Template talk:Cleveland Cavaliers

Culture and Lore
Please leave the Culture and Lore scetion alone.

The things in there all have historical significance to either the team or the NBA as a whole:

1. Ted Stepien's horrible trades led to the "Stepien Rule"

2. Joe Tait was the team's announcer form it's inception in 1970 to last year (except for a 2 year Stepien induced exile)

3. Jordan's shot is either an iconic or infamous image depending on your perspective

4. The "Miracle of Richfield" was for the longest time the most successful season in Cavs history

5. Ricky Davis shooting at his own rim for a triple-double is one of the most infamous occurances in NBA history (much less Cavs history)

6. "Cleveland Rocks" playing after a win is a long standing Cleveland tradtion for all Cleveland sports home victories for almost 30 years

7. "The Decision" and Gilbert's Open Letter go hand in hand

8. The longest single season losing streak in major American pro team sports history speaks for itself

All of these occurances have helped shaped the history franchise in one way or another, thus their inclusion as part of the culture and lore.

Vjmlhds 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Numbers 1 (Ted Stepien), 3 (The Shot), and 6 ("Cleveland Rocks") each have a dedicated article to link to, so I am not opposed to keeping them in the template. Number 4 (The Miracle of Richfield) links to 1976 NBA Playoffs, and Number 7 (The Decision) links to the 2010 free agency section on LeBron James; normally I would oppose keeping in piped wikilinks like these, but they are both too notable &mdash; frankly, I'm amazed Miracle of Richfield doesn't already have its own article.  Joe Tait is certainly notable as a recipient of the Curt Gowdy Media Award, but I'm not sure he belongs in the template; at the very least, he does not belong in "retired jerseys" because there is no retired jersey for Joe Tait, but rather a "commemorative banner" which hangs alongside the actual retired jerseys:
 * Ricky Davis (Number 5) faking his way to a triple double is far, far from "one of the most infamous occurences in NBA history"; it was a cheap, and barely notable, attempt to force his way into the record books. Gilbert's Open Letter (the other half of Number 7) stems from the Decision, and has no article of its own.  The 26 game losing streak (8), though an NBA record, also has no article of its own   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ricky Davis (Number 5) faking his way to a triple double is far, far from "one of the most infamous occurences in NBA history"; it was a cheap, and barely notable, attempt to force his way into the record books. Gilbert's Open Letter (the other half of Number 7) stems from the Decision, and has no article of its own.  The 26 game losing streak (8), though an NBA record, also has no article of its own   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tait's long tenure with the franchise is worthy of him being listed in the culture and lore section (I'll agree with you about the retired numbers thing). Ricky Davis isn't worth quibbling over.  The 26 game losing streak is more than just an NBA record...it's the longest single season losing streak in the history of the "Big 4" sports (MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL), and ties the 1976 and 1977 Tampa Bay Buccaneers for the longest losing streak EVER for the Big 4 sports (their streak spanned over 2 seasons).  There is no question about it's notability, and wiki minutae shouldn't proclude it from being included.  Vjmlhds 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * N.B.: its, minutiae, preclude. I have re-added Tait with a note on his media award.  While I do not question the notability of a record 26-game losing streak, I don't see how it belongs in this template: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space", and WP:NAVBOX.  The 2010-2011 season is sufficiently linked within Cavaliers articles, and as with "Gilbert's Open Letter", the losing streak stems from the departure of the team's star player during the previous off season (an event already listed in the template).   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Žydrūnas Ilgauskas
Žydrūnas Ilgauskas currently serves as "special assistant" to General Manager Chris Grant, not Assistant General Manager. http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2012/04/cleveland_cavaliers_ready_to_w.html http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7475729/zydrunas-ilgauskas-rejoins-cleveland-cavaliers-assistant-gm Levdr1 lp ( talk ) 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Display of coaches on this and other NBA franchise templates
Recent differences of opinion on this template have opened a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 23 about how coach tenures are displayed on NBA franchise templates like this one. At issue in this case is the addition of a second entry for Mike Brown as head coach in the list of coaches to signify his second tenure with the team. there is inconsistency for this is displayed across the 30 NBA franchise templates and the discussion at WP:NBA serves as a way to reach consensus for how this information would be displayed (or not) across the board. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Please do not change the coach list until consensus can be reached. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Rikster has reluctantly opened this discussion after first posting on both my talk page and the NBA WikiProject talk page. He accuses me of ownership, although he himself has violated WP:3RR, and is ignoring the format in place more or less continuously since last April. , since you first decided on the one-link format regarding Brown, what are your thoughts?   Levdr1 lp / talk  16:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple links to the same article on a template is for the most part redundant. Now an exception could be if for instance Mike Brown were to get promoted to GM, then he can be listed in the coaches and GM section because those are 2 different jobs. Austin Carr's article is linked twice, as he's both in the announcers and retired numbers section.  But that is 2 separate sections, one having nothing to do with the other. In any one particular section though, listing somebody once is enough.  Anything beyond that is overkill. Bill Musselman also had 2 separate stints as Cavs coach, and he's only listed once.  Going to crazy extremes, Billy Martin was the manager of the NY Yankees five different times.  Would that warrant 5 different links to the Yankees template...no.  Long story short - One man, one job, one link regardless if he held the job once or 50 times. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But Template:New York Yankees doesn't even include managers. Those are located at Template:New York Yankees managers (where Martin is linked, you guessed it, 5 times).  The issue (and the reason why this discussion was teed up at WP:NBA) is that on NBA templates, the list of head coaches also serves as the chronology of head coaches and if you remove a second tenure the list no longer shows that chronology.  My proposal there (which you are welcome to read and weigh in on) is to either add tenures on franchise templates or to create head coach navboxes like the Yankees example and remove them from the franchise template. The reason I started the discussion there is because this is not a discussion of this template, it is about a class of 30 templates.  There really isn't any earthly reason why the Cavs should use a different standard than any other NBA franchise. Rikster2 (talk)
 * I would be OK with adding tenures to head coaches. Bill Mussleman and Mike Brown should still only get one link, but something like this for Mike Brown - (2005-2010; 2013-present) and whatever years for Mussleman would be fine.  And the Billy Martin example is a mess on the Yankees manager template.  He should only be listed once, with the years listed in the style I have Mike Brown.  Vjmlhds (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to tell you, the multiple links are the norm not the exception for chronological templates, from US Presidents to Academy Awards to College basketball coaches. I think it is mainly because the links show as highlighted on the person's page which makes it easier to identify them when on that person's article. Rikster2 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Vjmlhds- I think adding years would be a bit much, especially as this template covers the team in general and not the coaches specifically. Rikster- "but another template does it this way" is not a good enough reason to change the format here.   Levdr1 lp / talk  14:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I am interested in hearing the compelling reasons (hopefully rooted in some sort of WP policy or standard) why the current way is the correct way to go and shouldn't be changed. So far, I haven't heard any reasons beyond "because it is this way now" or "I don't prefer it."  Consistency across like articles/templates isn't the end of story, but at least it is a reason.  I think it would be particularly useful to present these reasons in the larger NBA franchise template discussion linked above at WP:NBA so that all opinions can be considered as a policy is created. Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Head coaches removed - replaced with new template
Per consensus at WP:NBA (discussion linked in previous conversation), I have removed the head coach section. This process will be repeated with all 30 NBA franchise templates. Template:Cleveland Cavaliers coach navbox has been created with full tenures and has replaced the generic franchise template on head coach articles. Rikster2 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rivalry
I do agree that there was a rivalry between Chicago and Cleveland in the past. National Basketball Association rivalries gives a detailed description of this. I want to know other's opinions about the possibility of adding this rivalry to the template. Robert4565 (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Navboxes ideally should only link to dedicated articles about a subject e.g. Celtics–Lakers rivalry. We shouldn't just link to the main team article that, at best, briefly mentions the rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Now that I think about it, it would be best to include a more notable rivalry to the template that has it's own stand-alone article. Robert4565 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Grit Squad
Tell me why the 2014-15 team isn't worthy of being part of the team's lore.

They were the most successful team in franchise history, the city went nuts for them, LeBron coined the term "Grit Squad" and it got national play.

The Miracle team is often said to have been able to win it all if Chones stayed healthy, well, the Grit Squad team would have done so as well if Love and Irving were healthy.

There is no article called "Miracle of Richfield", but the 75-76 squad is among the most beloved in team history (and rightly so - don't get me wrong), and considered part of the team's lore.

All I'm saying is that the 14-15 "Grit Squad" team that was within a separated shoulder and broken kneecap from sealing the deal is as much (if not more so - considering they were within an eyelash of winning the whole shebang) a part of the team's lore as the Miracle bunch.

Vjmlhds (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While The Miracle of Richfield does not *currently* have an article, there is an abundance of coverage on that subject in newspapers, books, online media, etc. Given its lasting impact on the culture/fanbase (nearly 4 decades), I have no doubt that it would easily satisfy WP:GNG.  It's not clear, however, that the term "Grit Squad" itself will have such an impact.  Fans will clearly remember the team's scrappy playoff performance and run to the Finals, and available coverage already reflects that; a Finals appearance is certainly historic.  But I'm not convinced fans/media will be using the term "Grit Squad" in reference to the 2015 Cavs forty years from now (or even ten years).  The only question is whether the term itself is sufficiently notable, and the fact USA Today quoted James once after a hard fought win -- that alone doesn't make the term itself notable.   Levdr1 lp / talk  08:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

LeBron James in culture/lore section
My first impression is that LeBron James does not belong in the culture/lore section, at least not yet. While he is clearly the team's highest-profile & most-talented player, he is still a current player. I have no doubt that a James link will one day find its way into this template (e.g., as a Hall of Fame inductee, retired number, etc.), but it's a premature addition at this point. His importance is already well documented in both the Cavs franchise and history articles, both of which are already in this template. Levdr1 lp / talk 04:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While current players usually don't go into the culture/lore section, LBJ is certainly a completely different bird. His impact on the franchise and even the city is light years beyond anybody else who played for the team.  This is a case that is extremely unique to say the least. Vjmlhds (talk)


 * I don't disagree with all the points you've made -- except that James belongs in the culture/lore section. At the very least, a decision like this should be made after the man retires.   Levdr1 lp / talk  18:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While he's still playing, it's a valid point to leave him off as that's the policy for active players. When he retires, any discussion should be fairly easy...he goes in, and there's no reason for him not to.  Vjmlhds (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ted Stepien wikilink
Levdr1lp keeps changing the wikilink for Ted Stepien to Ted Stepien. There's no reason to change the wikilink there, especially when the article as a whole already discusses Stepien's ownership of the Cleveland Cavaliers. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice characterization there. No,, you are the one who is attempting to make changes here.  First change was yesterday (6/22/16): Charles removes the piping in the Stepien wikilink.  Second change was today (6/23/16): Charles removes the piping in the Stepien wikilink a second time.  Neither change is based on any kind of consensus, nor did Charles attempt to revive the previous discussion on to the culture/lore section links or start a new discussion until he was reluctantly forced to do so.   Levdr1 lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but the wikilink for Ted Stepien shouldn't be piped at all. He was more notable than just an NBA league rule preventing teams from trading their first round NBA Draft picks in consecutive years. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - Respectfully, I disagree. Unless you build some kind of rough consensus to support your view, you have no basis to force through your preferred version.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  00:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There's NO REASON why the wikilink in the template should be Ted Stepien; all I'm trying to do is make it so the wikilink for Ted Stepien in the template links to the article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - Current consensus is to place "Ted Stepien rule" in the culture/lore section, not simply "Ted Stepien". So yes, there's clearly a reason to use that target for the piped wikilink.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  00:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The point of my edits was to wikilink Ted Stepien in the template. I agree with piping the link so that Ted Stepien Rule shows up, but I disagree with the target link. I still think the main article and not Ted Stepien should be used. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - I welcome his input, but having said that, I really hope your message on 's talk page was not some poorly thought through attempt at votestacking. He has never edited this template nor participated in a discussion on this template's talk page (again, if JR is reading this, I would actually prefer that he weigh in).  A more appropriate user to contact clearly would have been, an editor who regularly contributes to this template, and who has participated in previous discussions here. WP:APPNOTE   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I got a notification about this discussion, so here's my $0.02...it's fine how it is. Stepien's inept ownership (particularly trading all the draft picks) is why the NBA stepped in and put the rule in place to start with.  His life pre-Cavs is irrelevant to the template.  Leave it be. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

. Like I've said before, all I'm trying to do is change the target link so the full wikilink for Ted Stepien is displayed in the template. YOU are the one who is blocking progress. YOU are the one who is votestacking. Who decided the consensus here? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding consensus, as it stands now it's 2-1 against you. It's not vote stacking. You and Levdr were having a dispute, and I was notified of this discussion, gave my opinion, and my opinion is to leave it as is, thus I served as a tie breaker.  Nothing wrong with asking for a third voice when there's a stalemate - saves a lot of back and forth, and a lot of aggravation. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - As of this post, you are alone in trying to change the "Ted Stepien rule" piped-wikiilink target, and you are also alone in trying to change/remove the same piped-wikilink's piping. You also contacted an uninvolved editor (JonRidinger) who has never edited this template and has never weighed in on this talk page, a move which may violate WP:APPNOTE.  Conversely, I pointed out that you seemed to conveniently overlook the one editor (Vjmlhds) who has not only made more contributions to this template than any other editor by far (besides myself), but also has weighed in on the previous discussion related to the culture/lore section.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  19:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it's a link under "Ted Stepien Rule", then yes, the piping makes sense. I can understand why Charles questioned it, though, mostly because the Ted Stepien article is fairly small, so the piping doesn't really do much in terms of convenience (the NBA owner section is visible right away and is mentioned in the lead). Even so, I'd keep it since the Ted Stepien article could (and should) get more developed. If the NBA draft article would ever have a section on rules that mentioned it (and explained it more in depth), that could be another optional link. As it stands now, that article doesn't talk about any specific draft rules; it seems more about the history. Perhaps the Ted Stepien article could have a subheading just for the rule within the "NBA owner" section? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it appears that the consensus is to leave the wikilinks in the template alone as they are currently constituted (including the Ted Stepien wikilink), I guess I'll promise to leave the wikilinks in the template alone for now. I can see that I'm in the minority on this one. I apologize for shouting, and for any disruptive editing I may have caused. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames
Be careful about assigning nicknames for events from the 2016 Finals. This is still a recent event, so saying something "is known (has been dubbed) as" isn't totally true, at least yet (see WP:RECENT). Yes, there have been some references to the various things like "the block" and "the shot" and even "the miracle", but very few and certainly nothing to indicate an established nickname like "The Drive" and "Red Right 88". Obviously that's likely to change, but Wikipedia needs to reflect now, not a nickname that "might" catch on or has been mentioned once. "MiraCLE at the "OraCLE" is a stretch at this point, based on what I could find. In searching for that phrase, nothing came up besides the CBSLocal source you used, and that references does not emphasize "CLE" on "Oracle". It's OK to mention that "some have referred to it as..." in 2016 NBA Finals, but I think adding it on the "lore" section is a bit too much at this point and the current wording in the 2016 Finals section suggests some kind of overall consensus that doesn't appear to exist. If I'm missing additional sources, please point me in the right direction.

Also, if Game 7 does end up having an established nickname, then the lore section should point to that specific section, not the 2016 Finals article in general, similar to the issue with Ted Stepien. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now removed the reference to the "MiraCLE at the 'OraCLE'" in the culture/lore section. If an article that discusses game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals at length is created, feel free to add it to the template. Otherwise, discussion is needed in order to reach consensus as to how to include it in the template, IMO. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A full article wouldn't be needed if Game 7 gets an established nickname (similar to "Miracle at Richfield", which currently is a redirect to 1976 NBA Playoffs) but right now it doesn't appear to have that established nickname. The "Miracle at the Oracle" as I said, only has one citation and searching for additional ones came up empty. I can find several reliable sources for other aspects of Cavalier lore (heck, I even own one of the "Miracle at Richfield" shirts!), but seeing as Game 7 just happened barely 2 weeks ago, it's understandable it doesn't yet have an established nickname. Again, it may very well be given a nickname, but no evidence from reliable sources that such a nickname has been "bestowed". --JonRidinger (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in agreement with JR. Is the event notable?  Is the event's name well established?  Only if the answer is yes to both should we consider adding something like "Miracle at Oracle".  Less than 2 weeks is nowhere near enough time to determine if a name is well enough established.  Regarding the type of links to list, a full article is not necessary; an established name is.  I've said before that "Miracle of Richfield" almost certainly satisfies GNG requirements.  Unless/until that article gets written, however, the best choice is to redirect to the most relevant existing content.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  02:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Similar discussion last October, and I haven't heard or read "Grit Squad" used in reference to the 2015 Cavs Finals team since. Clearly demonstrates how fleeting such terms can be.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  03:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement here as well. Until an established, well-known name for game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals arises, it shouldn't be included in the main template. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - I'm going to assume you're only in partial agreement here, as you apparently still oppose piping established names. I generally agree with  on two points: 1) the need for established names; and 2) allowance for piping well established names to the most relevant wikilink in the absence of an article.  You didn't really address the second point in your last response.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus is to pipe the wikilink in order to display the established nickname for a game; then I would definitely support that. I will support whatever the consensus is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - Yes, we're all trying to reach consensus. The fact remains, however, that you still haven't addressed my second point regarding piped wikilinks.  So, then, do you still oppose the view held by myself & JR regarding piped wikilinks, or are you in agreement?  If you don't agree, do you recognize that two other editors favor piped wikilinks in the absence of an article, or do you think that's a mischaracterization of each of our views?  Have we or haven't we reached a rough consensus among the majority of editors who have weighed in on this specific point?  If we haven't yet, do we need to contact additional users (via RFC, WikiProjects, etc.)?  I'd really prefer that we actually reach consensus and recogize it when it occurs, rather than simply acknowledge consensus as our goal.  Saying "I want to reach consensus" itself does not create consensus.  We need more clarity regarding consensus -- what is it and when we have arrived at it -- not less.   Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - I'm in full agreement. I agree with the view held by you & JonRidinger (talk) regarding piped wikilinks. I think that allowance should be made for piping well-established names to the most relevant wikilink in the absence of an article (in this case, game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals). I recognize that two other editors favor piped wikilinks in the absence of an article. I believe that a rough consensus has been reached here. I agree with you that consensus should be recognized when it occurs. Have I answered all of your questions? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for addressing my second point regarding piped wikilinks.  Levdr1 <b style="color:#FF0000">lp</b> / <small style="color:#000000">talk  19:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Len Komorowski
As stated, the Cavs don't have a president, but do have a CEO (essentially the same thing) in Len Komorowski, and here's the verification.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, Mr. Komorowski apparently does not have an article. Navboxes are for ease of navigation between related (and existing) articles. Levdr1 <b style="color:#00FFFF">lp</b> / <small style="color="#0000CD">talk  02:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)