Talk:Women's National Basketball Association/Archive 1

Archive 1

Defunct vs Relocation

Should orlando and utah be listed as defunct teams since they relocated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.253.100 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Article Expansion

Expanded the article a little bit. Did a history write-up and changed the organization a bit. The Orlando and Utah team's aren't really defunct, they just moved so I don't think they count as defunct teams. -- jtalledo 04:32, 14 Nov 2004

3-point line

I'm pretty sure that starting with the 2004 season, the 3-pt. line was moved back from the NCAA standard of 19' 9" to the FIBA standard of 20' 5". Eric 20:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the 2005 WNBA Official rulebook , the distance is 20 ft. 5 in. But that's close enough. ;) Thanks for the heads up. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Fire-ing line

I've heard of a WNBA team the Fire? Have I heard wrong? Or have they gone bust? Trekphiler 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe they were the first WNBA expansion team to go under. See Portland Fire. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WNBA Awards

We only need to keep the current winners on the WNBA wiki page. -TheHoosierState89 — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Arguable"

The statement, "... Arguably most successful women’s professional team sports league" is not fit for an encyclopedia entry if left un-cited.

The phrase, "Arguably" is commonly used to insert an opinion while in the guise of a researched fact. If it is argued so, cite the source in which it is argued. If no source can be cited, then it is not fit for the entry. - Dan Kleinman 24.148.68.164 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

I reversed 226554831 based on the following.

The edit to the 'Media Coverage section by 70.187.230.74 added "Ratings are often very low." but no source was cited or given. Some numbers or statistic would help in backing up this claim. --$user log (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore?

"In 2008, the city of Baltimore, Maryland announced that when the new arena in the city is completed, a WNBA franchise may be "moved" to that location. There is no word on which franchise would be moved."

Any source? Brady4mvp (Talk to me) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dixon, WNBA reps have discussed franchise opportunities HoosierState^Talk 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge Step

"The WNBA made a huge step on May 23, 2000, when the Houston Comets became the first WNBA team to be invited to the White House Rose Garden."

Why is this a huge step? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.223.74 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is kind of funny wording, but I think it is a "huge step" because before that, only NBA teams were invited to the Rose Garden. It was perhaps a sign of recognition and progress for the league. Nickv1025 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible expansion teams

The city of Tulsa is the most important city with the possibility of WNBA expansion as the commissioner is coming to the city to discuss possible options. This should be first in list of possible expansion teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.241.43 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This is not a balanced article. The WNBA has experienced significant adversity and significant criticism since its inception, but one would never know that from the article.

Attendance has gone up and down? Mostly, it has gone down. It started around 10k and is now under 8k. Ideally attendance should INCREASE over the life of the league. But, the article is sure to let us know that attendance HAS increased sightly over the last couple years. Are you serious? The increase is tiny and most likely just random deviation.

Stern says the WNBA is doing better than the NBA? Yes, he said it, but he has always expressed absurd optimism about the WNBA. If the WNBA is really in better shape why are they still receiving 12 mil a year in subsidies from the NBA? Yeah some NBA teams don't make a profit right now but as a whole the league makes a ton, while the WNBA still loses money. Stern says they are on track to make a profit? How long has he been saying that? Every year. If attendance was 10k/year in year one and now is 8k and salaries have gone up, how do they become more profitable? Only because Stern and the NBA strongarm networks into paying TV rights fees to the WNBA by tying the NBA contract to the WNBA contract.

The labor stoppage in 2003 hurt the WNBA badly by attracting VERY negative publicity. There is ONE sentence on the stoppage in this article.

Criticism of the WNBA comes from all over the internet and the media as a whole. For example, Bill Simmons, a very popular and very mainstream ESPN writer, wrote a lengthy and scathing article about the WNBA a couple years ago. But there is no mention of criticism anywhere in this article.

I am adding the NPOV tag until these problems are addressed.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok good points. Attendance overall has not really gone down. Early on in the league's existence, there were three teams (New York, Washington, Los Angeles) with crazy high attendance. Throw in some 10,000+ games from Detroit, and you've got high attendance. The rest of the teams would have 3,000 on some nights and 8,000 on others. The attendance is much more stable now. Also, the franchises are more stable. Teams do not join and then leave within a few years anymore.

The WNBA is not in better shape than the NBA mostly. It is simply a more profitable investment in the bad economy. That's what Stern was saying. The NBA does not still pay 12 million dollar subsidies. That is absurd. Nearly half the teams are very close to breaking even and two or three even make a profit.

The WNBA contract with ESPN is not tied with the NBA contract. It was completely independent (whether or not Stern pushed it along was a different story). This article does show signs of criticisms. The article says attendance has "slightly" increased in the last two years. But any individual with half a brain would be able to look at the numbers in the chart directly below that paragraph to see that WNBA attendance is faltering. Bill Simmons is a moronic jock and should play no part in the discussion in this article. But I will otherwise work on talking more about the criticisms of the league in the coming days. Nickv1025 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have successfully addressed the POV problems in this article and I have removed the tag. Please alert me if there is anything else you believe should be changed. Thanks. Nickv1025 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that this article is still woefully unacceptable, and I agree with the original poster's sentiments. One of the most important things to note in this article are the WNBA's numerous failings and criticism, which the league has been marred by ever since its inception. The low quality of play, the dearth of fan interest, the ridicule by columnists, and the nonexistant profit margins are just a few of the numerous problems that are underaddressed or unaddressed in this article. Frankly the fact that the above poster's response to criticism is "Bill Simmons is a moronic jock" is proof positive that the main contributors to this article are inflating the relevance of their own opinions and downplaying the actual facts that ought to be contained within this article. There is plenty of room for both positive and negative contributions to this article, and not including the negative aspects would be like having a Richard Nixon page talking only about his foreign policy initiatives and leaving out Watergate. I am placing the NPOV tag back onto this page, and I believe it should not be taken down until proper sections are created that are dedicated to the myriad problems and criticisms that are very relevant to even the most rudimentary WNBA page. Prezuiwf (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This article and a lot of other WNBA-related articles need a considerable amount of work. But you can't compare it to an article on Richard Nixon, since it's a biography. It's more comparable to an article like Premier League. As for some of the points that have been made:

• Low quality of play - that's an opinion. Some people don't like the NBA play. Or NCAA basketball. That doesn't mean it's worth mentioning. If there's sufficient amount of criticism from reliable sources (e.g. not John Smith blogger from smalltime Midwestern newspaper X), then it might merit a "Reception" section.
• Dearth of fan interest - you'd have to cite specific numbers (e.g. financial data, television ratings, ticket sales), then you might add it to a "Reception" type section
• Ridicule by columnists - people make fun of everything, including the WNBA. People make fun of soccer in the States, but that doesn't make it worth mentioning in the article on association football.
• Profit margins - see "Dearth of fan interest"

Should the article cite some of the negative points? If there is a sufficient amount of reliable sources we can cite, absolutely. But any criticism should be integrated into a neutral "Reception" type section that outlines both the positive and negative responses to the league. Or even better, integrated into existing sections such as the history section. This isn't about listing everyone's gripe (or raves for that matter) about the WNBA. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Prezuiwf, I would have to agree with Jtalledo. The examples you use are low quality examples.

• It would be ignorant and unbelievably inaccurate to discuss the supposed "low quality of play" in an article about the league. Talk about point of view for goodness sake.
• For dearth of fan interest, there is plenty talked about that! Obviously you didn't read the article. There are sections devoted to attendance, merchandise and television ratings.
• As for ridicule by columnists, are you kidding me? Wikipedia is no place to talk about things like that. Columnists bash anything and everything. The WNBA gets bad media coverage just as it gets good media coverage.
• Profit margins are not shared with the public. But (again) if you read the article, you would know that there is information about how the WNBA has not turned a profit and many teams lose money. As a matter of fact, some teams actually make money. And now there is a new television deal that allows for rights fees (also mentioned in the article.

Prezuiwf, it really doesn't seem like you have read this entire article. It seems like you simply have beef with the WNBA and instead of editing something like "penis" on the main page as most WNBA haters do, you have simply taken a more diplomatic approach. And if you think a "Reception" section should be added to the article, why don't you add it? This is Wikipedia after all. My thinking is that you probably don't know as much about the WNBA as you should. Nickv1025 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I really don't get the point about this. Sure the league doesn't get high ratings like the NBA, sure some WNBA teams are not sisters to some NBA teams, sure the budget is low as of now unlike the NBA, but this is a women's league. The league is not exactly like the NBA. Not every NBA city also has a WNBA team. Do you guys expect for the WNBA to be more powerful and have a high budget like some other leagues may have in the U.S.?? It doesn't work that way. The league is just as fine as the NBA. It just doesn't have exactly everything like the NBA. I'm sure no one of you know anything about the WNBA like I do. When you guys think about this and realize that this is so unnecessary, you guys let me know. MR.Texan281 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Infonerd2216

This is an Ad, plain and simple, needs to be deleted and re written — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athomeonarock (talk • contribs) 03:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Lame statement

This statement doesn't add any value. Yeah, I now it cited but still just a rather un-thoughtful analysis by someone with apparently little knowledge of sports:

The nature of segregating female players into their own league has been criticized by British journalist Dominic Lawson, who says that desegregation of sports would "cut the Gordian knot of ambiguous sexual identities", and prevent controversies such as the one endured by track star Caster Semenya.

And just a quick Google will show that the NBA does allow a female players which makes this whole critic nonsensical. --MarsRover (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

2019 logo

@Sabbatino: An HTML comment says --The new logo will not be used until the 2020 season per a press release.--

Where does that press release say the new logo should not be used? And where is that press release? I found stories in High Post Hoops and ESPN. Neither one says we should not use this. Here is one version of the new one File:WNBA 2019 logo.png. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: First of all, "High Post Hoop" is not a reliable source just like anything that comes from "Fansided" network. Secondly, the ESPN's article clearly says that "It will debut this week in conjunction with Wednesday's draft, but the full rollout won't take place until the 2020 season." and "While the new branding will debut this week in social media and other areas, it won't actually appear on WNBA uniforms, basketballs or the court until 2020, Hedgpeth said, as the league will need more time for the complete transition." Pretty much the same is written by AP News – "hile the new logo won’t be on the uniforms or balls until next year because of the lack of production time needed to do it, it will be everywhere else around the league.", which comes from the WNBA's chief operating officer. In Wikipedia we do not use logos until they are fully used everywhere. In addition, I have all the versions in SVG format, which is the preferred format. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: That's fine to ditch Fansided. Where is this press release? Where is the rule that "in Wikipedia we do not use logos until they are fully used everywhere"? (And I'm curious, where did you get the 2019 logo in SVG? I'll delete mine.) It does nobody any good to drag our feet on this. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Regarding the press release, at this time I can only find an announcement about their partnership with AT&T, which does not say anything about the change of the logo so I believe the initial press release was either deleted or is buried somewhere between the other articles on the WNBA website. However, it does not mean that ESPN article is not credible, since they got their information from the WNBA itself. And the AP News is one of the most credible sources as some teams make AP News' articles as their official press releases.

The SVG format logo can be obtained from the WNBA's website. However, only the secondary logo is updated in the source, which is the same logo as you uploaded, while the primary logo (currently used in the infobox) is not updated and it is clear that it is still in use by the league. In addition, simply obtaining a SVG file does not solve the problem, because it has to be adapted in specific programs like Adobe Illustrator, Inkscape or any other programs that can open SVG files. All files also have to concur with the WP:IUP policy.

As for Where is the rule that "in Wikipedia we do not use logos until they are fully used everywhere"?, it is the general Wikipedia's understanding that something is not used until it is officially used by the entity. I remember back in 2017 or 2018 there was a situation with one team's logo when they announced the change during the season and even wrote that the change would not take place until the off-season, and editors were battling over a logo until there was a discussion, which determined that the new logo can be used after the season is over. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino:

• You don't have the press release to cite what you claim.
• You don't have a Wikipedia guideline to follow.

Your quote from the AP: "While the new logo won’t be on the uniforms or balls until next year because of the lack of production time needed to do it, it will be everywhere else around the league." Wikipedia is neither a uniform nor a ball, and it certainly is part of everywhere else. The 2019 season starts tomorrow, May 24. I have put in the PNG version. You are welcome to replace with SVG in the future. Looking quickly, the ball is on the right (the new logo) in the WNBA website, NBA Communications masthead, Facebook, WNBA Draft 2019, my ad (local interest) on CBS Sports Network, and WNBA League Pass. It would be embarrassing to see it on TV tomorrow night and not here. Thank you for all your hard work on basketball. I'm sure we will cross paths again. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: The fact that you are angry for no obvious reason does not help it. And it is not my fault that the press release at the WNBA's page was either deleted or moved somewhere else. In addition, there are two reliable sources where a comment from the league's official is visible so I advise you to read it again. And I am very well aware how the new logo looks like so there is no need to lecture me as I have seen it the day it was released. I have restored the SVG logo and updated it so you would stop bitching about it. Nonetheless, if that still does not satisfy then you ought to start a discussion at WT:NBA since WT:WNBA is dead and has been for a very long time. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Can you please give the source URL on File:WNBA_logo.svg? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why do you need it? The updated can be found at NBA G League's website at the top right corner. It does not have a direct URL, but can be obtained through browser's settings. As I said, the source of the main logo is not updated by the WNBA and will not be updated until 2020, and can only be found on other NBA-related pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sabbatino. I need it because I saw the 2019 logo in use on CBS TV, ABC TV, and ESPN TV. It didn't look like the one in Wikipedia. The source code of NBA G league calls this version an "icon." I am looking for the same source that the three networks used. Barring that, the designer's website might have a clue (for example, some prose) how they require the logo be used. Also I believe the URL on your file is for the old logo, so when somebody tags it with {{subst:image source}} it will be deleted in 48 hours. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Which logo are you referring to? The updated logo is visible in game recaps and other videos at the WNBA's website. The source, which I already changed to the updated one, at File:WNBA logo.svg has that logo. The old source (already removed) is just not updated, because as I already wrote many times to many people – the new logo will not be fully used until 2020. In addition, if you are referring to this logo then I will again repeat that this is the secondary logo of the league. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sylvain Labs gives the full logo in its list of clients. ESPN has its own new logo for WNBA on ESPN. CBS often uses the partial logo, woman sans words, full screen. I'll watch again tonight but I think sometimes CBS uses what you call secondary. Sports Logo History lists three types, Primary, Alternate, and Wordmark, however, they display the same logo in each spot. SportsLogos.Net makes more sense, with a huge ganged group of logos. But he says your secondary is primary. So much for fan sources. Because the word "secondary" appears in the URL, I believe you are right, Sabbatino. But I do not believe that the icon version we have should be used to represent the league overall. Look at the NBA icon next to the WNBA icon. It is not the same as the NBA masthead.. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where you are looking at but the WNBA and NBA logos at NBA G League and NBA Communications websites are the same as used at NBA and WNBA Wikipedia pages. If you have in mind the logos at NBA.com and WNBA.com then it is not the first time that a secondary logo has been used for the entity's website. This practice is also used by many sports teams. For example, Washington Wizards, Washington Capitals, and others. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote to the designers and hope they answer. This "nba-icon icon-wnba" icon looks like what we expect to see on basketballs and on merchandise and in this case when displaying the NBA affiliates. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sabbatino, we got an answer same day from New York City. I will add that reading from the file: "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey."

 Done -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Sabbatino, can you please help reduce the "nominal" size? I have software that will do this, but I do not know what change to make. The file seems to be 72ppi which is less than the last SVG which was 150ppi. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: While I am still opposed to the version of the logo that you imply on using, I did reduce its size. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Sabbatino. I can't publish the email from Sylvain Labs because of copyright but this is the designer who answered. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Finances

I've heard that the wnba didn't turn a profit the first several years after it was established but I'm not a good source on the issue. Does anyone have info on the wnba's finances?Vicarious — Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The June 7 article in the New York Post entitled "WNBA Driving Toward Profit" states that as of 2005, the league has yet to turn a profit but hopes to become profitable by 2006 or 2007 (I don't fully remember the stated year). --Jtalledo (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The most recent edit, regarding inflating attendance figures with free tix, is consistent with my own understanding but it needs a cite. Decafdyke 13:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New update regarding David Stern's comment. In this bad economy, the WNBA is supposedly more profitable than the NBA and is looking to break even this season (probably in part thanks to the new TV deal with ESPN). Nickv1025 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a source that talks about the league wide losses for 2010 in the WNBA, I will work on adding this information to this section of the article. Here is the source, it is a scholarly article, Walker, M. & Sartore, M. & MacIntosh, E. (2012). Beyond the “Business Case” for the WNBA: A Strategic Perspectives Approach for League Sustainability. Journal of Contemporary Athletics. 6. 1-18. --CeceK15 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WNBA vaccination rates

I'm not sure where this should go. —valereee (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 10 am

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Batooldembinski, Seashellll218, Diego CD (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Violetlopaze6, Hcn27, Ars222.

— Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Gender pay gap

We added a section under "Business" and specifically the salary and revenue section to discuss the wage gap between the NBA and the WNBA. It covers the difference in player salaries, league advertisement deals and sponsorships, PMAs, NBA involvement in the league, and how the league is moving forward. Seashellll218 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"The W"

I had to revert a false claim by another user on the main page, but, yes, the WNBA colloquially goes by "The W". It's written on their website @wnba.com. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:BOLDSYN, “Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold.”

Significant on Wikipedia refers to being used regularly in reliable sources. In my experience reading about sports, “The W” is infrequently used by reliable sources as an alternative name for the WNBA. Also, it does not and should not redirect to this page, which is another indicator that it probably doesn’t belong as an alternative name in the first sentence.

Therefore, I maintain this alternative name of “The W” that was newly added to the first sentence last week should be deleted. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's on their website! --> http://www.wnba.com 72.174.131.123 (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I could - but I'm not going to - relay a number of online interviews with the WNBA management and future/current players referring to the league as "The W". Colloquy and nicknaming are two different things; as one is more broadly/generally accepted than the other. In this case, "The W" is a colloquialism, and more than just a nickname.

Besides, https://www.wnba.com/history

If you want the article to be more thorough, talk about how the WNBA is the hardest major sports league to get into, just based on the 120-132 person roster limits. It should also be mentioned that their per season payscale is actually greater than that of the NBA (in terms of base salary) because the men play more games in a longer season. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not disputing that some refer to the WNBA as “The W.” I am only arguing that it is not significant enough to be an alternative name listed in the lead sentence (and by extension, as a redirect to this page).

Also note that per WP:RS, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, so the WNBA website and interviews with those affiliated with the WNBA should not carry much weight in making this determination. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You yourself can do the heavy lifting if you need secondary source vouchers.

The lede doesn't say ".. also called The W", it states that it is a colloquy. And, yes, a redirect (good idea💡) should at least point to a DISAMB page. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I did a short search but was unable to find anything that backs up the claim that the WNBA is significantly known as the W. Furthermore, when an editor puts forward a claim like this they also have to do the "heavy lifting" bring forward sources that show that the league is significantly known under that name. Alvaldi (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• I saw this because of the 3PO request. There's already 3 people involved. Unless there's consensus to include this information it should remain out. I have removed it until that consensus changes. So far I don't see much evidence to justify inclusion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of the section titled "All-time franchise history (through 2017)". It is 2024.

Does this section need updating? I'm very confused and adding a section update tag request.

CNC33 (. . .talk) 05:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed Toronto for now

Just a heads up, but I removed the references to Toronto WNBA team for now, in line with how other breaking sports news is handled (ala Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions). As of May 14, we had no confirmation of a franchise being granted by either the WNBA and the Kilmer Group, with the former stating discussions with Toronto-based groups are ongoing, and the Kilmer Group stating no updates at this time. The final negotiations part is echoed in ESPN's last report on the issue (May 10).

I also redirect Toronto WNBA team to Larry Tanenbaum#Sports for now (redirected to speculated purchaser was what was done when the Utah NHL team was made prematurely, though if one can think of a better article to redirect, by all means).

In any case, the official announcement is expected May 23, so feel free to revert that all then I guess (or earlier if it happens earlier). Leventio (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Attendance

The “Attendance” section needs a serious rewrite. It randomly begins with the 2012 season and the second paragraph suggests that the 2015 season has not happened yet. 2600:1007:B085:61CE:53A:8F8:3598:3781 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I reworked the Attendance section. I'm a relatively new editor and would love an additional set of eyes on it though. Shaynaalice (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of date business section?

I'm not super informed but in mid 2024 it is jarring to read "The league has begun to do better financially in recent years. In December 2010, Donna Orender said that the league had its first-ever "cash flow positive" team during the 2010 season."

I don't think a section should start with "recent years" then list stats from more than a decade ago. 2607:FEA8:F8E1:8100:B5B2:E60D:DC9A:FCEC (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on this section because I agree. "Activism" doesn't feel like it belongs under "Business." Any objections to turning "Activism" into its own heading? Shaynaalice (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Add Golden State Valkyries

Would someone please add the Valkyries to the WNBA teams labeled map? Alielmi1207 (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, at what point should the team be moved from the Planned WNBA teams section to the Overview of WNBA teams section? Alielmi1207 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

NBA counterparts

LA Sparks is listed as one of the WNBA teams with a direct NBA counterpart. However, the LA Sparks Wikipedia page states that “the Sparks have the distinction of not being affiliated with an NBA counterpart.” Need to either clarify that they share the same market as NBA team and/or remove it from that group. 50.237.13.62 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Replying here because it is relevant to the heading. I would like to propose moving the second paragraph of the wiki article regarding NBA team counterparts further down the page. I think a sentence that describes the WNBA's affiliation with the NBA is appropriate in the intro, but having half of the entire intro be framing the WNBA in terms of NBA teams seems almost disrespectful. For reference, the NBA article first mentions the WNBA under the Bulls Dynasty heading and is only mentioned 4 times in total.

Some topics we could cover instead: the impressive longevity of the league compared to other women's sports leagues, the impact it has had on college athletes to have a professional career to work towards, the activism that the WNBA is well-known for, who is the current champion or who is the winningest team in WNBA history, information on the front office or player's association, include the Commissioner's Cup etc. Shaynaalice (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, it truly isn't relevant enough to take up half of the intro, and even in terms of style it goes to an unnecessary level of detail to belong there. As for the possible replacement, the topics you brought up sound reasonable to me, since I'd say in general the inspiration should be the NBA intro (the current champion or the winningest team, as you mentioned) + things distinctive and noteworthy to the W (the longevity, impact, activism...). There is by definition not even much we could be inspired by for the latter topics, so one cannot go wrong as long as it's relevant and brief imo. Nvmea (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. The entire second paragraph could be moved to the Relationship with NBA teams section or just deleted altogether as it seems unnecessary. Alielmi1207 (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved the Relationship with NBA teams section further down the article Alielmi1207 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I also moved the second paragraph of the intro under the Relationship with NBA teams section Alielmi1207 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)