Talk:2007 NBA playoffs/Archive 1

Spelling
I'm really sick of seeing people butcher the simple statement "home court advantage". "Home court" is not one word. It is not hyphenated. It is a court which is hosted by the home team. It is a home court. Just like baseball has a home plate. That's all.
 * The phrase, depending on the style guide you're using, should be "home-court advantage." "Home court" is a compound adjective modifying the word "advantage," and so should be hyphenated according to many style guides. Somebody who writes it "home-court advantage" is not at all off base in doing so. In fact, in my own writing I try to simply phrase it "home advantage" to avoid the problem altogether. 76.10.24.245 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Playoff matchups
If the playoffs were to begin today, March 11th, this would be the outlook:

* Division leader

† By having a better regular season record, Chicago would have home court advantage over Toronto

Suggestion
-- Howard  the   Duck  10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Homecourt advantage: italics
 * Advancing team: bold.

Series Summary Tables
Hello. I have just recently been working on summary tables for the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. I was wondering if it would be preferred to update the summary tables located here. In the case of updating, they would perform pretty much identically to the ones that can you can find at the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs page. Also, instead of a scoring summary in the NHL tables, a new format for the NBA Series tables could include a box with points per quarter, leading scorers or any other stats that you find helpful. If you like this idea, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give a sample here? I'm not the biggest fan of the current setup here, although the Stanley Cup page is prettier but can be very long, especially if we reach the conference finals. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently working on a format, I'll post it here as soon as I am done with it. -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a new Basketballbox, although it doesn't state which team leads the series. I may tweak this but I'll wait for the creator's permission first as I don't want to screw up other people's templates. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Home Court Advantage
I see my method of putting in the number of regular season wins has been eliminated. The problem I have with this method is that it doesn't give the viewer any indication of which team would have home advantage in the next round. I think we ought to keep the number of wins there, and then eliminate it once the round is over and only carry the information forward for the teams that advance. 76.10.24.245 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My method was to italicize the team with the homecourt advantage on the brackets, but they were removed. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Looks like the teams with the homecourt advantage are italicized now. -- Howard   the   Duck  17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't give any indication of who would have home advantage in the next round. That's why I put in the regular season wins; that allows for comparison. 76.10.24.245 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We would italicize the team with homecourt advantage in the next round, if they qualify. We don't even know who'll qualify yet, so it's all speculation. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I recognize that, I'm saying with the wins in parentheses, you can tell what the situation would be based on whatever contingencies you want to think about. If I am a Raptors fan, I may want to see what the home advantage situation would be against either of my team's next round opponents (Bulls or Wizards). I can't tell that looking at the current chart, but if we put regular season wins in parens, you could tell at a glance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.24.245 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * It's not that complicated as it was last year, though; all higher seeds get to have the homecourt advantage from the semifinals onward (unless I missed something). -- Howard  the   Duck  17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. If Chicago and Toronto met in the East Finals, Chicago would have home advantage despite being the 5th seed to Toronto's 3rd. 76.10.24.245 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See I told you I missed something, lol. However, I still don't see the valid reason why we should do that, I'd rather cross the bridge when I get there. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, althought it's really not even necessary to italicize, as the home court advantage is obvious from looking at the playoff series tables. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TyrusThomas4lyf (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
 * But for those who don't bother to read the rest of the article italicizing the team with homecourt advantage helps a lot, especially if one is glancing. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New format
This is an example, I'm trying out the new basketballbox template:

Dallas-Warriors series
A fuller test can be found at 2006-07 PBA Philippine Cup Finals.

I'm trying to hide everything except The date, score and place, but I'm too stupid to do it (like those [show] thingies.

Here is a quote from the article "The Warriors won their first playoffs series since 1991 and by knocking off top-seeded Dallas, Golden State became the first eighth-seeded team to win a seven-game series, and just the third overall in NBA history." it's below the scores for this series. I don't know what the author is trying to say here and it should be revised. The third overall what?

Discussion

 * It looks good. though the summary line is unnecessary I think. Chris 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I eliminated the extra white space so it should look better now. As for the summary line, I'll remove it. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that a better format than the one we have? Who said you can just change the whole page?--TyrusThomas4lyf 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks better. Who said he can't change the whole page? Chris 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it actually looks worse if you ask me. It's less organized certainly.  It's not arranged as linearly.  It's harder to understand and takes up more space.--TyrusThomas4lyf 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, we have already established a format for NBA playoffs series. I mean, come on, do you really want to redo all of those tables?--TyrusThomas4lyf 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think it looks worse. Maybe make a template out of the old format? &mdash;MC 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (reindent) I concur with Tyrus. I didn't see anything wrong at all with the old formats.  We should keep this page consistent with the other playoff pages.Dknights411 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, the previous format was far more unsightly, the widths aren't the same; you can still add quarter scores and player scores, on the new template. I'll add show tabs shortly, and I'm willing to do that for all previous playoff pages. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sold on the idea of changing the table format just because it looks ugly or unsightly. Just because you find one way "better" doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else would.  While I see what you are trying to do and I like the fact that you are trying new things, I also think that you should try to get a bigger concensus from everyone involved before making drastic changes in the future.  Keep in mind that you are not the only user on here.  As for this page, I think it is more beneficial to this page to keep it as simple as possible (including attendence figures for example just complicates things more, and are not that important in the scheme of the game). Dknights411 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't do anything yet. You have quite a disagreement here.  I think that quarter scores are really unncessary, way too much info.  The NBA Finals are worth having quarter scores for, and those are already accomodated for by their individual NBA Finals main articles.  If you really want, we could add in players' scores for the other games, but what's the point?  The entire box score is linked inside each line in the old format...--TyrusThomas4lyf 06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dknights's post. I think that it's good to have a little detail, but this is going overboard.  This is supposed to be part of an encyclopedia, not a basketball reference website.  We already have the links to those.  Furthermore, the few details added (which are the least important ones) could be added into the old format.--TyrusThomas4lyf 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually raises up an issue I've had with the NBA articles this season. It seams that everyone is intent on adding every little details about certain events that will most likely be rendered irrelevent 5, 10 years down the road (like listing the officials for every single playoff game in this article).  You don't need information overload, or an insertion of tables wherever possible to have an effective article. Dknights411 07:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The quarter scores are optional. Either way, User:Sukh17 is also developing a template, which may satisfy your desires. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm open to removing everything except date, teams, total scores and TV for the first round up to the conference semis. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the times are only valid for upcoming games, those which are finished can be removed. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (reindent) I don't think that was the point. We don't really need a template for anything and everything.  This page can work fine without a template, and I would argue that it is more efficient without templates.  For the purposes of this article, all that matters is listing who played, who won, and what was the score.  Anything else would just be too gratuitous IMHO.  Moreover, I honestly think that it doesn't matters which network games are aired on, so we can leave out the TV information. Dknights411 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is ok to have the template format since it looks better. Now, I know the term "better" is a bit vague and can be interpreted differently. so, in my opinion, as long as it is clear and informative, it is good. As for the excessive infos, I agree that we should leave them out since overdosing the pages with infos doesn't make it more informative. I also agree with User:Dknights411 that you should discuss before making any major changes since no one owns this page. Chris 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * People, it only shows that nobody bothers to read discussion pages until someone changes the page. I've posted a dry run on this page on April 26, then people started complaining here on the 30th.
 * Also, all but three options are optional which means you can remove it. The system you people used interestingly had a column for TV coverage.
 * The "We don't really need a template for anything and everything." statement isn't that convincing; Wikiproject Football (soccer) has templates everything from infoboxes, team roster and scoreboards, which means that all soccer-related pages look uniform. Try doing that on basketball pages, they all look different! My point here, all basketball-related should all look alike; for example, see UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results and AFC Champions League 2007 look similar, and they use the same Footballbox template. Try doing that on this article and Euroleague 2006-07. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well these templates may work fine for soccer and international basketball, they come across as being a bit awkward when used for the NBA in this instance. And while I see your concern about keeping basketball articles consistant, I still think that the templates are too awkward for the NBA, and I am basing my views on NBA articles in general, since it is the area I'm most familiar with.  For one, there are too many series to keep track of in this article and there are too many boxes used in this format that it makes this article more difficult to follow than a simpler listings in the other articles.  I mean take a look at exhibit A:

(1) Detroit Pistons vs. (8) Orlando Magic: Pistons win series 4-0
 * Game 1 @ Detroit: Detroit 100, Orlando 92
 * Game 2 @ Detroit: Detroit 98, Orlando 90
 * Game 3 @ Orlando: Detroit 93, Orlando 77
 * Game 4 @ Orlando: Detroit 97, Orlando 93


 * ...and compare it to exhibit B:


 * The differences become much more pronounced in the editing boxes. First of all, it saves a lot of space since it takes a lot less memory to do a few lines of text than to add a whole new box per game.  It also makes it easier for the user to edit since "A" doesn't take up that many lines as "B" does.  And outside of the TV listings (which I think is fairly irrelevent on a game by game basis), all the same information is right there, with appropriate links included, without wasting extra space, or stretching the browser window much further than necessary.  While I undertand your concern about the article's consistancy, I think that the simplicity and efficiency of this article, or any other article for that matter, is much more important. Dknights411 04:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exhibit A is so bare, it's even barer than a porn movie; it doesn't give justice on what happened. If we'd follow what you want, I'd rather have 4 columns; One for game number ("Game 1"), the winning team, the losing team, and the score, italicizing the home team. Like this

!Game !! Winner !! Loser !! Score
 * 1 || Golden State || Dallas ||
 * }
 * However you do have a point on Exhibit B: I use a wide monitor so I won't notice if it stretches things, I'm planning to lessen the width for the team names (they are currently too wide). That'll increase the space for other parameters (like the place) so that it'll not wrap.
 * As for TV, you're free to remove it, although by inspection of previous playoffs pages, all pre-2001 are bare, they only have the bracket, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2006 use "Exhibit C" (the previous version used for this page), 2004 and 2005 use "Exhibit A", while 2007 uses "Exhibit B". Exhibit C has TV coverage and the times.
 * IMHO, if "Exhibit A" will be used, it won't help the person researching about this, since it is too bare. If "Exhibit B" will be used, it'll be aesthetically pleasing, and you can choose what options which could be displayed. "Exhibit C" is practically the same as "Exhibit B" but it is not as aesthetically pleasing, you can't remove other options, and the widths aren't the same for each playoff series.
 * Also, "Exhibit B" looks similar to other boxes uses on other sports, like Footballbox, Cricketbox, even the NHL page looks similar.
 * If anyone wants, we can split this into 2007 NBA Western Conference playoffs and 2007 NBA Eastern Conference playoffs, other sports seem to do it anyway. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just what on earth is Exhibit C? Since I am new to this argument, could you explain a little more? And I don't think space is a factor here. Taking up more space doesn't mean it is bad as long as it shows consistency. I understand that people have concerns over whether or not it looks awkward. I think it is ok to be a little more clear when the playoffs is ongoing since it is more recent. After the playoffs is finished, we can starts to simplify it because the additional info is no longer necessary. As for the editing difficulties for inexperienced users, I think inexperienced people are always free to post a message here asking people to help them. Chris 05:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exhibit C is the version previously used on this page. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity Howard, is it really THAT important to not make this article boring? I honestly don't mind dull and bare as long as it is more efficient.  And how will someone researching this won't be helped because the article is "too bare"?  That assumption is completly ridiculous IMHO.  All the information is still there and so are all the links.  So why reformat in the first place?  Moreover, there are some consistancy issues between this article, the 06-07 regular season article, and the rest of the NBA pages.  I personally prefer simple and "bare" as long as makes the page more efficient.  Moreover, the arguement that "Exhibit A" is too bare is a really weak arguement.  I believe that simplicity and efficiency comes before page layout. Dknights411 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Exhibit A" is bare, it doesn't have the date (really important IMHO), and you'd have to access an external website to know what really happened (the "recap"). Consistency issues aren't a big problem as you picture it, in fact, scanning the different playoff pages, they give a mix of "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit C", others only have brackets. It can be resolved rather easily.
 * And as for consistency, I've said it before, all basketball pages should really have a standard, and if we're going to have a standard, we'd have to use templates, so that they'll look alike. In coordination, the basketball pages have to look like other sport pages, that's why basketballbox looks like footballbox and cricketbox.
 * As for simpleness, it's not really that hard to use the template isn't it? Its much more organized than a raw table, you'd have to make sure that the columns align nicely. And you can customize the template rather than a raw table; for example, you may have a point that television coverage isn't that important; in the template you can omit that, on "Exhibit C" each and every series section must look alike since they must have the same number of columns. On the template, you can omit that and not compromise such things.
 * And it still is simple; I'm willing to bet this will have just about the same size as the 2006 page. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (reindent) To be fair, you're right about the lack of a date. I didn't really mind at all weather there was a date or not.  All that mattered to me was just getting all the scores down, which by the way tells you all you need to know about a game (specifically, who won).  Currently, exhibit B is doing the exact same thing inside a table.
 * Ok, I think it's time for a compromise. How about instead of one box per game, we have one table per series, with different rows for the different games.  Kinda like...
 * Ok, I think it's time for a compromise. How about instead of one box per game, we have one table per series, with different rows for the different games.  Kinda like...


 * Instead of having a box, why not just have a simple table? This way it keeps the page easier to follow, keeping each individual series together as in exhibit A and keeping it more simple, but formatting it into a neatly organized table, like exhibit B.  How about this for a compromise? Dknights411 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually your compromise would have 2 lines instead of the 1.5 "exhibit B" uses. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just stick with what worked on the other pages.--TyrusThomas4lyf 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. And I still say that just because it is bare doesn't mean it is completly useless. Dknights411 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any more convincing suggestions from the two of you? Mind you, I've redesigned the template yet again so now it'll encompass only 1 line of text, just as what you people want here. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Howard, I'm very discouraged that you aren't even entertaining our suggestions about this issue. I see your point in saying that the old format was to bare, even though I personally disagree with that assumption.  All I ask is that you take our issues about the page looking too awkward into SOME consideration.  This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work.  Instead of fighting over which way is better, we should look at the problem and work TOGETHER to solve it.  If you really want to do some radical changes, you can always go to the NBA Wikiproject, talk pages.  Or if you'd rather contact anyone, myself included, that would also be great.  Right now, you have this "My way or the highway" attitude going on here, and it is not helpful to the overall scope of Wikipedia, never mind this article.  This isn't just your project you know. Dknights411 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm working with you guys; I've been fine tuning basketballbox according to your demands. It now encompasses one line. To say that I've not been working with you guys is ignoring what I'm doing on the "sidelines." -- Howard  the   Duck  03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The concern hee is not tweaking the boxes to meet our demands, it's essentially the practcality of using boxes like this in the first place, which is a point I feel you didn't quite get in this debate. Dknights411 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which other sport-related articles do not seem to have, but NBA folks are mysteriously afflicted. What's so impractical about this anyway? What's impractical is to have different ways of displaying scores while other sports are on a convergence. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (For comparison, the folks at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs are using NHLPlayoffs which looks almost similar than the template we're using now and there's no problem there. And the template they're using even has 2 lines. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

(section break since I hate scrolling)

 * (reindent) I think this is one of those "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" type deals.  There was never a concern about the old format for any users besides yourself.  So why go through the trouble of changing it in the first place when there was no indication that there was a problem in the first place?  I think this article would work fine without a template.  I mean the other ones do.  I actually think that the old format was more practicle than this one.  It was easier to read, and it takes up a lot less space in the article, while still giving out essentially the same information (Who won, by how much, and the series tally).  If dates are necessary, they can be added right next to the Game #.  And as for the usage on other articles, I would also advocate for a simpler design there for the same reasosn as for here.  Too many templates makes this article more difficult to follow, and despite editing concerns, I think it is more important to have a format that would be the easiest to follow for everyone who is reading Wikipedia, even if it is too "bare".  The old format was just fine the way they were before.  If you had formatting issues, you could have come to me or anyone else in the NBA Wikiproject about these concerns. Dknights411 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So it wasn't about the template, it's about me, as expected. However, I do not see any problems with other Wikiprojects with practically the same looking templates. Also, it is unnatural for a basketball fan to see the scores this way:
 * {|border=1


 * Team A || 100 || Team B || 101
 * }
 * Either its "Team A 100, Team B 101" or "Team A 100-101 Team B." Your making a big deal of its too hard to follow, but IMHO, you two were the only who were making a big deal of it. Other sport-related pages' templates have practically the same design and I have never seen problems such as yours. Might be because you haven't taught of it yourself?
 * Also, I've applied the templates at the 2006 NBA Finals page, the system that was applied there was horrendous and ugly, it looks so much better now; see for yourself. -- Howard  the   Duck  00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all for the umpteenth time, "horrendus and ugly" are NOT the reasons to change up an article. Second of all, that article has a breakdown of each game, so the series listing doesn't need to be that expansive or complex, thereby making the use of templates there irrelevent, so I reverted them.  Third, this is not so much about how the scores are listed (although I prefer listing the score Team A 100, Team B 99 over the inernational Team B 99-100 team A), it's mainly about the issue fixing up an article the way you like it, even though you make it harder for others to follow.  We need to make this article accessible for everyone to read and understand it, and your recent activities is making it harder for people to do this.  Moreover, while you've never seen what I've been arguing, I've never had ANY issues about a page being too ugly (how can a text article look ugly anyway?  I never minded about that ever).  I'd rather have an ugly article that still gets the job done than a "prettier" one that is more difficult to follow overall (one box per playoff game is going WAY overboard).
 * On another note, the fact that there are those who are questioning the use of the templates here suggests that maybe this is not the way to organize the article. Just because most people don't mind, or don't care about these setups, doesn't mean we're at fault for finding flaws with them.  In short, these templates may work fine elswhere, but it just doesn't seem to fit here. Dknights411 02:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen how unsightly and dirty the 2006 NBA Finals was? It was way neater and all of the information is at the score box at one place, you won't need an extra referees section.
 * Horrendous and ugly ARE reasons for changing a page; or else it would be ugly, that's why we have a Manual of style! We have to make pages look neat for anyone. For example on 2006 NBA Finals, the quarter scores do not have same widths, they must be standardized (must be the same for each and every game); the "Major Statistical Leaders" have bad formatting, the forced line breaks looks ugly.
 * Have you written featured content anyway? It not just about content, it's also about presentation. Widths have the same for each and every table, presentation must look neat. Quarter scores should be like infoboxes, they should be at the right side of the page, as seen on Linescore Amfootball, etc. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: I'll be adding a notice of this discussion at Requests for comment/Style issues. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
 * But your "ugly" and my "ugly" are not the same. This is a point of view issue, and my point of view is that a simple score listing does not equate "ugly". Dknights411 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Reindent). You are right, and we need other opinions outside of the basketball world.
 * On another hand, since 2 people are complaining that it's hard to read, I'm planning to add a header:
 * On another hand, since 2 people are complaining that it's hard to read, I'm planning to add a header:


 * Is this good enough or can't I do anything to please you guys except we revert to the previous format? -- Howard  the   Duck  03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Why don't we try using the table in lieu of the templates? Dknights411 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly as expected. Since I've posted already at RFC, lets just wait for someone from there to give his/her thoughts. I still don't get it why you people have the "hots" for that table, considering you people can't format it properly. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the 2006 NBA Playoffs page and comparing it with the 2007 one. Personally I find the 2006 page easier to read. When it comes to editing the individual series tables however, I find the 2007 one more convenient to edit (don't have to scroll up and down). Chensiyuan 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dknights411 I agree with going back to the tables. I don't see what this template offers that the old one can't, either.--TyrusThomas4lyf 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The new template can be expanded, your tables can't. Take a look at the previous version of 2006 NBA Finals; the tables can't do that. It was utterly horrendous, and to say the old one was better is like saying blimps are better than jet planes. And you people can't even format tables correctly, and since that tables with borders should have the same font sizes on all cells, the tables will wrap into two lines. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Howard, your rationales here are completly baffling. Just because you think there ugly, doesn't mean that you HAVE to change them.  Tyrus and I are simply saying that the templates should NOT be used at all on this article, even though they can be "tweeked" or whatever.  I understand Wikipedia's style guide, but even with this in consideration, I still do not feel that they constitute as "Utterly horrendus" as you do.  And from our point of view, the format that you're advocating as neater and better, is actually awkward and worse from our point of view.  You are accusing us of being impracticle here, but it seems like you're being the most impracticle in this arguement, since you won't even entertain our concerns because you feel that the page HAS to look "good".  And istead of restating your point of view here, sould you PLEASE respond to each of the concerns listed.  In other words, could you prove that the new format is better than the old format WITHOUT talking about one looking prettier than another? Dknights411 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes even f they're ugly, you'd HAVE to change them. That's why we have cosmetic surgeons.
 * I've been explaining my side already; to sum it up:
 * All of the tables MUST have the same widths. Ergo, all of them must have 100% widths. This is an SOP in featured content procedures. Yes I know we're not making this featured, but at least you people have to format tables correctly.
 * Now the old convention had borders, if you people would at least use borders at least use them correctly. Almost all columns are center aligned; it is unnatural for a basketball fan to read scores that way. You either have them all left aligned or left align the away team and right align the home team.
 * The tables can't be expanded. And although information may not be expanded here, at least in the 2006 NBA Finals, please use common sense, the presentation was way better than what you were fighting for. You don't own NBA pages, and if the page is improved, please don't change it.
 * And the whole point really stupid. The change was for the better anyway so why oppose it? Especially on the 2006 NBA Finals, it looks better, it didn't harm the page. It's a good thing if I vandalized or what, but my edits here were for the better. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is all assuming that were sticking with tables and templates in the first place. However, if a simple listing, sans tables or templates, could do the job just as well, and doing so makes the page easier to read, than there's absolutley nothing wrong with using it for your article.  Keep in mind that the old format wasn't even supposed to be a table, so the alignment issue would be non-existant in this case.  The old format was simply a bullet list of the scores.  There absolutley nothing wrong with that, and despite your claims, it does not make the page "ugly" for going with a simpler format.  Also, you're the only one who thinks the change is for the better, which doesn't convince me one bit that the change IS for the better.  I still contend that the new format is in fact, much worse and that the page would be better served with the simpler format. Dknights411 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(another section break since I hate scrolling)

 * Reindent: Can't we even have an improvement of the bulleted list? You may like it that simple, but that looked pathetic as compared to other sports-season/playoff pages. We have to be a bit sophisticated. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we all share your level of sophistication here. I honestly don't think it really matters if a page looks "pathetic", as long as the information is all there.  Besides, why should WE conform to YOUR standards of sophistication anyway? Dknights411 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But why we should conform to your standards of simplicity, too? -- Howard  the   Duck  04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's End This Debate
Before this turns into an all out feud here, let's agree that we both have completly different views and completly opposing standards about the layout of the page, and by both of our standards, the other one is completly unwilling to budge on their stance. Let's start there, OK? You abviously have a problem with simplicity, and I have a problem with templates. Let's also agree that the two extremes of the page layouts are unuseable from each others point of view, ok? Now that we've done that, let's TRY to find a medium that adreeses BOTH the format and the simplicity issues that we can BOTH agree on, OK I'm willing to work this out and make the article "neater", but can you try to be more receptive about the simplicity issues? Let's get something done together, Okay? Dknights411 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the format used at Euroleague 2006-07 that may look simple enough for you? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, but the way the scores are listed are still a bit awkward (it's the european style, correct). Using that might make it a bit inconsistant with the way scores are listed here in North America (typically 90-87, or a two line setup).  For consistancy purposes, I think we should avoid listing scores like that, since the NBA, and pretty much every other North American sports league, never lists its scores in this manner.  Moreover, it would be wise, and a lot simpler, to set up just one box per series, instead of one box per game, which is why I suggested tables.  If we want to find a medium, we should set up a template, or a table for each series.  What do you think about that? Dknights411 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're advocating  ,   setup? Although if I may add, 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs uses the European style of  - , but they're Canadians, that's why (LOL).
 * Also, I'd like to explain that one template is equivalent to the one row of a table. I don't why it's that hard to understand. If you'll look at your examples above, they practically have the same height. (Table: 100px, Template 114px, for the Orlando-Detroit series) -- Howard  the   Duck  05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The NHL DID start up in Canada, and most of its players are European, so technically... :-)
 * But why have a whole template for just one row? Wouldn't it save scrolling time and editing space if you just had one table row, without the template? Dknights411 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I said they're bloody Canadians, LOL.
 * Actually, the template can be compressed to one line, you don't have to press enter for every parameter. For example:


 * As opposed to...


 * align = center|1 ||April 19 ||align = center|Portland ||align = center|86 ||align = center|Dallas ||align = center|96 ||align = center|0-1 ||align = center|American Airlines Arena, Dallas ||align = center|TNT 8:00 EDT ||align = center|Recap
 * align = center|1 ||April 19 ||align = center|Portland ||align = center|86 ||align = center|Dallas ||align = center|96 ||align = center|0-1 ||align = center|American Airlines Arena, Dallas ||align = center|TNT 8:00 EDT ||align = center|Recap
 * As you can see, the table is actually longer than the template!
 * But, I concede the bulleted list would be much simpler:


 * Game 1 @ Indiana: Indiana 104, Boston 88
 * But it omits the date (vital information, IMHO). And the whole line is colored blue. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because the score links up to the game recap artcile. Dknights411 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't you just use the ref tag or only use a simple [Recap] at the end? Nevertheless, it appears now that the template is actually simpler to use, but harder to read. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (reindent)Don't even bother changing it like that at this point. I think we're getting pretty close to a compromise here. Dknights411 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized I just created a template out of the old format (LOL), but this can be expanded. For example, see this. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So how about we let Howard use his box format on the NBA Finals main articles (where the individual games become more important anyways) and we keep tables for the playoffs articles?--TyrusThomas4lyf 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The template looks better now anyway. I'd find it now bizarre now that I've modified the template extensively for people who'll continue to insist on the tables, since they practically look like the tables that was used before. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Howard and I came up with an agreement last night. We'll use this format for ongoing playoff articles and Finals articles, while previous playoff articles would use the old format.  I think it's a fair compromise that will hopefully put this arguement to bed once and for all. Dknights411 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I'd think having a "Game 1" label isn't that important since all of us can count anyway... -- Howard  the   Duck  02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just thought it was a nice touch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dknights411 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * But makes the row wrap. Question though, do all rows wrap into 2 lines anyway? I use a big monitor so I won't notice it. So if they wrap anyway, the "Game 1" designation would be fine. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (reindent) Really? I din't see it, and I use a notebook.  I'll might check on other monitors if I have the chance, but I don't think that it will be a major issue. Dknights411
 * The time parameter automatically forces a text break "  ". I'd think of another way to display the game number, though. -- Howard   the   Duck  02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can add the game number by adding "|game = Game <#>" -- Howard  the   Duck  15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the game # be listed on the far left hand side, beides the date? Could it be set up like that? Dknights411 16:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look on it. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I made it that way, and left aligned the scores for good measure. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna argue a formatting point here and say that the center alignments worked better than the left alignments, so I changed it back for now. Dknights411 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Reindent): IMHO it doesn't matter but I look into ways to put the "Game #" into the left most part. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You add "Game 1" at the recap though, I tried doing that (using "Gm 1") but it was changed into "Game 1" but it wrapped so I just eliminated "Game" and left the game number. If anyone wants to use this convention ("Gm 1"), NBA.com uses "Gm 1" so it can work. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary
I think we should add a series summary, not necessarily a game-by-game summary, like what happened, ejections, techs, etc. These scores are plain and are boring to read. Like the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A series summary. That's good idea. Chris 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be okay it it's concise and doesn't stretch the page too much. But what about the OFFICIAL game summaries we've already linked for each game?  Doesn't that get the job done already?  Think about this too: we have no reliable source for older games before 2001.--TyrusThomas4lyf 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about someone writing for Wikinews? That's how the Cricket World Cup worked out. We don't have to apply each and every thing that we do to each and every annual playoff page. I don't like what they did at the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, that is a very long article, with all of those stats (a quarter-by-quarter breakdown). A short paragraph on each of the home stands (first two games, next two games, game 5, game 6, game 7 would do. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be working on this on and off throughout the week. Dknights411 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where should it be added anyway? Before or after the scores? As for the trivia, it'll be a better idea if it's incorporated in the paragraph. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes aka Trivia
Can we just get on over it and integrate the notes section save for the Houston and Chicago's home court advantages? Because it is still trivia, no matter how you call it. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Notes are not trivia.  You should learn how to differentiate between the two.--TyrusThomas4lyf 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As per WP:TRIVIA, emphasis mine:
 * Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Cultural References", "Cultural depictions", "Subject in popular culture", "Other information" etc, etc. We often refer to these informally as trivia sections. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether or not the information contained within them is actually trivia or if trivia belongs in Wikipedia.
 * Ergo, the "notes" section is trivia. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If no one still objects, and there must be a valid reason, like violation of another Wikipedia guideline, I'll be performing the integration within a few hours. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, trivia is not notes. Notes are info used to make things clearer. Whereas, trivia is just fun facts. Chris 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User RfC related to this article
See Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf. Quadzilla99 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeding
I am 100% confused and the article doesnt help, so, how does it work that the #2 seed faces the #3 seed, while the 4th gets the 8th seed, that hardly seems fair, someone care to explain this? Anung Mwka 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a playoff quirk that the NBA has yet to fully resolve. The brackets are locked so that whoever wins the 1-8 matchup faces the winner of the 4-5 matchup.  The same thing goes for thw 2-7 and 3-6 matchups.  In previous seasons, the one seed almost always advanced anyway, so the NBA never really adressed this issue.  There are too many quirks when it comes to NBA playoff seedings, and it seems like they unfortunatly never get it right. Dknights411 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the NHL can't get it right either. The bracket's so messed up I don't how to read, edit or analyze it. Lets just draw lots, LOL. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't as though the NBA is totally daft; locked-in pairings is how the NCAA Tournament works (which is perhaps the most famous tournament structure in sports; certainly in the United States). I agree that the NBA should change it, however. Another issue with the seeding here, though, is that putting the home team in italics to me is sub-optimal. I am used to seeing eliminated teams shown in italics, and while that's not the case here, it is done often enough that it strikes me, why go up against an alternate usage? I would say instead we should put an asterisk next to the home team in the series. 76.10.24.245 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point although most of the brackets I've seen either have the eliminated teams grayed out or stricken off . Asterisks were used to denote division champions, but it's not currently used here. But I've not seen home teams italicized, and although it's not be best method (other methods include adding the number of wins, and the NHL method of the home team on top) I think italicized works fine, and it can emphasize that the team that had the home court advantage was eliminated when they're not both boldfaced and italicized. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing NHL-specific about putting the home team on the top line; that is typically what is done in a bracket, at least in those rounds you can control it (usually just the 1st; the NHL's playoff format also allows for the 2nd). That's why I thought the NHL debate was so aburd; there's nothing NHL-specific about putting the home team on the top line, and although that is conventional to do so, it is only conventional in those rounds where it is something the bracket-drawer can control. Nobody bothers with going back to re-fiddle earlier rounds to make them match the home/road designations as the tournament develops. At any rate, I think you are right, usage is sufficiently inconsistent that the current method of italicizing works well enough. 76.10.24.245 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We might as well cut the italicization from the conf. semis onwards since now all higher seeds get the home court advantage. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It'll be needed again in the NBA Finals and there is no need to introduce inconsistencies in the formatting we're using. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.24.245 (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pistons Undefeated
Just wondering if a team has ever won seven straight games without loss? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.230.65 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * SportsCenter last night said the Pistons are the 11th team to do so and that 7 of the prior 10 went on to win the NBA Championship. 76.10.24.245 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The last team I remember having a playoff run like the Pistons are having were the 1999 San Antonio Spurs, who lost only 2 games throughout the entire playoffs. The Spurs did notch 2 straight sweeps in the semi-finals and the conference finals, so that makes 8 straigh right there, including the two straight to close out the T-Wolves in round 1 and the Game 1 victory in the 99 Finals, that's a win streak of 11 if I'm not mistaken. Dknights411 02:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)