Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 1

Coach and player infoboxes
We need to create a standard coach and player infobox. I used the college football coach one for Dean Smith and I think that works well. I am sure we could use a similar one for players. Remember 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created Template:Infobox NCAA Athlete. It has a small error with a spurious pipe "|". I've been unable to discover the cause. Please offer suggestions or modifications.

Templates
I've created poll templates which can list the top 25 for whatever poll. They were designed to reduce some of the work in pages such as 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings where you can see what the 16ColPollTable would look like in finished form. I'd like to know how many weeks the college basketball typically has polls for. In football it's typically 16 and maybe 17 and never any longer. But is the basketball season longer (I'm ignorant here, sorry!). How many weeks maximum would you folks need?

Also, I'd like to create the project template for you folks. For the project template, do you want ratings categories which the College football project (and others) has used which then adds the class (stub, start, B, GA, A, FA) and importance or priority (low, mid, high, top) tags. You can always add it later if you decide you don't want to worry about that for now.

A few suggestions as well: I have found the navigation box and a "Master Team Table" that we developed for the CFB project invaluable. You can see them at: WPCFB and WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable. The navigation box mainly goes within the project pages, but I've added it to my user page as well which makes things even easier for me to find. We even have a partially filled table that lists some basketball items as well at WikiProject College football/Team Articles. I could help set some of this up for you as well.

Anyways, let me know what I can help you with and I'll get to work. Thanks. -- MECU ≈ talk 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For starters, I'm for the most part a college football fan who finds himself entertained by college basketball in the off-season. That said, I checked the ESPN website for the amount of weeks in a season. In seasons past, there have been nineteen weeks of basketball - though, I'm sure it may vary from time to time, I think that's what you should go with.


 * I'd love it if we could have a real rating system with class and importance like the college football article has - it makes life a lot easier in the long run. For the record, I note that the other college basketball Wikiproject that hasn't yet been merged, has this template available. However, it links to the wrong project - a rather easy problem to fix, however - it still needs the ratings and class stuff thrown to the bottom of it.


 * On top of all the suggestions you threw out there, we need to complete this merger soon. Nothing says "Don't join" like a merger tag, no flashy graphics, and a starter project. Despite its age, it really hasn't gotten off the ground from what I can tell - the [|Portal] is the best example of that.


 * Your help's greatly appreciated - and I hope you can help get this project off the ground (or what it's at now). --NomaderTalk 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with you Nomader. Any help you can provide (Mecu) is greatly appreciated.  I like the look of most of those CFB templates.  I'd love to see them adopted.  The Master Team Template is great, although we'll have many more teams, even if we just stick to D-I basketball.


 * Also, let's definitely do this merge.


 * I'm the one who created the CBB portal a few months ago, and I've let it sit idle. Now that the season is started, I'm ready to get back engaged and get it going again. Daveahern 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MECU, I greedily copied the navigation box from the CFB project and created a CBB version. I'm linking it on the main project page now.  We can decide what sections we do or do not want.  Only a few are currently populated.  -  Daveahern 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'll be changing a few of the colors on that navigation box - if this ends up being only a temporary addition, that's fine by me. Anyhow, what we need now is to have an avaible set of quality and class rankings for our tags on talk pages, neither of which have been made. Also, I've been recently editing the Basketball Portal - I think we all need to give a little bit more attention to it if we want this WikiProject to succeed. -- Nomader Talk 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit: I have changed the current template's colors to a more orange-red scheme to make it look less like College Football's. -- Nomader Talk 20:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed on the Portal page needing more work. I did some edits on it this morning and will hope to get to some more soon. -- Daveahern 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like things are starting to move. Great! I found these templates too NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament and National Invitation Tournament so someone (you should recruit those who edited a lot on the history pages) has been at work. I'll make up to 19Col/week of my poll table then. -- MECU ≈ talk 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Priorities
So what are our priorities here? I see listed on the main page: 1. Create non-existing teams' articles and edit existing college teams' articles. 2. Keep the quality of the articles maintained up. 3. Share our comments and feedback.

I think we also need to add maintain the CBB portal like Nomader talks about above. Probably also that we want to have timely information? For example current rankings (polls) and news about recent games or events? (See the College Football rankings)

In addition to that, what are the WikiProject management (meta) priorities? Obviously creating some templates is one. Anything else? I'm new to the whole WikiProject thing. - Daveahern 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think our first goal should get the WikiProject up and running. We need to get cracking on the articles themselves, but it's rather worthless for us when we still have these problems ahead of us:


 * Merger still not complete
 * Sub-Projects not ready
 * Ranking system for articles not complete
 * Unflashy WikiProject Page (see WikiProject Judaism)
 * Infoboxes n' Templates not finished


 * Once we finish with all that, it gets no easier, as we have some other things we have to do.


 * Maintain and improve the College Basketball Portal
 * Write team articles
 * Write coach articles
 * Tag Articles and gain members


 * All that aside, we could then do a few more things with regards to the project itself, not college football.


 * Make a 'College Basketball Barnstar'. Of worthless importance, but if someone's bored, it could be fun.
 * Make 'welcome' templates
 * Make 'You might be interested in us!' templates


 * And, there you have it. My priorities - bolded priorities are the most important in my opinion. -- Nomader Talk 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No arguments from me so far. As far as the merger - there's only one user over on the other CBB wikiproject, so I think we can get this taken care of quickly.  I've copied over all the links to the templates listed over there.  Then the only issue is whether our goals/scope need to be adjusted to include what Orlière wants with the other one.  As far as I'm concerned, it's close enough.  If Orlière wants to add anything to our goals/scope, more power to him/her. -- Daveahern 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I think I'll start copying the CFB assessment/rating pages over here. (I'm sure they won't mind as they "borrowed" it from someone else anyway :-).  Once we have it started, we can discuss what changes/differences we want. -- Daveahern 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, the college football standards are for the most part, standard, with the exception of specifics, which will need to be edited anyhow for this project. Pretty much, it's time to get to work - I'm beggining work on the Collaboration of the Month page. -- Nomader Talk 04:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What are the "subprojects" that need to be worked on? Wrad 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NCAA Tournament MOP Men
Template:NCAA Tournament MOP Men has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --American Patriot 1776 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Collaboration has begun
Alright, I've created the monthly collaboration page - for it to work, we'll need everyone's help to keep it going. Even if you don't know much about the subject chosen, you can still give a hand by looking a few things up and finding out about them. I've nominated for a creation of the UNC Tar Heels page - I request that we stave off the college basketball page for a bit until we get a few more users on board. If anyone thinks that the UNC page would be a bad choice, feel free to nominate something else, but we should get this started in a few days. -- Nomader Talk 05:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

College coach template
Probably should add Template talk:College coach infobox to the templates section. Remember 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Standard
I propose that the WPCBB project uses the following naming standards:
 * General Schools
 * University of , ie University of Colorado at Boulder (whereas University of Colorado is also acceptable, but not preferred as the system is larger than where the Buffaloes really play from.)
 * General Athletics
 *  , ie Colorado Buffaloes (whereas University of Colorado at Boulder Buffaloes is wrong)
 * Sport specific
 *   (wo)mens basketball, ie Colorado Buffaloes mens basketball (whereas Colorado Buffaloes basketball is wrong)
 * If the mens and womens are known by different nicknames (aka ), whatever is appropriate should be used in the article title
 * Even if a school only has a mens team (for example), it shall still use the mens in the title. If the article Colorado Buffaloes basketball was erroneously created for whatever reason, it shall be changed to a redirect into the general athletic article for the school (ie, Colorado Buffaloes, whereas a redirect to either mens or womens page would be preferential and wrong)
 * Season specific pages
 * 20xy-xz   (wo)mens basketball team, ie 2006-07 Colorado Buffaloes womens basketball team (whereas 2006 Colorado Buffaloes womens basketball team is wrong and if created, merely moved/redirected to the 2006-07 page)

The first two are in line with the WPCFB project and the rest of the university naming conventions. The third is to give no preference to mens or womens at a school and also in line with WPCFB. The fourth is also in line with WPCFB with the added -xz to make clear the season, since basketball spans the calendar year and having just 2006 or 2007 (for example) would be ambiguous. This system has worked well for the WPCFB, and having similar naming convention across Wikipedia would bolster both projects.

When linking from articles to another school, it is preferred to link to the sport/same gender page if available. If not, the general athletic page and if not available, then the school page (which all are available) and if not available then left as a red link. Linking to the season specific page should only be done from another season specific page with a seealso from a game-by-game breakdown or a See Also section at the bottom. See 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team for an example. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This all sounds rather reasonable to me. -- Daveahern 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that names should include both men and women in the same page, making it things like Duke Blue Devils basketball and North Carolina Tar Heels basketball. Both genders on the same page makes it easier to edit, and adds more good content, though, I'm not too strong on this opinion. -- Nomader Talk 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to think that the content between men's and women's basketball teams would be different enough that we'd want to separate them. The team history, coaching history, possibly the arena, everything could be different.  I lean toward separate pages. -- Daveahern 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have any of these pages been created? The only one I could find was 2007 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball team.  I'm about to create the Virginia Tech and UVA pages.  We want to name these 2006-07 Virginia Tech Hokies men's basketball team, 2006-07 Virginia Cavaliers men's basketball team, 2006-07 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's basketball team, 2006-07 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team, etc, right? --BigDT 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we be moving pages named in the incorrect fashion and redirecting? matt91486 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Record Box for coaching
I have added several coaching record boxes to articles and I just thought others may be interested in adding these. Therefore, I thought we should discuss here how to make them all consistant. Here is an example of one of them, let me know if anyone wants to revise it. Remember 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We could also add in conference record/championships and final poll rankings like this example from the Duke basketball page. -- Daveahern 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia policy, you shouldn't link the same item over and over in a table. The first instance in a table is fine. And while linking dates, years, is acceptable, I'm against just linking years in tables, but there's no real consensus on it. I think it's just useless linking in that instance. -- MECU ≈ talk 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, I've developed a series of templates for the college football WikiProject that may be adapted to serve college basketball coaches and teams as well. Take a look and let me know if there's anything I can do to help with adaptation or implementation. -- PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I very much like PSUMark2006's coaching tables. They are very sharp and more comprehensive. UCLA used it and I will be using it for Arizona and Indiana men's pages as well. Here's a sample from John Wooden's coaching box:Tedmoseby (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Team Infoboxes
Alright - currently, we have two seperate team infoboxes, one official, one not.

The NC State Wolfpack basketball page shows our official template. The North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball page shows the un-official one.

Personally, I'm amazed that the official one is actually official - really, the second one in my personal opinion looks better, though, I created it. Therefore, I ask everyone else's opinion on the matter. -- Nomader Talk 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no reason you can't improve the "official" (who blessed it anyways?) one with yours that does have improved capability and information. Just be sure that your changes are optional so they don't mess up pages that use the current official one, or be willing to go through all of them (all 4!) and fix them so they work. I would think in the long run, upgrading the "official" one would serve Wikipedia and this Project better. If you need help, let me know. Also, we just developed one for CFB so you may get some ideas at Template:NCAAFootballSchool. -- MECU ≈ talk 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I'm going to have to ask for you to do it - I tried my hand at it, and it all came up as some 'mumble-jumble' of code. Apparently, I'm alright at making simple things, but this was too much - I'd appreciate it if you could help convert it, maybe if you wanted to, add some stuff about pagentry - anyways, I'd appreciate your help in the matter. -- Nomader Talk 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How does this look to everybody? I think this is a nice balance between having enough relevant information and not having some things (game records, etc.) that would need to be updated so frequently that we possibly can't keep up.  --fuzzy510 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD on CBB player
Aaron Gray has been nominated for deletion. Please weigh in there, and this would be a good way for the WP:CBB to declare precendence and help determine what players deserve articles. -- MECU ≈ talk 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Pittsburgh
The University of Pittsburgh Panthers article is a mess - I'm rather unsure where exactly to start helping to clean it up. If there's anyone here more familiar with the university or even just Big East athletics in general, it would help a great deal, since I'm mainly going to be focusing on cleaning up formatting and fact checking. The athletics section of the UPitt article leaves a lot to be desired, as well, especially in terms of NPOV. I know that this project focuses on basketball (I've also mentioned this on WikiProject College fasketball), but since to my knowledge there's no overarching college athletics project or coordinated effort, I figured I'd toss this out here. -- PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Team coach template naming convention
I've been going through to try and complete the master team list, and I've come across some templates already made for each individual team's coaching history. Some are well-named, and others, such as WildcatsBBCoach are named terribly.

(Props if you guessed that was Kansas State without looking at it, by the way)

I think it's clear that there needs to be one set naming format for all templates - for that one, maybe as "simple" as KansasStateBBCoach. One problem we run into is that we can't use the WP:CFB standard, since there's only about a third of the teams to keep track of, and unlike over there, there's a LOT of nickname overlap.

Suggestions? --fuzzy510 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

1997-98 Lady Vols
I was hoping to make an article on this team, but can't find information. I was looking for box scores, weekly AP rankings, and the tournament bracket. I've found scores (not box scores) and game summaries, but still am looking for the rest. Any suggestions on where to look? I've gone through several pages of Google already. Dlong 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you look through old Tennessee newspaper archives? Whether at the newspaper's website or at a library?↔NMajdan &bull;talk &bull;EditorReview 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Basketball season infobox
Is there a basketball equivalent of ? If not, would someone like to make one? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll work on one today if nobody has started yet. I'll keep you up to date on my progress.↔NMajdan &bull;talk &bull;EditorReview 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st draft up at User:Nmajdan/Test. Also, I might be able to work this template to have both football and basketball. We'll see.↔NMajdan &bull;talk &bull;<span style="font-size:8px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">EditorReview 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, somebody beat me to it (that is, copying the above discussion from that template talk page to here). As I said above, I have a working prototype in my userspace. I have since edited it to be combined with the existing template so we will have one template for both college football and basketball. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Please leave any comments on my talk page as I will see it there a lot quicker than I will here.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk &bull;<span style="font-size:8px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">EditorReview 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions on this?↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything is in order...great work getting it to work with both sports! — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any news on this? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Article tagging
I'm not even a member of this WikiProject (yet) but I saw that only 69 articles are currently tagged and I know there are many more articles on Wikipedia within the scope of this project. I have requested the bot Ganeshbot to go through Category:College basketball and tag every article. So, hopefully, within a few days, the number of articles on this project will grow exponentially.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk &bull;<span style="font-size:8px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">EditorReview 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Sagabot has been tagging a bunch of talk pages as WP:WPCBB, but most of the ones I saw are players who are currently playing professionally in the National Basketball Association. Shouldn't these be tagged as WP:NBA instead? — CharlotteWebb 03:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In WikiProject college football, we tag the pro's since they played college ball at one time, so I am assuming your project should work the same...although I see now that a bot is going through and removing the tags off talk pages for some reason. I can't imagine you would have much to work with for only the basketball players who are current college players or people that never went pro (the vast majority of which from both of those groups are not notable enough for articles). VegaDark 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems kind of redundant, as the majority of professional players in any sport have previously played the same sport at the college level, so this sounds like a lot of talk page clutter and not much benefit. — CharlotteWebb 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the world of WikiProjects. Talk page clutter is always a concern and there are currently discussions on how to resolve this. It is very possible that sometime soon, the college football WikiProject and the NFL WikiProject may just be "task forces" under the American football WikiProject. And the NBA and college basketball WikiProjects may be "task forces" under the Basketball WikiProject. But, until then, if a player falls under both WikiProjects' scope, I say they should be tagged with both. Also, now that the bot has tagged many articles, its time to start assessing.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I use on a talk page with three or more project templates. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking to team pages that might not exist
One of the slightly annoying problems with team year pages is that some of them don't exist. So when we make a schedule section for the 2006-07 Virginia Tech Hokies men's basketball team and the Hokies play Duke, Duke doesn't have an article right now. But at some point in the future they might. A similar problem might occur if we want to refer to the Southern Methodist Mustangs men's basketball program. Right now, there is neither an article about their basketball team nor even about their athletics department. So I would have to link to the school and at some point when one of the articles gets written, we have to go through the annoying process of fixing the link.

Well, I've created a new template that will solve this issue: alternate links.

If I want to link to the SMU football team, I would use this line:

The resulting link would be:

The same would work for team year pages. The 2006-07 Florida State Seminoles men's basketball team page doesn't exist yet, but it might at some point:

This would give us:.

So anywhere that we have a table of opponents, we can use this template and it will always generate a blue link and will always have the best available link available.

My suggestion for a naming convention / link order is:
 * 1) Year SchoolCommonName Mascot men's basketball team (if applicable, eg 2006-07 Virginia Tech Hokies men's basketball team)
 * 2) SchoolCommonName Mascot men's basketball (eg Virginia Tech Hokies men's basketball)
 * 3) SchoolCommonName Mascot basketball (eg Virginia Tech Hokies basketball)
 * 4) SchoolCommonName Mascot (eg Virginia Tech Hokies)
 * 5) SchoolFormalName (eg Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)

By using this template, we will always have a blue link and it will always link to the most relevant available article. --BigDT 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have also made cbb link, which is similar, but customized for our naming confentions. --BigDT 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Conference Tournament Pages
I am creating pages for men's basketball conference tournament history. There are few pages outlining conference tournament histories, and those that do exist are weakly connected and organized. The two best are for the ACC, Pac 10, and Big 12. I created a template that may help organize such pages here. My hope is that when the year rolls around and conference tournaments are happening again, there will be a format in place to record the games so that people can easily see what is happening. Anyone able to create pages similar to the ACC and Big 12 ones for other Conferences would be a great help. Wrad 10:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
Please put a semi-protection page for the 2007 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament page as the brackets will be released on March 12, 2007. NoseNuggets 9:29 PM US EDT Mar 11 2007.
 * It's probably moot now, but requests like that should go to WP:RFP. They will be seen much more quickly than if they are placed here.  --BigDT 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that for future reference, semi-protection cannot be applied until vandalism has occurred - it's not a preventative measure. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation request
I'd like to request a quality rating on this article. Thank you. Dlong 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:SouthwestMinnesotaStateBasketballCoach
Just an FYI for interested members of the project, is up for deletion. You can participate in the discussion here. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Same now for MaineBasketballCoach —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzy510 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Importance Evaluation
There aren't good importance guidelines and right now evaluations are wildly inconsistent.

Can anyone explain to me why Gary Williams is of high importance but Billy Donovan is mid? Why is North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball of high importance but Duke Blue Devils men's basketball is mid?

I understand that not all programs and coaches are created equal, so I guess the question is, are we content with some programs, players, or coaches being high importance while others are mid or even low? Do individuals even belong in the high-importance category (right now it's mostly tournaments). What do you guys think? Oren0 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball
I nominated Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball for Good Article. Please feel free to go check it out and review it! Seancp 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Coaching Articles
I'm working on just getting articles up for as many current and recently employed coaches as I can. You can look at my recent work. They're not especially elaborate articles, but they get the information out there in a concise, coherent way. I was wondering if anyone in the project would be willing to help me focus on coaches, either in, like me, contributing new articles about coaches, or in going through and expanding the articles I post. Also, if anyone has a good way of getting pictures of coaches, TONS of them need images and it would be incredibly helpful if we could get some up. Maybe create a template of college basketball photo request to better sort ours, differentiate from the masses, and make them more likely to get filled? Just throwing some ideas out there, let me know if anyone can help me out. matt91486 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to dwell on coaches exclusively, but we need to think of a way to get images of coaches. Very few even big name coaches have pictures on here.  I was looking to add a coach picture or two to the Tulsa basketball article I just finished, and there really aren't options.  Of the coaches I looked up, only Tubby has a picture up and that's fair use for his article only.  Does anyone have any ideas?  Coaches like Nolan Richardson and Bill Self should really have pictures we can use.

Listing "none" for teams with no championships
There is a dispute (edit war) at Talk:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball about whether "none" should be listed in the championships section to indicate that Illinois has no basketball titles. Could some people familiar with standard practice offer a comment about this issue? Thanks. --BigDT 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The premise is quite simple, wikipedia articles should contain as much information as possible. To this extent, if someone visits, for instance, the Penn St. mens bball site to determine whether they have won the B10 tournament, there is NO notation. As such, it is impossible to tell if they have in fact not won the tournament or if that information has simply not been provided in wikipedia as of yet. By putting an "N/A" or "none" in the box, this question is answered. Such confusion may be less likely with illinois and NCAA tournament championships, but, by including all sections of the infobox in all articles, this project becomes easier to use and easier to rely upon. I am not asking that we write whole articles or paragraphs for what teams havent done...just that where a complete and easy to use template is available, we make the info in it as complete as possible. Another example: the Illinois infobox does not list NIT champiomships. However, looking at the article I do not know if Illinois has not won the NIT or if it simply isnt included as an option in the infobox. On the other hand, if all categories are displayed and I see that even those not applicable are displayed with an "N/A" or "none", I would be able to quickly and easily conclude that information related to the NIT is not included in this infobox and that I should draw no conclusions from it regarding the NIT. While it may be unflattering for some schools to have a "none," "N/A" or "-" under the various categories, I don't think these articles are supposed to be advertisements for the programs. The articles should present as much accurate and organized information as possible, regardless of whether it portrays the subject in a flattering light. 207.114.16.210 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that 207.114.16.210, thus far the sole proponent of his point of view at Talk:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball, has made comments in prior disputes (specifically referring to Illinois as "a second tier program that probably never will [win a national championship]") that demonstrate a lack of neutral point of view and conflict of interest in matters concerning University of Illinois athletics. ~ João Do Rio 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this alleged POV or COI problem comes into play where the format I am suggesting applies equally to all articles in this project 207.114.16.210 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I consider myself to be a neutral observer here as I don't root for or against UoI, and don't follow college basketball much at all.  I actually like the idea of fully completing templates, as a lack of information cannot (and generally should not) be construed as information.  (To use an earlier example:  the lack of any NIT championships listed for a particular team does not necessarily mean they have never won any.)  However, assuming that João's quotation is true [João - might I suggest that you edit your note to include a link to that quote for attribution's sake?], we have valid reason to suspect that 207.114.16.210's motives may be disingenuous.  So I would like to propose a compromise.  Let's give 207.114.16.210 an opportunity to prove that his claimed motives (i.e. the betterment of Wikipedia) are pure and that his edits are not meant to denigrate the Illinois basketball program.  Here is my proposal:


 * Unprotect the Illini basketball page
 * Remove the 'none' from the NCAA Championships section of that page's infobox
 * Re-protect the page
 * Allow user 207.114.16.210 an opportunity to visit every college basketball team's wikipedia article and fully populate their infoboxes with his suggested "none/NA" enhancements
 * For each infobox edit made in this manner, 207.114.16.210 should include an edit summary pointing users to this page to weigh in on the approach
 * 207.114.16.210 should create stub articles for any NCAA basketball team that does not already have one and fully populate that team's infobox
 * Once this process is completed, if the changes 'stick' (without edit wars) for at least 50% of the (non-stub) pages, then the Illini page should be unprotected and 207.114.16.210 allowed to populate his desired infobox enhancements to that page


 * That's my attempt at mediating this before it ends up on the WP:LAME page. 69.241.82.132 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually suggested this earlier, but filling out infoboxes for all 330 Division I basketball teams would take an eternity. But I agree, such an undertaking would truly settle the matter. Chiwara 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief, no. The last thing we need is to expand this edit war beyond a single page. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight over meaningless details. Given that nobody other than this one user believes that we should list none or n/a, I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that we have as much of a consensus as we're going to get. If nobody objects in the next few hours, I'll unprotect the page and it can move on with life. --BigDT 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That proposal is beyond absurd. I do believe that each page should say championships: none since, as stated above, a lack of information is not useful and more info is better. Oren0 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Going through some of the team pages done by our "brothers" at the college football WP, it would seem as if the majority of teams who don't have a title to their name don't go to the trouble of listing "none". Personally, I tend to agree with this format.  --fuzzy510 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oren0's rationale. More information is better. Dlong 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it should be fairly obvious to any reader that if no NCAA Championships are listed, than none have been won. College football and pro football pages function the same way in regards to National Championships and Super Bowls. I just can't see that benefit in taking so much time to fill out these infoboxes to clarify statements that already seem obvious with the current userbox.Chiwara 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But it applies to conference titles, tournament titles, etc. For instance, right now in the Indiana infobox, Coference Tournament Champions isnt listed.  Does that make it "obvious" to everyone that they havent won a conference tournament.  I would say "no".  I think it would be just as reasonable to conclude that conference tournament championships arent part of the info box.  By simply adding a "-" or a "none" we have conveyed considerable information with little effort.  No one has articulated any rationale for not making this change other than "it isnt done right now" or "it will take to long." 207.114.16.210 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say "yes." It was pretty obvious to me, and the fact that every other NCAA bball page is done this way sure makes it seem like it is obvious to just about everyone else. Or that no one wants to spend the time to edit pages just to reflect a negative amount of information. Chiwara 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reason: It goes against the nature of infoboxes. If nothing is put in a certain field in an infobox, that field is not even displayed. This is true for all of wikipedia. Very few articles say 'none' in their infoboxes because it just gets bulky and ugly. Wikipedia isn't just a gathering of information, it tries to keep things looking nice, too. Nobody wants to list 'none' in every single field on an infobox, even if it does add information, because it just doesn't look good. That kind of stuff can be in the rest of the article, if it's really important. That's the infobox default, I guess you could say. Wrad 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with update for infobox?
So I've been thinking that it would be nice for the coaches' records to utilize a function to calculate the win percentage and display it alongside the win-loss record, taking the wins and losses in as input. The problem is that I'm not exactly experienced enough with the code syntax to figure this out myself. Is there anybody out there who would be able to help me out with this one? For reference, I'm thinking of something that would look similar to the infobox at Tim Welsh. Thanks! --fuzzy510 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove succession boxes?
So with the creation of damn near every school's coaching history template, I'm wondering if it's really necessary to keep the different succession boxes around. I'd argue that they're completely unnecessary, since they just show the same information in the templates save for years, which should show up in a coaching infobox. Removing them would make for cleaner articles, I'd think. Thoughts? --fuzzy510 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur. Let's remove them. The coaching templates contain the same information in a much more attractive and concise package. Вasil  | talk 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start removing these as I see them, since I don't see any argument to the contrary. I won't, however, remove anything besides the college basketball boxes for coaches who have multiple lists, since I don't want to encroach on anyone else's project.  --fuzzy510 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I, also, concur. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New Category for Team Infoboxes?
A problem I've run into with the Gophers page is retroactive national championships, awarded before tourney play. If there's a consensus that the team is the best in a season, I feel like that should be recognized to the quick view, but there's really no good place to put them. Do you think we could add another category to the infobox that says "Retroactively Awarded National Championships?" This would avoid stepping on anyone's heels with the tournament championship category and could still recognize the teams that had success in the early years of college basketball. I definitely don't know how to code this, though, so if we decide to go for it, someone else with better experience should do it. matt91486 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, does anyone outside of the University of Minnesota recognize these national championships? I struggle to find a list of any national champions that starts before Oregon in 1939, so I wonder if it truly matters on a wide perspective or if it's just Minnesota's way of saying that they were on top at one point.  At this stage, until we can see if any pre-1939 titles are even acknowledged, I don't think there's any reason to create a whole new category in the infobox for them. --fuzzy510 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think most programs of the era acknowledge them. It's hard to say, though, most of the dominant early programs don't have pages up yet, like Yale and Dartmouth.  There is a page for the Helms Foundation, though, which is one of two that retroactively awards them.  matt91486 23:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Illinois and Pittsburgh pages had similar problems, and both of these schools recognize the titles. The problem is is that the Helsm Foundation awarded these titles in 1936, 2-years prior to NCAA tourney play, so for those two seasons they were the only National Championships that had ever been awarded in Men's Basketball. When the NCAA tourney finally did come out there was a long rivalry between the NCAA and the NIT, so the Helms kept awarding championships as some of the better teams did not even play in the NCAAs. Given all that, a new infobox category would probably be helpful, with a clear designation of what these championships are.Chiwara 02:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside of the schools and the awarding groups though, does anybody else acknowledge them? Obviously those two groups will - they'll take any credit and attention they can get, and routinely do so for things like preseason rankings.  If nobody else seems to care or notice though (for instance - the Big Ten's [basketball history write-up makes no mention of pre-1939 national titles despite multiple conference schools winning them), then I'd argue that it's not truly notable enough to justify putting up.  --[[User:Fuzzy510|fuzzy510]] 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, outside of the schools and groups few people recognize them, mostly because the NCAA tourney has become the main standard of greatness since it was instituted. They pre-NCAA championships are always interesting pieces of a school's history, but they definitely don't currently carry the prestige or importance of an NCAA title.Chiwara 06:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I would say would be the smarter decision instead of creating a new category which only affects a few schools and will never affect another school again is to just list them under the tournament championship section with a tag of (MNC) next to them, separating lines for school that have won titles pre- and post-1939. I think that would be a clear enough disctinction without having to further potentially elongate the infobox.  --fuzzy510 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I'll use that on the Illinois page and see what people think.Chiwara 12:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this idea. The infobox category is "NCAA Tournament Championships." The only items that should be listed under that category are national championships won via the NCAA Tournament. I don't object to recognizing pre-1939 MNCs in the infobox, but, in my opinion, this should be done within a separate category -- one specific to retroactively awarded MNCs. ~ João Do Rio 03:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the category say "tournament championships" 207.114.16.210 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ......so change it to just say "national championships"? It's not like we're forever bound to the current text of the infobox, and it's still a foolish idea to create a new category for something that would affect a small number of schools that cannot grow to include anyone else.  --fuzzy510 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that I'd favor changing the existing category. NCAA Tournament Championships and the generally less prestigious retroactively awarded MNCs should not be conflated into a single category. If the latter are to be recognized in the infobox (and I have no problem with this), they should be recognized under a separate heading. Furthermore, I don't consider your objections to doing this particularly sound. Helms recognizes MNCs as far back as 1901, or almost four full decades before the inception of the NCAA Tournament. It's safe to say that a category for the 38 pre-tournament MNCs is something that would affect more than just a "small number of schools." ~ João Do Rio 06:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that 26 schools were awarded MNCs, two of which (Chicago and NYU) no longer compete at the D-I level, I'd say that it's certainly a fair criticism, especially when you consider that the current categories are either the singular most important piece of info (tournament titles, 35 schools with room for growth) or applying to a large number of programs (Final Fours, 90 schools, not to mention conference titles). Taking this all into account, giving a separate category to MNCs just doesn't make sense to me, especially when the number of schools can't increase. --fuzzy510 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with João Do Rio, and my school is even a Helms honoree. Make a new field in the infobox for MNC's - keeping them seperate from true NCAA Championships - or don't list them at all in the infobox (keep them in the article's text). And, am I missing something? Doesn't the fact that it effects a small amount of schools (38 or 26) make it easier to implement this change? (We only have to add an extra line to fewer than 40 pages). Hoof Hearted 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, this is another case of editors trying to cram too much stuff into the infobox. Since its not an NCAA Tournament Championship, it should definitely not go under that heading in the infobox.  I don't think it should go in the infobox at all.  The mainstream sporting public doesn't count anything except official NCAA tourney titles anyway.  Mention the mythical titles in the articles, definitely, because the award is worthy of that.  But it doesn't need to go in the infobox, some people try to stick the whole article in the infobox.These Ain't Loose Card in Ales Pitcher/Catcher 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I might be a little late on this debate, so sorry about that, but I have to agree with These Ain't Loose Card in Ales. I'm an LSU] fan, and LSU actually claims an MNC from this era but I don't think it belongs in the infobox at all.  I just made mention of it in the text of the article and figured that was enough.  I noticed the Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball has them listed in the infobox and with the way the infobox titles that section "NCAA Tournament Champions" well that means Wikipedia is providing just flat out wrong information, even with the MNC link after the year, it's still under the wrong heading.  Just my two cents.  Seancp 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
Articles for deletion/2002 Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Tournament Is up for deletion. matt91486 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Coaches by conference?
If nobody's been able to tell by now, I'm in quite the coach-sorting mood, and of my least favorite parts about the whole thing has been the template that's used to group the SEC basketball coaches. (SEC basketball coaches) Basically, it's ugly and looks like crap. Now, I created this to replace it (using the lovingly-stolen NFL template) (SECBasketballCoach), but I'm not so certain that we even want to go this way. Any thoughts? I certainly don't mind having my couple of minutes' work go to waste. If we do want to make these, does anybody have an idea that more lends itself to conferences without divisions that still doesn't look like crap? --fuzzy510 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the new template much better! Вasil  | talk 16:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better... but I'd like to take this moment to say that these templates (coaches by division) suck in general (in terms of taking up space at the bottom of an article). If I wanted to know the basketball coaches in the SEC, my first thought would be to look for an appropriate category. Furthermore, I prefer bottom-of-page templates to take up the entire width of the page, such as the X coaches of school Y templates do. I think we just need to figure out how to nest them, and stick them all in some sort of container. So, if a coach has worked at several schools, his templates aren't longer than his article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Team Logo
I propose that we add the winning team's logo to the page of each year's tournament to add more color and formality to the page. As you can see from the World Cup 2006 page, I implemented showing the flag of the winning country sort of as a badge/award for winning the cup. For example it will look something like this...

Let me know if you guys approve/disapprove or have any suggestions. Thanks!! Squadoosh 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this would make more sense as the center frame of a succession box. --dantheox 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it to the right of the scorebox. It looks a little better. Wrad 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the inspiration, but it's not fair-use. The flags are different, since they're in the public domain, but this would be rightfully removed as a fair use violation.  --fuzzy510 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the logo from here. You can not use fair use images outside of article space. MECU ≈ talk 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tournament Info-Boxes
I also propose that we add info boxes for each tournament on the top right just like the World Cup pages to show total facts like the winning team, the MOP, attendence figures, leading scorer, etc. Again feedback welcome, hopefully we can get started on some of this soon. Squadoosh 12:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support this addition. --fuzzy510 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, we could also use one for the NIT and Conference basketball tournaments. Wrad 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like this? (P.S. - I realize Jared Jeffries didn't score that much, but as you can tell, it can take two entries) --fuzzy510 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In a possibly foolish move, I'm going to go ahead and add this to the pages. If there are any major complaints, I hereby volunteer to fix my mess.  --fuzzy510 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the logo from here. You can not use fair use images outside of article space. MECU ≈ talk 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming standard for team pages?
I'm about to go through and start creating some of the team pages that are currently not there, but before I do that, I think it's worth bringing attention to the fact that we don't currently have a standard for naming the team pages. The Master Table links mostly to just basketball (i.e., not gender-specific), but as I'm finding, some pages go unnoticed because there's no redirect from the non-gender specific name. I'm leaning towards using men's or women's in the title, since some of the women's teams are more than notable enough to merit the creation of their own page, and keeping it separate will prevent anyone from trying to put both genders on the same page, which is something that I think we should avoid at all costs.

This is, of course, ignoring the teams which use different names for their men's and women's teams - Louisiana Tech, for instance, would have Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball and Louisiana Tech Lady Techsters basketball without the gender specification.

Thoughts? --fuzzy510 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard is:


 * (Men's basketball) SchoolShortName NickName men's basketball (eg Virginia Tech Hokies men's basketball)
 * (Women's basketball) SchoolShortName NickName women's basketball (eg Texas Longhorns women's basketball)
 * If you are doing a page on a particular season, use the dual year, eg 2006-07, and add "team" at the end as in 2006-07 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's basketball team
 * There is a template that I made awhile back that you should use when linking to a team where the article doesn't exist yet, but might in the future - Cbb link. Take Louisiana Tech as an example.  If I am doing a page for a team in LA Tech's conference, I want to link to want to link to the LA Tech season page if it exists.  If it doesn't, I want to go to the general men's basketball page.  If that doesn't exist, I want the school athletics page and if that doesn't exist, I want the school page.  So I would use this:
 * That link will try 2007=08 Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball team, then Louisiana Tech men's Bulldogs men's basketball, then Louisiana Tech Bulldogs, then Louisiana Tech University. By using this template, once you create the page for a particular team, all links automatically update.
 * I hope that helps. --BigDT 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, wow. That was fast.  Thanks!  --fuzzy510 03:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, wow. That was fast.  Thanks!  --fuzzy510 03:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Basketball
FYI, all the monthly content for Portal:Basketball is all showing up as redlinks. Is there anyone from this WikiProject that wants to take on putting something there? (I'm also cross-posting this at WikiProject Basketball. -- Big ΔT 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 28 August - expires 2 September
 * Rick Allen (commentator) ( PROD by User:Lawrence Cohen; former P.A. announcer for "...the University of Nebraska's football and men's basketball teams." ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Syracuse Orange 2002-03 NCAA champions
Template:Syracuse Orange 2002-03 NCAA champions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalizm alert: Mike Davis (basketball coach)
Could you folks keep an eye on Mike Davis (basketball coach)? I stopped by, and discovered that since September 6, 2007, it has been a nonstop vehicle for trolling, POVs and nonency enhancements. I took out the crystal ball prediction from the UAB section from that date, otherwise reverting to that version. Partial protection is no use, because partizan logged-in users are in the istory doing it along with anonymous ones. Just keep an eye on it, please. I'm affraid it's going to require close supervision, whichever way UAB's (and its conference rivals') season goes. --Mareklug talk 07:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1993 NCAA tourney needs work
On the 1993 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament page, the Infobox is broken and the brackets are all wrong. It has random forfeits and 20-0 games. The games all happened, just that some were vacated. --AW 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at replacing the information that was removed regarding the games that were played and marked all of Michigan's games as vacated. -- Upholder 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * THanks! --AW 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Harrisons Mix-Up
I am new to Wikipedia so I apologize for my lack of formatting skills. I edited one line of information on her profile because it seems like someone mixed up Lisa Harrison of basketball and Lisa Harrison the actress. It listed the actress' marraige under the basketball Harrison's page, so I erased that line. 07:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregg Marshall
Much like the above poster, I'm not sure how to do this, but the color scheme of the template on Gregg Marshall's biography seems off. It awards him a national title in a year he merely won the conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.127.50 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are game summaries allowed on conference tournament pages?
Conference tournament articles usually consist of a bracket and nothing more. Sometimes this leads to a deletionist squealing with joy that he/she gets to kill another article. Example

2007 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Basketball Tournament

With something like this for each game. The summary will obviously be rewritten as necessary.

Example
<p style="margin-left: 2em;">


 * With 47 seconds left in overtime, Klayton Korver pulled up and hit a 3-pointer to lead Drake past Evansville. The Bulldogs hit 15 3-pointers in the game, which was a new tournament record. The combined score of 197 points was also the most in the tournament since the tournament had been moved to St. Louis in 1991.

I suppose the real question is.. should I even bother? Right now these tournaments are in tact, but what's to stop a deletionist getting consensus from three other people to just torch these? I have very little confidence that any effort I put forth to create and expand all Missouri Valley Conference tournament articles will be still standing in 2010. It's easier to destroy on this site than it is to create.

That's probably the reason why these articles haven't been expanded yet. After all, the drama mongers control discussion on this site, so why try? SashaNein (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because most people are against their deletion. They realize that the articles have potential. I've actually only ever seen one of these nominated for deletion. We just showed them the 2007 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament article and they went down in heaps. Wrad (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen conference season articles deleted, specifically for the ACC. With all the reliable sources that could go into an ACC season, why was it trashed? All it takes is catching WikiProject College Basketball on an off-day (which won't be hard since the first response to my problem came 5 weeks after posting it), and a perfectly fine article will be gone.
 * I also want to make articles of a team's individual season, using a paid newspaper archive service. I may not do that, though, since I've been donating all my money to a friend in need. At least baseball has a free digital news outlet through The Sporting News, but college basketball appears to have none, especially through the likes of the Missouri Valley Conference.
 * I noticed that someone has already begun making season articles for the Drake Bulldogs, no doubt out of respect for their completely unexpected resurgence under their new coach. What will stop the deletionists from taking down the 07-08 season? Say that one survives.. what will happen to 68-69? 1910-1911? Again, all the higher up deletionists have to do is catch the supporters on an off-day, swoop in, and destroy the article. I've seen it done countless times, where the AFD discussion is stopped after 6 hours with a snowball delete, usually with the same people voting in succession. It's gross!
 * I would edit Hoopedia, hosted on the NBA website, but I just feel like they have it there as a gimmick and will abandon the project within 2 years.
 * I cannot add all the absolutely needed and well-referenced material to Wikipedia until I know there are a lot of people ready to back me up whenever a deletionist is aiming for a few brownie points to someday gain adminship. WikiProject College Basketball appears to be very, very inactive. Sure, one other guy might come along and defend the article, but all it takes is a good shoutdown from admins and that's the end of that.
 * Until then, I'll either improve articles of baseball players I have a great amount of respect for, or not edit the mainspace at all. Even though today the rule for baseball is, "If you've played one game in MLB, you are notable," that could all change with a 'consensus' of 6 players on some random hidden talkpage that was deliberately hidden from most WikiProject Baseball editors. I've seen that kind of crap happen, too.
 * Best of luck to getting this project running again. Without this, Wikipedia's college basketball article count full of content and references can never be expanded. SashaNein (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I still do not know if I am allowed to undertake this project. Administrator User:Stifle attempted to have a FBS college football conference season article deleted. When I neutrally asked WP:CFB for their opinion on the AFD, the administrator immediately (and WRONGFULLY) accused me of canvassing. This is why I absolutely fear contributing to the mainspace. I can expand these articles and heavily reference them, but Stifle, or someone like him, would just have to convince the right people, or grab some of his admin friends, and all of my weeks and months of work would be undone in an instant. I want to create or expand season articles for all Missouri Valley Conference basketball teams, as well as the conference season article, but I fear Stifle or another will have them removed to make a point.

Wikipedia is such a great project, in theory, but I have started three projects, all of which were stopped by an administrator or a veteran that is backed by infallible admins. One admin went so far as to rewrite some guidelines on another WikiProject with just three of his friends, just because his AFDs on the subject failed.

If this project is still inactive, there will be no one to defend any college basketball articles nominated for deletion. SashaNein (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NCAA Division I men's basketball season
I wanted to let people on this project know that I created this template to be used for the main regular season articles, like 2007-08 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. The documentation for the template explains all of the parameters I believe, but if there is a problem with it I should be able to help if someone drops me a note. There are parameters on it to put the NIT champion and the (apparently new) College Basketball Invitational champions, but if people believe these don't belong then they can easily be taken out. Additionally, there are parameters for the Naismith player of the year and Wooden Award winners, but likewise, if people believe these don't belong they're easily removed. If there is something else that should be in the template, leave a suggestion here or on its talk page and hopefully someone will be able to add it. Additionally, I believe it is possible to make the template work for both women's and men's seasons so if anyone thinks it would be prudent I can try to work on that and we can move the template to Template:Infobox NCAA Division I basketball season instead. Phydend (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tournament pages need better organization
I'm noticing a lot of organization problems between Conference tournament articles. Can we set up a task force to be in charge of writing some guidelines for tournament pages so we can all be on the same page? Wrad (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of the 2008 tournament
If anybody in this project is going to any of the games, I would encourage you to bring your camera, take pictures, and upload the best ones so that we can put them on the tournament page. Wrad (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proliferation of CBB Infobox categories
Someone added a large number of information categories to Template:Infobox CBB Team a few days ago, expanding it to include information about NCAA tournament runner-up finishes and Elite Eight, Sweet 16, Second Round, and NCAA Tournament appearances. What does everyone think about this? I guess I'm undecided, but I lean toward thinking that this is an excess of information for the infobox and that the template potentially adds too much clutter to pages, extending too deeply into the article space, when all new fields are filled out (e.g. Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball and Arizona Wildcats men's basketball). I could be persuaded otherwise, but it seems preferable to me that articles list these other accomplishments in some manner in the body of the article itself (as in the season record tables at UCLA Bruins men's basketball, Texas Longhorns men's basketball, North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball, Texas A&M Aggies men's basketball, and Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball; or in other sections or tables dedicated to NCAA Tournament information as at Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, Tennessee Volunteers basketball, and at Arizona Wildcats men's basketball prior to recent changes). What do people think about this? 24.153.205.19 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the fields can be useful if used wisely. I think if a school has been in the tournament even once, that should be in the infobox. That one appearance is a big deal for that school and thus, for that article. Schools with many appearances should excersize judgment to make sure the box doesn't start eating up the page. Just be smart about it. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Incentive

 * The Official Florida Gators Wikiproject will award this Barnstar to editors who help to expand articles pertaining to the Florida Gators Basketball pages. Jccort (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NAIA
There is a smaller colege basketball tournament going on in Kansas City this week. Could anyone help me with these pages? I'm trying to get the NAIA on par with the bigger schools, but it's a lot of work. Help would be greatly appreciated! :-) 2008 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Also the years 1938-2002 all could do with a bit of a starting up. Information can be found in places, but if you or a loved one knows what the NAIA is, you'd probably want to help. I know, I know, there's no money, or cool lookin' barnstars like the above, but we have heart! NAIA doesn't even get coverage by ESPN for the National Championships... It wouldn't hurt them to announce the winner. haha well I'm monolouging...and I'm sorry. I just need some help if ya can! thanks so much!Moonraker0022 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NAIA Project Update
Here's an update on the NAIA Basketball pages. Since this posting we have including Women's and DII championships.
 * Finish NAIA Men's DI years 1982 - 1999
 * Finish NAIA Men's DII years 1992 - 2008
 * Finish NAIA Women's DI years 1981 - 2011
 * Finish NAIA Women's DII years 1992 - 2011
 * NAIA Men's DI - Bracket for years 1960-1980 need schools link to school or athletic's page.
 * Naming convention question: It was brought to my attention that the NAIA uses this pattern: NAIA Division I Men's, right now I am using NAIA Men's Division I. Is this a big deal or not (I was thinking it was like 2004 Summer Olympics is to Athens 2004... but someone suggested being consistent with the NAIA. Thoughts? I'm cool with either, I just thought it would be a lot of work to re-name them. I am changing my stance.
 * The 1944 tournament was not held due to World War II, it was nominated for deletion, but no action was taken. A user made a strikethrough in a NAIA navbox, which I feel works just fine. But if the page is deleted, can we get the  1943 &  1945 infobox's to link correctly instead of dead linking to the 1944 page?

Thanks so much! Moonraker0022 (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rating needed for Kyle Hines
The Kyle Hines page I've created needs a rating on the quality and importance scales for WikiProject College Basketball. Go to his talk page here to rate it. Thanks. -Jrcla2 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

College basketball article
I wrote a section about the differences between NBA and NCAA play on the college basketball article. Please copy-edit the section and check if I got all the facts straight. Thanks in advance! BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Team infobox problems
Until the mid 1950s or so, the NIT was THE tournament that determined the national champ. That's a big deal. If a team won a national championship in the 50s, they should be able to put that fact in the infobox as an important part of their history. However, the infobox doesn't have NIT parameters anymore. We need to fix this. Also, there is no way to determine the difference between an NIT national champ and a NCAA national champ within the infobox. Wrad (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're definitely overstating the case here. The NIT was certainly a much more prominent tournament than it currently is until the mid 1950s or so, but it was never "THE tournament that determined the national champ." The NCAA Tournament was from its inception a tournament reserved for conference champions. This originally meant, of course, that many strong unaffiliated teams as well as many strong non-conference-champion teams were excluded from the field, but it also meant that the champions of the strongest conferences played in the NCAA tournament and not in the NIT. 66.68.114.160 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vacated Final Fours / NCAA appearances
Does WP have a consistent policy for vacated NCAA tournament appearances and honors? Or more generally, for dealing with sporting honors that are subsequently rescinded? I noticed this in University of Memphis, not a project article but one with a lot of MCBB content.

My opinion is that schools that vacate honors shouldn't be able to claim them; for example, UM can't claim it went to the Final Four in 1985, because that result was vacated. The school gave the money back and can't hang banners for that honor. But for reasons totally beyond my comprehension, the US sports media treats tainted honors without any taint.

I was say Memphis' last Final Four before 2008 cannot be 1985 because Memphis didn't make the Final Four in 1985. However, I satisfied myself by adding parethesis in one instance rather than changing it to 1973. I'm still considering how best to address it in the paragraph about 1985. - PhilipR (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though the NCAA rescinded the result a year later, UM still went and played in the 1985 Final Four. In fact, there are two sides to this issue: one side says UM went to the Final Four, and the other says that the Final Four result was vacated. It's best to combine these two sides in accordance with WP:NPOV, and you just did this by adding the parenthetical text. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know in the Minnesota article, I've put an asterisk in the infobox on all vacated appearances. matt91486 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue with Template:2008 Kansas basketball
I'm currently having a mini-edit war with an editor in the navbox Template:2008 Kansas basketball. I have stopped editing to avoid violating the 3RR, but I was wondering if some of the other project members could provide input/assistance on the dispute. As some of you may know, the navboxes for NCAA championship teams typically include players that meet certain notability requirements, which are, generally:


 * Star players, did something particularly notable, played or likely will play professionally
 * Not notable as a player, but became notable later on for something else (i.e. Dean Smith, who was not an itegral part of Kansas' championship team in the 50's but became notable later on as a coach)
 * All of this keeps in mind that WP does not assign inherant notability to college athletes as it does to professional athletes

Additionally, the changes made by the other editor do not conform to the other NCAA champion navboxes.

I have tried addressing the issue with the editor, but my points are often answered by emotional arguments about players "deserving" to be in the navbox. If you happen to agree, disagree or have a different take on the issue, please chime in so we can come to a consensus. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does every season?
Of every team need to have its own page? 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team is a great example of someone putting in a lot of hard work to generate a good page, but is it really necessary? If every college program gets its own page and then every season of that program gets its own page, wikipedia will max out its bandwidth. Let me know what you think. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think teams who make the NCAA tournament are notable and thus should have their own season article. If a team does not make the tournament, however, it can still have a season article, as long as there are enough sources to meet WP:N. Most Division I teams, particularly the ones with a good deal of NCAA tournament history, receive much attention from the media. Don't worry about Wikpedia's bandwidth—see WP:NOTPAPER. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NCAA Champion navboxes - possible TFD
He folks, wanted to make you aware of an ongoing TFD regarding NBA championship navboxes here. This follows the TFD discussion that resulted in Stanley Cup championship templates being deleted. It's a pretty active discussion, and seems to be one that may affect other sports projects down the line. Feel free to chime in on the discussion if you are interested. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue is currently under deletion review here. If you haven't already and are interested in this topic, please provide your input.  If the deletion holds, it is likely that the championship navboxes will be deleted.  - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article help
I'd really like to get Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball to Good Article status, but I could use some help with it. I've done my best to go through the recommendations from the last attempt a while ago, and tried to improve where I could. But if anyone has any more experience (I rarely go through the article review process like this, so I have no successful experience on how to best do it) and could help out, it would be much appreciated! matt91486 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Ratings Percentage Index
Are the computed standings prior or after the game? -- Howard  the   Duck  17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great source for stats
I just thought this project might want to know about. I came across this website while putting together stats for a UNC article. The website looks great so far and it has lots of free basketball stats. Anyways, just thought this project would want to know. Remember (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 2874 articles are assigned to this project, of which 434, or 15.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Counting down the most prestigious programs since 1984-85

 * Good stuff for college basketball articles:
 * Counting down the most prestigious programs since 1984-85
 * Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 08:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball infobox jerseys
Can someone help me add jerseys to Michigan Wolverines men's basketball.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name
I have been researching the Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball today and am realizing that this could evolve into a very extensive separate article. What do you think the name of such an article should be? Here are some names I was thinking of:
 * Ed Martin scandal
 * University of Michigan men's basketball 2003 NCAA sanctions
 * Michigan Wolverines men's basketball 2003 NCAA sanctions
 * Chris Webber perjury investigation
 * Michigan Wolverines men's basketball federal investigation

Many other related names are possible. I don't know what the proper name should be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball
Hi all, I'm struggling a bit here. North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball has a lot of info in the trivia section, but I can't honestly call it trivia. For instance, one bit of "trivia" is that "North Carolina has been the number one seed in the NCAA Tournament 12 times, the latest being in 2008 (most #1 seeds all-time)". Another bit is that "Brendan Haywood recorded the first triple-double in North Carolina History against the University of Miami December 4, 2001 with a 18 point, 14 rebound, and 10 blocks (also a North Carolina record) in the contest." ???

I'd argue all of this is important material, and not worthy of the tag "trivia". However, I'm no expert on Basketball (I'm an Australian - cricket is more my forte), so I don't think I'd do the article justice if I merge in the material. I was wondering if I could get a hand? Even some advise would be great... but it would be much better if a member of this Wikiproject could assist... what do people say? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to notability discussion
WP:CFB invites all interested Wikipedians to participate in the general player notability discussion going on right now. The question at hand is, "what kind of guidelines can be set up to help clarify notability of active college football players?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Lucas Oil Stadium
Hi there. I am posting this here because Lucas Oil Stadium is currently in an edit war, and is a part of your WikiProject. The war has started over the inclusion of "The Luke" as a nickname for the stadium. Please see here for archived discussion, and here to add your comments.

Thank you. --   Me   Holla! 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for College basketball
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Large number of AfD's in progress
There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project. Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Also, many of these are football coaches that also were college basketball players and/or coaches. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Coach template adjustments
Yesterday and today I went through Category:NCAA Division I basketball coach templates. Mostly this was done to sync up the basketball templates with the college football templates where "Head Basketball Coaches" is changed to "head basketball coaches". Where able, I redirected links to athletic or basketball pages in the title. Finally, I tweaked template colors to match up, best as possible, between basketball and football. It took me a long time, and I hope this doesn't offend or step on any toes. --Geologik (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Info box help
This info box for Kansas State men's basketball is messed up. Check it out here. The Kansas Jayhawks are listed as a main rival on the edit page, but for some reason, it doesn't show up on the page. Can anyone help? Thanks! Topgun530 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is not even a place for a teams rival in the infobox. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

2008-09?
Why is everything 2007-08? Shouldn't it be 2008-09? ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a friendly notice that an artilce for deletion discussion is occuring that may benefit from your input. The article in question is and is being discussed at. The article in question appears to be related to college football and this notice is provided through the college football project.

Friendly Notice of an Article for Deletion
The article Paul LaVinn is being considered for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn.

This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Wikipedia a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way. Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice. If you feel this notice is a violation of Canvassing please let the posting editor know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New WP format
I went ahead and adopted the WP:VG format for this WikiProject; the organization was a bit eccentric around here (though putting this into place took a lot longer than I had anticipated). I think it looks better, but if anyone has any objections (or content that they think should be added in somewhere), please let me know. If anyone wants to see information from the previous version (such as the "Adopt an Article"), please look at the old version of the page. I'll be adding a template sub-page soon as well.

Is the new format alright with everyone? -- Nomader (Talk) 03:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Problem
What is wrong with this page? It needs to be fixed and I don't know what is wrong with it. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The width measurements needed to be closed in each section, otherwise the rest of the article would be adhering to the 80% width specifications. I used to dabble in coding so I kinda saw the problem right away, but yeah coding can be pesky like that. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 17:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Notability Discussion
ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Poll preference?
I hate to bring this up after the hailstorm it generated over at the football project, but we should really decide whether the AP or Coaches is the default poll on this wikiproject. The infobox lists both, which is good. The problem is that all of the conference standing lists go by AP rankings, whereas Template:CBB Schedule End chooses the Coaches poll by default (I looked at a handful of 08-09 teams and their schedules all indicate use of the Coaches poll). We should choose one poll and stick with it, or use both everywhere. Oren0 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'd like to go with the AP poll. It still holds real weight in College basketball (unlike football where it no longer is used for BCS bowls) and I feel as though it's a bit more neutral than the coaches. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the AP Poll.~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   21:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it should be the choice of the editors of an article. Schools will generally use whichever poll gives them the higher ranking when promoting their teams, so as long as that kind of interchageability remains, we should keep it here on wikipedia. I do believe that both polls should be noted somewhere in each article, and if the editor determines to use only one it should remain consistant throughout the article. -Jober14 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Letting each school list the poll that they're higher in that week sounds like a terrible violation of WP:NPOV. Plus I have a hard time believing someone is going to go through the schedule and update their opponents' rankings to a new poll each week.  And either way, I'm not as much concerned about team's articles since the infobox shows both rankings anyway and rankings really aren't used that often in prose. What concerns me is that currently team schedules default to the Coaches poll and conference standings default to the AP poll, which means that almost every page is inconsistent. Oren0 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I hear what you are saying. I'm not advocating switching polls in the middle of the season, didn't mean to come off that way. I agree that we need to default to the same poll across the board, and then allow editors to go a different route if they choose. All this would take is someone going into that template and editing it to switch to the AP poll. OR you could just leave it blank and let the creator decide. I'm in support of either of those two options. -Jober14 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he's getting at the fact that every team should be held to the same standards of ranking; we need to decide which one to use. And letting the creator of an article decide is a rather large violation of WP:NPOV... I strongly urge the adoption of the AP poll for all the team schedules. -- Nomader (Talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing the template doesn't do it (why couldn't we have had this discussion before the season started??) because all of the existing rankings in schedules would need to be updated. By far the easiest solution would be to change the conference standings to the Coaches poll, but the problem is most people seem to prefer the AP. The best thing to do if we want the AP project-wide is to leave the schedule template alone and start switching individual pages to the AP poll.  We should also place a notification on this Wikiproject somewhere that the AP is the preferred poll of the project. Oren0 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've started this process. The Big East is done.  The other thing I've been doing is removing future rankings (beyond the current week) from opponents because most pages that I've seen don't include them and they're probably not updated each week anyway. Oren0 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing we could do is simply remove the default poll entirely for now at least. That would make it really easy to tell which articles have and haven't been switched to the AP poll (if no poll is cited, it hasn't been updated, if ap poll cited, no action needed). If we desired, we could just leave it that way to and always link to the current year's poll like i've done on 2008-09 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team rather than have a default option. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. Is it confusing that many schedules would have rankings with no indication of which poll they're referencing?  Also, I don't imagine anyone is going to go back and make this change for past years (I don't know how long this template has been used for). Oren0 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to work on the past years, looking at the What links Here for the template, there are about 120 total articles using it. Certainly not an impossible task, as all that needs to be done is paste in "poll=ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll" on pages that don't already use the AP. That way, we don't need to update the whole season of rankings, just the notation at the bottom, and we still get the AP as the default for the future Ryan2845 (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd nitpick and say that the whole text there should wikilink to Coaches' Poll but in general I definitely support that. If you're willing to do it, we should change the template and continue to change this year's teams to the AP. Oren0 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, i'll use your link (what i pasted is the current default link) and get started on it tonight Ryan2845 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! AP will be the default from here on out Ryan2845 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion on logo usage on this page
There is a Request for Comment occurring about whether certain college-sports related pages should include a logo. Articles in this Project would be affected. You are invited to participate in the discussion if you wish. permalink to discussion as of this point in time. --Bobak (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Hey everyone. I'm not a member of this project, but as an avid supporter of Pitt basketball and all things University of Pittsburgh. I've been looking for some info on your project page, but it doesn't appear to exist anywhere. As a member of WikiProject Football I find the various Manual of Style articles to be very useful. Because college basketball has a much more unified structure than association football it would be relatively easy to create some structural MoS articles. A MoS for individual programs, conferences, tournaments, and seasons would be very useful. For example, I'd like to expand on the 2008-09 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team, but there isn't a standard season format that I can find. Should new recruits go first? Where should the schedule go? Should a box score and brief game summary be included for each game? A MoS would go a long way to provide continuity between season articles for every team. This isn't a criticism of you project. I'm just trying to offer a constructive idea. Keep up the good work. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I feel that a lot of future confusion can be avoided if some generally accepted standards are written. Though I don't run into the problems JohnnyPolo24 talks about, I have run into problems in other WikiProjects because of a lack (or just badly written) MoS. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll get started on that. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ WikiProject College basketball/Yearly team pages format. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick note that should be included: all dates, times, standings, and scores should be seperated by an en dash. One of these: – not one of these: - (2008-09 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team should be moved to 2008–09 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team. The error is rampant in college football and basketball articles. --Geologik (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the en dash (–). I've previously moved a bunch of pages to accomodate that. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lorrenzo Wade
I need some help with this. 1) Is the person notable and 2) if he is notable, is anyone interested in improving the article? The article is new and the primary editor hasn't been around the past few days. As it stands, the article would probably die in AFD. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasheem Thabeet
I happened across this page because I typed the name in for no reason as I was watching a highlight of his. The first sentence of the article begins : "Hasheem Thabeet also known as Talib Kweel"

Is this actually true? It was added by an anon nearly a year ago and subsequently wikified by someone weeks later and left there. The only google hits for "Talib Kweel" are Wikipedia mirrors.

I know intentionally nonconstructive edits when I see them, and this anon edit from March of last year really resembles one. I put a fact on the article, because this really doesn't seem likely to be true. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting of conference standings
As I've been updating the 2008–09 Mid-American Conference men's basketball standings, I've been "breaking ties" in the standings by applying the conference tiebreaker rules. Another user uses overall record to break the ties. I'm just trying to get a feeling as to what the project thinks. I really have an issue with using overall record to sort tied teams, as it has no bearing on conference standings, which is the purpose of the templates. Heck, I'd rather sort alphabetically than by overall record. Seems to me at the end of the season, the standings will be sorted by conference tournament seeds, which is essentially what I'm doing now. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was previously hashed out in college football. The issues are that conference tiebreakers are meaningless until the end of the regular season, and editors won't know the tiebreaker procedures.  I propose the following global rules for ordering standings.  For each number, if it's a tie move to the next one.
 * Conference win %
 * Number of conference wins
 * Overall win %
 * Number of overall wins
 * Alphabetical order
 * I think this is the sensible way to order standings. Oren0 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm probably one of the "other users" so i'll go ahead and lay out my reasoning. It's not a huge deal to me either way, but I just go by what sites like ESPN do, which is to just go by 1. Conf Record, 2. Overall record, 3. Alphabetical. I usually update the Big 12 template and the official Big 12 website (www.big12sports.com) uses the same sorting method on their standings. My other reason is that conference tie-breakers are meaningless for determining regular season results (which is the reason co-championships are awarded even when one co-champ has beaten another), so I don't think they really have a bearing on the standings. The tie-breaking procedures are ONLY used by the conferences to determine post-season tournament seeding. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what ESPN does. Looking at ESPN's WCC standings, note that 4-0 St. Mary's is ahead of 3-0 Gonzaga despite Gonzaga having a better overall record.  They use "games behind", which is approximated by my list above (the only major difference is that the number of losses should be considered for winless teams so that an 0-3 team shows up above an 0-4 team like in the linked example). Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've been doing it that way too, just didn't mention that specific case. When I said "sort by conference record first" I was making the assumption that most people would put a 4-0 team on top of a 3-0 team, etc... We are doing it the same way it looks like Oren. Ryan2845 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense to me. Oren0 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything that's been said here as to the procedures to sort not considering tiebreakers. However, don't you think that it's better to apply the tiebreakers during the season?  If two teams are tied for first place and Team A has beaten Team B twice, for example, but Team B has a higher overall winning percentage, wouldn't it make more sense to put Team A first in the standings?  Team A is the team that would get the #1 seed.
 * The reason why ESPN, Yahoo!, even the conference websites, sort by the procedures you guys defined above is that it's easier. It's more difficult for a (human to program a) computer to apply the tiebreakers, but relatively simple for a human to do so if they know the TBs.
 * I guess what I'm trying to say is that your procedures are fine, but I think incorporating the tiebreakers is "better". And I don't think I should be continuously reverted for applying the tiebreakers to the standings. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't reverted your changes myself, but I do still disagree in how to do it, simply because like I said, these are "regular season standings" and there is no such thing as a tiebreaker in the regular season. Yes in your example "Team A" would get the number 1 seed in the postseason, but that is meaningless to "regular season standings" as both team A and B would be awarded regular season co-championships. Taking a look at the big 12 record books as an example, last season Kansas and Texas had the same record, Kansas lost to Texas in the head to head matchup, yet the official Big 12 standings put Kansas on top. (http://www.big12sports.com//pdf1/136015.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410). If that is how the conference historical record books record it, then I think that is how we should record it too.Ryan2845 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the B12 record book, it looks like it's random on how they sort tied teams. If you look at the 06-07 standings, there are four 6-10 teams.  It's not alphabetical, it's not by overall winning percentage...maybe it's by tiebreaker?
 * I also disagree that the standings are "regular season"-only. They're for the entire season.  The overall records will be updated during conference tournament play and during NCAA/NIT/CBI play.  I think the standings are more "conference standings" where the focus should be on the conference...where overall record means nothing.  The NIT isn't going to look at the overall record when they're picking the "conference winner that did not win the conference tournament" autobid, they're going to take the #1 seed, which, IMO, should be the first team listed in the standings.
 * As far as co-champions, I agree with what you're saying. But why list the team with the overall best record first?  They're not more-deserving than the other team without the best overall record, especially since the two teams had played different OOC schedules.  If anything, I'd rather list them alphabetically. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At the end of the season, you sort by tiebreaker. As has been said above, tiebreakers don't apply until the season is over; during the season they are meaningless. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I don't understand why you wouldn't sort by tiebreaker throughout the season if you're going to do it at the end anyway. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Several reasons. 1. Maintainability (editors aren't going to know the rules).  2. Original research (are there other sources that sort this way?  From what I've seen, most if not all use "games behind" which is basically equal to my suggestion above).  3.  The tiebreaker rules don't claim to exist to break ties during the season.  They claim to break ties for seeding at the end of the season only.  You're using them in a way that's not what they're designed for. Oren0 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I give up, I'm not going to be able to convince either of you. Too bad there isn't more participation. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the convention to follow would be whatever the conference uses on their sites. Not sure what that is, but it seems like the most "official" call on it. JMHO. Rikster2 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Collegeinsider.com Postseason Tournament
I posted about this over on WP:Help_desk but I realized I should post here too... There is a new event called the Collegeinsider.com Postseason Tournament. I cringe at creating a page with that name. I'm wondering what other editors thing of it. There are other examples like the "MasterCard National Invitation Tournament" being under National Invitation Tournament, but it doesn't really make sense to shorten this case to Postseason Tournament as that would be too generic. Relaxing (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, you should include "collegeinsider.com" as part of the name of the tournament. That's what the tournament was named upon inception. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, shouldn't be treated any different than football bowl games for example. Like the PapaJohns.com Bowl this year. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

College Athlete Recruit Templates
Is it possible to make any adjustments to College Athlete Recruit Start and/or College Athlete Recruit Entry so that College Athlete Recruit End is not necessary to close the template. I add the player ratings to their bio pages (E.g., Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims). It would be good if I did not have to include the team stuff at the bottom of the template when I put it on a player bio page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

College fight songs
There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may affect editors involved in this WikiProject. Please see Administrators'_noticeboard. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Conference standings template
I've found the current system used for conference templates pretty annoying to update so I've created some templates similar to the ones we use for schedules.

See:
 * CBB standings start
 * CBB standings entry
 * CBB standings end

I have changed 2008–09 Big East men's basketball standings to use these templates but I want to get some feedback from people before I start switching more of these standings over. Oren0 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the old way better. It's more simple. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So we're clear, you're saying that this: is simpler than this?:

Not to mention that you don't have to calculate win percentages, etc. anymore. Oren0 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you're right. Not having to calculate the win pct will be nice. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   02:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hit you on your talk page, but you must have missed it. Can you fix this new format so that 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season is again linkable in the title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it, I've just been swamped. I'll add it soon. Oren0 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Oren0 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Northwestern page
Can someone please fix this page? It looks awful. I'm not skilled enough in the world of wiki to fix it. Thanks in advance. Topgun530 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank ya. If I knew two brackets were all it took, I would have done it myself.  Thanks. Topgun530 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing and article alerts
I added an automated cleanup listing to the to do section of the main project page, and the article alerts to the articles section. Both should be generated in a few days.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lance Stephenson
I created an article for Lance Stephenson. He is a McDonald's All-American that is undecided on which college he will attend. This guy is almost certainly going to play in the NBA. I'm just new and not too familiar with developing an article. Could someone help me?Racingstripes (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are off to a good start. I have created some articles that might help you once he declares.  See  Manny Harris,  DeShawn Sims and  Evan Turner.  You will want to create an infobox like these athletes and a player rank template.  I would also suggest writing full citations like at the articles I point you to above.  Maybe I will drop by and help out next month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

C. J. Lee
What are the current notability guidelines for college basketball players. Based on 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team boxscores C.J. Lee is a non-notable player. He averaged 2.9 ppg, 1.7 apg, and 1.9 rpg. for the season and started 14 of 35 games. Additionally, there is little reason to believe he will play professional basketball. However, he was named Big Ten Academic All-Conference for the second year in a row and selected as having the best sportsmanship on the team by the league coaches. As the rules use to be written, even if a page were created for him, it would be deleted one year after the June NBA draft when he has officially not become a professional basketball player. I am worried that at WP:GTC they will claim he should have an article when I nominate 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team,  Manny Harris,  DeShawn Sims,  Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and  John Beilein as a topic. I currently believe that a power conference player should be at least honorable mention all-conference for his play to have a page. Any thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

UNC basketball task force
Would it be okay to set up a task force of this project just for North Carolina basketball? I figured that would be the best way to organize an effort at improving those articles. Remember (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I guess I will just create on my own. Remember (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, i'm not really sure what your intention is i guess? What exactly needs to be improved? Do you just mean to update 2009 championship related stuff? because I think most of that is done. If you just mean general improvement, then i'm not sure that the UNC articles deserve some sort of CBB Project "task force" more than any of the other articles do. Ryan2845 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I just created a UNC-CH Wikiproject instead (since there are a lot of univeristy wikiprojects). Remember (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Basketball by state
Please help me find any other articles to fill in USHSMRBB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback requested on the desired order of information in NCAA Tournament pages
I'm looking for some feedback on the canonical style of the NCAA tournament pages. I see an earlier comment where someone was asking if there were specific MoS's for basketball sites - I assume the answer is no. While there may not be formal manuals, I'm sure this group has opinions on how best to organize material.

I created a couple maps to graphically illustrate Tournament locations. For example, see 2009 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament. Moonraker0022 suggested the order should be reversed (so the map order corresponds to chronology.) I agree, but this is in conflict with the chronological layout of some tournament pages.

I summarized recent pages in the following table:

Generally, the men's page show the locations in an order matching chronology - first rounds first, then Regionals. However, the 2006 men's page is an exception. Generally, the women's pages has been in the reverse order, but the 2005 page is an exception.

I think it makes sense to list the first rounds(subregionals) first, then the Regionals. If people generally agree, I'll undertake to reorganize the offending women's pages, but I don't want to go to that effort if there is some compelling reason to leave them as they are.Sphilbrick (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE - I decided it wasn't as hard to reorganize as I had thought - I went ahead and reorganized the order of the 2009 and 2010 women's NCAA sites. I did not update the table above to reflect the changes. Sphilbrick (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatchet jobs
I just glanced at the University of Nevada men's basketball entry, actually trying to find out what their road uniforms look like. I am not from Nevada and did not attend this university. I have no personal interest in the place. However, the article is biased, with the seeming intent of harming the reputation of the university and its athletic programs. Will someone else please have a look?Wayneg1776 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the intro looks to basically be an unsourced log of crimes committed by athletes. While it might be worth including if the article wasn't a stub, I don't think it's particularly useful as the main article text. I will remove it later if no one disagrees Ryan2845 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Men's College Basketball seasons
A couple of new "Seasons" pages have been created lately (1951-52 and 1957-58) and they bring up a good question about naming conventions. For all other existing pages, the following convention is used: 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. With the new pages, the creator moved the pages to the following convention: 1957–58 NCAA College men's basketball season.

The "University" (Division I) and "College" (Division II) designations were created prior to the 1956-57 season, while Division III began play in 1974-75. Should pages from before 56-57 still read "XXXX-XX NCAA Division I men's basketball season" when no divisions existed? If not, what should they be called? It seems like of the two new pages, the 57-58 page should clearly follow the current ("D1") convention since 2 divisions existed, but what about 51-52?

There are other issues with the new naming conventions - not the least of which is that the "C" in "NCAA" stands for "Collegiate," so "NCAA College basketball season" is a redundant statement (kind of like saying the "CIA Agency"). The paqges have other issues too, like not following the style and section headings of later entries, but that's another story.

What do people think? I don't want to go in and move pages around without the input of others active in chronicling college basketball history on Wikipedia. Seems like we ought to set some standards - it is a positive thing that people want to create the pages, they just need to fit. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The articles should be named according to the name used at the time ("University" and "College" in this case), and should probably have a redirect from "Division I". "NCAA College..." isn't really redundant, because NCAA is a proper noun and "collegiate" describes the association, not the season, and "College", also a proper noun, describes the season. This is the rationale used in the college football project. They use the contemprorary division names such as "Division I-A", "Division I FBS", "College", etc. Strikehold (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team‎
Please feel free to partake in the discussion at Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rob Pelinka/archive1
Also, note that Featured article candidates/Rob Pelinka/archive1 is open for discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image for deletion: File:Kay Yow.jpg
The non-free use of this image in the article about the late NC State Women's bball coach, Kay Yow, is disputed and it has been proposed for deletion. The discussion is here.  JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

College Baseball/MLB
Not quite CBB, but would like thoughts on whether or not to add a "College" field to the MLB Player infobox Corpx (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Current roster templates up for deletion
Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_26, where several college basketball roster templates are up for deletion. Oren0 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tournament appearance designations in infobox
Seeking input here. I've found that in some cases, such as on Kansas State Wildcats men's basketball, the info box will claim a Sweet 16 or Elite 8 appearance for a year when there were only 16 or 8 teams in the entire tournament. Should these be counted in the Sweet 16 category? Or in the Appearance category? If a team wins their first game in a tournament with only 16 teams, where do you put the years, in just the appearance and elite 8 boxes, or in the appearance, sweet 16, and elite boxes? Also what about bye's? Should it be counted as an elite 8 if a team gets a bye to the round of 8, so they haven't beaten anyone to get there?

A good example is the 1948 tournament which had only 8 teams. KSU won their first game to goto the Final Four. Should this be counted as an Elite 8 and Final Four. Or counted as a Tournament Appearance and Final Four?

The following blurb is in the NCAA record book:

Sweet 16 Records begin in 1975, the first year that all teams in the tournament would be required to win at least one game to advance to the Sweet 16.

So maybe as a rule we should require that a team win at least 1 game for it to be counted as a sweet 16 or elite 8 in the infobox?

Kansas State's page has 16 Sweet 16's listed, but the NCAA record book doesn't have them in their top 25 most sweet 16's list, which requires only 8 appearances to break into.

Other examples are Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball, where the info box shows 12 Sweet 16's, but the NCAA record books only reflect 8. Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball shows 40 Sweet 16's while the NCAA books reflect only 20.

Still other pages such as Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball avoid the problem all together by not even showing 2nd round, elite 8, and sweet 16 appearances. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's two options we can go down here... we can either remove all listings where a team didn't win any games to get to that point in the bracket (i.e. if they started in the "elite 8" when there were only eight teams in the tournament), or we can mark those tournament appearances with notes explaining the situation below. I think I'm leaning toward the former option though. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing them sounds like a good option to me. If the NCAA record books use the "must win one game" rule, then we probably should too. Cases like Kentucky are a little ridiculous where there is a 20 Sweet 16 disparity with the NCAA books. Expanding the NCAA rule for Sweet 16, it looks like Elite 8 records would start with the 1951 tournament. That was the first year all teams were required to win one game to goto the elite 8 Ryan2845 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly (and sorry in advance if I come across too strongly). To adopt the example above, the fact that there were only 8 teams invited in 1948 makes an appearance that year much more of an accomplishment than being one of 65 teams invited in 2008 (and the approximate equivalent of an Elite 8 appearance in 2008).  It should be recognized as a significant accomplishment – more than an "appearance."  I DO agree that notes should be utilized to clarify the issue, as on the Kansas State Wildcats men's basketball page (which should be adopted by other pages), but it seems wrong in my opinion to remove the Elite 8 reference for early years entirely from the infobox.  The fair alternative in my eyes is to include notes below the apppearances section stating how many teams were invited each year, and this would look absurd.  Also, the infoxbox does not need to be slavishly premised on the NCAA recordbook, as I'm pretty sure the NCAA does not recognize any such thing as "Pre-tournament era champions." -Kgwo1972 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could also argue that in 1948 there were probably less teams that had joined the NCAA to invite to begin with. So determine which case is "significant accomplishment" and which isn't, starts to become original research and opinion. In order to avoid that, I think we need a clear cut rule, and if the NCAA itself does not count those as Sweet 16s and Elite 8's, then we probably shouldn't either. After all, it is their tourney, so they should set the guidelines for record keeping. It's a little different than other arguments i've seen for things like all-americans in the football infobox, which the ncaa has no specific say on. Certainly elsewhere in the article the page could list "second round appearances" etc, but they shouldn't be called elite 8's if the ncaa doesn't call them that. The fact that the NCAA doesn't count it as an Elite 8, probably means it shouldn't be in that section of the infobox. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ryan2845 and Nomader, as I see no compelling reason to recognize something that is not by the NCAA. Just as a reminder, other articles that could be affected by this include NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by school, NCAA Men's Division I Tournament bids by school, and NCAA Men's Division I Tournament bids by school and conference. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead of the last article you listed (NCAA Men's Division I Tournament bids by school and conference) already has information in the lead about the number of teams in the tournament and requires the teams in the tournament to have at least gone through one round to qualify for the "Elite 8" or the "Sweet 16" in the article. I've considered it, and I've decided that if the governing body of collegiate-level basketball chooses not to recognize those appearances in certain categories, neither should we. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is original research, since it is a verifiable/citable fact that a team was in the quarterfinals of the NCAA tournament in 1948, whether the NCAA wants to call it the "Elite 8" or not. FYI, this article (NCAA Men's Division I Tournament bids by school and conference) does not utilize the NCAA standard for "Elite 8s" or "Sweet 16s".  It needs to be revised and corrected if this is in fact to be adopted as the governing standard for wikipedia.  -Kgwo1972 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I only stated that determining what is more of a "significant accomplishment" than something else and using that as a basis for inclusion/exclousion, is original research/opinion, which is true. Stating that a certain team made it to a certain round, is certainly not opinion, i agree. Also agree that the tourney bids article will definitely need to be overhauled. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would propose that a small note needs to be included at the bottom of the infobox, stating the NCAA criteria. For example, confusion might otherwise arise if readers do not understand why all of a school's appearances in the NCAA quarterfinals (which might be discussed in the text of an article) are not included in the Elite 8 section of the infobox. Please give me your feedback on this. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan to me, otherwise people will just add them back. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One problem I can already see though is that it looks like to schools themselves count EVERYTHING. Kentucky and Kstate record books both count appearances in 8 team tournaments as elite 8's. Even though ncaa records do not. So I guess it's also a question of which record book to use? The NCAA's, or the school's? Ryan2845 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kgwo, my apologies, I didn't mean to imply that the list was full of original research. I was referring to that list as an example that the lead contained that criteria, not that the list itself does– sorry for the confusion. I agree with you about the notes regarding the NCAA's criteria.
 * With regards to the records, Ryan, I think it's preferable to use the NCAA's records over a school's records whenever possible. -- Nomader (Talk) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Kentucky basketball coaching stats
Greetings! I am one of the project editors for the University of Florida Wikipedia Project, and I've been cleaning up the biography of John J. Tigert, who was one of the early Kentucky Wildcat athletic directors and basketball and football coaches. He was also later the U.S. Commissioner of Education and the president of the University of Florida for 19 years. One of your folks has placed UK coaching succession boxes at the bottom of the page, but the succession boxes are factually incorrect. The info boxes list Tigert as coaching the Wildcats twice (1913 and again from 1915-1916). I can find no authority for the 2nd stint as basketball coach; in fact, my sources list Alpha Brumage as the James Park as the UK coaches for those two years. Can one of you super-duper Wildcat hoops fans help me out here?! Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Logos on articles of past seasons
There is a recent wave of edits removing logos on individual team's yearly pages with the reasoning of "not the team's logo in this year; didn't become logo until xxxx". It is of my opinion, that there is no existing policy or criteria that requires use of historical logos in the infobox in this context, as the logo in the infobox is for the identification of the article topic to the reader. For this reason, contemporary logos might better serve here for identification purposes for the association of the team with the institution it represents, using the modern incarnation of how that institution chooses to represent itself. This is not to say that it is wrong to use historical logos, but it should not be required in my opinion, as a single year or sports team is not typically defined by one particular logo, rather it is a continuing and ongoing representation of the institution that currently choses to represent itself in a specific, and modern way. Historical logos or uniforms could also be presented in the text. This reasoning, in regards to the Pitt logo, was discussed with the single editor making this wave of changes here. I would like to try to form a consensus on the appropriateness of contemporary versus historical logos for past season infoboxes, as his edits have continued without seeking consensus for such a policy. Because this issue is affecting both the College Football and Basketball Wikiprojects equally, I suggest discussion of the issue be centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Planning for the 2008–09 College Basketball Season
Hello all-

Lots of progress made last year on the College Basketball front - 100% of conference tournaments documented, Season pages for five major conferences, a new (more detailed) format for season pages, and complete rankings for the second year in a row. I am hoping to rally us to do an even more complete job this year.

Let's go for 100% coverage this year. All Division I conferences should have season pages. All Division I head coaches should have pages (even if they start as stubs). Major programs (top 25 teams at a minimum) should have season pages.

I'd like to get us set for the coming season by getting volunteers to "own" the conferences - to start and ensure upkeep of season pages and standings for the year. We can get all conferences covered if we organize! To try to help, I have created a table below to get volunteers by conference. If volunteers have stepped forward, their names are filled in. I am happy to "give up" slots with my name if anyone has passion around a conference where you see my name. I have put "right of first refusal" if someone built a conference page last year but has not yet confirmed that they want to do the same this year.

So please, feel free to volunteer if you'd like to help. A good template and example of what season pages should look like is here. Thanks and message me if you have questions! Rikster2 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Cbb link
Please note the changes to Cbb link. I discuss the changes on the talk page but to sum it up, I removed the  parameter but left the   parameter even though you don't need it anymore. From now on, you just need to specify the first year of the season and the template will calculate the rest. So,  would yield. Hopefully, this makes the template a bit easier and forces it to properly use an en dash instead of a hyphen.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reformating of Template:CBB Schedule Entry
I have asked that Template:CBB Schedule Entry be reformatted to accomodate high scorer, rebounder and assister like the NBA templates (see for example 2008-09_New_York_Knicks_season). In fact, I used this template at 2008-09_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team. However, has made the change using a different format where all the leaders appear in the same column. I have suggested changing the font size to the NBA size so that the leaders could each get their own column. He has said he would prefer to await responses from others. I am soliciting encouragement to format the template so that the game highs can be shown in different columns just like for the NBA games.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New category header template
I created a new template to serve as the header for the yearly category pages. It is called Template:CBB Seasons Cat Header and can be seen in action at Category:2009–10 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. I still have to implement it on a lot of the other categories. I'm also still working on logic to ensure that it doesn't try to link to years before basketball began in 1895. But I felt it was far enough along to deploy to the live environment. One concern. I made a strong effort to ensure that the correct wording was used in the title, i.e. NCAA/NCAA University Division/NCAA Division I/collegiate/etc. However, I don't know if that same wording applies to women's basketball. I also need to look into when collegiate women's basketball began and make whatever appropriate are needed to ensure that it doesn't try to link to those years before women's basketball existed.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 14:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New roster template
I have created a new roster template based on the NBA template. The new template actually uses three templates, but the documentation for use can be seen at Template:CBB roster. You can see the template in use at 2009–10 Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball team. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The college roster template should include High School info. This info is significant for the college game to see recruiting trends in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can add an additional, optional column before or after the home town column or you could simply add the high school info to the hometown parameter as its pretty much an open field. I may just do the former later.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 03:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The  parameter has been added.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk  23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we could get the  and   parameters to correspond with CollegePrimaryColor and CollegeSecondaryColor, respectively?  I know there are templates that already do this (see: Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer), and since this template already calls for a , perhaps it would simplify things a little bit.   –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of these templates. I'll see what I can do.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, I really don't like how those templates work. I wish it was just the hex color code. It requires a little extra coding to get the text to show up as a certain color when you have to use the background css code. How best should these be used? Should the hdr and subhdr be the same color? If I do make this change, I want to make it optional cause personally, I prefer the simpler colors.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 17:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I put some suggestions on Template talk:CBB roster.  –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Work to get first season article up to GA status
I am working (slowly but surely) to get the North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons upt to GA and then Featured List status. While there are several college football season featured lists, there are currently none for college basketball. Thus, I think it would be very useful to the WikiProject College Basketball group to get one passed FL so that we can set a standard so that other articles can follow suit. Any help in improving this article would be appreciated. Remember (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can give you a quick review. I have had two of my CFB lists become FLs. I also have a third CFB list and my first CBB list up for nomination right now. Getting List of Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball seasons is also in my queue to get up to featured status. So, I think I've gone through this process enough recently to give you some tips. I'll post a quick review on the article's talk page soon.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Couple of lists up for featured status
Any comments would be welcomed and appreciated. Thanks.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 03:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts — FLC
 * List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches — FLC

North Carolina coaches list
I am trying to get the List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches up to FL status. Any assistance, comments, or criticism is welcome. Remember (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

D2 Ball
Are D2 schools/teams/conferences within the scope of this project? I attend one of the stronger D-2 basketball schools, and I've been working on articles relating to it and the Great Lakes Valley Conference lately. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 20:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is, if it won't fit here where else will it go?   –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lower divisions of football are covered by WP:CFB, so I don't see why they wouldn't here as well.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
Can someone please help me with this page? I can't get the columns in the schedule to line up right. Thanks in advance. Topgun530 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability for college coaches
Since WP:ATHLETE doesn't really apply to coaches, is there a guideline or essay regarding notability of college coaches? I would think that absent a coach specific criterion, Notability_(people) applies. There is a relevant AfD currently at Articles for deletion/Tom Billeter. Wine Guy  Talk  09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Watching Tournament pages
I just came across an IP who vandalized some NCAA Tournament articles. I would think that especially this time of year, these articles are the most important of the project. This one was made on Jan 30 and lasted a whole week before another IP came and corrected. The IP also made sneaky vandalism edits to screw things up like this.

If you use a watchlist, please consider adding these pages to look out for crap like this. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Championships section of the Infobox
I have experimented with the championships section of the infobox at Evan Turner, Manny Harris and E'Twaun Moore. I have included any championship that is important enough that a school (high school or college) would hang a banner (College: NCAA, NIT, or Conference, High School: State or City) and important national and conference statistical championships. Should this be the general convention?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Tennessee Volunteers women's basketball
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project banner is on the talk page of the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Tennessee Volunteers women's basketball/GA1. I have immediately de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. When these issues are fixed the article can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with the reassessment please contest this at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Derrick Caracter
Looking for one or more editors to update the Derrick Caracter and put it on their watchlist to help monitor it for vandalism and BLP violations. In the past (Nov. 2009), unsourced negative content went unreverted for too long so I did a long term semi-protection until we can get it updated, expanded, and on more peoples watchlists. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had this page on my watchlist for some time. I must have just missed those changes. Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC Coach of the Year
If anyone wants to help put together the ACC Coach of the Year list, I am working on it here User:Remember/SandboxList. Any help si always welcome. Remember (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Need peer reviews for Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year to try and make it a FL. All input is appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season
Of all the conferences that continue to be without articles 2009–10 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season is alarming.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox help
I need help finding the College and Pro HOF IDs for Pete Carril.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fran McCaffery
Hey, can anyone who happens to be following this project add Fran McCaffery to their watchlist? I'm nearing 3RR on someone who is adding unsourced attack claims about his wife. matt91486 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture needed for Brad Stevens
If anyone is going to the final this year, now would be a great time to snap a picture of Butler coach Brad Stevens. Of course if you already have one you can upload, that is equally great. Feel free to ask me for help if you've never uploaded a picture before.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed for Template:College Basketball Awards
I started a thread on Template talk:College Basketball Awards to see what interested editors think of my proposal. I'd like it if WikiProject College Basketball contributors commented with their opinions on this (please comment on the template's talk page to keep all of the discussions in one spot). Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Do we not have a simple list of the NCAA men's basketball tournament winners? If so, I would think that would be a top priority for this project. Remember (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have it's own article that I know of, but there are at least 3 lists that show the winners
 * NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship records
 * List of the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament Final Four participants
 * NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship.
 * Ryan2845 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, what we have is here. However, we have this category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah i've tried to keep a master list of these types of articles here: College basketball, so if you know of any more please add them. Ryan2845 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I created a template for championship season pages awhile back: Template:NCAA Men's Basketball Champions. So far the only team with no page is the 1947 Holy Cross team.  But maybe that's not what you are asking about.  Rikster2 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "records" in infobox
Question for college bball fans. The infobox currently has "records" as an item to be reflected for college ballplayers. I understood that to mean, generally, top-10 records, as most team and ACC and NCAA "record books" reflect that (at minimum). An esteemed colleague, however, has just deleted from the infobox entries where the ballplayer was 2nd or lower (e.g., in ACC history) in his records. Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits in question is this sequence in the Jon Scheyer article. My point is that I felt the box was encumbered with WP:CRUFT overload.  As an example, I am the main editor of all other Chicago metropolitan area All-American or All-Big Ten basketball players (Evan Turner, Sherron Collins, Demetri McCamey, E'Twaun Moore, John Shurna, and Kevin Coble) plus both All-Big Ten Michigan Wolverines men's basketball players (Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims).  I believe that for at least half of these articles, I could extend the infobox past the footnotes by adding any mention of the player's name in the school record books as opposed to just listing records, by its standard definition.  I do not feel it would help the reader to do so.  My goal in an infobox WP:LEAD combination is to create a summary that a person who does not want to read the whole article could glance at to get the highlights of the article.  Trying to include the whole article in the infobox defeats the purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Further: look at the similar stuff not inlcuded in infoboxes of these other players. McCamey, 2nd in the Nation in assists, 4th single-season Big Ten assists, 4th single-game Big Ten assists, etc. Harris, 2nd Michigan career free throws made, 2nd Big Ten current season steals,  etc.  These details go in the article, but not the infobox, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony. Remember (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say limit the infobox to just records that the player is the overall record holder in. More detailed records can be listed in the article text. Ryan2845 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with what has been said - I'd favor just records owned at the NCAA, Conference and School level. "Top 5" or "top 10" records can change too much season to season.  Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that, when a player has myriad miscellaneous records to his name (like Scheyer), they should be included in his or her own article under a stand-alone section titled "Records" or "Records and awards". No doubt Scheyer has left his mark on the Duke and ACC record books, but to extend his infobox as far as it is going is a little over the top. Lebron James has his own article dedicated exclusively for his achievements. I know comparing Scheyer and Lebron is laughable, but my point is that most of these "records" in his infobox need to be relocated to somewhere more appropriate. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the saved book template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class college basketball articles should have covers.

If you need help with the saved book template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Books, and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. Earwig Bot ( owner &bull;  talk ) 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox controversy
I have been debating with folks at WP:HOCKEY about navboxes. Can you please make sure that I am representing the college basketball position on the policy User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I briefly scanned the debate and it appears that you represented the college basketball position correctly. Nevertheless, for some reason the main editors for hockey related articles don't like these things.  I don't understand it, but I don't think it is worth fighting.  I once got mired in a similar dispute with the people at WP:Opera over not allowing infoboxes for opera singers (which now they do allow).  Some people just don't like these sorts of things, and there is little one can do to stop a projects objection to them. I would just say that we keep on improving them on other major sports and people will come around to their usefulness as new editors replace old editors at the hockey wikiproject. Remember (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unifying CBB team template
Should we have one unifying CBB template. Yes it would have 350 names, but it would be useful. I do both the Princeton Tigers men's basketball page and the Michigan Wolverines men's basketball page. I wish there were a template that I could bounce back and forth between the two at the bottom of the page. My thinking would be that the 25 or so conferences would be along the left and the teams would be in each row by conferences like


 * "Big 10: Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Michigan · Michigan State · Minnesota · Northwestern · Ohio State · Penn State · Purdue · Wisconsin"
 * "Ivy: Brown · Cornell · Columbia · Dartmouth · Harvard · Penn · Princeton · Yale"

It will take a lot of work to create, so I don't want to do it if people are against it. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it is default collapsed, I think it might work. Another idea might be just to have a bar at the bottom of all conference footers that lists all of the other conference templates.  So, for example, at the bottom of the Big Ten conference footer it would state, ACC, Big 12, etc.  Kinda like what is done for the oscars footers.  See below. Remember (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I really like Remember's idea. Another idea (and probably not any better) is to use the collapsible nav like Template:University of Oklahoma. Each Conference has its own drop down. But, given the number of BB conferences, even that may be too big.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah seems like it would be way too big to list all the teams in a navbox. Why not just create a list page of all the team articles similar to List of NCAA Division I FBS football programs and include it in the See Also section of all the pages? Ryan2845 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quick mock-up of my idea. Remember (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So does anyone like the above template or hate the above template? Remember (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your idea. I think we should go with it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging templates
I am looking at attacking template clutter. One thing I am thinking about is merging all templates that recognize the same honor. E.g., how about

Rather than

Thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe have the individual sections collapsable? I think its a little too big as it is. I think its a good idea, though. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   21:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think since the larger template collapses and a viewer will want to easily see the bolded names of all relevant awards, it might be best to leave the sections uncollapsed. For example, if this was collapsed on the Sherron Collins or John Wall (basketball) page, the reader would get frustrated looking for which one he won, but uncollapsed they could see right away.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if this idea is approved and I redirect all of the above templates, is there a bot that can remove duplicates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's better to keep them separate and set a number of templates (say 4 or 5) after which they all get collapsed on a person's page. The proposed template is too big and seems like too many extraneous info to be on the page of someone who won one NPOY award (Wall is a good example - he wasn't National Player of the Year in the same way Tyler Hansbrough or Evan Turner were, he was the Rupp Award winner).  Just my two cents. Rikster2 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I think harder about this, I recall doing a collapse system so that people who were only in one section would automatically open only to that section. I am going to have to ask an admin to restore a deleted template so I can recall how to do it.  We could also convert this into a system of merged templates for each decade or quarter century like Template:AcademyAwardBestActor 1981-2000. Let me get back to you with version two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer each of the separate templates myself, but I have never been annoyed by template clutter (because you just put them in a collapsable box if the person has a ton of awards). Remember (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made it into a single collapsible one. I will create decade ones in later to show you with less unnecessary info.  To see what it could look like for John Wall or Sherron Collins see:

Here are decade by decade.

Again, I liked them the way they were, but that's just me. Nevertheless, I do think that Tony did a great job if the group decides to go that way. Remember (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have heard complaints about pages loading slow with dozens of templates. So I thought of this.  I especially like the way the 1990s look in the decades look because it is so easy to look across years where the awards were split.  If we want them all, there will be more and more as awards like the Lute Olson Award arise.  This will keep the escalation in templates down because as new awards arise the number of templates will not grow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Remember that I like the current method. The only pages I have seen issues with were the 2009–10 NCAA Division I men's basketball season - and I think this was due to the standings templates (which are more intense technically).  At any rate, if we go this way the Lute Olson Award isn't a National POY award in the same sense as the others - it excludes underclassmen and transfers.  It is more similar to the Lowe's Senior CLASS Award than the Wooden, etc.  It shouldn't be on the master template. But again, I would prefer the separate templates vs. the proposed catch-all.  Rikster2 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Lute Olson Award doesn't belong on here. It is part of a chain of new awards presented by CollegeInsider.com that are not "major" awards yet and do not hold the same respect and status that the other awards too. Look on the Lute Olson article, in fact—I created the CollegeInsider.com navbox at the bottom to make sure the reader knows they're all related but not major awards (if they were, they'd be on Template:College Basketball Awards). Jrcla2 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are the second to not that LO does not belong. I have not tinkered with the template because someone from WP:CFB was suppose to throw together a version where you could parameterize each template included in a format like  .  I am waiting to see that before I spend time tinkering again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed LO, but there is not really going to be anything else to consider until puts an example together.  The concern for CFB is twice as bad as for CBB because the best player could earn seven templates as the player of the year and another 5 or so as the best at his position.  They may have greater necessity to help me be inventive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross-sport uniform template policy discussion
Please come discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject College Basketball/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 174 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Standardizing CBB Team Infobox: NCAA rounds
There seems to be some widely disparate and confusing listings in infoboxes regarding years of NCAA appearances and rounds, particularly for older NCAA tournaments. For instance, some schools list second round appearances in the NCAA despite losing in the first round, presumably because there were 32 or less total teams participating. Such listings are at least confusing, if not misleading, to readers. Other examples include listing of a Sweet 16 appearance despite the fact that only eight teams were participating, however most of the issues seem to be with the Second Round parameter. I would propose eliminating the second round parameter because of the possible confusion, or changing the name of the parameter to something like "Round of 32" or "Regional Quarterfinals". In all cases, I would suggest that a team at least be present in a particular round. For instance, take the tournaments from 1939 to 1950 that involved only eight teams. Appearances in these tournaments could be considered Elite Eight or up. However, you would not be able to list those years as a Sweet 16 or Second Round appearances. Sweet 16 appearances would not be able to be listed until 1951, when the tournament expanded to 16 teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

John Wooden's 100th birthday upcoming
Coach Wooden's 100th birthday will be on October 14, and I think it would be nice to have his article as WP:TFA on that day. I've made a Good article nomination to start the process, and I hope we can improve this article to FA status until October. --bender235 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles
A request has been made at User:Xenobot/R to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, looks for a stub template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ 3719 edits. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Teiko Nishi
The page Talk:Teiko Nishi is currently tagged with both WikiProject Basketball and WikiProject College basketball. The latter was added by Xenobot Mk V. Does the latter tag make the former redundant? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

College basketball categories
Does college basketball exist outside of the United States? If it does not (and the main article gives no indication that it does), then is there any reason the main category is named and not simply ? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It definitely exists in Canada. Not sure about other countries Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

American college basketball redlinks in templates
A new American college basketball page has been created under Templates with red links, it is located HERE. Any help creating pages that would fill these red links would be greatly appreciated. Thanks EmanWilm (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT guideline
A RFC is ongoing to promote WP:NSPORT to an official guideline. If you are interested you might consider contributing at the Discussion page. Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymar Morgan
Please come comment at Articles for deletion/Raymar Morgan.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Third-Place Games
The NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship had national third-place games from 1946 to 1981. There were also third-place games in the regions from 1939 (West) /1941 (East) through 1975. Many of the individual pages for the tournament years fail to show these games, nor even to make reference to the fact they occurred. I'm correcting some of the problem by adding the national third-place game to the 8-team brackets and the later brackets, but no bracket currently exists on wikipedia to accommodate a 16-team-with third place game layout:. Hopefully, someone who knows how to create brackets can create one that can seamlessly integrate the data that has already been entered. The brackets will now be more accurate with the national third-place games added, but will not be fully accurate until the regional third-place games are also added. Thanks. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm now thinking that notes can be added to cover the regional third-place games, instead of modifying the actual brackets. But we still need a 16-team national third-place game bracket created.  Thanks again. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: 2010 NCAA conference realignment
There is a current discussion going on here: Articles for deletion/2010 NCAA conference realignment. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NEED HELP: Helms Foundation POY reference(s)
I left a message for Yestyest2000 (talk) this morning, but seeing as to how he hasn't made an edit since April 20, I'm not sure I'll ever get a reply. I'll copy/paste what I wrote:

"I noticed that you are the creator of the Helms Foundation College Basketball Player of the Year on Wikipedia (history), and the same article on hoopedia.nba.com (history). However, on neither article did you cite where you got your information. I've searched through the NCAA online men's basketball media guide and found no Helms Player of the Year list, and nor did I find a list identical to the one you posted when I Googled it. The only list I found from a third-party source is this, which only somewhat mirrors your list.

Would you please be so kind as to providing me with the reference that you used so that I know where it came from? If not I'm probably going to have to revamp the Wikipedia article to correspond it with the link I provided (and do the same for Helms Foundation College Basketball Player of the Year). Thanks."

Can someone please help me figure this out? I've reached my limit on searching for answers but have gotten nowhere. I truly have no idea where Yestyest2000 got his information from. The link that I provided seems legit, so I wanted to get feedback from WP:CBB members about the next step to take (I'm willing to be the one to re-do the article and navbox if that's what the consensus is). Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference found. – Found this reference by the APBR. It lists the Helms Players of the Year from 1920 and on, but doesn't have any from 1905 through 1919. My revised question is, should I go by the original link that I found for the POY from 1905 to 1919, or just ignore it and not put any POYs for that time period? Jrcla2 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the type of subject, where I would tend to include the stuff that we can not quite reliably source right now based on the likelihood it is correct. Just my opinion though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have used all my internet skillz and I have only been able to find the following links. First, there is a link to a book via google books that may have this information listed but only provides a limited preview . Second, there is the NCAA's listing but they do not list a "player of the year" before 1955 and instead list consensus all americans (but they do say they use the helms foundation as one of the factors to determine all american).  Here is the link to the NCAA .  I hope that helps for what it is worth. Remember (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with TonyTheTiger. I would use both of the sources for now and continue to search for more reliable sources. I will also try to find additional non-internet sources regarding this subject and cite them when possible. Kirk Hinrich (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion for this cite applies elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is only my opinion.  I can appreciate the deference to the original creator/author for placing source citings, etc.  However, in this case, since the author has obviously abandoned the project, I encourage anyone to carry on in place of the author.  Apply the citations that you CAN find, and allow the Wiki community effort the privilege of improving the cites when/if they can be found.  For items that cannot be sourced, I would remove them from the main article, or at least mark them in some way that shows the source of the material is unknown and unverified.  Jlhcpa (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference that confirms - the book is Hoopla by Peter Bjarkman (ISBN 1-57028-039-8) and it confirms the pre-1955 Helms NPOYs as listed in the article. In fact, it shows NPOYs going back to 1905 (Christian Steinmetz of Wisconsin). I can update the reference and the 1905-1919 names sometime this weekend. Just to further cloud the issue, the UNC media guide says that James Worthy was the 1982 Helms NPOY. I have never seen this confirmed anywhere (or any other list that goes beyond 1979) but it's out there. Worth mentioning that most of the early Helms selections were made well after the fact (I want to say the 40s). As a result, some of their selections are guys who were noteworthy for things they did later in their careers (like Howard Cann, who was a very successful coach). Rikster2 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams
A Request for Comment has been opened concerning whether to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the names of articles and categories about University of Connecticut athletic teams. You are invited to comment here: Category talk:UConn Huskies. –Grondemar 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Input Needed - Please share your thoughts on CfD:Junior College men's basketball players
Category:Junior College men's basketball players is being Nominated for Deletion. I think the category is very valid and would like CBB project members to chime in as well. You can do so here. My personal opinion is that having a list of these individuals is interesting and would not be captured anywhere else. Of course, I created the page too. Rikster2 (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1
Could some people comment at Featured topic candidates/2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1 about whether WP:WPCBB would prefer to have 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team articles or a single Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team in Beilein era article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans lists
Currently, at Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/archive1 there is discussion on what should be in the notes column. My thinking it to include important national awards and recognitions. Things I have been including in the 2010 list which is an WP:FL and the 2009 list which is a WP:FLC have been National POYs, Academic AA POY, NCAAT MOP. I have excluded conference POYs. I am not averse to adding national statistical champions and first overall NBA draft choice as well as any former high school national POYs. Please make comments at the FLC discussion link above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All-American FL discussion on Wooden and Senior All-Americans
At Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/archive1 it was recommended that I consider adding Wooden All-American and Senior All-American players to the page. Even though Wooden AA are not used for consensus determination and Senior All-American designation is based on off the court considerations as well, I thought the suggestion was valid and implemented the change for the 2009 and 2010 lists. A later editor contested the addition and seeks consensus from concerned editors. Please comment at the above discussion so we can set policy for optimal AA lists going forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my suggestion is that this project should weigh in on a number of issues as it relates to what basketball All-American articles include and how they are formatted. The Wooden/Lowe's issue is only one part of this.  My suggestion was to note the Wooden/Lowe's info in their respective articles as opposed to in the All-American articles. Rikster2 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of NavBoxes/Templates vs. Succession boxes
All - There are a TON of articles that have both succession boxes and templates for the same items (Wooden Award, conference POY, NCAA Tournament MOP, etc.). I have been deleting the succession boxes, but before somebody takes offense I thought I should check in and see if we should create a policy on succession boxes. Personally, I don't like them - I think they take up too much vertical space, aren't very attractive, and give a lot less info than Navboxes. I also think they get very clunky if a person won an award or held a position more than once. How do people feel about crafting a policy about what should have a template and what shouldn't and maybe say we always use those instead of succession boxes? Probably makes sense when we have our act together to try to coordinate with WP:NBA, since the same issue exists for them (I haven't removed redundant NBA succession boxes to this point). Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've felt that way about college football articles too, but I kept getting reverted because they said no consensus had been reached in that WikiProject but I digress. I strongly dislike succession boxes when navigation boxes for those exact awards or honors already exist. I also dislike succession boxes for the reasons listed above. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I don't see any reason to have both succession boxes and templates for the same items on the same pages, at least for sports awards. –Grondemar 05:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, except for my desire for consistency among the Florida Gators coaches' articles. All of the Gators coaches' articles have coaches succession boxes, but generally not for the proliferation of the many goofy minor awards, etc., most of which are far more appropriately handled by means of a navbox (or merely mentioned in the text or infobox, to the extent they are even notable). The problem, however, is this: few of the coaches navboxes currently include full names and dates of service, unlike those for the Florida Gators basketball coaches. Example:

If you're going to start deleting college basketball coach succession boxes, then you really need to (a) get the college football and college baseball projects on board, too, since many of the early coaches were the head coach for two or more of the major men's sports; and (b) you really need to modify all of the coaches navboxes to include full names and dates of service. If you don't do these two things, then (i) you have created an inconsistency in formatting for individual school projects, like the University of Florida/Florida Gators, where we have spent the last year trying to consistently format all of the school's coach pages; and (ii) you have deleted valuable information (i.e. the coaches' full names and years of service) which can only help readers navigate quickly through related coaches articles. Until you accomplish (a) and (b), I suggest that you stop deleting the coaches succession boxes until all of the information in the coaches succession boxes is incorporated into the coaches navboxes. As for the award succession boxes, you can delete them all&mdash;have at it! Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't mind the years of service or full name on the Coaching navbox, though I'd be interested to see how it looks for a school that has had a LOT of head coaches. Coaching years of service are actually in several places in a well-written coach's article - in the NCAACoach infobox at the right side of the article, in the coaching record section and usually in the prose of the article as well.  Leaving it off a succession box doesn't seem like a big loss to me.  I will say this, I have trouble understanding why Florida should look markedly different than the other 340+ D1 basketball schools.  And does the UF project have oversight to the Illinois, UNLV, etc succession boxes on Lon Kruger's page?  Not sure that it does.  Interesting note, I recently was reviewing the Talk page archives.  This project actually set the standard to NOT use coach succession boxes back in 2007.  Interesting, eh?  Seems like the options are to work together to come up with a uniform standard or just let Florida be the oddball among D1 programs. Rikster2 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret my goals, Rikster. I am very much in favor of relative uniformity in formatting (with the occasional common-sense exceptions).  My problem is this: major Division I/FBS athletic programs, like the University of Florida's, sponsor 20+ sports teams with 20+ separate head coaches at any given time, and many of these programs have 100+ years of coaches and history.  On Wikipedia, the biggest impediment to relative uniformity in formatting is the proliferation of individual project standards.  In addition to the College Basketball Project, there is the College Football Project, the College Baseball Project, the NFL Project, the NBA Project, the MLB Project (there's even an active Lacrosse Project), many of which also want their own succession boxes for a proliferation of championships, awards, medalists, record holders, starting positions, etc.  If there are more than a handful of succession boxes on any given page, the resulting bottom-of-the-page, multi-box cluster admittedly looks goofy (and the individual boxes were pretty clunky to start).  No, what I'm asking for is this:


 * (1) uniform coaches navboxes with the coaches full names and dates of service, so that a reader can easily navigate from one era of a college's coaches to another; and


 * (2) get the College Football Project on board, too.  I suggest you start with User:Jweiss11 who is very active and relatively influential with the football project, and who has recently raised this exact issue on the CFB discussion page and whom I know will be amenable to your desire for uniformity.


 * I recognize that nothing like this can be accomplished overnight, but it would be nice to set the common goals and then let everyone work it out. If the succession boxes are all going to be replaced with coaches navboxes, let's do it for all of the coaches, so we don't have mixed formatting within a given school's sports articles, and even worse, mixed formatting on the page of a single coach who coached multiple sports.  Getting the CBB project on board with the CFB project, with probably the biggest college sports following on Wikipedia, would allow most of the other less-avidly-followed college sports project to fall into line.


 * Thanks for listening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (And, no, we Gators do not claim any authority over the formatting of the Illini or Running Rebels basketball articles. Don't want it, don't need, don't want to go there.  Got plenty to already on my own little Gators plot of the Wikipedia reservation.  I have merely restored the Kruger and Donovan articles to the status quo ante until some sort of understanding is reached, and hopefully this exchange is the beginning of that understanding.)

Dirtlawyer1, thanks for the heads up about this discussion. In general, I support the greatest, most over-arching level of uniformity and parallelism across Wikipedia. When it comes to succession boxes and navigation boxes for sports, we should employ a single standard that applies to all sports and both college/amateur and professional ranks. For nav/succ boxes for sports coaches in particular, our best paragon for building a standard actually comes from outside of sports: politics. Take US Presidents for example. With respect to the Presidency, US President bio articles contain both succession and navigation boxes. The succession boxes note the dates of tenure, while the navigation box, Template:US Presidents, lists no dates. The articles for US presidents tend to be very complete and well-formatted, i.e. they are a more matured topic on the average than sports coaches and, thus, should provide guidance for us on this topic.

As for awards, I think succession boxes are overkill and a navigation box alone is sufficient. The connection between an award winner and those recipients who preceded and followed him is largely trivial. However, there are very often meaningful connections between an office/position holder and those who who preceded and followed him. You'll note that Theodore Roosevelt reflects this reasoning. That article contains both nav and succ boxes for the US Presidency and other offices, but only a nav box for the Nobel Peace Prize (Template:Nobel Peace Prize Laureates 1901-1925). Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One difference between presidential articles and head coach articles is that there is already a detailed timeline of a coach's tenure in the form of the head coaching section. To me, this (plus the coach info box, plus the navbox at the bottom) makes head coaching succession boxes redundant.  Look, I am not so hard over on this issue that I can't flex (and frankly, I'm only one opinion on this - I am sure there are others).  I won't put any work toward adding any of these, but if the consensus is that they are really important I'll fall in line.  I would just challenge the assumption that they really add something substantial to the articles - I truly believe they do not.  Again, though, I will go with the consensus on this.  The award boxes are much, much worse and it sounds like there is agreement they should go.  Rikster2 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rikster2, the presidential articles often contain elements like Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet that define tenure while rendering greater detail much in the same way the head coaching record tables do in coach articles. Articles for Major League Baseball managers also typically contain both nav boxes and succession boxes for positions.  Baseball seems to be the most matured North American sports topic on Wikipedia, so it also qualifies as a paragon for our purposes here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Jweiss11 - I've been holding off replying becasue I had hoped others might chime in. I appreciate what you are saying, but as I take another look at politician entries such as Lyndon B. Johnson, I'm not even convinced they are needed there.  Look at the list of positions in the infobox.  It has titles, dates and successors.  Now look at the succession boxes at the bottom.  In most cases, the exact same information is there.  As for MLB, they may be the most mature sports project on WP, but while maturity is good in many ways, it also increases inertia.  It would take a LOT of work to convert or remove succession boxes there because of the number of articles where this standard has been applied.  There isn't much incentive for them to do anything differently.  Most navboxes on college basketball pages predate the navboxes that have the same info - the "technology" standard is newer.  Our project is fairly young, why should we duplicate sub-optimal methods if a better method extists?  Honestly, from reading the WP:CFB Talk page, it seems like your project is split on this issue too.


 * I am more interested in Dirtlawyer's point about deleting info not covered elsewhere in an easily accessible place. My personal opinion is that the tenure dates are covered in several places and the succession is in the Navbox.  I know the full name does not appear in the current CBB Coach navbox, but the name appears when you mouse over so I have never thought this was much of a problem.  I'd be interested in what others say.  I'd be much more interested in changing the navbox format to accommodate additional info than keeping succession boxes - I think succession boxes have pretty much run their course.  I can definitely say that we at WP:CBB appreciate all the trails that you guys at WP:CFB have blazed and would like to align as much as we can. Rikster2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One more point on awards/stats succession boxes - There are a number of these on CBB articles that do NOT have equivalent templates. Some examples are ACC Freshman of the Year and things like conference stat leaders (example here). I haven't been deleting these since we didn't formally address them, but I'm not in favor of adding templates for these. I feel like we shouldn't go any deeper into conference awards than conference POY and maybe conference Coach of the Year (though I'd be OK nixing COY if consensus dictated it). Once you get down into freshman of the year, defensive POY, etc. at the conference level you really start getting into cases where the award isn't all that notable in the grand scheme. It's an achievement to be sure, and should be noted in the article and navbox, but creating templates for this stuff seems like overkill - and I definitely don't think we should use succesion boxes in these cases either. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rikster, this was what I meant when I referred to the proliferation of succession boxes (and navboxes for minor awards). In the context of a single player's career, they may be worth mentioning in the text and/or article infobox, but the creation of succession boxes and navboxes for minor awards, and even starting positions, has gotten out of hand.  These become enormous piles of graphic clutter at the bottom of player and coach pages, and the minor navboxes distract from the truly worthy.  Frankly, there does not need to be a conference freshman player of the year succession box or navbox.  Given time to create navboxes for the Gators coaches (for each of the schools at which they coached), I would be more than happy to see all succession boxes disappear, but someone within the project needs to set consensus standards for what awards navboxes are noteworthy and which are not.  Let the discussion begin.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Resounding agree.
 * Here's what I think does warrant a navbox only for WikiProject College Basketball:
 * All of the awards that are featured on College Basketball Awards, with the exception being the NABC Players of the Year for Divisions II and III, the NAIA, and junior college players.
 * All of the awards that are featured on CollegeInsider.com men's basketball awards.
 * Here's what I think doesn't warrant a navbox or succession box:
 * Minor statistical leaders (i.e. conference free throw %, assist-to-turnover ratio, etc). I removed 7 utterly inconsequential succession boxes from Jon Scheyer for this reason.
 * What I think succession boxes would be good for:
 * Nothing. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where a succession box is wholly redundant, I support its removal. Where it is not, I think its removal would be inappropriate.  It provides a handy way to see who achieved the award/result the prior year and -- when it happens -- the succeeding year.  It is used in other major sports (as in baseball), and I see no reason to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for uniformity on Wikipedia when it comes to different WikiProjects, but not in the navbox/succession box sense. WP:HOCKEY is the biggest advocate of the succession box, and I think that it amounts to graphic clutter. Any awards worthy enough to have a navbox do not need succession boxes, and on the flipside any awards not worthy enough to have a navbox shouldn't warrant a succession box because they were never big enough deals to begin with. In terms of the Jon Scheyer example again, every single one of the succession boxes would be much more appropriately placed if they were absorbed in the text somewhere, even possibly under a section called "Awards and honors". When you start including "achievements" such as ACC free throw percentage leader, it's going to undoubtedly create a snowball effect, where anyone who sees a page and knows a single "freak stat" about a player will add it in. Additionally, it is IMHO that succession boxes such as those can be considered WP:CRUFT, and should be avoided at all costs. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind removing redundant succession boxes. However, I am in favor of keeping them for conference stat leaders. Maybe not for Assist/turnover or offensive rebounds but for the 3 shooting percentages and most of the five major per game stats.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of the "most" do you not like? Just wondering, for clarification's sake. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with Jrcla2's comments. Let me sum up my opinion, for what it's worth, to see if we can't get others to weight in on each item: I hope someone else will expand this list so it comprehensively includes ALL CBB awards, honors, stats, etc., so that a consensus vote may be taken by the active members of the WP CBB Project. If CBB works it through in logical manner, I think you will find the WP CFB Project editors will be amenable to a very similar, if not identical, solution. If CFB and CBB lead the way, the common standard is likely to permeate the other college sports projects who copy a lot of the formatting and graphics of CBB and CFB, and have some significant influence on the pro sports projects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. succession boxes = unnecessary and redundant clutter when navboxes include full names and terms of service (far better, in fact, because navboxes with full names and terms of service would provide information on all coaches, not just the "before," "after" and article subject);
 * 2. navboxes = graphically more attractive and more space economical than succession boxes, but currently over-used for many minor awards and stat leaders (and, yes, conference stat leaders are exactly what I am talking about&mdash;if it's not significant enough to include in a complete sentence of text, it probably doesn't merit a succession box or navbox, either);
 * 3. infoboxes = the perfect place for a half dozen or so actual awards and honors (stats go elsewhere);
 * 4. honors & awards section = the perfect place to put the complete list of all awards and honors when they are so numerous as to overwhelm the infobox;
 * 5. minor awards = include in text if truly notable as to the subject person, maybe infobox, but not in succession boxes or navboxes (this is THE biggest contributor to graphics overkill and clutter);
 * 6. season stats = if actually notable, stats should be included in the article text, as appropriate, not in succession boxes or navboxes (this is one of the two biggest contributors to bottom-of-the-page clutter, IMHO); and
 * 7. career stats = notable career stats should almost always be included in the infobox.
 * Agree with original proposal. I think succession boxes should be removed when there is a navbox that covers the same point – even if the navbox does not contain dates or full name.  I feel the same way for CFB articles.  There seem to be two very discrete issues covered in this discussion, however.  The first is the issue of removing redundant succession boxes, and the second is whether certain topics (leading scorer, etc.) deserve having boxes of any type in articles.  I think it might be easier to reach a consensus if these points are addressed separately.  (I have no opinion on the second point.)  -Kgwo1972 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kgwo1972 that the discussion should be split. In my opinion, we have clearly reached consensus on redundant award succession boxes and they should go.  I will start two discussions to cover A) Coaching templates/succession boxes and B) the standard for award/stat leader inclusion at the bottom of articles.  But I think the big issue is the desire by many (including me) to set a goal of ditching succession boxes altogether and either using templates where appropriate, or just including the honors/achievements in the infobox and/or article.  I personally think that should be the goal and let's put in place what we need to to achieve it.  Rikster2 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NavBoxes vs. Succession Boxes, discussion #1 - Coaches
The issue on the table is part of the larger conversation above. There is a proposal to eliminate succession boxes on CBB articles. While this has been approved in cases of redundant awards, there are some valid concerns put out by Dirtlwayer1 and others that information would be lost if full names and years of service are not added to the template. My vote is to add this info to the coaching templates as in the Florida example above (after examining the impact to template size). Please read the discussion above for more color on the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball players
Template:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Illinois Fighting Illini current roster
Template:Illinois Fighting Illini current roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)