Talk:Final four

Early comments
I'm thinking we should merge Final Four, March Madness, and NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship.

This comment is cross-posted onto all associated talk pages.

JnB987 20:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Knock-out tournaments
"In other countries, where knock-out tournaments are more common than in the U.S., the last four stage of a knock-out competition is called the semi-finals." I don't understand this addition. A knock-out tournament is a single elimination tournament, right? Who says they are more common outside the U.S.? And even if this is true, what difference does it make to this topic? The lead paragraph should indicate how the term is used, not how it's NOT used! And of course, "semifinals" is the generic term in the U.S., too. ... I see that the person who made this change has quit, anwyay. I'm going to remove it. BlongerBros 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Final Four" is very largely a U.S. term - as far as I know it's only really used in sports that are of American origin - and so "commonly used" needs qualification. I'm going to restore a modified version of the "semi-finals" comment, because I think it's useful. Loganberry (Talk) 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Split pages
I propose that this page be moved to Final four (disambiguation) and that Final Four redirect to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, which is by far the most common use of the term. See, e.g., Special:WhatLinksHere/Final_four. THF (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I Support this move. Starwrath (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have split the page, following the erasure peformed by MicmacNee last month. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab content
65.94.71.179 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) MicMacNee removed the following:

Final Four can also refer to:

In sports:
 * The Final Four of the Turkish Airlines Euroleague basketball competition
 * The Final Four of the NCAA Men's Volleyball Championship or NCAA Women's Volleyball Championship
 * The Frozen Four, the final two rounds of each of the four NCAA Ice Hockey Championships
 * The teams in the semifinal round of tournaments in college basketball in the Philippines, and, by analogy, other college sports in that country
 * UAAP Final Four
 * The Final Four of the volleyball CEV Champions League

In television:
 * The last four contenders in StarStruck, a Philippine TV series
 * The last four contestants on many reality shows, such as Survivor


 * Disagree. This is not really dab content. This is more of a list of events and competitions that use the term "Final four". Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What the F is this page actually supposed to be?
Is it an article? Is it a disctionary defintion? Is it a disambiguation page? Is it a list of competitions that use a Final Four? Is it a place holder for external links to various final four competitions? I've tried to make it into an article to comply with policy, even though it has sod all references, but now it's been turned back into the god-knows-what state it was when I found it. I'm tempted just to put it up for deletion as pure junk, if nobody can pick one of those uses, and make it comply with policy. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * List page, is what I am advocating. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a list article in its current state, by any stretch of the imagination. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it just needs some cleanup, not deletion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardly. It's not a list for a start. It's pretty obvious that List of sporting competitions that use a Final Four is not something an encyclopoedia would ever host, it's pure trivia/non-notable as a list topic. At best, this could become a WP:SETINDEX, but it doesn't even fit that model exactly. It's pure junk at the moment, a f'ed up mix of a list, a dicdef, a dab page, and all sorts of other junk. But worse, with the dabhat etc, you've made it look like a pseudo 'article', and whatever it is, it is most certainly not an article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be patient. There is no deadline. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If this page doesn't start to look like an article, a list, a dab page, or a set index, very quickly, rather than a messed up abortion of all of them, then I will impose a seven day deadline. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do mean by "quickly"? I cannot guarantee I can get this ready in the next 2 hours. I have a real life you know. But hey, if you feel you need to be bold and put this on AFD ASAP in order to get a true consensus rather than just the two of us debating, feel free. I have done that too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I'll revert back to the previous version, and instead of putting an incomplete version live, I'll work it out in a user sandbox or something. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, because you only had issues with my recent edits, and you apparently had no problem with the previous version of this page, this could instead be seen as an editing dispute, which is not a valid reason to delete the entire page history under an AFD. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who says I didn't have a problem with it? I editted what was a complete mess, so that it at least looked like an article. That's not an endorsement of it's existence, it's just a sad reflection of the reality that on Wikipedia it's quicker to make an edit to make the best of a bad job, than to actually piss around with an Afd. If this is now to be an article on the term, then non-notability is a pretty cast-iron delete reason though, and as of right now, this article's notability is supported by precisely 1 reference. MickMacNee (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONCEPTDAB
The new recent guideline that was implemented a couple of weeks ago is WP:CONCEPTDAB - "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept." I think this page could fit in with this new guideline instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

final four is just a fancy term for 4 player knockout?
see the subject Thewriter006 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)