Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Archive 8

Medals in infobox of bio
If a player wins a medal in the Olympics or the World Cup, does it make sense to then remove other lesser events e.g. regional FIBA events like FIBA Americas Championship, Pan American Games or youth events like FIBA Americas Under-18 Championship. Those other events can be handle in the prose. This seems in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOX: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Again, I am only proposing these changes if they have already medaled in Olympics or World Cup.

This is a general alternative to collapsing the information in the infobox, which was recently done at Christian Laettner, presumably to shorten the infobox. IMO, if we are going to hide something in the infobox, implying it is not important to the bio's summary, why even have the information there at all; leave it for the prose. However, Olympics and World Cup are major accomplishments that seem notable for the infobox, and should remain unhidden if they are to stay at all.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Medals for the Olympics, FIBA world championships, Pan American Games and other major regional championships should be included. Medals for junior/youth championships should not.  The senior championship medals are special and relatively rare accolades, and deserve to be included in the infobox in the same manner that we do for gymnasts, hockey players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, etc.  Winning a Pan Am Games gold medal is a hell of a lot more significant than being a McDonald's or Parade high school All-American.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am not so sure what the relevance or truth of this statement is. Pan Am games are not that important or prestigious compared to the MCDAAG, IMO, but that is entirely off-topic here. I have seen a lot of colleges and coaches list former players by MCDAAG recognition, but not PAG recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm striking my comment regarding the Pan American Games. Apparently I'm an old fuddy-duddy stuck in time.  A quick review of the U.S. national basketball teams in the Pan Am Games shows that there has been a slow de-emphasis of the Pan Am Games basketball tournament by American basketball players since the 1980s.  Before that, the U.S. Pan Am team was typically a college all-star team, including most of the top college players on its roster.  The 1983 team may have been the last truly great U.S. Pan Am Games team; in any event, that is clearly no longer the case, weakening the argument regarding the significance of Pan Am medals in basketball.  I still maintain, however, that high school honors, including McDonald's and Parade All-Americans, should be dropped from the infobox honors of major stars like Michael Jordan in deference to the far more significant college and pro honors earned and championships won.  We really need to get past the idea that every honor ever received needs to be included in the infobox -- it should only include the most significant 10 or 12, at most.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "McDonald's and Parade All-Americans, should be dropped from the infobox honors of major stars like Michael Jordan": They are not in Jordan's article, nor in recent stars like Anthony Davis (basketball), Kyrie Irving, Blake Griffin, or Kevin Love. I don't think those specific honors are generally an issue.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think High school National Player of the year may be a high school honor that survives superstardom. All-American probably does not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For a case like Laettner, are you proposing to leave his medals intact, and continue to collapse it?—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much, although I'm a little iffy on whether the Goodwill Games should be included. At least the GWG wasn't a youth tournament.  And, yes, I think the default template setting should be to collapse the infobox medals table.  Infobox basketball biography is already pushing the limits of what is reasonable for length.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally be fine limiting to Olympics or World Cup, but I would bet there will be a lot of opposition to this. It seems like these have been spreading in recent years (adding continental qualifiers, youth teams, etc). Rikster2 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of editors who work primarily on track & field bios who have have been aggressively adding "South Asia Youth Games" medals and the like to infobox medal tables. Personally, I think medals from junior/youth championships are trivia for athletes who are playing professionally and/or have won medals at the Olympics, FIBA championships and other senior championships.  The junior/youth stuff needs to be pushed to the text.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At what point in his career are you saying to remove the junior gold medals from pages like Jahlil Okafor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was intentionally limiting the discussion to handling players who have medaled in the Olympics or World Cup, and avoiding a open-ended discussion on all international competitions. Again, all this info can and should be in prose, regardless of what is done in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather remove all medals and just list the years a player played for his/her national team, including junior tournaments. That'll be three lines max, two lines min. We could just list continental and world level medals in the achievements section. – H T  D  03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For those that don't stray past the infobox, that would have the awful effect of rendering Mason Plumlee's (WC gold) national team record look on par with David Wear (U18 silver).—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think people may have an issue on discerning the difference between a college conference MVP award, an NBA All-Star Game award, the NBA (regular season) MVP award and the NBA Finals award. At least gold and silver, and unqualified "WC" (which means senior NTs) and U19 (junior) are quite universally understood. "MVP" and the different competitions isn't. – H T  D  03:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd venture to guess that the average NBA reader, who typically doesn't follow football/soccer, has more problem understanding the age-specific competitions than the NBA/college awards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Age-specific competitions are actually quite easy to get. Unlike soccer's U-23 tournaments there's no BS "3 players could be overaged" rule. It's clean and simple under-X, quite like the ice hockey age-specific competitions.
 * I'd rather be more worried on things such as the difference between the FIBA Americas Championship and basketball at the Pan-American Games, for example. But I guess American NBA fans won't have to deal with those frequently. – H T  D  04:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd remove medals, and say put them in an "Achievements" section (which is truly their rightful place), we could even place more restrictions, like "gold medals" only (we don't add "second place in MVP voting", right?). We could have a separate section for awards that include silvers, bronzes and things such as all-tournament team awards in relevant levels of basketball. – H T  D  04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * HTD, how do you distinguish between "career highlights" that are listed in the infobox, and "achievements" which would be listed in a separate section of the text? Arguably, winning an Olympic gold medal as a member of the U.S. national team is as significant as winning an NBA championship, and far more significant than winning an NCAA tournament title.  I think there is a perfectly valid reason why Olympic and world championship medals are included in the infobox: they are something very special, having been won on a world stage, playing against the best competition the world has to offer.


 * As for the "achievements" section, I think every honor other than the 10 or 12 most significant for a given player should be pushed out of the infobox and into the text and/or an "achievements" section. We often overload the infobox "career highlights" section with less important trivia to the point where the infobox is overwhelmed.  That's a rookie mistake that veteran editors should not make.  BTW, my personal rule of thumb is "if it's not important enough to mention in the text with a footnote, it's not important enough to include in the infobox."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I dunno, but I'd guess more American NBA fans would put into a premium on NBA titles than gold medals won in the "Greatest of All Time" discussion. MVP titles aren't really in the mix unless they're used as "tiebreakers", much less so for Olympic gold medals. – H T  D  15:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Howard, I have no idea how old you are, or what your depth of knowledge regarding American college and pro basketball is, but the "Dream Team" was a pretty damn big deal for NBA fans and American sports fans generally. The NBA-staffed Olympic teams in 1996 and 2008 were pretty big deals, too.  The controversial 1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Final is still remembered by American sports fans as one of those Olympic clusterfuck moments where the U.S. team got screwed by bad, arguably biased officiating.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Howard was referring to arguments for the greatest player of all time (GOAT), which I agree that Olympic gold is but a small factor in NBA discussions. I don't think he was generally implying that Olympics are not a big deal. At any rate, GOAT is tangential to the original thread topic.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, in the open era, the best players usually play in these Dream Teams, so I guess that's why gold medals aren't really used as barometers. There are only twelve American players every 2 years or so, and since they win medals almost all the time these "achievements" only show up for the very few best players sporadically. – H T  D  05:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dirtlawyer1: For NBA WP, there is WikiProject National Basketball Association/Style advice which limits the highlights. Megastars like Jordan need common sense, but items will inevitably be added back by drive-by editors for "consistency". (Of course, there is always the hockey model to just not have highlights).—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. I will link to it in the future when I'm purging lesser honors from infoboxes in the future.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It could use some guidance on college honors, if people are interested in collaborating on it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH, WP:CBB and WP:NBA should use the same format. College and pro coaches have different formats for things such as per season records. These things should be the synchronized. – H T  D  05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't mean WP:CBB -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's WP:CBBALL :P – H T  D  15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I second limiting it to mayor international tournaments but would include continental FIBA competitions as well as the Olympic Games and the World Cup. Though some NBA players skip them (as the World Cup on occasion) competitions like the EuroBasket and FIBA Americas Championship are of a high playing level and are widely considered prestigious. AfroBasket, the FIBA Asia Championship and the FIBA Oceania Championshipprobably less so but for most of those who win a medal there it would constitute their career achievement and for the sake of fairness should probably be included. Youth tournaments would be stretching it and could be limited to achievements, I would like to be able to format that section a bit more than just lines of text, just to help readibility but that's a personal preference and not on point here. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Category:African-American basketball players
, seems to be adding Category:African-American basketball players to dozens of dark-skinned players regardless of supporting content in the articles. Judging by his contribution history, this is a WP:SPA for this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI is the same person under a slightly different IP, for this SPA. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder about the viability of this category. For the average modern NBA player, you probably won't find a source that explicitly says "[So-and-so] is African-American." And as a navigational tool, the category is mostly useless. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto Zagalejo, I find this category not only useless but also borderline unpolitically correct, I really don't see the added value of racial categorisation, national origin is already a strech when so many Americans have close to 0 relation with their ancestors country (see Italian Americans). Furthermore it invites anarchy, you could easily argue the vast majority of dark-skinned basketball players could be described as such. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well our guy is back as with more insertions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:SportVU
Draft:SportVU's topic appears notable enough and seems to be within this WikiProject's sphere of interest. The author works for the company, however, and it shows. There were also referencing issues. Sources include:. Improvement of the draft by subject-matter experts would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Illawarra Hawks players naming convention
There is a discussion on how to handle naming Category:Illawarra Hawks players as the team has recently announced a transition back to its old name from "Woolongong Hawks." Please join the discussion at Category talk:Illawarra Hawks players. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding Hall of Fame players to NBA team articles
Was there a consensus to add Hall of Fame players just on the day of enshrinement? I'm asking this, because about 1 or maybe 2 years ago I made an edit where I added HoF player before enshrinement and it got reverted. However, today on some articles people keep re-adding players of 2015 class and it's turning into an edit war... Any suggestions? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My three cents. There is no reason why the number or names of Hall of Famers who played/coached/marketed for a particular team needs update more than annually in the team article. Instead, write in a way that is timeless, with a phrase such as "through the 2015 cycle" that works both before and after induction, and remains true after the 2016 class is announced. (The same is broadly true of retired uniform numbers, but I would add not text to the infobox, no more than a superscript link to footnote.)
 * Coverage of the Hall of Fame in player biographies should be updated more than once a year, at least at the announcement and induction of each annual class. No need to write timelessly there. Indeed, editors should attend to what a person says at the time of announcement and the time of induction; either may be worth coverage for some new HOF members some years.
 * The main article National Basketball Hall of Fame certainly should prominently and d succinctly describe the annual cycle with a lead statement such as "Recently the annual class of new Hall of Fame members is announced in June and inducted in August. Six inductions on August 8, 2014, increased the number of honorees to 345." (That would need update only annually. And it's only an example to make the general point, in ignorance whether June is correct or whether we do say members, honorees, or something else.)
 * --P64 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move (Baloncesto Málaga → Unicaja CB)
Hi, I requested the move of this article due to several reasons: it is its official denomination, the name of the club since its foundation was always Unicaja and, as in the case of Lietuvos rytas, the sponsor is the owner of the club. I wait for your opinions. Asturkian (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on final image selection tweaks at Jahlil Okafor
After several discussions regarding warring over which images to include in Jahlil Okafor, we are holding what may be the concluding discussions regarding the possible reinsertion of 3 specific images and the removal of another. Join the discussion at Talk:Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nav boxes for national teams
I notice that Template:United States Men Basketball Squad 2015 Pan American Games was created by. At Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_3, the consensus was that for U.S. teams, navboxes were not warranted for non-medal squads. The 2015 Pan-Am games are not started yet. However, the broader questions for basketball, regardless of country, are —Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Which events warrant navboxes for squads? Should they be limited to major ones like the Olympics or World Cup, or ones like U18, Pan-Am, Goodwill, regional events also apply?
 * 2) Should they only be limited to medal winners?
 * Considering NBA players had rarely (never?) played in the Pan-Ams, it's quite hard to justify a navbox if we're going with the "did they care enough" reasoning. At least the FIBA Basketball World Cup, FIBA Americas Championship and Olympics (almost) always had NBA players since the open era. – H T  D  22:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we apply this across all countries, or just U.S.?—Bagumba (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Several NBA players are on USA's roster at the 2015 Pan-Am Games, including current player Ryan Hollins and ex-NBAers such as Bobby Brown, Anthony Randolph, and Keith Langford. Several notable or elite college players are also playing for USA. Notable players are also on several other countries' rosters, like Venezuela's Greivis Vásquez, Brazil's Raulzinho Neto, Argentina's Facundo Campazzo, Canada's Anthony Bennett, Dominican Republic's Francisco García, and Puerto Rico's J. J. Barea (lack of NBA experience doesn't make a player insignificant). Throughout history, stars such as Christian Laettner have taken part in this event as well. TempleM (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should've been more clear: no current NBA players in the USA team, except for Ryan Hollins. Generally, these navboxes are only used if the country's players from the best league are sent in... for the US it surely looks it's not the case, and it's a partial "yes" for the other teams. Looking further, the other non-US team sends in better players at the FIBA Americas Championship. Even the woeful 2002 FIBA World Championship squads, which got deleted at TFD, were all playing in the NBA at that time. – H T  D  21:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but USA basketball doesn't consider the PanAm team the "senior national team." That only applies to the teams for the Olympics, a World Cup and qualifying events for those two events. Rikster2 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH the only senior national team is the one that they send to the Olympics. The best players usually never sign up for other tournaments, like the FIBA Americas Championship, or even the FIBA Basketball World Cup. – H T  D  21:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, USA Basketball lists Olympics, FIBA Americas, World Cup, and Goodwill Games participants as part of their all-time roster.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Teams participating in the senior: Olympic Games, World Cup, Regional FIBA tournaments (EuroBasket, AfroBasket... but not sub-regional such as Caribean or South Asian) should be allowed to have a squad template in my opinon, even if they haven't won any medals. Participation in these tournaments is notable in its own right, as those squads comprise the best basketball players of that country. Apart from the US, most squads usually have a good part of their strongest players, including most of their NBA based players (see France's and Italy's squad at EuroBasket 2015 with only Noah defecting). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't presume that a given countries' national team in a particular year is automatically notable. Does that year's team even meet GNG?  It makes sense that WP:NAVBOX No. 4. suggests that "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template"—in this case, that year's team.  If such an article could not be created, we should not add to the endless navbox factory. Readers know how to navigate from a link in the article's prose to get to this information, without needing a navbox for everything.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I think they should be implemented more strongly, the sentence you cite is a guideline not a rule, it's not really viable to have an article for everything (just look at the number of college teams that have season articles but whose main article is bare). That said, if you wanted to, I'm pretty sure you could easily create articles for nearly all national teams participating in these major events (maybe an exception for AfroBasket/FIBA Asia championship - bar the Philippines - but I'm not even sure), technically these events already have a squads page anyway. I think its a useful tool for navigating between players and in some lower profile national teams is perfect to draw interest into more than one player (for example Germany with Nowinski). That's my vote anyway, used well, navboxes can be a value, not a problem, for me it's all the navboxes for various awards that are cluttering pages for nothing. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * edit: Just reread and realised I wasn't very clear. When I said you could create articles for nearly all national teams at these events I meant that they would have enough notability and sources to do so. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's that easy to meet notability. I lived in Buenos Aires for a month, and saw no noticeable coverage of basketball in the newspapers, or on TV. I only spotted one person wearing a Manu Ginóbili jersey in public the whole time.  I was in Germany when Dirk Nowitzki and Dallas were playing in the NBA Finals.  No noticeable print coverage in mainstream papers, nor highlights on broadcast TV.  I don't automatically fall for the NBA's marketing that basketball is a mainstream global sport yet.  I'd be more convinced if someone expanded a few of the article with something besides stats.—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're in that stage where we could create articles for team participation in individual FIBA World Cup/continental championship. You could try participation articles in the entire tournament, though. The FIFA World Cup already does this, even for countries that didn't make it. – H T  D  14:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're in that stage where we could create articles for team participation: Can you elaborate on the reason you believe this? Is this due to lack of editor interest to date, lack of significant coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG, other?—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * More like lack of English sources. When making articles for the 2014 FIBA World Cup, for example, it was quite hard to get references, even with US media in tow. In theory, we could emulate what is being done on other  at World Cup articles but it would be quite bare and could be flagged by someone. – H  T  D  20:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC template submission
See Draft:West Virginia Mountaineers women's basketball navbox. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Washington University Bears rename proposal
There is a proposal to rename Washington University Bears page names to Washington Bears here if anybody is interested in participating in the discussion. For those who may be unfamiliar the current Washington Bears page is about a 1940s basketball team that won the 1943 World Professional Basketball Tournament. Any opinions on the move would be appreciated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Team colors
I've made a request at Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography to address WP:CONTRAST changes being made to team colors. Feel free to join the discussion there.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style

 * I just wanted to report that I made a start with the Basketball Manual of Style (MoS), comparable to Wikiproject Football MoS. So that there will be transparency in all basketball articles. All help and suggestions are welcome. --H-Hurry (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea for having a decent Project Page. I think it's necessary to separate NBA and other leagues by continents in the manual of style. In European Leagues we are not working like in the NBA ones, e.g. Asturkian (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think there should be major differences. There are some things that are different with European teams/leagues (relegation/promotion, changing sponsor names, high profile continental leagues) but by and large how information is organized, formatted and displayed should be consistent with any differences being for specific reasons. My advice is invite WP:NBA to help craft a shared MOS. Rikster2 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Caps and home arena for national team
added parameters for caps and home arena to Infobox national basketball team. Is caps a common terminology in basketball? Is there a home arena typically tied to a national team? The answer would be no in both cases for the US, but not sure with other countries.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By my experience, for national basketball team players, even those from outside the USA, game appearances ("caps") are almost never tallied. Quick question: How many games has Tony Parker played for France? No one can easily answer that, right? As for home arenas, almost all of the games of a national basketball team are away from home, as most games that matter are hosted elsewhere. Even qualification, where the home and away system is widely used in soccer, is sparingly used; instead a city hosts all games, and it's not always on the identified "home arena" of the national team. It's only used in EuroBasket qualification, and a quick check has several teams playing on a single venue consistently, while other teams do a rotation. – H T  D  21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As there is currently WP:NOCONSENSUS for this change, I will revert it for now. No problem if consensus changes.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Top scorer
I overlooked that "Top scorer" was also added with the previous edit to Infobox national basketball team discussed at. Seems like another convenient way to creep more trivia that is otherwise not given much WP:WEIGHT in sources. MOS:INFOBOX states: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Is there consensus to have added this?—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditch. Unlike soccer, records are not universally kept for national basketball teams, especially on "friendlies". – H T  D  20:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed from infobox due to WP:NOCONSENSUS here.—Bagumba (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:European Universities Basketball 3x3 Championships
Hello basketball fans. This old draft will soon be deleted as stale. Is this a notable basketball topic? Or should it be let go?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most certainly non-notable, 3x3 receives little coverage on its own (it's not streetball) and the university competitions in Europe are purely recreational. Throw it in the chimney.--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It's gone.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ULEB/European navigational boxes
They're a goold navigational tool but I would like to standardise them as they currently change every single season. My preference would be to use the 2015–16 template with this order: Continental competitions, Regional competitions, Domestic competitions (cups in parenthesises) and Womens competitions (no need to separate them). With the whole Template category renamed as European club basketball 2015–16 because European Basketball season could imply national teams and ULEB is not exact as the FIBA Europe Cup and most of the women's competitions fall outside its influence (plus it's more opaque for outsiders). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I support standardization. But... first thing first, you've got to decide are you doing for just ULEB competitions or for all European competitions in general (regardless of club, national teams, etc.); I don't think if you'll agree with me, but we should go for the latter, when you already have intion to go through the process of the standardization (last 10 seasons or whatever?).-- AirWolf  talk  10:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ArmstrongJulian
I am not trying to cause a fight here. Let me make that very clear. So please, no fighting. And I don't want to get anyone in trouble, not my intention at all, and I don't intend to report anyone or anything like that, not my style at all. But I feel this needs to be discussed here. I have tried to have some discussions with ArmstrongJulian about working in basketball article editing and only response I get back is rude and then for them to follow my edits and mark some of my articles for deletion, and without notifying me about it. But I see a lot of aggressive edits also by the same editor, and that if you would discuss it with them, you get an aggressive response back. But lots of edits removing info saying it is not sourced, or I was accused of making false edits on purpose before, etc. Then in a discussion they said my edits were like I was in a fan forum and I never sourced anything. Also, that my edits need to be corrected and how my grammar in my edits is said to be wrong also. This not to mention how Julian's edits to some articles made the easy to ready article before hand, seem hard to read and understand after they edited. Whenever I asked in a discussion with them about any of this, I got back a rude response. If I asked for any reason about it, the most I could get back was to take the discussion here. So I am taking the discussion here. Because I think this style of editing and interacting does nothing to help those of us that are trying to contribute in the wiki basketball project. So I would like then for other editors that are contributing in the basketball project here to please if they can discuss with this editor and perhaps get them to lighten up a little bit, or to explain to them that they have to actually interact or give a reason when they start doing edits like that. Because it just makes the editing here difficult. And again, I am not trying to cause any problem, I just would like Julian to understand some things, that is all.Bluesangrel (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the problem you are having. If others on this project are, perhaps they can help moderate.  Otherwise, uninvolved editors are going to need diffs demonstrating the behavior that you are reporting before they can offer advice. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Again another example of how Bluesangrel treats wikipedia like a fan forum, this thread is to establish guidelines and consensuses for the project not personal squabbles. You're straddling the line of personal attacks here (if not crossing it already), going that path can only lead to problems and I'm tired of dealing with your teenage angst.

On to the "accusations", this all started when he moved a club article to another wikipedia article (no proposed merger) though they were two separate entities. There was a way too long discussion (see here) between us on the subject as I tried to correct the mistake, with him being adamant (though never bothering to back it up with sources) he was right when all pointed to the contrary. I forgot all about him until he came back with these accusations about "grammar mistakes" on the Michael Bramos page nearly all of which weren't even mine (ironically he added his own glaring grammar mistakes). I stumbled on pages for the different national Greek under-age squads and found one with made grandiose claims that were not backed by any source which I corrected. All of these pages had either the Greek federation or no source at all and I tagged them accordingly including the under-21 team created by him (despite his claims he sources all his articles). You'll note that even when he does "source" his articles it is often with primary sources, sources in Greek (when I'm sure you could find English equivalents) that are harder to note as unreliable (but definitely don't come from newspapers) and formatted more or less as bare links (not indicating the website) such as on the Steve Giatzoglou article where he didn't even bother to do a reflist.

Faced with such behaviour I don't have any more patience, I've linked wikipedia's sourcing policy that he clearly hasn't read but he doesn't seem big on reading anything just talking. The only accusation that stands is that I haven't notified the authors of the articles I nominated for deletion. I must admit I don't always do so, sometimes the editors are so lazy in creating the articles that I don't put more effort in notifying them (I expect they had them on their watchlist anyway), his immature reaction doesn't really make me regret my choice. I apologise for this rambling and useless thread, hopefully the matter can be closed now, the discussion archived and everyone can go on making (or start making) helpful edits. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically you think it is OK to follow others edits and nominate articles for deletion just because that you have a personal grudge. And you started a grudge as you admit from accusing me falsely of making what you claimed were intended false edits about that Treviso article. I simply stated fact, and said nothing more, and said from the start, if you want to make a new article go ahead. This seemed to enrage you. You were intent on falsely putting some kind of mythical and false "bad and wrong editing" against me that I must have done on purpose. Evidently you cannot let anything go, no matter how trivial. You can say about whatever at Bramos article, maybe there is a mistake, but from my computer the edits showed a lot of changes to the sentence structure done by your edits. And it made the article confusing and it just read odd. So I asked you to just be careful with that and you got all angry and mad about it. Your responses are always rude and never helpful and always accusatory. And then right after that, suddenly you started going through articles I created and nominated them for deletion and did not notify me even that you did it. And simply said they met no criteria, no sources, etc. Then you started accusing me of editing like I am on a fan forum and that I never put a source to anything. I asked you about why you were changing heights on all the articles and and again you got all mad for no reason. Then you said to take it here, so I did. And I take these issues here, and again you start in on accusing me falsely of purposely wrong and bad edits, using no sources, editing like a fan forum, and on and on, and then you just declare yourself that is the end of the discussion. OK, well everyone here that edits basketball articles has seen exactly what I am dealing with and has seen exactly what you are like.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're barely making sense now, and still not providing anything to back up your "facts", not even a single diff. I nominated the articles for deletion because they did not answer Notability (read it and learn), nothing is false about that accusation. By the way the articles you create are not your own and defending them for that reason only goes against WP:OWN. I also want to highlight the hypocrisy of your accusations seeing as you made this contribution on a subject you had no idea about just because it was my proposal. As for me being rude, I have no patience for incompetence and stubbornness and can answer in a straightforward but always civil manner, if you think that's rude you're in for a surprise when you'll enter the adult world and start working. I might as well be talking to a wall for the way you parrot the same nonsense over again, your edits are just inadequate not disruptive but that's the only barrier keeping me from reporting you. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nik Stauskas injured or suspended?
Please comment at Talk:Nik_Stauskas if you know why he missed the final game of the 2015 FIBA Americas Championship.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Food poisoning, in Mexico, I'll let you imagine the state of the toilet (UmHoops.com. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission
Please take a look at Draft:Hollie Mershon. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, had a look, I didn't peruse the whole web but she would likely not answer the notability requirements. The sources (more of which should be direct references, also an external links section and proper formatting would be tidier) are mostly primary or routine, didn't really see much that was both independent and in depth. Just to let you know, on basketball articles, the Template:Infobox basketball biography is commonly used (should be mandatory really) to put in stuff like clubs and career highlights. That's my two cents, I don't really feel strongly enough on the subject to go through the whole convoluted process for draft reviews. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get basketball articles deleted out of personal grudges
Articles for deletion/All-Europeans Player of the Year this and other articles of mine, several of them have been nominated by the same person, ArmstrongJulian, and now the support is also coming from another editor here that is accusing me of only supporting anything I like personally here in the basketball project. Julian started doing this after he held some kind of imaginary grudge against me, over something he imagined that in their mind made purposely wrong and bad edits in the Pallacanestro Treviso article and then, after falsely accusing me of that, they started following my edits and nominated several articles I made for deletion, after I changed some edits they made at the Michael Bramos article, which I did not understand, and I asked them about it and wanted to discuss it with them. The same with how in their edits they were changing dozens of articles in basketball profiles on the listed heights in the infoboxes. I asked just why, and both times got a very rude response back and it was accusatory. I was told if I don't like it, to take it here. I have and so far I get not a single answer from anyone for any of this, but my articles continue to be up for deletion, and now further editors that discuss here and get an attitude and seem to be in agreement with Julian on every point, suddenly joined in to agree to have my articles deleted. I am just going to say I am very close to taking all of this to moderators and dispute resolution, because I have asked now several times for this to be discussed here and it is being completely ignored. Particularly how Julian nominates articles for deletion without notifying you he does so. And that he does this, right after he has some sort of insulting or condescending personal interaction with you. Or how he states that you are making all of your edits like a fan forum, or that none of your edits ever have a source, which are completely false and totally baseless accusations. This is all a very aggressive behavior and I really don't see how any of it would be tolerated at all if it gets reported. So is someone going to actually discuss this and help resolve it, or do i just report it officially right now or what? I am here to help contribute, and I do a lot of work and it is very good work, and I have a ton of stuff to the site. So I do not intend at all to let someone bully me here.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this. If you can't work this out directly with ArmstrongJulian then open up a case at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Rikster2 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My articles got deleted. Not one person even tried to help in this. I am reporting this to a moderator. This is abusive.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Medals
Hey, just to get some input about medals in the infobox. Does the team national team needs to be linked over and over? The team parameter should only be used when there is a specific article for the tournament, imo. Having 4-5 links to the same team is not needed. The national team is linked 1-2 times in the article already. The same is done on football, handball articles and so on. Just dont see the need for a repeating link which offers nothing to the linked tournament. The olympics can and should have the subarticle there. It just makes it look more clear in my view. Done that on the french articles like Tony Parker. User:AirWolf disagreed. So we ask for opinions and go with the consensus. On phone right now but can offer more input and diffs when i am at home soon. Just to get it started. Kante4 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, reducing multiple same links to one per article is really needed. That being said, and maybe me being a bit traditional, leaving at least one link to the national team should be good solution, just like it should be the case of Tony's. If the player has won more medals with his national team, there, for consistency should be only addition next to medalCompetition "|Team" with no link as it was previously mentioned. If the team have page created only for one tournament (e.g. Olympics), the link is a no-brainier. Two more arguments: With the addition of link in medal part of Infobox template, we avoid possible nonexistence of link to the national team in article and we make to mobile-reader a faster way to get to the national team page if becomes interested. And the second argument is that we have some players who have u21, u20, and so on till u16 medals, just like in Tony's case; so there we should make a clear difference and faster way to reach these sub-articles of national teams. Some national teams have them just like the Serbian national basketball team, some don't.-- AirWolf  talk  10:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The one link would be a good solution for me. Or in the infobox a link maybe or above the first won medal? Kante4 (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, please don't go too far. Lets agree on this, which can bee transitional, and then once agreed, we can think about what's next, like football (soccer) templates - meaning of the period player played for the national team etc. Which in my opinion can be great asset but... first things first.-- AirWolf  talk  10:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't get it why have you deleted parameters MedalCountry and MedalSport from Tony's article?-- AirWolf  talk  10:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those can be added but arent there on many other articles. Why not have the link to the national team instead of country, a flag could still be there. Kante4 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would pretty much solve the problem. We just need good developer who will track all national teams (many don't have men's addition). If that's the case, what about younger teams, meaning of under21 etc?-- AirWolf  talk  12:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a suggestion, stop changing the way it is supposed to be made in the medals. The fact that it keeps being changed does nothing but create extra work for everyone that tries to edit these articles. It does nothing but create constantly extra more and more endless and needless busy work. Pick a way and leave it alone. I can't even remember since I have been editing here how many times the way the medals are supposed to be has been changed. And it has never been a change that has made any sense, nor that fixed, nor improved anything. It's always simply done as a way to create extra work for no reason.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is definitely not a suggestion. Here's this talk that will tackle all issues concerning medals in infobox, sou if you are willing, participate by giving your opinion how it should be. For a start, there is clear consensus that link to country should be changed to national team. Let's go further.-- AirWolf  talk  20:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I am making. The issue I am saying is that they already had this same info long ago, and yet have been changed numerous times for no reason and here it is being changed again. It's just constantly changing things to create more needless discussion and more needless editing.Bluesangrel (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What it looked before


 * What it looks now


 * Idea (with link to national team in country parameter)?

About U21 and so on. There can be another link above those won medals, if they have to be in the infobox... Kante4 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:


 * Agree with third one, but with some modifications...


 * Specific case 1


 * Specific case 2

Carefully go through all specific cases and tell me your opinion. Based on our previous talk, I think we are near consensus. Am I right?-- AirWolf  talk  13:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I really like that. If there is no "under-19" or so link, do we leave it blank or add the redlink? And, is "MedalSport" really needed to be added? Basketball is linked in the lead, articles is about a basketball player, all links in the medalbox lead to basketball articles so i say we can skip that.

When we agree, i go through the eurobasket players i already went through and add the country. I will work my way through all that are playing at the EuroBasket 2015. Kante4 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just skip it/leave it blank, as many teams don't have such articles, even the US don't have it. I would still put it (MedalSport par.), more than 90% of articles have it. If it really becomes annoying, we can use the services of some bot and that's it. For a start, EuroBasket 2015 isn't bad, but keep in mind, there are much more articles having such templates. Deal sealed, right?-- AirWolf  talk  13:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MedalSport is the only thing i see different but that's a minor part, so Deal! Kante4 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't catch all of that and I'm late to the party but just a few opinions. I agree with the adopted solution, it looks better and it's easier to navigate, plus linking to the country article instead of the national team was a bit useless. My caveat is putting the Under-age results in the infobox, are those medals really that important? In my eyes they're not, there was a discussion before on the subject that was roughly of the same opinion though no consensus was established. Olympic medals are big deals, World Cup less so, Regional championships about par for some but no one would consider an under-age medal their career achievement, which is what the infobox highlights portion should illustrate. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Template:MedalGold, the last parameter is supposed to be for the event, not something like "team". However, competitions like the World Cup don't have an "event", it's basketball only. I'd prefer a presentation that looks consistent, but having entries with a lot of space at the end where the parameter is not used looks awkward. Thus, I'd propose not using the "event" field for basketball. If a country has an article specific for that year's national team e.g. 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team, just use it for the link to the competition e.g. 2006 FIBA World Championship. Otherwise, link to the competition's article. For example, LeBron James could look like the example here.—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree there, except for the part of underage competitions.-- AirWolf  talk  20:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The underage thread (below) is separate, and unrelated to this discussion. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't try to be "smart" when interacting with anyone here, it's rude. I've given opinion on both your and Julian's talk.-- AirWolf  talk  21:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding uniformity - WP:BASKETBALL's use of Template:Medal does not exist in a vacuum or in isolation. Consistency matters.  For major multi-sport tournaments, such as the Olympics, Pan American Games, etc., at which basketball is one of many sports played, it is necessary to use all of the template parameters, just like other team sports like association football/soccer, field hockey, team gymnastics, ice hockey, volleyball, and water polo.  Removing the "Team competition" (not "Team," as mistakenly suggested above) from the third template parameter suddenly makes the medals table for basketball players different from the medals table for every other kind of athlete on Wikipedia.  Moreover, eliminating the third template parameter just looks plain goofy -- too much white space between datapoints.  Please reconsider.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My only requirement is that Olympic and FIBA entries look similar, whether or not the third parameters is used. Do you have a suggestion on a better way to do that, or just continue to list redundant "team" for FIBA events?—Bagumba (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, consistency matters in the use of Template:Medal across different sports and different international sports festivals, tournaments and games. There is no good reason why basketball player medals tables should be formatted in a radically different manner from athletes in other team sports.  Here's how infobox medals tables are supposed to be formatted when using Template:Medal for team sports like association football/soccer, basketball, team gymnastics, field hockey, ice hockey, volleyball and water polo:


 * There is no reason for the medals tables for basketball players to be formatted any differently than other athletes in international teams sports. Moreover, as Bluesrangrel notes below, the medals table looks graphically hideously over-spaced when the third parameter is removed.  In the medals table headers, the country (or national team, TBD) should be linked and the flag icon of the country represented should be displayed; the word "basketball" in "Men's basketball" should probably be linked too, since it is not linked elsewhere in the Template:Infobox basketball biography.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I looked to football for examples, but it seems they don't add medals to their bios' infoboxes. Any other team sport that can be used a precedent, where the team members don't also compete as individuals?—Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "football" you mean the sport that 375 million Americans, Australians and Canadians call "soccer," here are two examples of properly formatted infobox medals tables: Mia Hamm and Abby Wambach. (Pelé's medals table represents another local variation that use all three variables.)  It's also apparent that individual sports editors have flown off in odd directions in formatting medals tables based on single-sport international tournaments (as suggested above), not recognizing that such formatting does not work for the major multi-sport games such as the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, Asian Games, European Games, FINA World Aquatics Championships, etc.  I can't tell you that everyone does it properly, because they don't.  I just spent the last five months cleaning up 1800 uses of Infobox swimmer, where numb-nuts users had inserted every imaginable variation of weirdness into the infobox and its medals table, all contrary to the examples on the template page.  Sadly, most decisions are made elsewhere in the same manner as they are here: by a handful of editors who don't necessarily know what exists beyond their own narrow editing interests.  BTW, Template:Medal was recently modified to incorporate the circular medal icons, which allowed more space for longer individual event descriptions such as "Team competition," "4x100 m freestyle, "200 m breaststroke," "4x100 m relay" and "Floor routine," and to eliminate line-wrapping within the medals table.  The space is available; it only remains for editors to use it properly.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is so much empty white space that it is ridiculous. That is why I am saying, they keep changing these all the time and for no reason. It's been changed so many times, and it never even serves a purpose. But now it's starting to just look strange after all the changes.Bluesangrel (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Underage medals
I propose removing underage medals from the infobox once a player has won a medal with the senior national team. Per MOS:INFOBOX: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I doubt any FA/GA bios even mention the underage medals in the lead. They can instead be mentioned in prose, or in a general list of honor in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Many European national teams have sub-articles for their younger selections. These are events organized by FIBA, and have World and Continental championships. Not notable? I doubt it. Then why not delete all articles about such events?-- AirWolf  talk  20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to notability relative to the player, not that it wasn't notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. That being said, we don't need to necessarily list everything that has a Wikipedia article in the lead or in an infobox. Per MOS:INTRO: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." If a player earned a medal as part of the senior national team, then I think it's less important to list the underage national teams.  We employ a similar practice for pro players, where not all of their college or high school awards are listed. For that matter, not all of their pro awards are always listed, even if it has a Wikipedia article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a good example. Many players who have won u21, and so on tournaments were professionals at the time.-- AirWolf  talk  21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support This is not a discussion on the notability of under-age medals but about the infobox. The guidelines are clear that it should only identify key facts of the player's career, further stating that no more thatn 5 career achievements should be given. Winning a senior medal is way more notable than winning an under-age medal (or universiade), no one can possibly deny that. The claim that junior national teams are extremely important is shaky, they receive a certain ammount of coverage (especially the under-20's, much less the under-16's) and serve as milestones of a player's progression but the tournaments as such aren't considered that important in most European countries I'd think (definitely for France and Italy). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose to that. Outside USA, and especially in Europe, junior national team is extremely important, and holds significant weight.Bluesangrel (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Then we can open a discussion and change the guidelines. That's first on my to do list.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with bluesangel. I don't know where the guidelines are; I hope someone will provide a link, but the limitation to five entries sounds arbitrary and a bad idea. First and foremost we must remember that our guideline should reflect what readers may desire. While it is easy to understand that an INFOBOX with too much information becomes counterproductive, an arbitrary limit of five medals sounds unreasonably low.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa, I jumped the gun on this occasion. Guidelines exist (see Infobox basketball and Manual of Style/Infoboxes) with the general guideline on infoboxes stating "Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". But the 5 highlights is not a guideline, I must admit I got that part confused with the WikiProject NBA guideline prescribing to scale down on amateur awards if the player has 5+ pro awards. That said I still support the proposal, the infoboxes are already bloated (note that football/soccer and rugby don't put awards in infoboxes, don't know about other sports) and if the under-age medals are so important as a career achievement then why does no one bother to write about them in the article itself as is the policy for anything put in the infobox? --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I always list them whenever I am editing an article, if they are pertinent awards, but one of the big issues is that often I would have them removed after by other editors with the reason being given that they are not important, as you yourself are claiming here, or that they were already listed in the medal table. You see it is extremely difficult to edit here when there is always another editor that comes up with such reasoning that it is better to remove as much information as possible, rather than add anything.Bluesangrel (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at it another way, it might be a byproduct of adding information for which there is no clear consensus.—

Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, most editors that edit that way just like to remove info. They do it on all kinds of things, and always come up with excuse to do so. If they don't have a good excuse, then they start discussions trying to make them up.Bluesangrel (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support As nominator. Per MOS:INFOBOX, less is more [effective].  I could be persuaded otherwise if people present articles that talk about a player's underage international career years later as part of their legacy. I just don't think it is notable if a player ends up medaling later on the senior national team .—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, hardly any of these are even "underage", they are just being called that. Incorrectly called that. So trying to claim they should be removed because they are "underage" when they are not is not a legit argument. Also, as someone else already pointed out, just because the US and Canadian players are considered amateur due to their systems at that time, it does not reflect on the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, many players are already playing in professional teams. For instance, at under-18 tournaments many of the players already are playing in fully professional teams. So it's not underage and it's not amateur and non professional, even though that is part of the argument being made here. It's simply not true. Also, the argument that one or two medals in an infobox is going to clutter it up, quite frankly is ridiculous and I think to be perfectly honest some people here are being very petty with some of these discussions. A lot of this stuff sounds very agenda based to me. Bluesangrel (talk)
 * You don't need to !vote oppose multiple times. I invite you to provide links to reliable sources where the non-senior national team participation is discussed years after a player has already won a medal on the senior team. Without them, the arguments are merely of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. Nobody is presuming that the world is the same as the US or Canada. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's no use trying to reason, his whole policy is based on ILIKEIT. And don't expect him to provide any link or anything ressembling a source, seeing blue text in one of his edits is an abnormality. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been advised by other well respected editors here to take you to the dispute resolution board. Please don't keep making these rude comments like this to me, or I will be forced to do so. You are constantly antagonizing and making false accusations for no reason. It is out of line.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, I sheepishly admit that I don't remember having brought this up months back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball, which I saw just now. Hopefully, we can get a clear consensus either way.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is their a Wikipedia policy I can source on "I don't like it"? Because that is what you are both doing. Finding any little thing you can you don't like and attacking it for no reason at all. I could spend years here posting articles mentioning about the medals players win in junior tournaments. You don't have to demand someone provide something when you are the one that is claiming they are not legit. Your claim they are not legit is what you have to prove. You have not done so. It's purely your opinion and if this went outside of the realm of the 3-4 people posting here this would go nowhere at all. And my editing is not based on what I like or don't like, but clearly your suggestions on what should or should not be allowed here is.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bluesangrel, this is the sentence that reflects on all my discussions with other users regarding anything (a bit changed) - "I could spend years here posting articles... arguments and there will never be a clear consensus about something because everyone is finding any little thing they don't like and attack for no reason at all." I'm with you on this, bro, don't give up!-- AirWolf  talk  19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support style of not listing junior medals in infobox if player has more senior honours. The medal templates form part of the lead and that section should focus only on the most key details of a player and cover those points concisely. While for some players their junior achievements are their foremost ones, we should consider these lesser details of greater players careers. My rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't specifically mention the individual age-category tournaments in the prose of the lead, then the medal listings are probably not helpful either. Lead sections should not overload readers with information. SFB 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. I think even youth championships are notable for life.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "style of not listing junior medals in infobox if player has more senior honours" per SFB above. Good infobox design is about making choices, not about trying to rewrite an entire article in bullet-point fashion in the infobox; doing otherwise overwhelms infoboxes with less-important inforomation.  I also strongly agree with the rule of thumb that if an honor or award is not important enough to describe and source with an inline footnote in the article's main body text, then it does not belong in the article's infobox.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not comfortable turning this into a hard and fast rule. I can imagine situations where a player earns a medal in an age restricted competition, then later earns a medal with the senior team and it may be best to include both in the infobox. I can imagine another situation where a player earns a medal or several in age restricted competition, then goes on to win a dozen medals with the senior team. At that point, it might make sense to include only the senior team medals in the infobox. Any rule of the form "always remove the age restricted medal when a senior team medal is earned infobox" or "never remove the age restricted medal when a senior team medalis earned infobox" seems wrong. I think we would be better off providing some gentle guidance which might help editors make decisions in specific situations.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about exceptions, but that is where WP:IAR can come in if there is consensus for an exception on a per-case basis. None of our policies or guidelines are blindly followed, and neither should any style advice we may come up with as a WikiProject. That being said, if there is a rough consensus, it can be helpful for guidance to editors in the 90% of cases that an exception does not apply.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just leave it alone. And yes, those rules will be blindly followed, as it is purely obvious by the arguments of some in these discussions. There is no reason to remove the junior medals. None. The argument it clutters the boxes is not a valid one. Because one or two medals does not do that.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The first aftermath
After agreeing some changes (Link to country should be changed to national team instead), removal of the links in "third parameter" section of a template, and a continued talk about whether should we use links for the underage teams or not (with no clear consensus made), one very good critique of adopted proposals came from Dirtlawyer1, claiming the following: and so on - find the rest, read it. Which, if you all agree on (like I do), makes the whole discussion that later followed look meaninglessness. What are your opinions about it and how we should direct this discussion later. Should we stop it and accept the "Olympic default format" or not? If that's the case, should we think about how to deal with tournaments other than Olympics. On the line are: World Cup, Continental championships, other less important tournaments and last but not the least important (or yes?), underage tournaments. Thanks in advance.-- AirWolf  talk  21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This brings up my original point. At some time the medal tables used to be like that, and got changed, and now they are changed again. It's just changing all the time. A month from now someone will suggest to change it again, a new discussion starts, 3-4 people say yes change it, "consensus" comes from said 3-4 people and it changes again for no reason.Bluesangrel (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are we with this? We had several hours of discussion on point three days ago, and no substantive decision or commentary subsequently. I also note that one ore more editors are making changes to the medals tables of pro basketball players based on the split input of four or five editors above. What about it, guys? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCONSENSUS on content (or style) typically results in maintaining the status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My current thinking is that Template:MedalSport has an example in its documentation that shows the event not being filled in. Yes, it looks weird with all that white space. However, filling in "Team"  into a FIBA event which is dedicated to basketball, which is an obvious team event already, looks silly as well.  So we either have ugly white space, or a dummy "Team" placed merely to fill up space and look consistent.  Either way it sucks, so let's save time in going from one crappy solution to another and just keep it as is. Leave "Team" there.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Omitting the third template parameter, "Team competition," is not only inconsistent, but it also screws up the medal-games-event 3-variable formatting for all of the major multi-sport games such as the Olympics -- the premier sports event in the world, and the indisputably most important international basketball tournament for most of the 20th Century. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the medal tables were designed primarily for multisport events like the Olympics, but they are also used side-by-side with single-sport events like various Would Cups. Until someone comes up with a solution that handles both elegantly, it's going to continue to suck for bios of athletes who only compete in team sports.—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hadn't put two and two together when supporting the change earlier. The medal boxes are should be harmonised across all sports that use them, which entails keeping the team competition (not team) link. The only change I would make is using the national basketball team link in the country section (the one with the flag) instead of linking the country itself, that could work across all sports (those that don't have an article for their national team can link the federation, barring that the Olympic committee). I can live with leaving the Team competition parameter unlinked for the world and regional championships. 100% against underage medals in the infobox, I'll admit that on a collective level it can be important (ie Serbia's or Greece's titles reflect their adept basketball schooling) but for individual players it's a footnote, or a reminder of unachieved promise, not a highlight. And it would overshadow the player then playing for the senior national team if he doesn't win a medal with them (a transition that is not a given in countries such as Spain). I'm not expecting much support on a complete ban but I'll put my vote in for at least not adding them when the player has won a major senior international title. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment My two cents: (1) either have "team" 3rd link for all or none at all. We have articles like 2006 FIBA World Championship squads which can be linked to (and could probably do with more linking). It would probably be better to display this as something like (squad) instead, so it's really obvious what that link will go to. (2) I disagree especially with using the wordy "team competition" in the 3rd spot. This is clearly redundant. I don't think consistency with other Olympic sports is a big deal either given that practically no bb player has medalled in another Olympic sport. Football articles already omit a 3rd parameter (e.g.). I don't find the lack of a 3rd parameter confusing in any way.
 * (3) Why has no one mentioned using Template:Bk for the country part? That template makes linking to the team and showing the flag super-easy.
 * (4) Junior medals should not be listed for players that have won senior medals. I operate a similar approach on track and field articles already. The lead section is about summarising the player's highest achievements, not all their achievements. Junior medals can be placed in the body and main medal list section of an article. The main quality of a good lead is often that it has made good decisions on what to omit. It should be concise, not exhaustive and this applies to tables as much prose. SFB 16:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your No. 4 comment on the junior medals, do you mind placing your !vote above in the respective section (above)?  Procedurally, it's best to dedicate this current thread to discussing how to present information, whereas the underage thread is more for discussing what content to display. Keeping it all in one place makes it easier to assess consensus too.  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, leave the junior medals in there. There is no reason at all to remove them. This is just creating a big argument, just to create a big argument. They are noteworthy in most of the world. They are professional mostly outside of USA, they are always considered a big achievement in most of the world (outside USA), and they don't clutter the infobox, because at most, some player won a 3-4 of them in their life, and that's extremely rare. None of the arguments being made for why they have to be removed actually go beyond opinion. Bluesangrel (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the junior medal question is very different from the other ones we're raising, which are more about style than content. I agree that strict rule-making on the point isn't helpful, hence my support above to make the decision to list them or not a case-by-case basis one. Style often benefits from firmer rules, whereas firmer rules on finer details of content is an easy way to waste time, which is a very, very sad way to spend the life our mothers have given us :) SFB 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting individual original research
Hi everybody. I haven't experienced so far anything like this. There was this edit by IP user (99.225.150.245) on Bogdan Bogdanović's page on September 2. The content of it was very raw, with the accusations of player's decision for trade that was agreed between the two clubs, agents etc. It was official. And then someone found on Youtube this video (, Serbian) of his then head coach who said that he had "verbal agreement" with the player to stay in the club for at least one more season, as a part of a deal, and "return" to gaining a part in a rotation two years ago even that player didn't deserve it but because of pure potential. The edit was raw, covering in little detail that part of interview. And we several users simply reverted that edit as it appeared non-neutral, raw, and coming from video upload on YouTube. Then, two weeks later, there's that user reverting again, and adding SOURCE that is covering THAT part of interview - see there. Two big things there, source (mondo.rs) is(was) lets say, representative. But, the article was written on September 15, 2015. The article is about some player unrelated to player, but his agent was the same as Bogdanovic's was. And in bold text there are these comments. I truly believe that this IP user works for this media portal and that he wrote that article, thus way creating a "reliable" source for his edit half month ago. Can someone help me on this and what to do in this case? Or can someone report it somewhere? I have re-summarized this text finally after seeing valid source, only to check lately its date of publication. And then I got here for help. Thanks in advance.-- AirWolf  talk  18:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the content, WP:FULL protection is an option if you want, as it's just you two editors reverting back and forth.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not my point. The thing you are trying to say doesn't reflect the current state of the article. Read the talk before writing such BS.-- AirWolf  talk  09:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it civil please, swearing doesn't help anyone here. On the content itself, I don't think it's original research because a quick search revealed a number of other sources that also quoted the coach's interview (see here and here among others), I don't know how reliable these websites are but by all accounts the coach did do that interview and make those claims. That said, beyond the poor sourcing (as per CITEVIDEO youtube can be used as a reference if you indicate when the quote is said in the video, other sources are preferable) this does seem to be a case of WP:UNDUE as the coach's claims are given more credence then they should (not WP:GRAPEVINE but not neutral either) whilst counterclaims by Bogdanovic about an incident when the coach strangled him (see here) are not brought up. The user also did something similar at The Presumption of Justice . I'd also note AirWolf initiated a discussion with the user on his talk page but to my knowledge got no reply (nothing on his talk page or AirWolf's). 99.225.150.245 has not reverted AirWolf's latest edit on the Bogdanovic page so I would let this be for now, if he continues to make partisan edits in general (pun not intended) then it would nice to have an admin remind him of wikipedia policy before considering stronger measures. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and energy to solve the problem. I generally agree with your words, so... case closed for me. Bye.-- AirWolf  talk  15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  AirWolf 's conspiracy theory about me being employed at a Serbian news portal is looney tunes. How do you even address such a ridiculous concoction? The suggestion is so half-baked, so outlandish and so crazy really that it makes me question  AirWolf 's intelligence and/or emotional state. As for the content itself,  AirWolf  talk 's seems to suggest that what Partizan's head coach Vujosevic has to say about about Bogdanovic transferring out of the club is irrelevant. It isn't. I wasn't even aware of the other two sources, but even the fact that Vujosevic talked about it in detail in an interview (which there is a video of) should surely suffice. But now there are multiple sources so the point is moot anyway. Also, I agree with ArmstrongJulian that the context of Bogdanovic's relationship with Vujosevic (or vice versa) is currently incomplete because info about Vujosevic choking Bogdanovic during a league game in spring 2014 is presently not mentioned in the article. That needs to included as well. I'll do it when I have time. Also, what is the similar thing ArmstrongJulian is talking bout me doing on The Presumption of Justice?99.225.150.245 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @99.225.150.245 I apologise for saying you did something similar at The Presumption of Justice, this diff led me to believe you had added the text when in fact this diff shows it was added by another user. I didn't feel the need to dispel the accusations made by User:AirWolf about you working for a news portal because they didn't really hold up to start with. To be clear, I readily agree with you that they are very unlikely to be true. For the record, from what I've seen you make helpful contributions by expanding articles that are light on information and details, that's useful but the flip side is that it can give undue weight to an incident that is not as defining for the article's subject. For example the edit on Mijatović devotes five lines of text to a minor role he had in a negocatiation that fell through, it's not your fault that the rest of the article is underdevelloped (on the contrary as you added material) but it's just a case of being careful, especially with potentially controversial material such as on Bogdanovic, Ražnatović and Mažić. It would also help to explain your edits when there is differing opinions, correct me if I'm wrong but you did not talk with AirWolf apart through edit summaries, I'm aware both of you reverted back and forth but he did at least try to start a proper discussion. To sum it up, this is a storm in a teacup that got blown out of proportion in my eyes, you're both good faith contributors, if everybody sources their edits properly (sometimes with multiple sources) then there shouldn't be a problem, barring that, use the article talk pages for content disputes before going further. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made a mistake, but why not clearing the issue I had with others?Thank you for your contributions. I also support you adding anything on Wikipedia. If there's a room for it to be more concise just like in this particular case, I'll help you. I'm off.-- AirWolf  talk  19:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we please get a discussion on this article that is up for deletion? I think it is a needed article from perspective of European basketball?
Articles for deletion/European Basketball Player of the Year AwardsBluesangrel (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI. All project related discussion are listed at WikiProject_Basketball. People that want it on their watchlist can go to WikiProject Basketball/Article alerts.  If other people like these individual notices on the project too, than that is fine also.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/All-Europeans Player of the Year
I would like some actual basketball article editors to discuss this please, and ones other than the people already trying to delete numerous articles of mine, like the one they already got deleted, and claimed it had no external media sources, even though it did. Which conveniently for them I can't prove after it got deleted, unless if anyone knows if there is way to get a cache of the article, which if they do I would appreciate, because I will take it to a complaint about article deletion then. Anyway, please discuss this, as no one with any basketball knowledge at least obviously outside of NBA, seems to be doing so, or no one in basketball project outside of obvious editors who seem to want to remove everything are doing so.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can view the deleted article. I don't know much about this specific award, but the sources provided just aren't enough to establish notability. The links from Eurobasket.com aren't independent, and none of the other sources go beyond a brief mention of the award, usually as part of a list of multiple awards. And my guess is that the award was only mentioned in each of those sources because the article writer saw it in a player's Wikipedia infobox. (This bio is pretty much lifted entirely from Wikipedia.)
 * There may still be better sources out there; I'll admit that I haven't tried searching myself. But what we need are news articles that are primarily about this award. A brief mention of the award is not going to cut it. Pay attention to the comment made by User:Bejnar, which really got to the point.
 * It may still be possible to recreate the article, but you need a more sophisticated defense. Instead of focusing on other editors, search for more sources you could use to build an article, and present those sources here. Your current approach is never going to work. Zagal e jo^^^ 07:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and suggestions ZagalejoBluesangrel (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)