under contract players, even though they signed a contract with an NBA team and therefore cannot sign with another team. Exhibit 10 players are under the control of their respective organizations and and although technically on the active roster. Additionally, the fact that the G League side of the bonus kicks in after being waived by the NBA team strongly indicates that they should be considered members of the organization. I think a good way of accurately depicting the status of Exhibit 10 players is to follow the protocol for non-roster invitees and minor leaguers in baseball and identify that they are with X team in the lead and infobox, but not put team and years play for in the infobox given that they are not rostered players and then make the necessary adjustments to the article after they are cut or signed to an actual full contract, whether it be NBA, G League, or Two Way. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For almost all of the teams, the "Global logo" that displays the full team name is already the main logo displayed on each page. However, for Cleveland and Denver, the primary logo that does not display the full team name is used on their team Wiki pages. This seems inconsistent and I'm not sure why the global logo, which functionally serves as the primary logo in the old sense, is not the preferred logo for the sake of the WikiProject. I understand their use if strictly holding onto the term "primary logo" as the only basis, but I would argue that the global logo is more representative of the teams and should be used for all teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TevWool ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that a few "historical" pages have a "records vs opponents box" e.g. 2003–04 Seattle SuperSonics season. I know this is similar to what is on the MLB season pages but they use templates ex Template:2006 NL Record vs. opponents. In any event later pages don't have these e.g. 2018–19 Oklahoma City Thunder season. Should these be proliferated as part of a template, or removed entirely?- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 01:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award
A user has declared that my NBL awards and honors articles should not exist independently because they're under 100k bytes. I find this to be kind of ridiculous, considering they're notable awards from a major basketball league in the U.S., but I'd like to know if I'm in the minority with that sentiment. Please do not bother discussing on this WP:NBA talk page; rather, I'd like there to be a more engaged dialogue at the above AfD (for posterity). Thank you. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a mistake on the team uniforms colors section, it's got purple, gold, black but not white. They started wearing white in the early 00s as their alternate (association). They don't wear black much they started that in the early 2010s when it was called 'hollywood nights'. http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/237/Los_Angeles_Lakers/ Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 05:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Should there be a special roster navbox for a franchise's first season? You are invited to join the related TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22#NBA inaugural roster navboxes.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ NBA roster statistics full}} was recently created even though {{ NBA roster statistics start}} already existed to form the stats table header. The difference with the new "NBA roster statistics full" is that it added a column for player postion, which unnecessarily duplicates what is on the player roster already. Additionally, shooting percentages are removed, and the stats are the raw totals and not averages. See a new example at 2018–19 Golden State Warriors season#Player statistics versus an old example at 2016–17 Golden State Warriors season#Player statistics. The creator of the new template, Ayomaju, hasn't responded on their talk page. They have edited the old template before, so this was presumably a conscious decision to start a new format. As percentage and averages are more informative than raw season totals, and the positions are duplicated, I prefer the old format.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me as to why and how are the Clippers got a new header of 2019-present: Surprise arrival of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George? Am I missing something? Not a single game has been played with them on the team but they get a new header in the history books? Right now, Michael Olowokandi has accomplished more with the Clippers than them two. But for 'safety' reasons the Lakers have LeBron (been a Laker for a year) and AD but can't have a header for them?
/info/en/?search=Los_Angeles_Clippers#2019%E2%80%93present:_Surprise_arrival_of_Kawhi_Leonard_and_Paul_George Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 04:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I opened a move discussion at Talk:1983–84 Seattle Sonics season if anybody is interested in contributing.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure all of us are all too familiar with the severe uptick in edits towards a player's page once speculation in regard to a trade, signing, or other transaction arises in the media. To be clear, I understand many of these reports, tweets, and rumors don't actually come to fruition, but it gets to a point where such a strict system causes Wikipedia to appear as though the information isn't updated constantly and as soon as possible. Of course, it is important to be able to distinguish between something that is "almost a done deal" or "clear front runners" from "Player1 has been traded to City for Player2 and a future draft pick". These phrases are commonly used from reliable NBA insiders like Adrian Wojnarowski and Shams Charania with the third phrase very often indicating an official trade that comes to fruition shortly after. I am aware that ever so often (extremely rarely), there will be an "official" Woj or Shams report/tweet that ends up falling through, namely DeAndre Jordan in 2015, but these outliers shouldn't hold up the editing process of staying up to date with accurate and reliable information.
A perfect example of this, while there are many around this time in the off season, is Aron Baynes. Right now, Aron Baynes is listed as a member of the Boston Celtics on Wikipedia. Looking at the Boston Celtics official homepage, yes, Aron Baynes is still listed on the roster, but this trade was announced by Woj and Shams on draft night and effected the draft selections because the Celtics (technically the 76ers) were making the pick for the Phoenix Suns. The trade was generally reported as: "The Celtics are trading Aron Baynes and the No. 24 pick to the Suns for a future 2020 first round pick. The Suns are focused on Ty Jerome at No. 24." This trade has been reported on multiple times since draft night and in the eyes of the NBA and the players involved, it is a done deal. I'm sure there is some official date or rule that makes it so these trades are technically not "official" yet, but I think it is important not to mislead casual fans who are curious about what team a player is on at any given time. The NBA website has been known to be the last source you can go to when trying to figure out who is on what team, and to me it is honestly embarrassing. I understand that it may be because they wait for everything to be squared away perfectly, but I believe it hurts the reputation of the website and makes it very difficult for fans to keep up to date especially around this time of year.
Now, some of you might argue that Wiki should just go off of what the poorly managed NBA website has to say and when it updates rosters or announces trades, then it is okay for Wiki users to do the same. I don't agree with this at all strictly because the NBA website is always behind, but I'm not even sure that the NBA website is what wiki bases it's "official" edits on. Aron Baynes is listed as a Celtic on NBA.com, a Celtic on Wiki, and a Sun on ESPN. Ty Jerome, the No. 24 pick that was involved in the Baynes trade, is listed a 76er on NBA.com, a Sun on Wiki, and a Celtic on ESPN. Clearly, there is some discrepancy on what is official and when it becomes so, among other huge information platforms as well. Carsen Edwards, another draft day trade, is listed as a 76er on NBA.com, a Celtic on Wiki, and a Celtic on ESPN.
I am all for accurate and reliable information on Wikipedia, but I also believe people come to Wikipedia for updated information as well, especially for sports. Due to their resumes and positive reliability over many years, I believe that a report by Woj or Shams stating "Player1 has been traded" or "Team1 and Player1 have agreed to a stated contract", should be considered legit and therefore warrant an update on the player or players page(s). On the off chance that a reported done deal falls through, then these edits are easily revertible. When reports do start to come in, as they already have, moderators do a great job on getting protection on the pages so only certain people can make edits and I think this is necessary and important going forward if the community decides to go through with this idea. Please let me know any other suggestions, agreements, disagreements you all have. RichieConant34 ( talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, WP:SPORTSTRANS is followed, and deals are updated in the lead and infoboxes when the team announces the deal. On a per-case basis, the consensus is sometimes that a reported deal is significant enough to mention in prose e.g. Anthony Davis#Requesting a trade (2018–19) even before a team official has spoken on the record. However, it is clearly mentioned that it is "reported", and readers should not be misled that it's been completed. This only seems to become big deal during the offseason around the July moratorium, when breaking news about a big-time player occurs, but the league does not allow anything to be finalized for weeks. During the season, the team usually announces deals within a day or two, so there is generally no hurry to break news on Wikipedia.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Protection requests Another indication that there is no consensus for treating these "reports" as done deals are the multiple page protections today on NBA players who have reportedly reached agreements, but cannot sign until July 6 after the July moratorium.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@ RichieConant34 and Rockchalk717: Reagrding post-July moratorium, there was a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_26#Agreeing_to_vs._signing_a_contract (also referenced in WP:SPORTSTRANS) that suggested not bothering to revert if a player (or his agent) announced their intention to sign. No unnamed source—something directly attributed to a real person. It wasn't an endorsement to add anything before an official announcement, it was more to prevent edit churn with IPs or editors not aware of distinctions with anonymous sources or "agree to sign" vs "signed", etc. As with anything, it's not worth edit warring over. Discuss when there is a dispute. Cheers.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
warrants an edit. I was only suggesting a détente since some sources start to lax after the deadline and not preface these deals with like "reported", making it hard for honest editors. During the moratorium, a deal just can't be completed, and it's relatively easy to point editors to the league calendar.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Bagumba: Just as ESPN's website does, I continue to advocate for updates to player's pages once agreed upon terms are announced by reliable NBA insiders or sources (that is the player, the team, the player's agency, or a highly regarded NBA source, i.e. Woj or Shams). Yes, the potential for a change of decision or the change in scenarios is possible, but when compared to the amount of moves that are reported correctly, the latter outweighs the former tremendously (when/if these situations do arise, then pages are easily revertible). I am not wiki-savvy enough to create one myself, but I believe some sort of asterisk on a players page involving a reported or pending signing or transaction could be a possible solution to the edits wars that go on during this time. That way, someone searching for current information could easily see in a players info box that, for instance, Paul George is on the Los Angeles Clippers due to a reported trade, but making it clear that this trade is not technically official yet, still tying him to the Oklahoma City Thunder at this point. This reported info could come later on in the player's page, but I think it would be innovative and useful to provide complete and thorough facts to make it so Paul George could be listed as a Clipper on wiki (with the new colors and team in his infobox), but with an obvious asterisk. I reference ESPN because the NBA's website tends to be very behind on updating new rosters even after official team announcements making it a hard "source" to continue to defer to. With the unique ability to have continuous updates, Wikipedia should welcome the idea of providing this information during a confusing time for modest followers of the NBA. Maybe something along the lines of adding "official_team_announcement = no/yes" under the "team =" section, that way modest editors could easily see the difference in edits. A problem that continues to arise calls for change, and this policy needs revamping. Those are my current thoughts and I'm happy to provide any additional examples to support my claims if anyone doesn't fully understand my references. RichieConant34 ( talk) 16:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment I was out of pocket for the majority of this discussion, but I do want to register my opinions as I have clear ones on this issue. I get the zeal that some have to update player articles as soon as someone reports a deal. However, I have a number of issues with changing our consensus of waiting for an official team or league announcement. First, just the plain fact that these deals really aren’t final when only an agreement (not a signed contract) is in place. We see this every year - most recently this offseason with Marcus Morris, who agreed to terms with the Spurs (in a deal I bet Sharms and Woj reported) then reneged and actually signed with the Knicks. Why does this happen? Because deals aren’t actually official until the parties sign them and anything can happen until this occurs. If I put a contract down a house, I am not rightfully the owner of that home until I sign all the paperwork at closing. Likewise, a player isn’t a member of a team until he signs. I get that ESPN.com reports it, but remember that ESPN.com has a different mission than Wikipedia. ESPN is a sports news site (and further one that employs Woj so they have motivation to validate his scoops) while Wikipedia is explicitly NOTNEWS. It isn’t Wikipedia’s job to break news, it’s an encyclopedia meant to reflect valid, sourced reality. Adding signings before they are official are pretty clearly WP:CRYSTAL in my eyes. I also agree with comments about the FA moratorium - no one can sign before it is lifted so it isn’t accurant that they are a member of that team or in that roster until they are signed.
With respect to Woj and Sharms, I am very much opposed to picking a couple of so-called “experts” and deciding that their reporting of unannounced news should be treated as confirmation that something has/will happen. With respect to the football project, there are many places we disagree. It is instructive to know what other projects do, but long ago it became apparent that they could not agree on everything.
In short, the only consistent policy that makes sense to me given verifiability and Wikipedia purpose concerns is an official announcement by the team or league (on NBA.com or an official Twitter account). There are always cases where players change their minds, or teams shift priorities based on salary cap manipulation, or players are promised deals that could be for the parent club or a G League spot (series 10). I frankly don’t think it’s much if an issue that people heard the news Kevin Durant would sign with the Nets weeks before he did. It’s an encyclopedia, there is no obligation for it to be updated before other sites and I’d reckon player movement is typically documented minutes (if not seconds) after an official announcement. In high profile cases like LeBron last year or Durant this year, I’d be open to updating the prose on their widely reported deals, but not the infobox until official and not on roster templates. And we’d need to document the specific cases when this would be appropriate (e.g. if the signing is getting wide press for changing league dynamics, if the player is openly talking about playing for the team in social media like Kanter this year, etc.) Rikster2 ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
So to reiterate, what is the consensus for free agency signings moving forward? RichieConant34 ( talk) 20:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to establish a consensus regarding the listed jersey number for Summer League players who go on to sign a contract with an NBA team. For example, someone like Tacko Fall who signed an Exhibit 10 day contract after the 2019 NBA draft and went on to play for the Celtics during Summer League wearing number 55. The Celtics officially signed Fall on July 25 and he is listed without a number on the Celtics website along with other newly signed rookies, Javonte Green, Vincent Poirier, and Max Strus. I'm just using the Celtic's players as an example, but this goes for all/most NBA teams. Another example would be the Heat's forward Chris Silva who is listed as number 73 in his infobox on wiki, but has no number listed on the official Heat website. Should a jersey number be listed for signed players who do not have listed numbers on a team's official website, or does the summer league number suffice? RichieConant34 ( talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems that Juan Miguel U. Palero ( talk · contribs) has been adding trivial and non relevant content to team and basketball personnel pages for some time. SunCrow has already cleaned up Tim Duncan's page, but after further inspection I see that more pages are subject to the same additions. I am notifying everyone here, because I am unable to edit regularly due to my work. – Sabbatino ( talk) 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Juan Miguel U. Palero: I reverted your edits to the Los Angeles Lakers. Those details are too trivial for the general team article. Consider adding them to the respective Lakers' season articles, if those details were not already there. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 13:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I opened a move discussion at Talk:Charlie Brown (basketball) if anybody is interested in contributing. RichieConant34 ( talk) 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey y'all. I am just wondering if we should establish some consistency regarding the schedule tables for NBA season pages. For instance, the 2016–17 Oklahoma City Thunder season's links for say Miami would link to the 2016–17 Miami Heat season page. But later pages link to the Miami Heat. If this would be up for a discussion I would want to link it to the season as we do in college articles. Some season articles link the San Diego Rockets to Houston. This is one of those cases it should be consistent. But I would support consensus if it is deemed appropriate to simply link it to the main team page.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 14:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little curious as to why the dunk contest and 3 point contest titles are included in players' infoboxes, but the skills challenge title isn't. The three of them are contested on the same day, consecutively, and have been listed on infoboxes throught time, so, why have they been removed? Where was it decided? If there is no case of consensus to remove it, they should be included on players' infoboxes, or all 3 should be removed. Jay Starz ( talk) 19:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ UCO2009bluejay and Bagumba: Do you mind explaining why it's not a "defining" award? I think it is a defining award more so than other awards that are listed such as the NBA Sportsmanship Award, Second-team Parade All-American, FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship MVP, etc. Additionally, what makes this award less deserving of a spot in the info box than the dunk contest and 3-point contest? RichieConant34 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No, Richie's linked the articles as evidence that it is prevalent enough as a defining award. That would be enough to establish WP:GNG for inclusion of the information in a players' article. The fact that an "news" article exists is no reason that it should be included in an infobox, which was my argument. It is not a defining award. If anything his argument is borderline WP:FANCRUFT.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Legitimacy Nobody had said the Skills event is not real. There is just a disagreement whether it is worthy of mention in the infobox. It's already in the body in most cases. Per WP:ONUS, not everything that is true gets automatically included. It's up to those wanting inclusion to establish consensus.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Other events If the other AS events are not notable, get consensus to remove them; dont just add more cruft for "consistency". It's not WP:ALLORNOTHING. Wanting to remove all only if Skills is not included sounds WP:POINTY.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
In Favor I believe that the three main events on All Star Saturday night, the Skills Challenge, Slam Dunk Contest, and Three-Point Contest, all warrant inclusion in the infoboxes of winners due to the relevance and popularity of the awards. As it stands right now, 2 of those 3 awards are included in infoboxes, while the skills challenge is not, which does not make sense. I've gone into more details above. RichieConant34 ( talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
No vote, but more people remember Kobe winning the Slam Dunk Contest, then say, him being a part of the All-Defensive Team... Howard the Duck ( talk) 21:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.A lot of things are just accepted even though it was never discussed.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
What exactly is Jamaal Magloire's current role with the Raptors? Recent news articles about the cup thing have been calling him an assistant coach (eg, [1]), but he's not included as a coach on the Raptors' own website. This NBA.com article calls him a consultant. Zagalejo ^^^ 01:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
When the dust settles could someone go clean that article up? It should shown the teams the players were selected by, not the teams they will ultimately be traded to in a few weeks (for example, DeAndre Hunter was actually selected by the Lakers, not the Hawks. A lot (if not all) of reported trades are incorrect as I type this. I will be mostly offline for a couple weeks so I won’t be correcting it. Rikster2 ( talk) 04:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please add 2019 to {{ NBA Draft template list}}? SportsGuy789 ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we add Spicy P and Mafuzzy Chef as nicknames for Pascal Siakam and Serge Ibaka, respectively?
There are plenty of reliable sources for both nicknames. Not just that, but Ibaka has a YouTube series on his cooking. Johnny Au ( talk/ contributions) 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking for opinions on what should and shouldn't be included in the infobox of the 2019 NBA Finals article, as well as other years. Infinite mission ( talk) 01:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Player2#Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2019 regarding a request to add a new column to the display the number of years of experience for each player on the roster.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't seem to agree on a standard for the importance of NBA Finals series.
Top: 2017–19 (
WP:RECENTISM??)
High: 2002, 2008, 2014–16
Mid: 1991, 1996–98, 2000–01, 2003–07, 2009–10, 2012–13
Low: 1947–50, 1954–56, 1967, 1971, 1975–80, 1982–83, 1993–95, 1999
Unassessed: 1951-53, 1957-66, 1968-70, 1972-74, 1981, 1984-90, 1992, 2011
There doesn't seem to be a clear reason for some of these year-by-year importance disparities (what makes 2002 and 2008 more important than the rest of the 00's, why are 1991, 1996, 1997, and 1998 more important than the rest of the 90's, etc.). The importance scale suggests that Finals games are High-importance—should all of these pages be reassessed as such?
400spartans (
talk)
05:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:NBA_Finals#Year_span_of_Warriors'_dynasty regarding an edit war over the year span of the Warriors "dynasty".— Bagumba ( talk) 07:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why awards like the Rising Stars/Rookie Challenge MVP or the NBA Hustle Award have been excluded from players' info boxes. I know the Hustle Award if fairly new, but the Rising Stars/Rookie Challenge MVP had been included for several years now. Would appreciate any feedback and/or opening up a proper discussion. Jay Starz ( talk) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say please keep in mind now that Anthony Davis is a Laker it's probably time to add a new header for both of the Lakers history articles... Even though it's not official till free agency. Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 01:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
What a shame to deny. I think most of y'all knew the whole time but whatever. Be it. Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zagalejo I get the patience but I still don't think 2016-present: Post-Bryant era should still be as the current header. They have a good roster right now with 2 superstars in LeBron and AD, Kuzma on the rise. That's a title contender.
LeBron James
Anthony Davis
Kyle Kuzma
DeMarcus Cousins
Danny Green
Quinn Cook
Rajon Rondo
JaVale McGee
Jared Dudley Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I really need to go convince others to support my idea. Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering, may we create a server for this Wikiproject? In my opinion, interesting discussions and more productivity can occur if we make a server. If yes, the invite is https://discord.gg/e9kjnKp DerpieDerpie :D 23:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5#Clippers about Clippers currently being targetted to Los Angeles Clippers.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I made edits to replace the infobox in the Finals articles with one that to me seems to only include pertinent information, appropriate for an infobox. I'd like to get some opinions. Infinite mission ( talk) 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
[[File::2019 NBA Finals logo.png|frameless]] | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Dates | May 30 – June 16 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MVP | Player X | |||||||||
Hall of Famers | Player Y and others | |||||||||
Eastern finals | Raptors defeated Bucks, 4–2 | |||||||||
Western finals | Warriors defeated Trail Blazers, 4–0 | |||||||||
Can you please hold off on making more mass changes to this template until you establish consensus? I had to fix your removing the bolding for the champion. Are you using the existing testcases? This should have been easily caught in the sandbox. Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe that once a transaction is official, it can be found here. But User:Sabbatino said that even if it is already included in the NBA transactions page, as long as there is no team announcement or an NBA news article, the transaction is not official. Can someone shed a light on this? Baby miss fortune 09:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to build consensus on how the relationship between [[ Exhibit 10 contract players and the team that they have signed with. Currently, they are often listed as still being free agents similar to other participants in the Summer League, most of whom are invited to participate but are not under contract players, even though they signed a contract with an NBA team and therefore cannot sign with another team. Exhibit 10 players are under the control of their respective organizations and and although technically on the active roster. Additionally, the fact that the G League side of the bonus kicks in after being waived by the NBA team strongly indicates that they should be considered members of the organization. I think a good way of accurately depicting the status of Exhibit 10 players is to follow the protocol for non-roster invitees and minor leaguers in baseball and identify that they are with X team in the lead and infobox, but not put team and years play for in the infobox given that they are not rostered players and then make the necessary adjustments to the article after they are cut or signed to an actual full contract, whether it be NBA, G League, or Two Way. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For almost all of the teams, the "Global logo" that displays the full team name is already the main logo displayed on each page. However, for Cleveland and Denver, the primary logo that does not display the full team name is used on their team Wiki pages. This seems inconsistent and I'm not sure why the global logo, which functionally serves as the primary logo in the old sense, is not the preferred logo for the sake of the WikiProject. I understand their use if strictly holding onto the term "primary logo" as the only basis, but I would argue that the global logo is more representative of the teams and should be used for all teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TevWool ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that a few "historical" pages have a "records vs opponents box" e.g. 2003–04 Seattle SuperSonics season. I know this is similar to what is on the MLB season pages but they use templates ex Template:2006 NL Record vs. opponents. In any event later pages don't have these e.g. 2018–19 Oklahoma City Thunder season. Should these be proliferated as part of a template, or removed entirely?- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 01:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award
A user has declared that my NBL awards and honors articles should not exist independently because they're under 100k bytes. I find this to be kind of ridiculous, considering they're notable awards from a major basketball league in the U.S., but I'd like to know if I'm in the minority with that sentiment. Please do not bother discussing on this WP:NBA talk page; rather, I'd like there to be a more engaged dialogue at the above AfD (for posterity). Thank you. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a mistake on the team uniforms colors section, it's got purple, gold, black but not white. They started wearing white in the early 00s as their alternate (association). They don't wear black much they started that in the early 2010s when it was called 'hollywood nights'. http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/237/Los_Angeles_Lakers/ Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 05:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Should there be a special roster navbox for a franchise's first season? You are invited to join the related TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22#NBA inaugural roster navboxes.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ NBA roster statistics full}} was recently created even though {{ NBA roster statistics start}} already existed to form the stats table header. The difference with the new "NBA roster statistics full" is that it added a column for player postion, which unnecessarily duplicates what is on the player roster already. Additionally, shooting percentages are removed, and the stats are the raw totals and not averages. See a new example at 2018–19 Golden State Warriors season#Player statistics versus an old example at 2016–17 Golden State Warriors season#Player statistics. The creator of the new template, Ayomaju, hasn't responded on their talk page. They have edited the old template before, so this was presumably a conscious decision to start a new format. As percentage and averages are more informative than raw season totals, and the positions are duplicated, I prefer the old format.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me as to why and how are the Clippers got a new header of 2019-present: Surprise arrival of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George? Am I missing something? Not a single game has been played with them on the team but they get a new header in the history books? Right now, Michael Olowokandi has accomplished more with the Clippers than them two. But for 'safety' reasons the Lakers have LeBron (been a Laker for a year) and AD but can't have a header for them?
/info/en/?search=Los_Angeles_Clippers#2019%E2%80%93present:_Surprise_arrival_of_Kawhi_Leonard_and_Paul_George Sports Fan 1997 ( talk) 04:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I opened a move discussion at Talk:1983–84 Seattle Sonics season if anybody is interested in contributing.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure all of us are all too familiar with the severe uptick in edits towards a player's page once speculation in regard to a trade, signing, or other transaction arises in the media. To be clear, I understand many of these reports, tweets, and rumors don't actually come to fruition, but it gets to a point where such a strict system causes Wikipedia to appear as though the information isn't updated constantly and as soon as possible. Of course, it is important to be able to distinguish between something that is "almost a done deal" or "clear front runners" from "Player1 has been traded to City for Player2 and a future draft pick". These phrases are commonly used from reliable NBA insiders like Adrian Wojnarowski and Shams Charania with the third phrase very often indicating an official trade that comes to fruition shortly after. I am aware that ever so often (extremely rarely), there will be an "official" Woj or Shams report/tweet that ends up falling through, namely DeAndre Jordan in 2015, but these outliers shouldn't hold up the editing process of staying up to date with accurate and reliable information.
A perfect example of this, while there are many around this time in the off season, is Aron Baynes. Right now, Aron Baynes is listed as a member of the Boston Celtics on Wikipedia. Looking at the Boston Celtics official homepage, yes, Aron Baynes is still listed on the roster, but this trade was announced by Woj and Shams on draft night and effected the draft selections because the Celtics (technically the 76ers) were making the pick for the Phoenix Suns. The trade was generally reported as: "The Celtics are trading Aron Baynes and the No. 24 pick to the Suns for a future 2020 first round pick. The Suns are focused on Ty Jerome at No. 24." This trade has been reported on multiple times since draft night and in the eyes of the NBA and the players involved, it is a done deal. I'm sure there is some official date or rule that makes it so these trades are technically not "official" yet, but I think it is important not to mislead casual fans who are curious about what team a player is on at any given time. The NBA website has been known to be the last source you can go to when trying to figure out who is on what team, and to me it is honestly embarrassing. I understand that it may be because they wait for everything to be squared away perfectly, but I believe it hurts the reputation of the website and makes it very difficult for fans to keep up to date especially around this time of year.
Now, some of you might argue that Wiki should just go off of what the poorly managed NBA website has to say and when it updates rosters or announces trades, then it is okay for Wiki users to do the same. I don't agree with this at all strictly because the NBA website is always behind, but I'm not even sure that the NBA website is what wiki bases it's "official" edits on. Aron Baynes is listed as a Celtic on NBA.com, a Celtic on Wiki, and a Sun on ESPN. Ty Jerome, the No. 24 pick that was involved in the Baynes trade, is listed a 76er on NBA.com, a Sun on Wiki, and a Celtic on ESPN. Clearly, there is some discrepancy on what is official and when it becomes so, among other huge information platforms as well. Carsen Edwards, another draft day trade, is listed as a 76er on NBA.com, a Celtic on Wiki, and a Celtic on ESPN.
I am all for accurate and reliable information on Wikipedia, but I also believe people come to Wikipedia for updated information as well, especially for sports. Due to their resumes and positive reliability over many years, I believe that a report by Woj or Shams stating "Player1 has been traded" or "Team1 and Player1 have agreed to a stated contract", should be considered legit and therefore warrant an update on the player or players page(s). On the off chance that a reported done deal falls through, then these edits are easily revertible. When reports do start to come in, as they already have, moderators do a great job on getting protection on the pages so only certain people can make edits and I think this is necessary and important going forward if the community decides to go through with this idea. Please let me know any other suggestions, agreements, disagreements you all have. RichieConant34 ( talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, WP:SPORTSTRANS is followed, and deals are updated in the lead and infoboxes when the team announces the deal. On a per-case basis, the consensus is sometimes that a reported deal is significant enough to mention in prose e.g. Anthony Davis#Requesting a trade (2018–19) even before a team official has spoken on the record. However, it is clearly mentioned that it is "reported", and readers should not be misled that it's been completed. This only seems to become big deal during the offseason around the July moratorium, when breaking news about a big-time player occurs, but the league does not allow anything to be finalized for weeks. During the season, the team usually announces deals within a day or two, so there is generally no hurry to break news on Wikipedia.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Protection requests Another indication that there is no consensus for treating these "reports" as done deals are the multiple page protections today on NBA players who have reportedly reached agreements, but cannot sign until July 6 after the July moratorium.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@ RichieConant34 and Rockchalk717: Reagrding post-July moratorium, there was a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_26#Agreeing_to_vs._signing_a_contract (also referenced in WP:SPORTSTRANS) that suggested not bothering to revert if a player (or his agent) announced their intention to sign. No unnamed source—something directly attributed to a real person. It wasn't an endorsement to add anything before an official announcement, it was more to prevent edit churn with IPs or editors not aware of distinctions with anonymous sources or "agree to sign" vs "signed", etc. As with anything, it's not worth edit warring over. Discuss when there is a dispute. Cheers.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
warrants an edit. I was only suggesting a détente since some sources start to lax after the deadline and not preface these deals with like "reported", making it hard for honest editors. During the moratorium, a deal just can't be completed, and it's relatively easy to point editors to the league calendar.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Bagumba: Just as ESPN's website does, I continue to advocate for updates to player's pages once agreed upon terms are announced by reliable NBA insiders or sources (that is the player, the team, the player's agency, or a highly regarded NBA source, i.e. Woj or Shams). Yes, the potential for a change of decision or the change in scenarios is possible, but when compared to the amount of moves that are reported correctly, the latter outweighs the former tremendously (when/if these situations do arise, then pages are easily revertible). I am not wiki-savvy enough to create one myself, but I believe some sort of asterisk on a players page involving a reported or pending signing or transaction could be a possible solution to the edits wars that go on during this time. That way, someone searching for current information could easily see in a players info box that, for instance, Paul George is on the Los Angeles Clippers due to a reported trade, but making it clear that this trade is not technically official yet, still tying him to the Oklahoma City Thunder at this point. This reported info could come later on in the player's page, but I think it would be innovative and useful to provide complete and thorough facts to make it so Paul George could be listed as a Clipper on wiki (with the new colors and team in his infobox), but with an obvious asterisk. I reference ESPN because the NBA's website tends to be very behind on updating new rosters even after official team announcements making it a hard "source" to continue to defer to. With the unique ability to have continuous updates, Wikipedia should welcome the idea of providing this information during a confusing time for modest followers of the NBA. Maybe something along the lines of adding "official_team_announcement = no/yes" under the "team =" section, that way modest editors could easily see the difference in edits. A problem that continues to arise calls for change, and this policy needs revamping. Those are my current thoughts and I'm happy to provide any additional examples to support my claims if anyone doesn't fully understand my references. RichieConant34 ( talk) 16:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment I was out of pocket for the majority of this discussion, but I do want to register my opinions as I have clear ones on this issue. I get the zeal that some have to update player articles as soon as someone reports a deal. However, I have a number of issues with changing our consensus of waiting for an official team or league announcement. First, just the plain fact that these deals really aren’t final when only an agreement (not a signed contract) is in place. We see this every year - most recently this offseason with Marcus Morris, who agreed to terms with the Spurs (in a deal I bet Sharms and Woj reported) then reneged and actually signed with the Knicks. Why does this happen? Because deals aren’t actually official until the parties sign them and anything can happen until this occurs. If I put a contract down a house, I am not rightfully the owner of that home until I sign all the paperwork at closing. Likewise, a player isn’t a member of a team until he signs. I get that ESPN.com reports it, but remember that ESPN.com has a different mission than Wikipedia. ESPN is a sports news site (and further one that employs Woj so they have motivation to validate his scoops) while Wikipedia is explicitly NOTNEWS. It isn’t Wikipedia’s job to break news, it’s an encyclopedia meant to reflect valid, sourced reality. Adding signings before they are official are pretty clearly WP:CRYSTAL in my eyes. I also agree with comments about the FA moratorium - no one can sign before it is lifted so it isn’t accurant that they are a member of that team or in that roster until they are signed.
With respect to Woj and Sharms, I am very much opposed to picking a couple of so-called “experts” and deciding that their reporting of unannounced news should be treated as confirmation that something has/will happen. With respect to the football project, there are many places we disagree. It is instructive to know what other projects do, but long ago it became apparent that they could not agree on everything.
In short, the only consistent policy that makes sense to me given verifiability and Wikipedia purpose concerns is an official announcement by the team or league (on NBA.com or an official Twitter account). There are always cases where players change their minds, or teams shift priorities based on salary cap manipulation, or players are promised deals that could be for the parent club or a G League spot (series 10). I frankly don’t think it’s much if an issue that people heard the news Kevin Durant would sign with the Nets weeks before he did. It’s an encyclopedia, there is no obligation for it to be updated before other sites and I’d reckon player movement is typically documented minutes (if not seconds) after an official announcement. In high profile cases like LeBron last year or Durant this year, I’d be open to updating the prose on their widely reported deals, but not the infobox until official and not on roster templates. And we’d need to document the specific cases when this would be appropriate (e.g. if the signing is getting wide press for changing league dynamics, if the player is openly talking about playing for the team in social media like Kanter this year, etc.) Rikster2 ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
So to reiterate, what is the consensus for free agency signings moving forward? RichieConant34 ( talk) 20:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to establish a consensus regarding the listed jersey number for Summer League players who go on to sign a contract with an NBA team. For example, someone like Tacko Fall who signed an Exhibit 10 day contract after the 2019 NBA draft and went on to play for the Celtics during Summer League wearing number 55. The Celtics officially signed Fall on July 25 and he is listed without a number on the Celtics website along with other newly signed rookies, Javonte Green, Vincent Poirier, and Max Strus. I'm just using the Celtic's players as an example, but this goes for all/most NBA teams. Another example would be the Heat's forward Chris Silva who is listed as number 73 in his infobox on wiki, but has no number listed on the official Heat website. Should a jersey number be listed for signed players who do not have listed numbers on a team's official website, or does the summer league number suffice? RichieConant34 ( talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems that Juan Miguel U. Palero ( talk · contribs) has been adding trivial and non relevant content to team and basketball personnel pages for some time. SunCrow has already cleaned up Tim Duncan's page, but after further inspection I see that more pages are subject to the same additions. I am notifying everyone here, because I am unable to edit regularly due to my work. – Sabbatino ( talk) 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Juan Miguel U. Palero: I reverted your edits to the Los Angeles Lakers. Those details are too trivial for the general team article. Consider adding them to the respective Lakers' season articles, if those details were not already there. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 13:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I opened a move discussion at Talk:Charlie Brown (basketball) if anybody is interested in contributing. RichieConant34 ( talk) 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey y'all. I am just wondering if we should establish some consistency regarding the schedule tables for NBA season pages. For instance, the 2016–17 Oklahoma City Thunder season's links for say Miami would link to the 2016–17 Miami Heat season page. But later pages link to the Miami Heat. If this would be up for a discussion I would want to link it to the season as we do in college articles. Some season articles link the San Diego Rockets to Houston. This is one of those cases it should be consistent. But I would support consensus if it is deemed appropriate to simply link it to the main team page.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 14:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little curious as to why the dunk contest and 3 point contest titles are included in players' infoboxes, but the skills challenge title isn't. The three of them are contested on the same day, consecutively, and have been listed on infoboxes throught time, so, why have they been removed? Where was it decided? If there is no case of consensus to remove it, they should be included on players' infoboxes, or all 3 should be removed. Jay Starz ( talk) 19:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ UCO2009bluejay and Bagumba: Do you mind explaining why it's not a "defining" award? I think it is a defining award more so than other awards that are listed such as the NBA Sportsmanship Award, Second-team Parade All-American, FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship MVP, etc. Additionally, what makes this award less deserving of a spot in the info box than the dunk contest and 3-point contest? RichieConant34 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No, Richie's linked the articles as evidence that it is prevalent enough as a defining award. That would be enough to establish WP:GNG for inclusion of the information in a players' article. The fact that an "news" article exists is no reason that it should be included in an infobox, which was my argument. It is not a defining award. If anything his argument is borderline WP:FANCRUFT.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Legitimacy Nobody had said the Skills event is not real. There is just a disagreement whether it is worthy of mention in the infobox. It's already in the body in most cases. Per WP:ONUS, not everything that is true gets automatically included. It's up to those wanting inclusion to establish consensus.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Other events If the other AS events are not notable, get consensus to remove them; dont just add more cruft for "consistency". It's not WP:ALLORNOTHING. Wanting to remove all only if Skills is not included sounds WP:POINTY.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
In Favor I believe that the three main events on All Star Saturday night, the Skills Challenge, Slam Dunk Contest, and Three-Point Contest, all warrant inclusion in the infoboxes of winners due to the relevance and popularity of the awards. As it stands right now, 2 of those 3 awards are included in infoboxes, while the skills challenge is not, which does not make sense. I've gone into more details above. RichieConant34 ( talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
No vote, but more people remember Kobe winning the Slam Dunk Contest, then say, him being a part of the All-Defensive Team... Howard the Duck ( talk) 21:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.A lot of things are just accepted even though it was never discussed.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)