Talk:Cleveland Cavaliers

David Blatt was fired
..January 2016, although the best results for the team two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.213.87 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Shawn Marion
I have not been able to find a legitimate source from the Cavaliers that Shawn Marion is a member of the team. Why is he on the roster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanic23 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Franchise History organization
The current format of the history - as one large chunk with unclear distinctions between seasons and dates - needs reform. Other team pages have segmented their franchise history into "eras", and I think the same approach would be applicable here. Thoughts? - RfxSi
 * I added some eras, feel free to change them or add to them Ben1283 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
If 68.40.213.107 keeps abusing the page there should be some discipline in banning IPs or whatever, seems like a Detroit fanboy from the edit history (not that there's anything wrong with rooting for a particular team.) -ThermalOxidizer

Mascot
The Cavs mascot is Moondog. Info should be added somewhere. I have also noticed that not many or any NBA teams have their mascot listed in the article. http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/moondog.html

usher
does he own most of the team? or just part? if part how much?--Jaysscholar 03:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is a minority owner.....I am not sure the exact %, but I think it is not very much. BigMar992 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasting
I think there needs to be a section on TV and Radio commentary. ESPECIALLY noting Joe Tate....I will do this eventually if no one does it before me. BigMar992 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there should be recognition of Joe Tait, but there is already a Wikipedia stub for him. I feel the bulk of the material should go there. Hx823 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Kemp
The first full season with Shawn Kemp proved to be promising with Kemp teamed up with Wesley Person and four rookies (including Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who was injured the entire 1996-1997 season). This is worth mentioning.

Game Songs
What songs are played during the game by the Cavaliers?

They play the "Defense" chant-inspiring theme and its many NBA versions quite frequently.

Logo format
GIF-formatted logos should be avoided. They are resized down from their original size and then re-encoded into their original format, which doesn't bode well for transparent GIFs. I won't go into technical details, (it should be pretty apparent they suck) so I'll just say optimally they should be uploaded in either PNG or SVG format.

This Article is copied
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Cleveland_Cavaliers

please watch because i think that's the same article --86.32.148.186 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Thomers Schutte
 * It is. That's from Wapedia, a program for cell phones to access Wikipedia. --Tressif (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The LeBron James era?
This title seemed kind of biased to one player. I think that maybe some the like 'The Q ear' might work or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firesun (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. When a player has as much impact on a team as James, this era will be defined by him. The name is appropriate Frank Anchor Talk to me  (R-OH) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, without LeBron, the Cavs are a mediocre to average team at best. With him they are a mid-level (3, 4, or 5 seed) playoff team. This era should go down as the "LeBron James Era".Hx823 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Throwback Logo
It's nice to see the logos here, but does someone have an image of the ORIGINAL logo? The one with the script "Cleveland" (home) and script "Cavaliers" (away) with the bottom of the "C" undrlining the word and ending in a feather? This is a MUST for inclusion. I saw a LeBron jersey like that a few months ago, and it brought back a lot of memories.Hx823 (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that image with the feather you're referring to was never their official logo. The team's logo in the early years was the caped Cavalier guy with the sword.  The feather treatment was the wordmark on the team's jerseys from 1970-1974, so it will be very hard to find.  Best I can do is  but I do not know who owns it. Matches10 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a time however when the logo WAS on the jersey. Back in the 83-94 era the orange "CAVS" with a basketball over the "V". By all means bring back the caped cavalier guy too!Hx823 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Cavs used the throwback jerseies in the back to back home and home series with Philly. :)

Hx823 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a good move to put all the logos in their own catagory. Looks cleaner that way.Hx823 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the 84 to 94 Orange logo? G0aT CheEZeY (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Go to this site, it has all the logos of the past:
 * https://www.sportslogos.net/ 76.71.82.140 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Titles
What's up with the 2010 etc champs? Vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.50.91 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Beanzilla2, 1 April 2010
Add Lebron James to the Ground-Breaking Players Section of this article because he has over 14,000 youngest to awards

Beanzilla2 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a source and the exact text you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleveland Quip
Found in the last paragraph of The Lebron James Era:

"This is in accord with the sports law of Cleveland, which states teams are allowed to have a great lineup but only if they disappoint and never win a championship" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.178.246 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 164.107.215.161, 15 May 2010
There is vandalism towards the end of the "LeBron James Era" section.

The Cavaliers defeated the Chicago Bulls 4–1 in the first round of the 2010 NBA Playoffs but, in a huge upset, lost to the Boston Celtics after leading the series 2-1, with the Celtics proceeding to win 3 consecutive games. This is in accord with the sports law of Cleveland, which states teams are allowed to have a great lineup but only if they disappoint and never win a championship.

164.107.215.161 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Not vandalism, per se, but certainly unencyclopedic humor. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New Cavs Logo
the new cavs logo with the gold sword should replace the old one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natevb96 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.128.231.14, 2 July 2010
Where it says, "2009-10 - Cavs win 61 games, advance to Semis",

it should actually say, "2009-10 - Cavs win 61 games, advance to Conference Semis."

75.128.231.14 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bejinhan  Talk   10:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha. (ec) Agreed, after reading about the playoffs; but while I was reading, it had already been done by !
 * Thanks for your contribution. I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve more articles.  Chzz  ► 10:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clevelandcavalier, 15 July 2010
Albert Hung is not an owner of the cleveland cavaliers and therefore should not be on the cavaliers page as an owner.

Clevelandcavalier (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done It seems that information was changed some time ago, but according to this article in The News Herald (Ohio) (the most recent I could find) Hung's planned purchase is yet to be completed and Katzman is still to sell his stake.  AJ Cham  06:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.178.12.72, 26 July 2010
There are 3 more major minority owners. They are nate forbes, jeff cohen and steve rosenthal. These 3 are childhood friends, buieseness partners and part own mostly everything gilbert ownes including the cavaliers. There are many articles that include these 3 and gilbert proving my statment.

76.178.12.72 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — AJ Cham  02:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Owners
Minority owners- Jeff Cohen (vice chair) Nate Forbes (vice chair) and Steve Rosenthal

see links for source- http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/front_office.html http://www.rock-gaming.com/meet-rock-gaming/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelandcavalier (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cavs Radio
I'd like to reach consensus on something just for peace of mind. Should WMMS be mentioned in the Cavs Radio/TV section? They function essentially as the backup for WTAM when there are conflicts with the Indians, and I feel it's worth mentioning because the games have to go somewhere when there's a conflict.
 * Yes - granted it's only a handful of games, but still, they have to air somewhere when WTAM can't do it. Vjmlhds 19:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Conflict games are very rare, particularly the last few years as the Cavs have struggled to make it to playoffs. The Cavaliers never sent out a press release regarding these very rare conflict games.  WTAM has never sent out a press release, nor has WMMS.  And not one media outlet, local or otherwise, has reported on the subject of Cavaliers conflict games.  WP:NBA does not even address the issue of local media coverage in its article guidlines, let alone what occurs during rare scheduling conflicts.  Just because something is true that does not mean it belongs in this article. (WP:NOT)   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Should talk about the Cavs parade and the fan base in Cleveland! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arraqm (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Extra Draft picks
I added information about the extra draft picks given to the Gunds to encourage them to buy the team. As I recall, this was a sweetener offered beforehand, but I don't have a cite for this so I tried to leave the information barebones, rather than post poorly remembered gossip. If a better source can be found for this, that would be great. Boomcoach (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014
The picture of former coach Byron Scott is, in a work, horrible. The current Byron Scott article photograph is far better, and I assume meets the free picture standards. It should be substituted

98.101.223.99 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism
I strongly suggest that the article Cleveland Cavaliers be either semi-protected or fully protected by administrators due to continued ongoing vandalism by user Poopisrocking. If this user keeps vandalising this page, he should be strongly sanctioned according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Love Image Caption
Please quote sources as to which media commentators are claiming the Cavaleirs new hypothetical and unofficial lineup as favourites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.180.174 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Owner Change
Owner: Michael Jordan

❌ Please provide a reliable source for the change. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC) This is correct. Not sure where to find a reliable source, but it is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSullivan24 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015
The head coach of the Cleveland Cavilers is not David Blatt. It is Lebron James. Please change that.

JohnSullivan24 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  03:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

History section
Just a reminder as the History section continues to get expanded that 1) the Manual of Style for titles and subheadings only requires capitalization of proper nouns. The rest of a subheading should not be capitalized. 2) Make sure paragraphs are more than one sentence long. They should be at least three sentences long, with five a more preferable minimum. 3) Not every section needs a subheading. The presence of the current subheadings seems to indicate a separate History of the Cleveland Cavaliers page is needed and the History section here reduced to a somewhat shorter summary. Once you get past three subheadings in a section, it's a sign the section is becoming too large. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It does appear that a separate history article may be necessary, one similar to the History of the Cleveland Browns. However, the 3-subsection limit strikes me as low and somewhat arbitrary.  JonRidinger, perhaps you could link to a specific guideline which clearly articulates the appropriate number of subsections.  Or are you referring to the number/depth of heading levels per section (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, etc.)?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Three subheadings/sections is a general rule of thumb I have seen in many other good articles (if subheadings are used at all); it is not required. That's why I said "seems to indicate". It could also simply indicate excessive detail. In history sections for US city articles, the suggestion is 10 paragraphs before looking to create a "History of..." article. It also discourages using second level headings "since they tend to encourage excessive detail and length, and can disrupt cohesion." Seems to be quite an issue here as the more recent sections have far more detail than the sections dealing with the Cavs' early history. I understand that's from another Wikiproject and even there isn't an absolute rule, but it makes sense and strikes me as a good idea for similar articles. Currently, this article has 41 paragraphs in the history section, some of which are only one sentence long. Even if some of the paragraphs are combined, it's still a pretty long section. The uniform section could also use some trimming and better organization since it is also a series of one-sentence paragarpahs, on top of the excessive detail of mentioning every instance a special uniform was worn. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Three sub-headings is unnecessarily low and if that is the case, then just about every sports franchise would need its own "history of" article (which may be a good idea anyway). I do think that a lot of content needs to be removed (especially from about 2003 on), but the sub-headings are necessary to show the owners/players/coaches who had the biggest influence on the team at any given time.  Frank Anchor Talk


 * I went ahead and created the article History of the Cleveland Cavaliers. It is the 13th NBA team history article. At this point it's a duplicate of the history section here, so obviously we will need to pare down the content here to more general sections and leave the details to the history article.


 * As for subheadings, they are supposed to help make navigation easier and break up walls of text, but too many, like the suggestion from WP:USCITY said, invites excessive detail, which is evident in the amount of text from 2003 to now vs. 1970-2002. In good and featured articles, it's not uncommon for sections, even lower-level subheading sections, to have at least three decent paragraphs along with a general history introduction, so that's where the suggestion for three subheadings comes from, but again, it's a suggestion based on how I've seen history sections become unwieldy with excessive headers and detail. Many good history sections don't have subheadings at all. How editors decide to use them will vary significantly. The history section could just as easily be divided up based on the owner, head coach, home arena, a set amount of time (like 10 or 20 years, for instance), etc., if at all. Same is true for the uniforms section. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This was from when the history page was created last year. In short, the history section here is far too large, which is why a separate article was created. Nothing has changed in regards to it being necessary; it's a matter of both being properly maintained. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Same reasons as back in May. This time an editor did condense the history section (meaning the two articles are no longer identical), yet you reverted it. This has already been discussed and is standard procedure for articles to create "daughter" articles. When a subheading in an article gets as long as the history section was in this article, it most definitely needs to be its own article, so you summarize the absolute most important parts and leave the finer details to the history article. This goes for cities, schools, teams, etc. Not sure why you felt the need to nominate it for deletion again. There's no time limit on improving an article so the same reasons that existed in May to keep (and you'll recall it was a pretty strong consensus to keep since there are multiple other "History of..." articles for NBA and other professional sports teams, including the Indians and Browns) still exist. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015
76.14.77.175 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)The Cleveland LeBrons
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to Dan Gilbert switched to Stephen Curry
Can someone fix the link on the right side info bar? Clicking the owner link for Dan Gilbert is currently linking to Stephen Curry. 73.52.123.90 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Golden State Fanboys
So an account named Mobilegroup has changed the Cavaliers' owner(s) to Klay Thompson. I can't change it back so if anyone could do that it would be nice. I know it's finals and all but really is that necessary ? Not really funny Golden State fans.

J.R. Smith/Tristan Thompson
Does anybody think the Cleveland Cavaliers will re sign J.R. Smith and Tristan Thompson????

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While It would be suitable to discuss whether their negotiations should be covered in an article, WP:FORUM discourages general discussion of the Cavs not related to improving Wikipedia content. Thanks for understanding.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cleveland Cavaliers. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gilbert_letter_100708.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Jersey improvements.
I feel as though there needs to be more jersey's shown in the overview. The Navy, Gold and Black Alternate uniforms aren't included. Unless NBA teams on the wiki's are specific to just a home and away; I'm unsure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnvans (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016
"Also known as the Cavs" Can we add a /by whom?/ right next to this?

SteelPanMan (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: AFAIK, they are often called by the shortened form by the general population, so it shouldn't need to be prefaced.  Are you implying that it is a select group that uses the nickname?—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Fix the "first NBA Championship"' paragraph.
The writing is good; there is just way too many unnecessary commas.

For example: "The Warriors, coming off an NBA record 73–9 season, started off strong, leading the series 3–1 after game 4." should be changed to "The Warriors, coming off an NBA record 73–9 season started off strong, leading the series 3–1 after game 4."

also "However, the Cavaliers, led by strong play from James and Irving, won the following three games to win the championship." should be changed to "However, the Cavaliers led by strong play from James and Irving won the following three games to win the championship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnvans (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This version, with what you claim to be too many "unnecessary commas," is grammatically correct. Frank Anchor Talk 17:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

LeBron James/lede
I added LeBron James to the lede in a list of players called "legends" and, since James is still active, I changed "legends" to "greats." I don't know that this is the best reaction to this issue but I believe this article suffers pretty badly by carrying a three-paragraph lede with mentions of Shaquille O'Neal and Brad Daugherty while omitting James entirely. I said as such in an edit summary and have been twice reverted by User:Sabbatino, who has reverted me twice while declining both times to explain how my reasoning is faulty. Their reason both times is "consensus," which was apparently reached in a discussion I can't find. It would have to be on this talk page but it's not, and if it went to the archives, that means consensus was gained before the Cavs won a championship where James was named Finals MVP.

In their second revert, Sabbatino's edit summary included a claim that has several possible meanings, none of which apply and/or make sense: "There was a CONSENSUS regarding this that active players are not added here." By "here," does that mean this article's lede only? What is it specifically about the Cavs that makes this apply? Does "here" mean a sentence that lists players considered "legends?" This wouldn't be relevant to my edit. Or does "here" mean NBA teams' ledes in general? Because that's not true by a mile and it almost certainly never will be.  City O f  Silver  20:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this when some user started adding Mo Williams to the list along with Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving. After that it was decided that active players shouldn't be included in the lede. This discussion took place in about 2 or 3 places. I notified the WP:NBA about this. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not responding sooner.
 * I said that the lede is badly lacking without James; you've responded several times by mentioning consensus and/or a previous discussion that I can't find. You seem to think that the person who was adding Mo Williams is a bit of a doofus. I would agree with that 100%. You and I almost certainly would comprise consensus should that person show up and keep trying.
 * The mention at the WikiProject hasn't gotten any reaction either here or there so I'd like to try to try to find a compromise. I absolutely agree that Williams does not belong in the lede. I'd go even further and say that Irving and Love aren't obvious candidates for a mention, either. That said, I still believe the lede needs James. Would that work? Mention James, keep Irving and Love out pending any further discussion that might happen, and nuke any mentions of Williams?  City O f  Silver  19:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since people ignored that, I will ping some of the regulars directly to this place., , , , , – what do we do with this situation? Reinstate LeBron James in the lede or keep him out of it until he retires? – Sabbatino (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the specifics of past discussions, but I think LeBron James should be mentioned in the lead. It's incongruous to mention guys like Brad Daugherty and Mark Price and not mention James. James is, by any reasonable standard, the most important player in the Cavs' history. That whole paragraph listing players should be rebuilt from scratch. "Legends" is too vague and subjective. And why highlight so many players who are much better known for their accomplishments with other teams? Shaq only played 53 regular season games for the Cavs. Zagal e jo^^^ 09:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there was other discussions, but Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_31 was more about someone like Mo Williams not being a legend. Generally, I wouldn't expect recent players to be in a team's lead, but LeBron is a special case. Perhaps we don't need to refer to him as a "legend" given that he is still active, but surely he is notable for the lead having won multiple MVPs with his hometown team before leaving with The Decision, and then returning to lead them to their first championship.—Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say stay away from such a list, since there's no clear cutoff for "legend-hood" and it'll only cause arguments like these until the end of time. But if there's going to be a list, I think it has to include LeBron. He's undoubtedly the face of the franchise and likely will be for a very long time even after he retires. Lizard  (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we have consensus?
I believe a consensus has formed: I don't think we should add prose about James because, with all the drama surrounding his career, we'd either be overloading the lede or leaving out necessary details. If it's a list, it should be James, Price, Daugherty, and Ilgauskas, in that order, since those are the franchise's all-time best players according to Basketball Reference's Win Shares metric. (And that should be the cutoff because the next three guys on that list are Hot Rod Williams, Larry Nance, and Anderson Varejão.) I replaced the word "legends" with "greats" even though I admit that’s not ideal. "Superstars" is accurate but seems too promotional. What’s a good way to refer to that group of four players?  City O f  Silver  23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) James ought to be mentioned. If any active NBA player has accomplished enough to merit a spot in his team's lede, it’s this guy.
 * 2) He should not be included on a list of players called "legends" because he’s still active.
 * 3) That list of "Past NBA greats" should go since those guys didn't accomplish much in Cleveland.
 * 4) Anybody who tries to add Mo Williams is banned from Wikipedia until the end of time.


 * He did something, and he should be mentioned. Don't get me wrong as I'm not changing my stance over this, but I was just following what was decided in the past.
 * This sentence needs a tweak so we wouldn't make any wrong implications.
 * But read the sentence again "Past NBA greats such as Nate Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, Walt Frazier, and Shaquille O'Neal have also played in Cleveland, albeit near the end of their careers." It even implies that they just played there briefly.
 * That's a bit over the top. Warnings should be given, but banning for such small addition is silly. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're the person who was removing James's name so if you think "he should be mentioned", that's that. I'm going to get rid of "Past NBA greats" because dang, I didn't even notice that: the reason for removing that sentence is right there in the sentence. I'm thinking referring to those four guys as "past and present top NBA players" is as good an option as I'll be able to come up with, so if anybody has a better idea, go for it.  City O f  Silver  20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, especially point No. 4 . Lizard  (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Commemorative banner"
Can someone please point to a past discussion here or elsewhere, if available, which supports the inclusion of Joe Tait's microphone "commemorative banner" in the section #Retired numbers? I recently removed it for the second time in the last year (?) or so, but pointed out that "We still include it in these tables."  I'm okay with that if that's truly the case; I just think it's a little odd to have a "commemorative banner" in the retired numbers section, particularly when the Cavaliers themselves apparently do not refer to it as such. Thanks. Levdr1 lp /  talk  10:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been almost two weeks, so I'm removing Tait (again) from the retired numbers section. Levdr1 lp  /  talk  12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Although has again restored Tait to the  section w/o discussing the dispute here or elsewhere, he has still not provided a source which refers to Tait's recognition as anything other than a "commemorative banner".  The words "retired number" are never used in any of the three sources provided.123  If Sabbatino does not at least attempt to discuss the matter, I plan to reach out to additional editors: first at the relevant Wikiprojects, then -- if necessary -- through an RfC.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the reason why I included TEXT, which explains that. Look at every other NBA team's table about "retired numbers" and you will see that we include it if person has a commemorative banner. Moreover, stop being so picky about the wording (*cough* "retired number is not in the source" *cough*) for no reason and I guess this example is driving you nuts? If you wish then go ahead and ask at the project before removing anything just because you do not like it. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for finally discussing the issue. First, it appears you missed what I said in my first post two weeks ago, so let me repeat it for you: I'm okay with including Tait in the retired numbers section so long as there have been past discussions demonstrating that's what's preferred in these types of cases (you know, consensus).  "But this other article does it the way I like it" is not a good reason to change the content under dispute.  Second, feel free to refrain from shouting-- I'm more than capable of understanding you whether you're referring to *text* or text or TEXT or text or text, and a relatively experienced editor like yourself should know by now that WP:TPG cautions against using at least one of those forms of emphasis on talk pages.  Third, I'm not sure what characterizing my view as being "picky" has to do w/ the substance of my points: you haven't presented a single source which refers to Tait's banner as a "retired number", nor have you linked to any past relevant consensus.  Agree or disagree with my view, but please don't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an excuse to justify, quite ironically, your own personal preference (& a crufty one at that).  Fourth, please do not use phrases such as "driving you nuts" which could be interpreted as a personal attack; comment on the content under dispute, not the editor.  Lastly, I will in fact be reaching out to the relevant Wikiprojects to seek and encourage additional input.  Thanks.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have sought additional input at the NBA and Cleveland Wikiprojects.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  11:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I did not see your post two weeks ago so I did not miss anything. Secondly, I was not shouting, because my whole post was not written in caps and certain people (I am not directing this at you) tend to ignore it sometimes and it is my way of letting someone know about certain additions. Thirdly, you are being picky about two words. I even wrote why Tait is included there and I do not use WP:IDONTLIKEIT to justify my action, because you were the one (that is just my impression) using it. And "driving you nuts" is not a personal attack as I was trying to show you one of the examples among others that such things are included elsewhere. However, I feel that the "Retired numbers" sections should be renamed to "Retired numbers and honored members/personnel" to avoid any future conflicts. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * P.s. I do not see what this issue has to do with WikiProject Cleveland as it involves more places than Cleveland. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - I pinged you when I opened this discussion on April 11. In addition, you restored Tait to the #Retired numbers section less than an hour after I removed it on April 24 (either you watch this article constantly, or, more likely, it's on your watchlist).  For both reasons, I might ordinarily be skeptical that you simply "did not see" this discussion (or that you "did not see" the reply notification), but I'll AGF & give you the benefit of the doubt on those.  Regarding shouting, it doesn't matter if it's one word, one sentence, or a whole paragraph.  WP:TPG clearly states: "CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are very rarely appropriate." I missed the part where it says "it's not shouting if I'm directing it at certain users".  Regarding you calling me "picky", I'm still waiting for a substantive response to my point about the lack of sources referring to Tait's banner as a "retired number", or any past relevant consensus.  Let's also get one thing straight: you linked to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I found that ironic in a pot-meet-kettle kind-of way.  Clearly you have a preferred version here, but you're not basing that preference on any policy, guideline, or past consensus I'm aware of.  At least I'm citing policy -- WP:VERIFY -- to justify my own preferred version.  Regarding personal attacks, I stand by what I said.  Calling a fellow editor "nuts" because he/she doesn't agree with you is counterproductive: comment on content, not the contributor.  As for the Cleveland Wikiproject, scroll up and you'll note that this article falls under the scope of the Cleveland Wikiproject.  Accordingly, I've sought input from members there, just as I have from the NBA Wikiproject.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why you keep ignoring what is written to you? And why are you being picky over the wording? "Commemorative banner" is a commemorative banner and a "retired number" is a retired number. There are many teams that have commemorative banners hanging in the rafters, which means that those people were important to the franchise and we reflect that here (I said before that those sections should be renamed to reflect it more appropriately). And as for "a substantive response to my point about the lack of sources referring to Tait's banner as a "retired number", or any past relevant consensus" there was no discussion and there appears to be a silent consensus. This is not the first time that you are trying to win "your way" (remember Canton Charge logo?) in an article. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - Are we discussing the logo in the Canton Charge infobox, or are we discussing whether or not to include Joe Tait in this article's section #Retired numbers? For my part, this is not about "winning" or "losing".  You may not agree with my view (i.e., Tait's banner is, clearly, not a player's retired number, and therefore shouldn't be listed as such), but you don't see me characterizing your own view as "picky".  Rather, I simply recoginize that we disagree, and I'm trying to reach some kind of rough agreement between us and anyone else who weighs in.  You still haven't presented anything of substance to counter my point about the words "retired number" never once referring to Tait's honor in any of the available sources.  Coverage from reliable sources dictates content.  At the very least, coverage (& the wording found therein) is more important than any so-called "silent consensus", which from what I can tell refers to the essay WP:SILENT.  Among other things, that essay points out that silence is the "weakest" form of consensus, and that silence exists as a kind-of de facto form of consensus only as long as no one objects to the relevant content, discussion, etc.  Well, I object to listing Tait in the retired numbers section, at least in the manner he was before I first raised the issue.  So here we are.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not a fan of expanding the header title, either. It just feels like a reverse attempt to insert Tait into the retired numbers list.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support a broader name for the section, though honestly I don't think it needs one. True, it's not a retired number, but it's the same honorary concept. Retired numbers are the typical way to honor past great players; obviously people like Tait aren't going to have a number, but the team clearly wanted to give him a similar honor by hanginging the banner right with the retired numbers. Considering that other teams do have instances of honored people who didn't have a player number, it's not out of line to include Tait, and the text provides the proper context and explanation, plus the graphic seems appropriate. It's similar to the Indians "retiring" 455. 455 is obviously not a retired number since no player has or ever could wear it; it's essentially an honorary "banner" (in this case a placard on the upper deck) to the fans. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * JR- thanks for weighing in. What do you think we should do in the infobox?  Like I said in my first post, I'm not necessarily opposed to including Tait in the retired numbers section, and I agree w/ Sabbatino's decision to add a sentence or two there clarifying Tait's relevance.  I just don't want to drift too far toward fancruft territory, and listing a Joe Tait wikilink in the infobox while piping the word "microphone", like here, seems like it could potentially confuse some readers.  The section in the article body allows for context where the infobox does not.  (Side note- I would also extend that same thinking to the retired numbers group in the Cleveland Cavaliers template.)   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This sounds like something that should be presented at WP:NBA since it could affect every infobox. Boston Celtics has "LOSCY", for Jim Loscutoff, in their numbers section, but it's not included in the total of 21, and they do not include the honorary banners at all. LOSCY seems like a special instance given the history behind it (he specifically asked not to have his number retired, plus his #18 was retired later for another player). New York Knicks has '613' listed in theirs, which is for Red Holzman and his 613 victories, similar to the Indians and 455. I don't think there's any kind of consensus (on top of the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) and Template:Infobox NBA team is no help. At first glance, I think I'd be more towards just listing numbers ("LOSCY" being the exception, though even that could be excluded) mostly for the sake of simplicity, but would go with consensus either way. In the end I don't think it will make a significant amount of difference in the various infoboxes to have the few non-number names, but I think if the consensus is to include those other honorary people, there should be a separate entry on the infobox. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Tait's microphone should be added. Look at Chick Hearn for example, the Lakers retired his "jersey" (w/ mic), and it's become kind of a league wide thing for announcers to have their "mics" retired once they hang them up. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

To put this issue to bed, here is an article detailing 7 NBA announcers who have had their "mics" retired by their respective teams This shows that this is an NBA-wide trend, and that they should be included with retired numbers. If Tait were a one-off, then I can see an issue, but since this is becoming a commonplace occurrence, I don't see any issues. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * - You don't have to convince me. Apparently there's agreement to note Tait's honor in prose, but I don't see consensus to list the banner in the retired number table.  Now, I could be wrong, and you're welcome to reach out to the NBA wikiproject as JR suggests.  I simply don't agree with you here, and given the consensus-by-default since April, why don't you just wait and see what others have to say?  Maybe open an RfC?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at the other team's tables of retired NBA numbers you'll see the Mic included in all of them. In fact, all you have to do is look here to see that the Mic is a prominent part of the retired numbers...not seeing the big issue with Tait - If the Mic is good enough for other teams, it's good enough for the Cavs and Tait. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on a suggestion by, I've modified the article (re retired numbers) in a way that should be satisfactory to all. The Cavs refer to their former great players  of the past as the Cavs Legends club, and this has expanded to non players such as original head coach Bill Fitch and original/longtime announcer Joe Tait.  What I did was rename the retired numbers section as "Cavs Legends", and create 2 tables, one for the actual retired numbers, and one for Tait's microphone (and any future non player banners that get hung up, because teams do do that).  Should Tait's MIC go in the infobox or the template?  No - because it isn't a "letter of the law" retired number, but having his banner displayed like I have it in the article now (separate from the retired numbers, but acknowledged the same way) should be a happy medium. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead
Not sure why there's an issue with the mention of the less-than-stellar aspects of some of the Cavs history. Be careful to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for removal, especially since few NBA team articles are FA status or have leads without issues. Further, those negative occurrences are fairly notable aspects that can easily be justified in a general summary of the article, which is what the lead is. I could understand wanting to remove excessive amounts of detail about those two events, but that isn't the case here, and the mentions were reasonably written in an appropriate place. To be honest, the lead could use some expansion to better summarize the entire article. While the reword was a good attempt, it now places the mention of the Stepien Rule in an awkward place that really doesn't make sense or provide any flow. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you find particularly notable about tying a losing streak record that's already been broken twice, would you explain what you believe is fairly notable about this? Many teams have held this record, both before and after the Cavs. If you look at the leads for these teams pages on Wikipedia, you'll notice they make no mention of these losing streaks either.  Had it been a record that had lasted for quite some time, I believe you would have a stronger argument for it being notable.  However, since this isn't the case, a season like that is simply a footnote in the Cavs history, not really something that's notable or worthy of the lead section.  You seem to somehow be mistaking it's lack of notability with wanting to remove the mention of anything negative  - the latter is not true. In addition, the Stepien rule isn't really that notable for the Cavs - it's something that is possibly notable for NBA Rules and for the owner at the time who the rule was named after, but not the entire organization.  At best, it's an interesting bit of trivia about the Cavs history, but certainly not a notable part of the organization.  Finally, that entire section reads terribly, even mentioning, 'numerous dubious....', but only citing two minor events in the franchises history. It's actually a bit disheartening to see you vehemently defending the section of text when it so poorly written and out of place simply because you decided people want it removed because it's negative.  I sincerely believe if the original addition had been held to such scrutiny it would have never been added and would be shocked if you disagree.   Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Careful with your wording. I wasn't "vehemently" defending anything. I had a stance, but also put it up for discussion since that's how we work here: consensus. I'm not opposed to improving the article; I just didn't think a simple removal was the best option. I also obviously thought the two "dubious" facts were significant enough to warrant mention; doesn't mean I did't think they couldn't be better written in an improved lead. That said, I went ahead and expanded the lead, based on what I saw at Toronto Raptors (since it's FA class) and WP:LEAD. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I will use whatever words I feel appropriate. In a discussion about the merits of the quality of text in the lead, I think you're missing the forest for the trees if you want to squabble about adjectives (adverbs?), when really, that one word is but a fraction of the total of the points I mentioned in my response to you. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't miss your "forest of trees" at all; I was simply pointing out your conclusions about my motives are incorrect and that I disagreed with your reasoning for a total removal. I actually had a more detailed reply for my previous post, but instead, I took time to expand the lead as a more general summary, which you'll note still includes the two "dubious" aspects, but now within a much larger context and without special emphasis (and without "a number of" and "dubious" :) ). --JonRidinger (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact, you did agree with my reason for total removal - it was a low quality section of written text, it should have never been there in the first place, and the fact that you rewrote the lead suggest that you agree with this. When there's a low quality section of text like that, removal is certainly a better option then letting it remain on the page unchanged. Rewriting the lead is of course an even better option. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I meant by "total removal" is just removing a paragraph without any type of expansion or replacement. I typically only favor straight removals of text without replacement/expansion if it contains POV terms, clearly incorrect information, unsourced and challengeable material, or is otherwise in violation of copyright, WP:BOOSTER, WP:NOT, etc. I obviously felt those two main points merited inclusion (hence why they remain in the lead), but saw your point that perhaps they were getting undue weight, along with being part of a one-sentence paragraph. Figured it was as good a time as any to devote some time in improving the lead overall. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New Logos
Hello, The Cavs new logo should not be put in until their season is finished, as they are still using the current logo with the basketball in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.229.7 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is correct. The new logos released are for the 2017–18 season. Further, the shield logo that has been placed in this article isn't planned to be the primary logo; it's mentioned as a "global logo". The new primary logo is simply the "C" with the sword through it. See http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/releases/updated-logo-170531. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Same goes for the colors. Black debuts next season as an official color as well according to the source. It's OK to wait until this season is over before editors rush to update everything. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I updated the Cavaliers logo to the originally uploaded "C–Sword" version, and I will be consulting the person who sent out the global version.Z.I. Barbour (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We use the "global logo" version for all teams since it is recognized by everyone and is used everywhere (merchandise, press releases, etc.), while the "primary icon" is used marginally. Even the official "Cleveland Cavaliers Reproduction and Usage Guideline Sheet" distinguishes logo from icon. Moreover, if someone thinks that "primary icon" should be used as the logo then we must change it for every NBA team since they are different from what we show now. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The press release on the new logos seems fairly clear about the usage. The C-Sword logo (which has been the primary icon for some time) is now the primary logo. The Shield and Global Shield are presented as secondary logos along with the C. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plus their social media accounts and their printable schedule shoe the C w/sword logo. This is the one that needs to be used. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 19:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sabbatino and disagree with JonRidinger/Corkythehornetfan. Most, if not all, NBA teams use the global logo as their primary logo in their Reproduction and Usage Guideline Sheets. Also, the Cavaliers' official Facebook page and official Twitter account both use the "C" logo, and not the "C-Sword" logo as their profile pictures. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And as I mentioned on my talk page, I'd support the C logo before the global logo. It is more used than the global logo. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You people still fail to understand that icon and logo are two different things. "Primary icon" is not used for any of the teams and to keep it consistent we must use the logo and not the icon. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The press release JR linked to above is definitive: C-Sword is the "primary" logo. This talk of a "global" logo sounds like WP:OR.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my position, I support using the C-Sword in the infobox. I understand that the linked press release uses the term "global" in reference to the shield logo (hence the quotation marks). My point about original research was in response to Sabbatino's apparently unsupported assertion that any team's global logo is necessarily the primary means of identifying that team. A team's global logo may or may not effectively be that team's primary logo outside Wikipedia, but coverage dictates content on WP.  Right now I don't see anything beyond OR which counters the team press release.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not original research in any way. We always used and use the "global logo" and not the "primary icon", and the "Team X Reproduction and Usage Guideline Sheet" is the main source for logos or color codes. If you look at teams' websites and our NBA pages, you will see that almost all logos that we use are different from the logos used there. We either use the same practice for all teams or do not use it at all. No worries. In autumn my point will be proven when the shield logo will be all over the place and then I will change it to the correct logo, while the "logo" (like some of you call that "primary icon") will not be used anywhere except for a couple of press releases and in the arena. One more thing, please learn the difference between icon and logo, because I am amazed by some people's ignorance. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

What are the examples of an NBA team article where the "global logo" is different from their primary logo? I've honestly never seen a case like this and the Cavs have never had a "global logo"; they simply used the former "Cleveland Cavaliers" primary logo with the basketball and the sword. Like I said, the press release seems pretty clear and even the guide sheet mentions limitations on the usage of the global shield. The C-Sword is also an icon, but I don't think that makes a difference based on the press release, which just says "Primary". Same for secondary sources, which make no distinction (CBS Sports and WEWS) and this image from the Cavs which identifies the C-Sword as "The primary logo". The global logo is barely even seen on the Cavs website outside the merchandise section, which is why featuring it on this article seems out of place, at least for now. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of the "global logo" being used by multiple NBA basketball teams in their Reproduction Guideline Sheets as their primary logo. One such example is the Utah Jazz. See their Reproduction Guideline Sheet and Refreshed Utah Jazz Brand Identity for 2016-17 as references. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, just look at NBA.com/Stats–Teams. That URL is a fairly reliable indicator of what the new Cleveland Cavaliers logo should be, because that URL specifies what each NBA team's primary logo is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * - Please excuse my "ignorance" regarding how Merriam-Webster defines and differentiates between the terms "icon" and "logo". I can't speak for the Cavaliers organization, however, and neither can you-- so if you're at all interested in what the team itself has to say, then please again refer to the press release  linked to above:
 * Introduced in 2003, the C-Sword is the anchor to the Cavaliers’ brand. ... This logo carries forward the previous Cavaliers’ identity...
 * That reads pretty clear-cut to me. Moreover, I don't see anything in this thread beyond OR (including 's observations on the Jazz & the league) which overrides the Cavs' own press release: the C-Sword is the primary "logo", and as such belongs in the infobox as the primary means of identifying the subject of this article.  Until you or someone else can point to a reliable source which contradicts the team's own statement, all you're left with is your own thoughts and observations on where and how often various graphics are to represent the team (so, yes, original research).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just FYI – the NBA seems to be using the file currently used on its website (see the home page, this webpage, this page, etc. Seems like we've go the correct logo being used. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, those links appear to be further confirmation of the team press release.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017
Change logo to this: https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/0/06/ClevelandCavaliers2017Global.png Bandittx (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See my post right above this. The logo you linked 1) doesn't begin usage until the 2017-18 season, and 2) isn't going to be the Cavs' primary logo anyway. The primary logo will be the "C" with the sword, not either of the shield logos. The logo you linked is the "global logo". --JonRidinger (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2017
Hi, I was wondering if you can add the NBA player Derrick Rose to the roster. He is officially a Cavalier, but he's not listed on the roster. Atp0110 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. More specifically, while this page is protected, the roster template is not. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017
WANT TO UPDATE THE FRANCHISE LEADERS!!

Franchise leaders
Bold denotes still active with team.

Italic denotes still active but not with team. Points scored (regular season) (as of the end of the 2016–17 season)


 * 1) LeBron James (20,868)
 * 2) Zydrunas Ilgauskas (10,616)
 * 3) Brad Daugherty (10,389)
 * 4) Austin Carr (10,265)
 * 5) Mark Price (9,543)
 * 6) Bingo Smith (9,513)
 * 7) Hot Rod Williams (8,504)
 * 8) Kyrie Irving (8,232)
 * 9) Larry Nance (7,257)
 * 10) Campy Russell (6,588)


 * 1) World B. Free (6,329)
 * 2) Terrell Brandon (5,793)
 * 3) Jim Chones (5,729)
 * 4) Danny Ferry (5,643)
 * 5) Mike Mitchell (5,217)
 * 6) Craig Ehlo (5,103)
 * 7) Phil Hubbard (4,962)
 * 8) Anderson Varejão (4,485)
 * 9) Ron Harper (4,433)
 * 10) Tristan Thompson (4,378)


 * 21. Chris Mills (4,006)
 * 22. Wesley Person (3,924)
 * 23. Shawn Kemp (3,767)
 * 24. John Johnson (3,684)
 * 25. Kevin Love (3,604)
 * 26. Andre Miller (3,545
 * 27. John Bagley (3,542)
 * 28. Jim Cleamons (3,532)
 * 29. Bobby Phills (3,517)
 * 30. Drew Gooden (3,488)


 * 31. Jim Brewer (3,461)
 * 32. Mo Williams (3,350)
 * 33. Lamond Murray (3,349)
 * 34. Tyrone Hill (3,274)
 * 35. Roy Hinson (3,244)
 * 36. Dick Snyder (3,237)
 * 37. Cliff Robinson (3,177)
 * 38. Daniel Gibson (3,115)
 * 39. Foots Walker (3,073)
 * 40. Ricky Davis (2,921)


 * 41. Kenny Carr (2,831)
 * 42. Geoff Huston (2,788)
 * 43. Lenny Wilkens (2,751)
 * 44. Bob Sura (2,667)
 * 45. Randy Smith (2,635)
 * 46. Antawn Jamison (2,523)
 * 47. Walt Wesley (2,511)
 * 48. Dwight Davis (2,477)
 * 49. Dion Waiters (2,352)
 * 50. Melvin Turpin (2,325)

Other statistics (regular season) (as of April 18, 2017)

{ Mario1992 (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's already there and top 20 is enough. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits 14:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nike link
change ((Nike)) to ((Nike, Inc.|Nike))
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks –72 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Why the "Global Logo" should be the one displayed
The usage of the term global logo is new, beginning with the Cavalier's black shield logo. Since then, the Pacers' roundel logo has been upgraded from a secondary logo to primary logo. It is clear that Global Logos are becoming what the primary logo's used to be. Let me demonstrate why:

The NBA used to mandate that newly introduced primary logos contain the city/state name in addition to the mascot name. The global logo does this, whereas the new "primary" does not. In this way, the Cav's primary logo has more in common with other team's secondary logos and their Global Logo has more in common with other teams' primary logos (teams that most of which have not used the term global logo in any new marketing).

The Pacers new Global Logo is indeed the logo that is displayed on Wikipedia, not their primary logo of just the P and "pacers."

The Global Logo is what the old primary logo used to be. It includes the entire team name and most busy design. The Cav's primary logo is going to be used often, as it is simple and recognizable. This is in similar practice with other teams' secondary logo.

Sportslogos.net displays every team's primary logo. He recognizes the black shield as the primary because despite the team's arbitrary labeling, it is in-line with the practices of most every other NBA team. If the NBA teams' Wikis are to be most consistent with each other, the black shield logo should be the one used at the top of the page.


 * Please refer to the long discussion we had about this earlier. The usage of the "C-sword" logo was based on the press release from the Cavaliers that clearly identified it as the "primary logo". The Global Logo may very well become the de facto primary logo by its usage, but as of now, we are going by the recent press release and other usage of the C-sword logo, like on NBA.com, Fox Sports, and ESPN. The Indiana Pacers global logo seen on the Wikipedia article is actually hard to find on the Pacers' website, whereas the Cavaliers global shield is visible, though not featured. Either way, this sounds like a discussion that likely needs to be held at the NBA Wikiproject page. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at the Cavaliers' 2017–18 preseason media guide (found here), you'll note that Sabbatino is correct: the Cavaliers' global logo should be displayed in the infobox, because the team uses it more than the C-Sword logo. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was partially right. I wrote an e-mail to the Cavaliers not long ago and they said that "C-Sword" is their primary logo, while the "Shield" logo is their secondary and is mostly used outside of the United States. However, the NBA website and mobile application uses the "Shield" logo (SVG logo link), and that confuses me since they wrote one thing in the e-mail, but NBA shows different logo. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please put back the shield...it has become more front an center in the ensuing years. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Solved my own dilemma - all 3 logos ("C" w/sword, shield, plain "C") are all used pretty much interchangably, and the shield has become more prominent in the years since this consensus was first reach, so I simply put all 3 in the infobox. Can't just disregard the shield, as it IS splashed all over the Cavs website.  Like I said, lots can change in 3 years. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The press release by the team quite clearly says that the "C-Sword" logo is the team's main logo. Stop making assumptions. In addition, please read Talk:Cleveland Cavaliers. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All of that was 3 years ago. If you look at the Cavs' website, Twitter page, Facebook page, and Instagram page, you'll see that the shield is front and center, and that "sword C" has kind of faded away.  Can't be so rigid as too insist what may have been the way 3 years ago, still goes today when events have clearly changed...time marches on. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed, because the team used the "global logo" in all aforementioned places three years ago. Pinging who participated in past discussions. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to using the "shield" logo as it definitely seems to be used more frequently these days over the c-sword logo. This year's media guide uses the shield logo fairly consistently, as does the Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse website, along with what Vjmlhds mentioned as far as the team's website and social media pages. SportsLogos.net also lists the shield logo as the primary. ESPN.com and NBA.com, however, continue to use the c-sword logo to identify the team, but that may be because it's easier to identify as an small web icon. FoxSports.com and SI.com use just the "C" logo, which the Cavs website also uses for its favicon and in some other instances. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017
In the history of the Cleveland Cavaliers, at the most recent event which was the trade of Kyrie Irving to the Boston Celtics for Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder, center Ante Zizic, as well as having the rights to the Brooklyn Nets’ 2018 first round pick was not mentioned. The citation states this. Mr. LookitAll (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Meters (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017
it says wine and gold it needs to be changed to white and gold Arthurpoe (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That would be incorrect Cannolis (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead Verbosity
I recently viewed the lead for the page and came to the conclusion that it was more than just a bit verbose. Part of the reason I came to this conclusion is that a large majority of the information that the lead goes to some length to describe was immediately described in the next section in the article, 'History'. Because of this, the verbose content in the lead seemed clearly redundant and I feel that the article as a whole would benefit from it being more concise. If anyone finds these arguments flawed, I would encourage you to please reply and discuss the matter here. Thank you. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede is supposed to include the key facts per WP:LEDE. Please refrain from reinstating it without discussing the matter since you already did the same thing in the past and got reverted. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is long, but agree it still needs to provide an overview. I think it can be tightened and still address both concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think a revised lead would be best - no one is making the argument that key facts shouldn't be in the lead, but simply that there are facts in the verbose version of the lead which are less than key facts. I thought my edited lead still provided a solid overview of the Cavs without sacrificing any important information that I felt should be in the lead.  If there is an even better edit to the previous lengthy section, that is much more preferred.   Simply reverting back to the old, verbose, lead, is hardly a step in the right direction.


 * I would like to add that the lead edit by user JonRidinger on April 27th seems like a good replacement lead. It has a good amount of information but not too much like the previous verbose incarnation. I would do the work myself to update the parent lead to something similar to that at it, but I'm currently on vacation. If someone else would like take a stab at it that would be appreciated, otherwise I will take care of myself when I return home.Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have edited the lead in the past but for different reasons, Sabbatino. Those past reverts brought about discussion regarding the lead and in the end we ended up with a new lead was a nice length and contained a good balance of information. However, that nice lead has since ballooned into a verbose monster, and thus it appears to be time to discuss the lead again. Anyways, it is certainly not against wikipedia rules to edit a section more than once for different reasons and certainly not all edits must be discussed before done.


 * To foster discussion, however, I have of course created this talk section regarding lead verbosity. This discussion was created preemptively, of course, and I find it a bit uh, odd that you request I not make changes without discussing it further, when you changed my edits before discussing the issue in this thread. In fact, you have not even begun to discuss it yet, and instead your argument has been that I've made an edit in the past that had been reverted.


 * The lead is of course supposed to contain key facts, I suppose my argument would be that it contains much more than key facts at it's previous length. I would appreciate strong reasoning for the previous length of the lead instead of a blind revert under the reasoning that a previous edit of mine months ago regarding a different issue was 'reverted' aka the issue was discussed and we ended up with an updated lead at the end of it. Best.Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it is your duty to discuss per WP:BRD when you get reverted. You can not just remove content according to your taste. Please refrain from reverting until there is an understanding in this section. In addition, I can not discuss this matter at the moment since I am away from home for several days and I am writing this from my phone. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting my actions. I have already made myself very clear in regards to why I made my edits and none of these reasons involve taste. Despite this clarity, you've insisted that my edits are simply because of my taste and seemed to suggest I am a problematic editor. This is not a charitable interpretation of my comments and edits at all


 * In addition to this, another user has commented on this issue and express it they felt that the lead section was indeed too long and could probably be improved. Perhaps I am wrong, but your responses here give me a feeling that you're being overly aggressive towards me and my edits and are not respecting me as a peer and a Wikipedia editor. I feel this way because even after these lengthy common exchanges here you have yet to actually discuss the issue at hand, the topic of this talk page, which is the verbosity of the previous lead which I edited.Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to understand what you want to change in the lede when you removed almost everything with your last edit. It removed key facts and the lede have become worse than it was before your change. Care to explain, which parts should be improved or removed? Simply removing huge parts of page/section/paragraph is not an improvement in any way. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

MoS edits
I see you reverted my edits on this page without being very specific. Nothing I changed drastically altered the page's content, just brought it in line with standards of other league articles. These were not controversial changes, and you don't link to a specific talk section for reverting them--this talk page is very long! Etzedek24 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion about that. You do know that you could have found it yourself using your browser's search function? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor heading wording change proposal
For the sake of uniformity between NBA team articles as part of the WP:NBA manual of style concerning team pages, I'm proposing that the "Hall of Famers" and "Cavs Legends" headings be changed to "Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame members" and "Retired numbers and Cavs Legends". Some larger changes I made were blanket reverted with little explanation, but I noticed that the Cavs Legends section heading was the subject of some discussion. I don't feel that the Naismith change is controversial, and that editing the Cavs Legends heading as I specified will provide more uniformity in the article but still preserve the uniqueness of the Cavs Legends. Etzedek24 (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no manual of style at WP:NBA. Simply creating a page and taking it as a "rule" is not what Wikipedia is about. You cannot simply come and force every page to be the same. "Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame members" is excessive, because there is also FIBA Hall of Fame, so "Hall of Famers" is tidy and better for that. Regarding the "Cavs Legends" section, please read this discussion. It could be renamed to "Retired numbers and honorees", but not what you proposed. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just working off of WP:NBA's goals of providing consistent layouts for NBA-related articles. The question of subheading length seems to be one of taste. "Hall of Famers" is too ambiguous for an encyclopedic article, especially given that players may be inducted into more than one as Sabbatino noted. A heading such as Naismith Hall of Fame members or FIBA Hall of Fame members would suffice, as they are separated on team pages, for example, Milwaukee Bucks. Etzedek24 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A user below has already agreed that the names are fine, but you keep coming at me. Do you have anything against me that you ignore others? Lengthy heading names are not good. They should be short and clear as now. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your comment about style. I do not have anything against you, but I feel that through interactions you come off as not abiding by WP:AGF and being needlessly standoffish. Etzedek24 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be best to gather both Naismith and FIBA Hall of Famers in on section, which would be called "Hall of Famers" and make it into two sub-sections – "Naismith Hall of Fame" and "FIBA Hall of Fame". That way it would be tidy and would gather relevant information in one place. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I echo the same sentiments as Sabbatino regarding the subheadings. Subheadings should be concise without being too long. If editors ever need to link to a subheading, I'd much rather link to "Cavs#Cavs Legends" instead of "Cavs#Retired numbers and Cavs Legends"; same for the hall of fame. The other option for the HOF section is "Hall of fame members" or "Hall of fame inductees". "Cavs Legends" includes all retired numbers, so having "Retired numbers and Cavs Legends" seems redundant. If the concern is making a more uniform section heading across NBA articles for easier navigation, I would support "Honorees" or something similar since retired numbers is one of the ways a team honors a person, but not the only way, especially in cases like Joe Tait here and similar cases for other teams where an honoree wasn't a player or didn't have a number. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Former head coaches
Why is there no mention of David Blatt anywhere in the article? Signing him (and then releasing him) was a pretty major turning point in franchise history. The first mention of him in the History of the Cleveland Cavaliers article was about the end of his tenure. There's also no mention of Andrew Wiggins in the history article now, and only one mention of Kyrie Irving in the "2014–17: Perennial title contenders" section despite the major role he played. Contrasted with what the article looked like in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleveland_Cavaliers&oldid=696311122 70.27.132.69 (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Looks like the entire coach history and GM history sections are missing from this article. 70.27.132.69 (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020
CAVS VS WARRIOR

1-2 111.125.109.92 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021
add Lauri Markkanen to the current roster, remove Larry Nance from the team 64.209.158.185 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Logo
The C logo on the page is the incorrect logo, it is now a sheild with the C on it and Cleveland Cavaliers text above it in the shield. https://www.nba.com/teams 76.71.82.140 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024
"As a result, the Cavaliers finished the 2010–11 season last in the conference, enduring a 26-game losing streak, the second-longest in NBA history."

Request to change the line above to the following: > As a result, the Cavaliers finished the 2010–11 season last in the conference, enduring a 26-game losing streak, the third-longest in NBA history. Thekor (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)