Talk:Inside Hoops

Images
Why were they removed?XxNeXuSxX 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They were removed because they weren't particularly relevant to the content of the article. Remember: this is an encyclopedia- content must be encyclopedic and not focused on inside jokes or traditions. --Wafulz 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, I guess I can fix it myself so it should fit in this article.XxNeXuSxX 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The point was moreso that their inclusion isn't necessary. The fact that a member drew a comic about the site isn't particularly important. Unless this comic became syndicated or widely published, it's not important enough to be mentioned. --Wafulz 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it was published and praised by Jeff, the site owner. He asked that he start making one monthly, and he agreed upon doing so. I attempted to add it in so it fits in nicely XxNeXuSxX 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, unless the comic is an integral or famous part of the site, it isn't worth mentioning. Before re-adding the content, please discuss it on the talk page and wait for a reply. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule, which could result in a block. --Wafulz 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the one who would be in danger of the three revert rule? You did revert it out first... Anyway I thought I explained how the funny's and how it's a big part of the community of ISH and personally praised by Jeff himself. I know other things can be a priority to the site informational wise, which I can add as well. But Kwajo came in personally and decided to add his personal collection inside the site, which to many would be considered an honor, but I can understand how it would look funny on the surface. Nevertheless, it does eventually deserve a spot in this article XxNeXuSxX 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're in danger. You keep adding content that is being contested, and then re-adding (ie "reverting") it before I have a chance to reply on the talk page. This article should focus on the main content of the site- the comics are moreso an "inside thing" within the members of the forum, which isn't something that the general public (the readers of Wikipedia) need to know. Also, I suggest you take a look at some image guidelines so any pictures you use in the future won't throw off the formatting or aesthetics of the article. --Wafulz 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the image guidelines, thank you. When I have time, I guarantee you will understand that the published comic, Kwajo, does indeed fit well within the main aspects of ISH. "Soon, young one, you will understand." XxNeXuSxX 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The images you post are enormous and completely throw off the article- check out the images in articles featured on the main page to see how they should look. Could you explain to me why you consider these comics to be significant enough to merit mention? I've gone through the site and the forums and still haven't found the comics anywhere at all. It's nice that the members enjoy them, but unless they're a central part of the website, they're really not necessary to mention, especially because they seem to be an insider thing known only to forum members of a relatively small online forum. --Wafulz 03:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you gave me time, I was going to format the images that Kwajo posted. But I cannot if they kept getting deleted. I knew the format, I've been a member of Wikipedia more than a day. What do you mean a "relatively small" online forum? So now over 16,000 members of 2 forums is considered small?! Okay, and those Comics are a major part of the site, it had it's own dedicated section on the main page, which millions of unique users would click on a day. Recently Jeff is redoing the layout of the website so it's gone while Kwajo can prepare a whole new set of NBA-Jokes that the world can relate too. XxNeXuSxX 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can use the preview button to format images. I've been on the internet long enough to know that 16,000 members, while not a paltry sum, is not a large forum, especially with fewer than 6,000 total threads.


 * There is over 600,000 threads on the old board(Not 6,000), and the new board it's only 3 months old and has 7,000 threads and over 250,000 posts.69.163.43.82 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with these comics is I've been looking for them and I can't even find them. If it becomes a popular feature on the main page for non-forum members, then you can post about them in the article (although I doubt they got millions of clicks per day, as you claim). As it stands right now, they're an inside joke about forum members and addiction to forums- SomethingAwful has incredibly notable forums and regular features, however, the vast majority of its tradional comics/threads aren't mentioned either for the same reasons. --Wafulz 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)



who the hell is Walfuz, you are not jeff so get out of here and stop telling people what to do —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.34.165 (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Why no mention of the shimmy? - Loot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.167.163 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was my section deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlbot (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsourced, inappropriate tone, etc. Do you really think that kind of contribution is appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Zagalejo^^^ 17:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I thought it was relevant to the article and was in no bad tone at all. So what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlbot (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Britannica refer to people as "blithering idiots"? In any case, I know you won't be able to find an independent source for those statements, so there's no way we can keep it. You should read up on some of the site's policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To your first question - yes. Also, if I can source it, can I have it put back up? P.S. How do keep indenting the text your writing on this page? - Earlbot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlbot (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You indent by adding a colon to the beginning of your message. If you can find a source, then go for it, but it has to be a reliable source. No message boards, no obscure blogs, no Facebook pages. It has to be a mainstream source, like a newspaper or a magazine. And where does Britannica call someone a "blithering idiot"? I think you're pulling my chain. Zagalejo^^^ 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info. So I can't use a source from the actual forum? If so, why not? That's a first hand source right there, straight from the gut of it, not heard through grapvine like it would be if I got a source from some tabloid. --Earlbot (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if these issues aren't being mentioned anywhere outside of the forum, then it could be said that the facts simply aren't important enough to be mentioned here. (By the way, you can add colons to the beginning of your message to increase the indentation.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ISH the best basketball message board on the internet. It trumps all rival competitors. How can it now be important? We need to let the people who read this article be aware of the certain on goings within the community - wouldn't you agree? Earlbot (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what Wikipedia is here for, though. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. You can start a blog, or try your luck at one of the other basketball wikis. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you should look into making wikipedia like that - I would suggest making some changes. Earlbot (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing claims
The article is shaping up fairly well at this point, but one key feature it's missing is sourcing and referencing of reliable sources. For example, statements like this:


 * ''InsideHoops.com, or Inside Hoops (ISH), is the most popular basketball news website in North America after the NBA's official website. InsideHoops.com was founded in 1999/2000 by Jeff Lenchiner, a nationally known professional sporhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inside_Hoops

Discussionts journalist who has also grown into a recognized leader in sports content on the web.''

need to be sourced. Who says it's the most popular website? Is it an Alexa ranking? A columnist? Also, who has recognized Jeff Lenchiner as a leader? Newscasters? The commissioner? Media outlets? These types of assertions are important to source- we need them to keep an article informative and neutral. WP:CITE is the official guideline for citing sources, and is a useful resource for this. --Wafulz 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)