Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Lakers 1980s

what about the Lakers edit in the 1980s? I saw one edit before I thought it was really good and it may work cause it had all the imformation about the organzation and team

1979-1991: Dr. Jerry Buss, Coach Pat Riley, and Showtime 1980s - The Magic Johnson era

1980-1991: "Showtime" dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

can we put 1979-1991: Dr. Jerry Buss, Coach Pat Riley, and Showtime 1980s - The Magic Johnson era? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Speller: I advise you to read WP:FORUMSHOP before continuing, because that is what you are doing and have been doing for quite some time. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

this is the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to put 1979-1991: Dr. Jerry Buss, Coach Pat Riley, and Showtime 1980s - The Magic Johnson era because Jerry Buss bought the team in 1979, Magic Johnson was a rookie in 1979, and Pat Riley was the coach of all 1980s except for 1980. Them 4 was was the ones that started "Showtime" and the other players as well. If it wasn't for Jerry Buss and Pat it wouldn't be a "Showtime" so shouldn't they be included in the era 1979-1991? The Speller (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

List of teams seasons

How should the "1999–2000 Team X season" be listed in the table at team season's page (for example, List of Brooklyn Nets seasons)? MOS:DATERANGE permits listing the "Two-digit ending years" in tables as the space is limited (the "mighty" consistency argument is also mentioned there). However, seeing that 1999 and 2000 are in different millenniums it does not make sense to list it as "1999–00 Team X season". Any ideas on this matter? – Sabbatino (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with 1999–00. AFAICS, it was not a problem when related season FLs were approved, and has only been challenged recently by an IP's mass changes. It makes for a consistent xxxx-xx format in the column. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out what the "00" represents when all the seasons are listed sequentially. There is nothing contrary in MOS:DATERANGE.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware of this IP changing the seasons from "1999–00" to "1999–2000". I saw some other IP making this change and was OK with it until Giants2008 changed it back to "1999–00" today to which I disagreed. But since there is nothing wrong with it and seeing that the NBA itself are using the "1999–00" formation, I have no problem with it. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 in basketball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 in basketball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 in basketball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Positions on roster templates

At Template:Golden State Warriors roster, ItChEE40 has changed players' positions based on the play-by-play data at basketball-reference.com. For example, "forward" was added for Klay Thompson, usually thought of as a guard, presumably because b-r.com estimates he's played there 21% thoughout his career A couple of thoughts:

  1. This is contrary to the "Roster" link of these templates, which typicaly points to NBA.com as as the implied source (e.g. http://www.nba.com/warriors/roster/). I suppose we could come up with something if it is desirable to incorporate multiple sources.
  2. While I could be convinced to somehow use positions from b-r.com's roster listings (e.g. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_roster), I think it's WP:UNDUE to start listing minor positions based on their play-by-play data. It's an arbitrary (WP:OR) cutoff to decide that F should be listed for someone like Thompson, when the majority of sources refer to him as a guard only.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot we were going by the official listings for positions, too. I suppose if you wanted to discuss it still, it would be worthwhile as players like Kevon Looney do have a predominate second position which isn't officially listed. ItChEE40 (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@ItChEE40: No worries. FWIW, the last discussion on positions (which also mentioned Looney) was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#Player_positions_(again). I never bothered to go back and add C to his bio's infobox, though it's discussed in prose. I do find it strange that Kerr frequently calls him a center but the team doesn't list him as one.—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
So, would the right way to go be only use extra positions from br.com if a player plays there more than 40% time or so? That would eliminate guys like Thompson and McKinnie but still leave Looney and Green up for debate. ItChEE40 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
On a different note, do we currently use the injured icon on the templates? Damian Jones could use one if it is the case. ItChEE40 (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is any objection. More the case that nobody's gotten to it probably.—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There doesnt seem to be an easy explanation on *how* to do it though, and the file isnt even there when you edit, can see why no one bothers. ItChEE40 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Lakers 2010s

So it's not name Post-Bryant era anymore? 'Recent years' don't make sense, it sounds like it's not complete. Or suggestion 2013-present: Missing the playoffs or Difficult years or Rock bottom sounds more like it --The Speller (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should put one of those on the article till they make the playoffs The Speller (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I would rather have Post-Bryant era than Recent years on the article The Speller (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we please get a different title for the 2016-present history article other than 'Recent years'? Anything. The Speller (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe suggestions? Post-Bryant era

Continued struggles

New front office; Continued struggles The Speller (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

How about 2016–present Yosemiter (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's good The Speller (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How about 2016-2018? Because whenever it's time to put 2018-present: The LeBron James era it'll be 2016-2018 soon anyway so shouldn't we might as well put it on here? The Speller (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speller (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Speller: How about you stop beating a dead horse? LeBron hasn't even played for the last month. (Also, you should know by now to sign your comments, especially since that is the majority of your edits.) Yosemiter (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemitter it don't matter if he hasn't played a month or a day, as good as he is when LeBron James is on any team it's a LeBron James era for them The Speller (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

What to do with high schools in team rosters?

Please see Template talk:College for a discussion of what to do when Template:College is used to list the high school that a player went to instead of a college or university, typically because the player did not attend college at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Jordan averaging triple-double as HS senior

FYI

Michael Jordan buffs are invited to discuss whether he averaged a triple-double or not as a high school senior at Talk:Michael_Jordan#Senior_Year_of_High_School_Stats_Are_Incorrect.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing needed

The article for Charley Parks, who played in the ABA for the Denver Rockets during the 1968–69 season, has no sources. The article was WP:PRODed. I removed the PROD but haven’t had time to go back and research sources for the article, and probably won’t be able to until mid/late next week. I am hopeful that some project contributors might be able to help out with improving the article. If adequate sources can’t be found, I imagine it will be WP:AfDed. Thanks for any help. Rikster2 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the Google result snippets (from newspapers.com and similar sites), it seems that his name was variously spelled as "Charley" or "Charlie". I don't have immediate access to most of those sources, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a few sources. He's referred to as Charles in college coverage, and is also the same name listed in basketball-reference.com. It seems to have been the convention in early Wikipedia days to pick any ol nickname or use the full name instead of using parenthetical dismbiguation like Charles Parks (basketball). With only 2 games in ABA, I doubt if "Charley" became popular.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think there is any issue with moving the article. Thanks for adding the souuces. Rikster2 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Charles Parks (basketball), though in hindsight one could argue WP:NATURALDIS and move it to Charlie Parks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

When should the team name be proceeded by an arrow (→) and indentation

I've seen most G-League teams have the arrow indication and indentation, but I also see that some foreign teams have it as well. For example, Clínicas Rincón on Alex Abrines page. When is this supposed to be used, and when should it be excluded. I personally believe it should indicate G-League teams that the player has played for while NBA teams and other country teams should remain "normal". RichieConant34 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Other leagues “loan” players out and this is what the arrow means for (primarily) European clubs. Rikster2 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Since European teams usually follow similar conventions as soccer clubs in Europe, which allow for loaning players to other clubs, the indenting arrows for foreign clubs indicate that the player was loaned to the indented club by the previous non-indented club. Meanwhile the indenting arrows for D-/G-League teams are for when the player is assigned to the G-League affiliate under the terms of the two-way contracts they now have or as part of an injury rehabilitation. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looks like I was beaten to the punch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oknazevad (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Children's names and birth dates

FYI

Your input is welcome at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Children's_names_and_birthdates, which involves some bios related to this project.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

High school All-Star Games in infobox

As far as I can tell, most NBA articles list McDonald's All-American and the defunct Parade All-American in a bio's infobox. Can we formalize this at WP:NBASTYLE, adding to the already listed major national player of the year awards and State Mr. Basketball awards? I dont see much traction for Jordan Brand Classic or Nike Hoop Summit, which also don't get as much press.—Bagumba (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Colors removed in NBA pages and templates

A user has come and removed colors for all templates at Category:National Basketball Association team navigational boxes citing WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues. In addition, pages at Category:National Basketball Association accomplishments and records by team have also been affected for the very same reason. How will we handle this situation? – Sabbatino (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I’m neutral on this, but I’m thinking listing the colors in word form only might be a fair compromise. SportsFan007 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007
Do we understand what the issue is? I know that Template:NBA color shows the contrast ratios, which all appear to be >3. What else is missing?—Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, why don’t we ask the editor, because once again I find myself asking why basketball is being singled out vs. literally every other major sport. Rikster2 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Please explain your changes to the members of this project. You did all those changes in good faith, but we include the colors for a reason and they are not made up. These changes affect more than just NBA or basketball pages in general. There are also such templates at Category:National Hockey League teams navigational boxes, Category:National Football League team navigational boxes and Category:Major League Baseball team navigational boxes, so I assume you would do that for them too at some point, which would just create a very big joint (or not) discussion for the four projects. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about what happens with the other projects. If there's something we're not following in guideline WP:ACCESSIBILITY which could make it easier to navigate for all readers, I'm all for seeing what can be done. What I don't need is flooding my watchlist with another round of reverts without knowing what the issue is. Thanks Sabbatino for initiating this.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for inquiring. A 3:1 contrast ratio is required between links and surrounding text. The revisions in question have a contrast ratio of 1:1, which is, needless to say, not compliant. The navigational templates don't need to use the default navbox colors, of course, but that ought to be the fallback until a compliant color scheme can be implemented. --Bsherr (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bagumba (talk). A quick check at Template:NBA color reveals that yes, all the teams' colors have a contrast ratio greater than 3 (>3). Unless Bsherr (talk) can gain consensus from all the other editors involved, then we should probably leave it as-is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's go through it step by step? Choose any navigational template. What color is the text in the template? What color is the hyperlinked text in the template? If they are the same color (i.e. a 1:1 contrast ratio), that is not compliant. --Bsherr (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The point of the link on a template header is not to have it look like a link. Can you quote the exact part of WP:ACCESSIBILITY that is being violated - for templates specifically? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, if the issue is the title bar then let’s just go back to the team colors and not do links in the title bar. I think this is a stupid move to make, but Wikipedia has a lot of stupid rules so if this gets us past this one then I think team colors matter more than linking the title. Rikster2 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color: Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. From Help:Link color: Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons. From MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR: Colors used in templates such as navboxes and infoboxes, and in tables, should not make reading difficult, including for colorblind or otherwise visually impaired readers. And then there's WCAG, the guidelines incorporated by reference into WP:ACCESSIBILITY.
Removing the link from the title of the navigational template only addresses part of the problem. The links in the top, bottom, and group heading parts of the navigational templates are also noncompliant. The color scheme also breaks the color differentiation in the navbox VTE links. --Bsherr (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no issue with reading the links - they are very legible. The issue is that the links don’t look like links. Seriously, my guess is there are plenty of other templates in exactly the same situation. You should open up a broader discussion instead of just running around converting these. This would give projects an opportunity to correct whatever issues exist. It is not a minor change. Gawd, this place sometimes. Rikster2 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You have it backwards. There are already guidelines, above. These templates are not consistent with those guidelines. If you think the guidelines should change, you should start a discussion to do that at WP:ACCESSIBILITY. But more to the point, these templates do not meet the guidelines that make sure they are accessible to persons with visual impairments. Why wouldn't anyone want them to be inaccessible? Because the inaccessible templates look prettier? --Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
What we have is your interpretation of a guideline, yes. BTW this same issue exists with nearly every sport. Again, if the objective is to actually solve real issues for Wikipedia readers, then a better approach would be to try to convene an RfC so that affected projects can try to figure out a solution that solves true problems and can also met the aims of the projects. Rikster2 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, Your quoting the guideline does not tell me specifically why the templates would be hard to read for visually impaired readers. The contrast between background and text meets the guideline, it’s the difference between color of plain text and color of a link that isn’t - I’m having trouble understanding why that’s actually hard to read. It may have other issues, but seems like it should be readable.Rikster2 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If I understand Bsherr's concerns correctly, the main (only?) problem is that some color links are not distinguishable from regular text. It seems that this would not be a problem for blind and non-visual readers, as they would be using a device that detects links non-visually. For those who are reading directly from the screen, none of them have cues that they are links, whether it be for those who can see color, or those who are partially or fully color blind. All visual readers are currently relying on established conventions of VTE and title bar links existing, or just mouse hovering (non-mobile users) over text or clicking by trial and error. Is that a fair assessment of the current color situation?—Bagumba (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. And yes, it is a problem. That's why Wikipedia has a guideline proscribing it, and W3C has a guideline proscribing it. Readability is only one part of accessibility. Navigability is another. And not all accessibility issues are about color blindness, or visual impairment at all. If the links and text are exactly the same color, yes, it is impossible for any user visually to identify them passively. Bagumba mentions "hover-on" behavior of hyperlinks, that some browsers underline or recolor a link when it is hovered over. This by itself is an unacceptable solution, according to both Wikipedia and WCAG. Some users have an oversize cursor. For short links, the oversize cursor can obscure the underlining, making the link difficult to identify. Some users do not use an input device that hovers at all, instead tabbing through links. But tabbing to find a link is not an accessible solution because, if the link is not there, tabbing causes the focus to advance to the next link, which is hugely disruptive for a user trying to read the page and identify navigation choices at the same time.
But Wikipedia guidelines proscribe recoloring links for aesthetic purposes only also because it defeats the interface features. For users viewing Wikipedia using the unmodified vector skin, links display in one of seven colors to distinguish the target of the link. Overriding the link color defeats this feature. --Bsherr (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

For the link issue, specifically that there is no visual indication for some of the links in the current design, here are some initial options that come to mind:

  1. Ensure background is white whereever links occur
  2. Do not change existing coloring, instead move problematic links to existing white background area, or remove those links altogether
  3. Remove all customized coloring and use defaults

The problem every custom color navbox currently has is that the main link in the title has no indication that it is a link. We could go with option 2 and move it, but that results in repeated text in the navbox: 1) the intitial text in the title and 2) the same or similiar text in the link somewhere else. The initial instance would not be linked, similar to what happened with the team name in bio infoboxes. However, one could make the argument that a link for the main title is optional if it's already introduced in the article per MOS:REPEATLINK. Unless it's the case of WP:TEMPLATECREEP, I'd imagine the topic of a navbox was already so important that it is reasonable to assume it's already in the body. That would generally be the case for a team at least. As for the VTE links, they can be disabled at Template:Navbox, so I'm not sure that there is any guideline that they have to exist. Moreover, these seem like features for editors, not readers. It could be reasonable to assume that a Wikipedia editor who actually knows what VTE means, would inherently knows it's a link without any indicators needed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of those choices, I prefer option 2. If you want to see a example of option 1, hockey does it - check out Template:Pittsburgh Penguins. Personally I think both option 1 and option 3 look pretty bad, but if option 2 isn’t workable either is better than nothing. Again, this is a bigger issue as it exists with every major sport except hockey. Rikster2 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The solution doesn't have to be so radical. Just choose background colors that, when used with Wikipedia's default link colors, result in compliant contrast ratios. For example, if a team's colors are blue and orange, use blue and orange instead. And until then, use the default navbox colors. --Bsherr (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguator for Larry Miller (sports_executive)

FYI

Larry Miller (sports_executive) was president of the Portland Trail Blazers for five years, but has otherwise spent most of his career as an exec with Jordan Brand/Nike. Is that really a sports executive? Secondly, the "(sports executive)" is ambiguous with Larry H. Miller, the longtime Utah Jazz owner. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Disambiguator_for_Larry_Miller_(sports_executive).—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Basketball Tournament" discussion

Please consider providing comments at WT:BBALL for a discussion on The Basketball Tournament and such info being in basketball player articles. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

National Basketball Association accomplishments and records by team

The category, Category:National Basketball Association accomplishments and records by team, only has accomplishments and records for 18 teams. The other teams have this section directly inside the article for their team (e.g. Indiana Pacers#Franchise records and individual awards). Furthermore, these sections are usually all in different formats, with some pages listing a base set of statistics (San Antonio Spurs#Franchise leaders) and some listing a plethora of them (Toronto Raptors accomplishments and records). I think we need an agreed-upon standard for these statistics, and we should decide whether they should exist in a separate page or in the team page. 400spartans (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I just found that the previous general managers names were removed from NBA templates. I wasn't part of the original discussion (see here) but I was wondering what should happen to the names of previous general managers. For example: Boston_Celtics#General_managers currently has all of the GMs in history, but other teams like Cleveland Cavaliers don't. Should sections be made on the general managers for the main page of each NBA team? I understand having them removed in their respective main templates, but wonder if the information should be included elsewhere. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: The reason why some pages lack information about their general managers is either that there are no sources to verify it or people just do not feel the need to add it. You could add it if there are sources about it. However, there are cases when general managers do not have a Wikipedia pages, but that should not be a problem. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

NBA teams

Do y'all think we should add all the playoff appearances for every team? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you proposing? Each team's season list (e.g. List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons) should already have this.—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
You know like on College Basketball teams articles it's got all their NCAA Tournament appearances. Should we add NBA playoffs appearances years to NBA teams? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sports Fan 1997: (Please WP:INDENT your responses.) I would think it would just be clutter the infobox, if that is what you mean. Opposed to the NCAA tournament, where a small percentage of Div I teams qualify per season, for most of the NBA's existence about half of all teams qualify each season. In other words, teams like UCLA Bruins men's basketball and Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, with their long lists are exceptions as most of the other hundreds of teams only have a few appearances. For the NBA, even historically mediocre teams, such as Los Angeles Clippers off the top of my head, would still have 13 listings (not to mention the high end with the Lakers 59). Most others would be much longer, such as the typically middle-of-the-pack Milwaukee Bucks with 30. In the NCAA, it is an accomplishment to qualify; in the NBA, making the playoffs means the team is average and above. Yosemiter (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice: I just want to point out that the creator of this discussion was known as "The Speller" not long ago who created problems regarding the Los Angeles Lakers' history.
Moving on to the subject. We do not need to list the playoff appearances since there is already a page for that and that would just be a subject of edit warring and/or disruptive editing. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sabbatino Where's the page at for that? Also nobody created problems for the article, it's just buisness. And you're trying to cause problems for nothing. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
And yes this is me, you can see on the articles on the edit history Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I will also note that you should use WP:INDENT like Yosemiter wrote. In addition, comment on content and not on editors. I just wanted to notify other editors in this discussion due to your troubled past. The playoff appearances (either total or some record) can be found in prose at respective team's page (for example, the Spurs' 22-season playoff streak) or at team's seasons' page (for example, List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons). Listing every playoff appearance in the infobox or even prose is excessive, because sometimes less is better. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
If we're talking about adding a list of every appearance to the infobox, I'd say no, as I agree with Sabbatino. Since college basketball was used as an example for this proposal, I'd like to point out my dislike for how Duke Blue Devils men's basketball's infobox is stretched so far down because of the sprawling, round-by-round lists of numbers that less than one infobox height below it, you have the actual table of their season-by-season results. It's redundant and distracting; the vast majority of the infobox content if you exclude headings is just digits, and infoboxes aren't meant to be stats tables. At the very most, I would have a single number for how many times they appeared rather than a list, and enforce it such that only an integer can be provided. —LOL T/C 16:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The parameter for playoff appearances was added back in April 2014 but I have not seen any professional teams' infoboxes that use the parameter. Even the team linked in the edit summary by the editor does not use it. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of having the Round of 32 (second round appearances) as part of teams info boxes, it's not really that big. I see on some of these 'top basketball schools powerhouse' like Duke, Kentucky, etc don't even have Second round appearances on here, but it does on some. I guess since it's not that big of an accomplishment? I think the only rounds that should be on here is - NCAA Tournament appearances, Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, runner-up, NCAA Tournament champions. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Turnover records

Tyus Jones set the NBA single-season assists:turnover ratio record (6.96, min 200 assists). He also had a streak of 129:18 without a turnover (http://www.espn.com/nba/recap?gameId=401071887). Was this a record?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who holds the record, but Shane Battier seems to have had a longer streak: Reddit discussion Zagalejo^^^ 01:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Automating updates of career statistics

Hello people of WPNBA. I've just finished programming a bot that would automate addition/updates of career statistics. I have two questions:

  1. Would you find it useful?
  2. If you would, do you prefer it would run at the end of the season or constantly check throughout the season

Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Which statistics would be updated? Is it for players? Coaches? Teams? All of them? If it works without errors then I would be for the usage of such bot. And the statistics should be updated after the season is over since that is how we handle them. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Right now, it's for players only. It uses data from stats.nba.com. See for example this edit. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I no longer edit basketball articles on a regular basis, but I would have loved something like this back in 2011/2012! Even if it's just done at the end of the season, that would save a huge amount of tedious work. Zagalejo^^^ 23:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with end of season for players, which is current practice. Is it capable of generating stats for 1st year players with no existing table?—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Just added it, see diff. There would have to be a 'career statistics' section though. Dat GuyTalkContribs 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I must also note that the percentages for field goals, 3-pointers and free throws should have a format of .123, which is omitted in your given example (the addition of the 2018–19 season's line). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Changed. Dat GuyTalkContribs 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
End of season is essential. What would people think of end of month mid-season updates?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
EOS only for bios. A bot doing monthly can only temp a person to do it more frequently. I'm generally against churning with edits with "news" that becomes quickly dated. Annual stats endure, others don't.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Format changes to HOF, retired numbers and draft picks tables

Bsherr (talk · contribs) is again running around and changing formats of various tables citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables as the justification for its actions when it does not force the editors to use that format. At this point, the affected pages are Brooklyn Nets accomplishments and records (if I remember, editors were against the creation of such pages) and 2018–19 Brooklyn Nets season. – Sabbatino (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tables should generally support MOS:ACCESS, so would need more details on the specific conflict(s).—Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The editor suggests that this is better than this (both HOF and retired numbers tables) and that this is better than this (draft picks table). While I do not necessarily disagree with the changes, but the biggest concern is the useless coloring of the "Name", "No." and "Round" columns, which comes from using ! scope="row"|ABC (the ! mark causes the coloring and the bolding). On a side note, I believe that the HOF tables should be converted to lists instead as some teams' tables (L.A. Lakers, Boston Celtics, Atlanta Hawks, etc.) just look horrible and the list would serve it better. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The "useless coloring" to which Sabbatino refers is the behavior of the "wikitable" class. Its use is specified by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Formatting, which is a guideline. (And the "coloring" is not useless. It is used to distinguish headers in the table.) All I am doing is adding row and column headers, scopes, and captions, which are required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables, also a guideline. I am not changing how they are rendered; they are being rendered as the wikitable class would render them. So long as the tables conform to the manual of style and other guidelines, Sabbatino can make them as pretty as he wants. If Sabbatino wishes to change the appearance of the wikitable class, he should commence a discussion, probably at WP:VP/PR, given the enormity of that change. --Bsherr (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Bsherr's changes to use the table syntax for captions (as opposed to placing them in a row) seems in line with Help:Table caption.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Just to make it clear. I am not against the changes that you made. And I am not trying to "make them as pretty as I want", because all I did was restore the version, which is used on all NBA pages. You were WP:BOLD, then your changes were reverted, but you did not try to start a discussion as you should have per WP:BRD. You also reinstated your version according to guidelines (there is nothing wrong with that), but you did not include the full list of people, which implies that you are unfamiliar with the subject. In addition, the biggest reason why I started this discussion is because these changes affect all NBA pages, and not just them, but all basketball pages if I was to be precise. It is generally an act of good faith to notify the project about the major changes that an editor is going to do in order to get opinions from the members of the project and see how they feel about it. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please weigh in on a suggested change at 2019 NBA draft

I have a suggestion for how to handle early entry candidates given the new rules around agents. Please weigh in with your thoughts here - Talk:2019 NBA draft#Suggestion. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Post-Bryant era

So what are we gonna do about the new header? Are we gonna wait until they make the playoffs again? Or are we gonna do it soon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Lakers Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

List of 40-plus point games by Michael Jordan

The newly-created List of 40-plus point games by Michael Jordan page has been nominated for deletion. Please state your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 40-plus point games by Michael Jordan. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Roster templates

May we please reconsider having two sets of rosters? Two means that somebody has to manually sort a list of names once a year at minimum into a team list and a current team list. KISS is a basic principle of maintenance. I have heard the argument that one looks better which amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is just another argument without end. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

what are you referring to? Can you provide links? Is this referring to roster templates and current roster templates? Rikster2 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, thank you, Rikster2. Better to maintain one list in one order. Here is discussion from last year. Why do you think Wikipedia presents two versions? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think they serve two purposes. The current roster template is used in player and coach rosters and is essentially a navigation aid between those articles. The more detailed roster page is used on the team and current season pages to show who is on the team. I haven’t seen a big problem with maintaining these for the NBA and would suggest both are useful. Rikster2 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
They do serve two separate purposes, one as list to be used on multiple pages and the other as a minimalist navigational template on player pages. Most sports wikipedia projects use both (if not even more), but there are arguments that the main list already serves as a navigational tool and the players would already be wikilinked on their page to the team. I believe of the big four sports in the US and Canada, only ice hockey does not use both as that project prefers less footer clutter. I have seen much worse repetition in tables than these two uses, so I don't see this as a major problem for updating. Yosemiter (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I found three WNBA teams out of sync last year, with slightly different players in the roster and the current roster, sometimes off by one. I have to concentrate hard on not making errors. If a simple way existed in a text editor to switch between orders it would be easy to defend as many versions as you would like. Requiring alpha order and numerical order is only possible because of human manual labor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so it is a WNBA issue? In my experience, that subject does not have the same quantity of editors in order to keep everything up to date as the NBA. Your argument then isn't that there are too many tables, it is that they are prone to be out of date and the footer template should therefore be deleted via MOS:DATED. If a subject described as current is not maintainable as "current", then it should either have an "As of" or not used at all. The footer template is then the most likely to be deleted for this issue as it is not as widely seen (and often contracted). I'm afraid I don't see value in your argument of too easy to make mistakes. Unless you plan on making a bot, human error will always be a factor, regardless of how current each is edit is (as in, for the NBA the templates often get updated within a few hours of a transaction; the WNBA might be days/weeks sometimes and that makes it easier to make mistakes). I, personally, am always a proponent of alpha order over jersey numbers in any template. Numbers change, names rarely do. But tradition has kept the numeric on the footers. Yosemiter (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
My complaint is with an error prone setup that makes work. It doesn't matter if a deal closes same day or another year, somebody has to make two edits not one. Are you able to create a list by number from a sorted roster by name? Sorry I am unable, but we do apparently have the data in hand. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The more detailed roster list, such as Template:Minnesota Lynx roster, is sortable by number. Navigational footer templates, such as Template:Minnesota Lynx current roster are not sortable as that is a different kind of table, meant to be very minimalistic. So you could sort the main roster template by number and then edit the footer template to compare that the lists match. That is pretty much how every other editor handles roster changes. If you mean sorting the WNBA roster itself on their actual website, it appears to not support sorting functionality. I would suggest using the edit preview on the main roster template sorted by name to compare to the WNBA website to check that it matches and then edit the navigational template against the roster template.

As I said before though, errors in this case have far more to do with the quantity of editors that maintain WNBA rosters vs. NBA rosters. More editors (and the general media itself) pays attention to NBA transactions than WNBA ones, so it ends up with more up to date roster changes in the NBA (see the T-wolves edit history vs. the Lynx edit history; far more frequent on the NBA one). No one seems to have issues with updating two templates on the NBA rosters (or MLB and NFL also) from what I can tell. Yosemiter (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yosemiter, thank you so much for your ideas. Sorry I wasn't clear. Do you have the technical skills needed to write a script to update the current roster from the roster? Looking at some templates, I also wonder if Frietjes is able to write a pilot script? I guess I have grown accustomed to the DYK area where scripts do the grunt work nowadays. Using the Lynx for my example, one of bejillions. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
SusanLesch, I could, but we should first decide on the input format. also, from this thread on my talk page it looks like S.A. Julio is planning something for association football squads. I would think the general idea would be the same, so it would be good to have one solution for (most) all sports. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! His sandbox for Association football is almost the same as the WNBA. The recent discussion started in WikiProject Football. Your answer buoys my hopes, "first approach is fairly straightforward to program."

@Frietjes: Can you do the WNBA as a test? The WNBA task force is believed to be inactive. Rikster who replied above is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball. We have at least three participants here happy with the status quo so I don't expect anybody in this WikiProject to lift a hand. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

:Proposal

  • For input we use WNBA.com > Players > Team Rosters. There are 12 teams. I propose we do this by player, of the two choices you gave on your talk page. I do not know how to handle problems if a manual update is made to Wikipedia before WNBA does their update. WNBA can be slow (for example, last week the LA Sparks traded for Chiney Ogwumike but, as of today, the Sparks page still only lists her sister Nneka).
  • If anybody can give me a go-ahead, I will have to ask for a formal RFC. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. The transaction becomes official when the team announces it via a press release. Until then all transactions are the subject of rumors and/or are awaiting an official confirmation. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Sabbatino. Are you saying "each team's PR department" is our best reliable source? Since the draft, the Lynx sent out three press releases that mention Odyssey Sims 1, 2, 3. Sims is not on the Lynx roster at WNBA. I am afraid WNBA is slow. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: If the team announces the transaction like here then it is official. As for a player not being listed on the team's roster – this happens with the NBA and NBA G League as well. There might be some technicalities on why she is not listed, because if the team finds something they do not like (hidden injury, other health issues) then the trade can be annulled. Sometimes teams just do not instantly update their roster listings. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: So you think I need to scrap this proposal? This was my worry above—an unknown if the league's page is out of sync with Wikipedia who is free to use other sources. Or can we consider the leagues to be reliable? I would have thought they'd be the last word. Thanks for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: I did not look at your proposal as I only wanted to clarify when the transactions are official. In addition, the team's press release is reliable. The league's press release is also reliable if it says that the team announced a transaction. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

All right, thanks very much. New proposal is below in a separate thread. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Need template maintainer

The WNBA roster template sorts years wrong. Who shall I ask to have that fixed? In this example, R precedes 2 which precedes 1. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: It should be fixed now. It was a sort value issue in Template:PlayerW sorting 0.5 (R) – 1.5 (2yrs) – 1 (1yr) – 2.5 (4yrs) – 2 (3yrs), etc. I just added the .0 to each number to help the sort function. Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you, Yosemiter. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Most common matchups" section at NBA Finals

There is an disagreement about the "Most common matchups" section at NBA Finals. It used to be presented as a list until @Andiharve: came and converted it to a table. I then removed it completely since, in my opinion, it is nothing more than WP:TRIVIA, but the other editor has a different opinion about it and cites List of World Series champions as the justification for such list. What are your thoughts regarding such lists? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I also cite List of Super Bowl Champions as another source. I personally don't see how this is trivial. I think it is interesting for people to know and do not see the harm in having this. The fact that it was there previously means others feel the same way I do. The only difference I made was present it in a more organized table with the years listed to make it clearer to understand. - Andiharve (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed WNBA rosters

Here's a revised proposal for a WNBA test which I hope is clear. For an example, Template:Minnesota Lynx roster gets sorted by jersey number, and the names and numbers are copied to Template:Minnesota Lynx current roster. The objective is assurance that both versions are in sync.

@Frietjes: Wonderful! Thank you. Sorry I don't quite understand what you need for input beyond the content. Here's another try. What more can I say that will help? Because of its use in the past, I suggest we drop the name "current" from future nomenclature. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
For each of 12 teams, num and name fields from the list of Template:playerW in numerical order becomes Template:Navbox. Template: WNBA roster footer current becomes the last part of that list (for the head and assistant coaches; omit first name in favor of initial first name, omit flags, trainer and assistant trainer).

| list1 =
* num [[first last|last]]
;Head Coach
: [[first last|initial. last]]
;Assistant Coach OR Assistant Coaches
: [[first last|initial. last]]
...
| below = {{WNBA current roster footer}}
}}
looks like a very verbose input format. I would suggest something that's easier to type and less prone to inconsistencies (i.e., one of the two approaches mentioned on my talk page). Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Of those two choices I guess the "straightforward to program" option 1, however, I am not qualified to make a clean call, and need your expertise to decide. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Just pinging. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Frietjes: I goofed up one ping. Trying again. :) -SusanLesch (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Question about current rosters: Does the current template have a way to put a certain year on a certain page? Currently, say for the 2017 Atlanta Dream season I will just copy and paste the roster template into the page at the end of the season, to keep the 2017 roster on the 2017 page. However, is there a way to put the year in the code to display the template so the 2017 roster will stay on the 2017 page? Let me know if that makes sense. Swimmer33 (Talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Of the two choices on your talk page, I chose the "straightforward to program" option 1. Can you please go ahead with this? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC: WNBA rosters

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was that there appears to be a clear consensus in support of the proposal. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Should WNBA rosters be automatically put in sync? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Posted notification there, thank you Bagumba. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change of name article for the present

I think since Dr. Jerry Buss passed back in 2013 the Lakers had problems ever since. Jim Buss couldn't do it, and the way it looks Jeanie Buss has no idea what she's doing. Instead of Post-Bryant era can we have 2013-present: Management problems and decline? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sports Fan 1997: Citation needed for such a bold opinionated claim. Yosemiter (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
What does that mean? I read it Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sports Fan 1997: First WP:INDENT please. Second, I am saying non-neutral statements need to be used in widely accepted independent sources. Wikipedia is not the place for placing an editor's opinions on a subject. Yosemiter (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sports Fan 1997: Please write clearer and specify which article you are referring to next time. On the other hand, you seem to have an obsession with History of the Los Angeles Lakers, so I figured it out. Still, there is an expectation that Wikipedia editors be able to write comprehensible English. You've been asked at least as far back as September 2018 to write neutrally, and a warning was given to you in March 2019. If you cannot, or do not want to, that is okay—Wikipedia is not a fit for everyone. Consider alternative outlets. Regarding your "management" proposal, it seems that you added it to the article with one of your blocked sock accounts in July 2018. You then removed it as recently as February 2019. Is your change in opinion a reaction to recent events?—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba nope that other account was a friend he let me have it but I didn't know that you can only have one account to edit so I wanted that one deleted. I didn't think it was a big deal to have two accounts till I read Wikipedia cause I was new
@Bagumba well you just told me what you said right there. Not based on Wiki rules but on own personal bias, which is how most Wiki admins operate. Complain about their bias, because Wiki doesn't take criticism! Wiki is for Wiki it isn't for its users. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Am I right or wrong? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've undone Sports Fan 1997's edit, which not only has no consensus established here, but for which there is absolutely no text in that section—cited or not—about "Management problems". A WP:TBAN on Lakers articles is worth considering. Wikipedia:Competence is required.—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Baguma: Wrong. 'Management problems and decline' was on their for at least 2 years before I even registered a Wiki account which was 2 years ago. You just don't want it on their because I edited it. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Now go convince other editors to support your idea. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sports Fan 1997 and Bagumba: Sports Fan is correct that it has been there for years, however, the "management problems" (and "dark ages" in the past) are neither discussed or reliably sourced then or now (and was marked as such in December 2016). Without good sources, it was non-neutral then, and it still is. Just because something that was unsourced non-neutral content in a mostly unpatrolled article was removed does not mean the non-neutral content should be reinstated because it used to be there. Now, if sourced statements from independent and reliable sources can be added and discussed in a neutral way (yes, management problems can be discussed neutrally if vetted), then we can discuss changing the section header via a consensus. In my opinion/observations though of sources, the "problem" is perception of the Lakers as "elite" in terms of nostalgia. If anything, the Lakers have worse management then they have had historically, but not "problems" and are now more or less on the same level as the other NBA teams. And some of that actually has to do with newer league rules in regards to player recruitment and tampering, which had not been previously enforced to the degree it is today. Yosemiter (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Full-blown boxscores?

Is it me, or are these type of boxscores for every Finals game too bulky? It seems that someone started it in 2018 NBA Finals, and is perhaps the norm in euro basketball articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've compiled some of the problems with this new format:

  1. It needlessly repeats players positions and numbers every game, as well as the teams' coaches. These are already in the roster listing.
  2. The current format doesn't scale well on phones at all.
  3. The old format (e.g. 2017 NBA Finals) already had an external link to a box score for those wanting more information. The summary also listed each team's game leader in point, rebounds and assists. Prose would describe other poeple's key game contritbution. We also have the players cumulative stats for the entire series. Adding stats for each player for each game seems to cross the line on WP:NOTSTATS.

I've reverted the recent changes until consensus is established for adding the expanded format.—Bagumba (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTSTATS, we do not need every stat for every player for every game. That's overkill and there are better, dedicated sites for exactly that. Keep an easy to read summary format first, and have player totals at the end, seems the right move. Yosemiter (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox for each NBA Finals

The current infobox templates used for each year's finals have to much unnecessary information. I've found what I see as a better template, and I'd like to use it for the 2018 article. One problem I see though is I'm not sure how to indicate that game 1 went to overtime. I'd like to get opinions on this template replacing the currently used one, and any help with the overtime situation would be appreciated.

{{{year}}} Finals
TeamCoachWins
{{{champion}}} {{{champion_coach}}} {{{champion_games}}}
{{{runnerup}}} {{{runnerup_coach}}} {{{runnerup_games}}}
MVPKevin Durant
Golden State Warriors
Series results
Game 1
Golden State 124 114 Cleveland
Game 2
Golden State 122 103 Cleveland
Game 3
Cleveland 102 110 Golden State
Game 4
Cleveland 85 108 Golden State
{{{league}}} finals 2019 NBA Finals →

Infinite mission (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You should not change the infobox without consulting here first. I reverted your change at 2019 NBA Finals. The Finals-specific infobox was created for a reason and you should have a very good reason to change it, which currently looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please give arguments on why it should be changed and we will see what other editors think. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that template wasn't made specifically for the NBA Finals, it was made as just a basketball final template, and was given an NBA Finals redirect. My criticisms of the current infobox are mainly twofold: nearly half of it is information not worthy of an infobox (and is detailed thoroughly in the body of the article (TV channels, announcers, referees, etc)) and that the results of each game are not shown, something that to me is far more valuable to be shown in the infobox.Infinite mission (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The infobox is not supposed to list the results of all the games since in this case the page is about a best-of-seven series and listing the results of all the games is just overkill. That is why such information is presented elsewhere in the page. The same can be said about the NHL and MLB pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Listing the scores of each game of the series, which most often doesn't reach seven games, has use in conveying the balance and flow of the series to the reader. That seems more noteworthy than which referees worked each game. Also, the infobox used in Stanley Cup Final articles does show each score. Infinite mission (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The finals result is a concise summary, and the game-by-game details are best left to the body. However, I also agree the TV, announcers, and refs are not a core part of understanding a given finals, and don't belong in the infobox either. A lot of times, less importany details get dumped in the infobox as a shortcut to writing prose.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Infinite mission: I should point out that Template:Infobox basketball final was created back in 2017 when similar infoboxes were merged into one as can be seen here. In the past many leagues had their own infoboxes (main, playofs, finals, etc.) until many of them were standartized. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Kawhi Leonard's nickname

Which nickname should be listed at Kawhi Leonard's page? Both "The Klaw" and "The Claw" are used in the media and it was recently changed in his page but I reverted it back to "The Klaw" since the source used for the change is from 2016. Any opinions on this would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I was the editor who changed it to "The Claw" today because that is the one used regularly in Toronto where Leonard plays and stars. I used the SB Nation reference because it was the first reputable source that popped up on Google. I am surprised that it was reverted so quickly, but will wait a while before re-reverting to see what other editors say. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Applying WP:COMMONNAME-type logic, it seems "The Claw" slightly outweighs "The Klaw" when used in sources, and both have been used recently. Since this is simply about a line in the lead section, and not an article title, the simple solution is to just use both since they are both commonly used. Yosemiter (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
(My soapbox rant is that these days, most nicknames are more used on social media and not a mainstream replacement for their name in news or broadcasts. In the spirit of WP:NOTDIC, By a simple extension of the latter, Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia. They don't belong in the lead, but I'm OK if they are somewhere in the body. In a rare example, neither "Black Mamba" or "Vino" clutter Kobe Bryant's lead.) If Claw/Klaw is going to stay in the lead, I'd say show "Claw", as it's a regular English word, and non-fans can more readily guess what it means. If mentioned, "Klaw" is better as an explanatory footnote, which would also be inline with MOS:NICKCRUFT to not list so many nicknames (esp. if it's just a styling difference).—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bellagio99: I do know that you were the user that changed it. Thanks everyone for your opinions. We must decide which nickname should be used, because for me "The Klaw" gives more results than "The Claw". Could it be related to geolocation (I am from Europe)? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I re-checked this morning, and now the Klaw is getting slightly more hits (maybe something I did before affected results), but it is still pretty close to 50/50. Some of the more nation-wide coverage sites like ESPN and CBC seem to favor Claw, while more user-based sites like SB Nation and regional news seems to favor Klaw. Bagumba's footnote pitch could work, but knowing people, there might still be occasional Claw-to-Klaw edits and vice versa. I have no hard opinion either way, but it does seem both spellings should at least be mentioned somewhere. Yosemiter (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd ideally still add the footnote, but drive-by editors will likely not look at the details, and change the main text from Claw->Klaw (or visa versa). If people are willing to help patrol it, I will change it.—Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Seems like it is a NAm-Euro thing. I'm going to change it to "The Claw" or "The Klaw" so that we can move on in life. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Both can be added. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

All-NBL Team selection criteria

Does anyone know how the All-NBL Teams were chosen? I wanted to mirror that new article as closely to All-NBA Team as possible, but I cannot find sources to confirm how the teams were chosen, what point values were assigned, etc. The lead needs beefing up but I have no real good info to put into it without knowing how the All-NBL Teams came about. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it will be difficult to do much more with that article unless you have access to a lot of old newspapers. (And even then, the reporting from that era may not give you a clear answer.) I'm not finding anything specific about the All-NBL selection process, but I do see articles about MVP voting in 1948 and 1949.
For 1948, I see this: "George Mikan of the Minneapolis Lakers has been named the National Basketball league's most valuable player for the 1947-'48 season, it was announced here today by Ward L. Lambert, commissioner of the pro circuit. In winning the league's highest player award, Mikan polled 45 votes out of a possible 49. Mikan was selected for the honor by sports writers, broadcasters, coaches, and managers." ("Mikan Breaks Records; Named Most Valuable". Chicago Daily Tribune. April 4, 1948. pg. A3.)
For 1949, I see this: "National Basketball league headquarters announced today that Don Otten of the Tri-Cities Blackhawks was chosen player of the year in a poll of players, owners, coaches, sports writers, and radio men." ("Otten of Tri-Cities Named Top Player in National League". Associated Press. Chicago Daily Tribune. March 26, 1949. pg. A2) That article does also mention an All-NBL team, but doesn't say how those players were chosen. Zagalejo^^^ 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for these snippets for the MVP process, which helps for further context. But you're right, it'll be tough to find anything definitive for the All-NBL Teams' selection process (which bases on MVP voting, I would assume is the same). SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_36&oldid=1137372050"