Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 22

Please weigh in on newly created basketball player category structure
I have started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball regarding the newly created category Category:Basketball players from Portland, Oregon and trying to ensure we have a long term view of what the basketball player category structure should look like. Rikster2 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration
This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

W-L record for coaches infobox
There is an ongoing discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial sources
Every time there is unofficial news of a trade, signings, waiver, etc, editors rush to add it to an article as if it was official. I've created the essay WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions to capture how to handle this. It's easier to just drop this on a talk page/edit summary than having to explain this every time. I've also added it as a "see also" to WikiProject National Basketball Association/Article guidelines. Feel free to improve it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Maybe we could mention a couple of reported deals that did not happen. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. Now we can just refer people to this essay.— Chris! c / t 00:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the Chris Paul example.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Video for WP
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball if you have thoughts on my producing videos to illustrate WP basketball articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Navbox discussion
There is a discussion regarding the number of navboxes in articles, with Michael Jordan used an example. You are invited to join at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion - please weigh in
Found at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 11. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding linked NBA seasons in player infoboxes
Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for a basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the NBA player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

College names in athletes' infoboxes
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League. —Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

New Orleans Pelicans
Anyone know when the name change goes into effect? People have already started moving pages around. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The name officially changed tonight at the conclusion of the 2012-13 season, according to each of New Orleans' main media outlets. http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2013/04/the_end_of_an_era_new_orleans.html http://www.wwl.com/pages/16073193.php?contentType=4&contentId=12824151 http://www.wwltv.com/sports/hornets-202679621.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphornet (talk • contribs) 03:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. The first one seems to say that the name change will take place after midnight. I'll keep an eye on the team's website. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join a discussion on integrating the WNBA infobox into the Basketball biography infobox
Proposal to merge the two infoboxes occuring here. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

stats.nba.com
I was just going to use basketballstats for Phil Jackson, but then I found that his link is not the usual format of http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=phil_jackson but instead http://stats.nba.com/playerProfile.html?PlayerID=77106 I hope NBA.com doesnt mess up all of their previous working links (again).—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Every time I try to click on an NBA.com infobox link, I get a message that says, "An error (500 Internal Server Error) has occured in response to this request." Zagal e jo^^^ 02:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your's might be a different issue, since when you go to http://www.nba.com/players/ all the links seem to have 500 error.  FWIW, the URLs there are still the same format as the ones we are using for active players.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if you go to nba.com then click on Players->Historical Player Search, those all point to stats.nba.com links now.  At least links like the ones at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar of the format http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=kareem_abdul-jabbar are still working (for now).—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the stats.nba.com pages are more accurate. I'm finding that a lot of the regular NBA.com profiles have rounding errors. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of changing our templates to use stats.nba.com when its url is based on a numeric ID and not a player's name. I've seen too many sites change their ID schemes and not provide redirects. I'm still hoping that they will eventually just incorporate the new stats into the old profile URLs.—Bagumba (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Who to list as NBA owner
As most teams have multiple owners or owned by a group or corporation, who is usually listed in Template:NBAOwners? In the case of the Los Angeles Lakers, Jerry Buss' kids all supposedly inherited the team (equally?) after his death. Jeanie Buss represents the team at the NBA Board of Governors, but Jim Buss is head of basketaball operations. Depending on the article, the Lakers owner can be listed as "Jeanie Buss and family" (Template:NBAOwners), "Jim Buss" (2012–13 Los Angeles Lakers season) or "Buss Family" (Los Angeles Lakers). What should be the convention?—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what criteria have been used to list people on that template. The team media guides might give guidance in some cases. For right now, "Buss family" is probably the best thing to use. When the Lakers release their next media guide, we can see how they describe people. Zagal e jo^^^ 19:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just updated the List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches prose on this, and I chose to write that the Lakers are majority-owned by the Buss family trust. There is no one true majority-owner. --  K.Annoyomous  (talk)   23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:NBAOwners
Note: Refactored from .—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The template refers to Jerry Buss, which makes sense for wholesale purposes absent an article about the Buss family trust. However, I don't think it is appropriate to remove the template from the living individual members of that trust as User:Bagumba just did based on this limited discussion. They might not be FULL owners of an NBA team, but they are participating in the ownership of a team. Trackinfo (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually only leave navboxes if the article is a linkable item in the navbox. Consider it Not everything needs a navbox.  However, as the articles you refer to aren't overloaded with navboxes, I wouldnt strongly object.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Playoff stats leaders for a given year
In playoffs stats tables for some bios like Kobe_Bryant, an entry is marked "Led the league". Since each team plays a different number of games, and there is no set minimum, this designation seems trivial. I doubt many sources outside of stats databases mention it. I propose to remove them.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen lists of playoff leaders in a few places. (My local newspaper, for one, has such lists.) However, it's not really essential info. Short bursts of production are often favored over steady production throughout the playoffs. A guy who puts up big numbers while his team is swept in the first round can end up as the leader in a category for the whole playoffs. Zagal e jo^^^ 16:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, aside from a stats listing during that year's playoffs, I dont think any source note its significance after the fact. WP:NOT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE seems to be the relevant principles against its inclusion.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate article
A user just created Bobby Lewis (basketball) for the same subject as the existing Bob Lewis (basketball, born 1945). Not sure how this is handled and doubt I could do it on an iPad, so I wanted to see if someone could merge/delete these. Rikster2 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could just redirect it to the other article. Was the other Bob Lewis (Bob Lewis (basketball, born 1925)) ever known as Bobby? Zagal e jo^^^ 00:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirected. Bb-reference has Bobby so I didn't to check Bob Lewis for an article. Wizardman  01:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any objection to renaming the article to "Bobby Lewis (basketball)", as Bobby appears to be his WP:COMMONNAME.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * this Lewis was known as both over his college and pro career - I think the year needs to be present regardless as "Bob" and "Bobby" are too similar. Rikster2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to Bobby Lewis (basketball, born 1945). Leaving the year seems weird when there is no other Bobby Lewis that plays basketball, but since we're combining Bob, Bobby, Robert, etc at Robert Lewis, maybe it makes sense.  Too trivial to spend more time on it, so went with Rikster2's suggestion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on which project overseas WNBA
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

NBA D-League finals MVP history
Does anyone know how to find the past winners of the NBA D-League Finals MVP Award? I am assuming a bio that I do (Glen Rice, Jr.) has won it this year for averaging 29 pt, 11.5 rb, 4 ass, 3 st, and 3.5 bl in the finals sweep. That is about the most important D-League template that does not exist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there is such an award? Zagal e jo^^^ 04:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a redlink in the table at NBA Development League Most Valuable Player Award suggesting it exists. However, even today's official game summary made no mention of such an award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see one article that mentions Curtis Stinson as a past winner, but nothing else. A usbasket.com page from 2008 says "The D-League doesn't award a Finals MVP".  Zagal e jo^^^ 05:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Importance scale
I made a rough draft of a new importance scale for the NBA WikiProject. Its a combo of the scale we have now and the WikiProject College Basketball/Assessment scale changed for the NBA. I think we should make changes to it and adopt it as the NBA WikiProject importance scale.Theworm777 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to Current pages rating category list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Top-importance_NBA_articles you can move from top to ??? by clicking it at top of the page.

Thanks for starting this. The project can certainly use some fine-tuning on this. There was also a past discussion to use WikiProject NFL-like criteria for assessing importance of players. This current proposal has some similar concepts. Here are some of my initial thoughts on players: —Bagumba (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A player with a long career should be worthy of MID. Perhaps 7+ years?
 * 2) DPOY and ROY are not that major of an award. MID seems more appropriate for all but MVP.
 * 3) Aside from stats for points, rebs, and assists, I wouldn't automatically consider the player MID.
 * 4) We should account for all awards/honors at List of National Basketball Association awards, as well as All-Stars. I wouldn't given any more weight to All-Rookie though.
 * 5) An All-NBA or All-Star should be MID. Maybe 3+ 1st-team All-NBA or 3+ All-Star should be HIGH.

FMVP winners should also be HIGH.— Chris! c / t 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all winners of Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award are HOF or future HOF. Cedric Maxwell is the exception;  not being an All-Star, I see him as Mid even with FMVP.  So I would say FMVP is an auto Mid, but they likely qualify as High due to other criteria like HOF or # of All-Stars/All-NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a point. I think we should implement a better importance scale right away instead of waiting for more comments. The current scale is not clear and standardized at all. If anyone disagrees, we can always discuss and make changes. Thoughts?— Chris! c / t 23:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone can create a subpage with an initial draft, then those interested can WP:BRD the page directly. Once it's stable, we can copy it or transclude it to WikiProject National Basketball Association/Assessment.—Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject National Basketball Association/New assessment scale draft. I follow the layout/wording of the NFL scale.— Chris! c / t 01:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation issue
I have a rather confusing situation. While working on a list, I came across a Don Martin who played in the 1940s without an article. I tried Don Martin (basketball), but that is Dino Martin, a player who not only also played in the late 1940s, but both were born in 1920, so even that disambiguation option does not work. What to do here? I'm thinking a redirect to Dino Martin for the player-coach and having Don Martin (basketball) be the other guy may be best, but am not positive. Wizardman 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably OK. The Boston College coach was commonly known as Dino. Otherwise, you might end up with something really complicated. (By the way, the Boston College coach died almost fourteen years ago. I'll correct that article shortly.) Zagal e jo^^^ 01:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Hopefully there aren't any more hidden like that. Wizardman  02:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Juwan Howard WP:TFA
Juwan Howard is on the main page for WP:TFA right now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Issue with statistics showing on basketball biography infobox
Hello - I recently created Craig Shelton and have not been able to get his NBA stat totals to display in his infobox - can anyone tell what I am doing wrong? Thanks for the help. Rikster2 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You missed to write something at the career_end. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Template request for NBA Draft Combine
I forgot to make sure that no one knows about the template I am requesting. Comment at Help_desk if I should not be making this request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is such a template really necessary/desired? The NBA Combine isn't nearly as high profile as the NFL version IMO.  I think combine scores are a very minor part of a player's history. Rikster2 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the NFL combine on TV, but at least two days of NBA Combines were aired on ESPN2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You having seen two days' worth of extraneous ESPN2 coverage does not mean anything in regards to each respective league's combine importance. The NFL Draft combine is a major, major deal. The NBA's really isn't. I don't think this template is worth creating. More article fluffery IMHO. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I never heard of the NBA draft combine until last year, whereas the NFL draft combine has been a big deal for years. However, the template is not a statement about the combines, but rather one about a player's measurements at a point in time. A template would give us a nice standardized way to present pre-draft measureables. They are out there in secondary sources and we, as a tertiary source, are suppose to be summarizing those sources. 4 (Burke, Hardaway, Pressey, Rice, but not Hummer) of the 5 guys that I write were at the combine. I would prefer to present pre-draft measurables in a standardized way. The template is not my attempt to authenticate the NBA draft combine. It is a way for me to present pre-draft measurables in a standardized way regardless of the NBA-NFL combine relative significances.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about this. Beyond height and weight, most of these figures aren't commonly discussed, except in extreme cases. Zagal e jo^^^ 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are pre-draft measurables important? Players have height/weight listed by their college, then by their pro team.  I agree with Zag that nobody cares about standing vertical or any of the other stuff except for the few weeks leading from the combine to the Draft.  Having too much extraneous "stuff" in an article obscures the important information in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As with anything else on WP, we judge "Who cares" by whether there are a lot of secondary sources. Obviously a lot of people care about vertical leap, wingspan, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Nobody gives a crap about this stuff beyond the window between the combine and the draft.  Specialized news sources will always fill in when no real news exists - it's one of the many flaws with the current GNG.  But whatever, you are going to do what you want to do anyway.  Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How is the claim that "Nobody gives a crap about this stuff beyond the window between the combine and the draft." any different than the NFL?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Flat out I am not in favor of adding this information as a rule to basketball articles. I really don't think it adds anything to NFL articles today.  If everyone else like the idea, great - do it, but I am registering an opinion that this is an editorial choice made by the football project that I don't think we should follow. I don't have an issue with noting cases where combine performance led to some rise in draft stock (like Miles Plumlee last year), but otherwise it is just extraneous IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Add the info when it makes a difference. That is a slippery slope. There are probably 6-10 guys who should have the information in their articles every year then. So why not have a template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be in prose as needed, with an explanation of why certain measurements made a difference, e.g. a quote that he was faster that expected, as strong as some other star player in the past, etc. Adding a template invites editors to indiscriminately add raw combine measurements to a bio, and adding a box for something that needs to be explained in prose adds an undue perceived importance to these numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Order of Most Improved vs All-NBA in infobox highlights
There have been some recent changes at Paul George regarding this issue. A previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_20 determined that Most Improved was not one of the more notable honors, and should be listed lower. This more recent edit added it above his All-NBA third. IMO, even a third-team All-NBA is more notable than Most Improved. All-NBA honors that leagues top players, whereas Most Improve just says you got a lot better without any claims as to a players actual standing in the league. It would be nice to get some consistency, if feasible.—Bagumba (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Links to teams' season articles in bios
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LeBron_James. —Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to increase club threshold on Infobox: basketball biography
I was editing Isaiah Morris and found out the hard way that the limit to the number of clubs that can be added to the basketball infobox is 25 (Morris played for 26 clubs). I'd like to request that the threshold be raised so that no matter how many clubs a player competed for it can handle them (maybe raise to 40?). What is happening is that editors are getting around the infobox limits by entering a bunch of clubs in entry 25 - whih looks awful. I think if we raise it to 40 that will cover 99.9% of players' careers and keep the infobox clean. Can we just do this or is some sort of consensus needed? Anyone know how to up the limit? Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Enhancements to Template:Infobox basketball biography
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball. —Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Listing jersey numbers for each team
Some bios have been edited such as this one that place a player's respective jersey number next to each team in his career history. I think it's too much information for an infobox to break down by team. It can be discussed in prose, like it is in Derek Fisher. Also, the new parameter "career_number" can be used to list all the numbers a player has worn in his career. If it's important enough, it should just be a dedicated column. Otherwise, the format looks clumsy.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed this change at LeBron James and did not revert it. I think it is clumsy clutter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undone all the changes for now. Can add back if there is consensus. I applaud editors for being bold, but widespread changes are usually better discussed first to save the initial effort to edit and then the subsequent undos.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in favor of adding these. They look cluttered.  The only change to the club history that might be worth debating would be a dedicated field for league or country, to replace the paranthetical statements.  Rikster2 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Trivial and apart from superstars do often change. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought readers should know the number of tye player of the team. If I caused disorganization to the pages I edited, I apologize for causing this. lego_death_star — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego death star (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Manu Ginóbili
FYI, a Requested Move discussion was started on Talk:Manu Ginóbili.— Chris! c / t 19:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

LeBron James salary
There was a prior consensus at Talk:LeBron_James to not include LeBron's salary

LeBron's salary is a topic that is frequently searched on the internet and his salary is among the highest in the NBA. It will be helpful to provide a table that shows LeBron's salary also because there is no salary information in any of the texts in the article, only contracts. The text mentions that LeBron is listed as one of the world's highest paid athletes because of his NBA salary and endorsments. There is information about his value in contracts but not his NBA salary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert4565 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured List review help
Hey guys, I've had the page List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NBA Draft nominated for FL for over two months now and the review needs some more input. I was just curious if some of you with spare time could check out the page and post corrections you spot or if you think the page is fine, then post support on the review. All help is appreciated. Disc Wheel ( Malk  +  Montributions )  18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remind me again what we do with Summer League signings?
Now that the draft is over and NBA teams are starting to fill out their Summer League rosters, I am trying to remember what was decided about handling these from an infobox perspective. For example, somebody edited Brandon Paul to reflect his Summer League team. To me, this feels misleading since the teams haven't made much of a commitment to the player. Heck, Ian Clark signed with two different teams. Feels like it is reasonable to note draft picks as members of the team unless they sign elsewhere (usually the teams list them on their official rosters), but not Summer League. I want to revert some if these edits, but not if it has previously been discussed and deemed acceptable. Rikster2 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put the Summer League team in the infobox (unless there's already evidence of a long-term commitment). Those players might end up joining different teams for the regular season, if they even make it that far. A brief mention of the Summer League team might be OK in the body of the article. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

League display name in NBA infoboxes?
"National Basketball Association" or "NBA?" I don't mind updating these, but we should use a consistent display name. Rikster2 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When does a trade become official
NBA.com has announced the Royce White trade. Does that make it official?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. NBA.com publishes third-party reports and commentary. Some of them are simply AP articles. Most transactions cannot be officially completed until July 10.
 * What are you looking at on NBA.com? If it's this, note that the article says, "The person spoke Friday night on condition of anonymity because the deal has not been officially announced." When it is official, there should be a press release on the 76ers' website. (It would look something like this.)
 * It does get confusing. Nowadays, most of the front page content on NBA.com is not coming from the league office. As a general rule of thumb, the team websites are a better source for official announcements. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

LeBron James warring
On some rare occasions, I have seen some people use categories as links in articles. At Lebron James, I am seeing a navbox used as a link for the first time. Another editor has reverted my removal of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we don't even have an article for the award, does it need to be mentioned in the infobox? For that matter, does it even need a navbox? While it sounds prestigious, I never hear too many people talk about it. It's another one of those redundant awards, like the ESPYs. Zagal e jo^^^ 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of infobox highlights presented that don't have links. I am not sure if that is a valid criteria. I don't think for a player that has so many linked infobox highlights, it belongs in the infobox. For a lesser player this honor may belong. We create infoboxes for several of the teams selected by USA Basketball who send about three teams out a year. Why not an infobox on for the most valuable player for all the teams that they send out. I don't see what it is redundant with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think people are more likely to remember that James won a gold medal in the Olympics than an internal award from USA Basketball. Zagal e jo^^^ 01:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Notable Undrafted Players"
I noticed that folks have started to add players to this section at 2013 NBA Draft. I had thought the consensus was that this section was for players who played in the NBA but were never drafted, but as I look at the past few Drafts it seems like this may have drifted over time (or maybe I have the intent wrong). The issue with leaving it open is that right now you could put eligible draftee with a Wikipedia article ("notable") in the space so where should th eline be drawn? What is the intent of these sections? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All-Star Games
I was shocked to see how woeful the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s NBA All-Star Game article are. I started on a bit of cleanup and added infoboxes to several articles but have run out of time today. If some interested editor could at least add infoboxes to 1972 NBA All-Star Game through 1977 NBA All-Star Game that would at least mean every All-Star Game has one. - Dravecky (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

U16, U17, U18, U19, WUG medalboxes in infoboxes
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

reminder
I just noticed that all three 2013 draft picks that I do still needed WikiProject NBA. Get out there and tag those articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that players who get drafted don't get tagged with WP:NBA until they've played in a real game. I very well may be completely wrong in that assessment, and if I am please let me know. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Useful article about Howard situation
This clarifies some things about Howard's current status: Zagal e jo^^^ 01:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone renamed all the NBA Draft articles so "draft" is in lower case!
Can anyone please help revert that? For example, 2013 NBA Draft now redirects to 2013 NBA draft. The moving user did it because of "case" - that's it, no discussion on page moves, nothing! Arbor to SJ (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion about that, two sections up. Please join it if you have a reason to prefer upper case.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

NBA Draft pages being moved
User:Anthony Appleyard is moving every NBA Draft article, citing them as "uncontroversial" moves requested at WP:RM. Did anyone from this WikiProject know about said requested moves? Furthermore, did anyone participate? I don't think moving them is uncontroversial, considering the formal name of each draft is "(Year) NBA Draft" with a capital D. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure nobody was consulted. Not sure if the lower case "d" is correct usage or not, though (its probably proper English, but it is possible that the D is always capitalized when media are referring to individual drafts). Rikster2 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Those uncontroversial-type move requests were asked for by User:Dicklyon: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=563630171 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After a little quick research, it seems like the NBA always capitalizes the D (check the headlines on Draft related stories along the right side here). Seems like it was correct the way it was.  This is the difference between proper English from an academic standpoint and popular usage.  "NBA Draft" is somewhat akin to a brand name for them.  IMO these should all be reverted to "XXXX NBA Draft." Rikster2 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they all should be reverted to the official name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think an argument can be made for either title format. As Rikster notes, the NBA itself always capitalizes the D. I can accept the capitalization, in the sense that each draft is a specific event. However, many sports publications (eg, Sports Illustrated) do not capitalize the D, except in headlines.
 * In any case, it would have been nice to have a project discussion first. Now, things are inconsistent. (And, of course, this is the busiest day of the year for the NBA, so there are a zillion other things to do.) Zagal e jo^^^ 01:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I did some checking before moving and fixing case and requesting the technical moves; the articles were very inconsistent internally, and external sources favored lower case, so there seemed to be no issue, per MOS:CAPS. Does someone have a reason to follow the specialist style of the NBA instead of WP style here? Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said the NBA uses the capital D and you could argue that the do so because the yearly draft is a sub brand. There are many cases where MOS and specific general use differs. Rikster2 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. This is not a case where the recommendation of our MOS differs from general usage.  Yes, it differs from some specialist usage; see WP:SSF and MOS:TM about that.  Is there a reason we should not be following MOS:CAPS here?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, WikiProject Birds gets to do what they want. :) But in a more practical sense, look at "What links here" for any of the NBA Draft pages. You'll see that the vast majority of links capitalize the D. I'm quite sure that overall usage on Wikipedia (including usage in hundreds of individual player articles) leans toward the capitalized format. Fixing every mention of "XXXX NBA Draft" would be a big task, with little real benefit, since most readers will accept things as they are now. I don't think either title format is obviously wrong, so I'd just stick with the status quo. Zagal e jo^^^ 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the links are mostly through the redirects due to widespread over-capitalization driven by the previously capitalized article titles. That problem will be gradually corrected.  There's little benefit to making that a priority, as you note. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the NBA is mixed about caps themselves. See lowercase "NBA draft" at nba.com, at, , , , , and "2013 NBA draft lottery" at. But even if they have trouble following their own style guide, we shouldn't have so much trouble following ours. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the final link, those are AP articles that NBA.com picked up. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The AP has a style more like ours.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm quick to snicker here, but this is becoming another instance of the infamous MOS stylists trying to right a ship that's been steady on course since Wikipedia's inception, with little to no real benefit, and only the likelihood that hundreds (thousand-plus, perhaps?) of articles will not actually be "gradually corrected." This could easily become the two-digit versus four-digit year formatting debate from a couple months ago (which I stopped paying attention to, because if there's one truth I've learned as an editor on this website, it's that MOS nearly always get their way.) Jrcla2 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear if you're afraid the articles will be made MOS compliant, or that they won't. As for "steady", no, the articles I've been working on had quite a mix of case, even within each article, like nobody who had read the MOS had ever gotten a chance to work on them; so why not now?   Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS is like the 80/20 rule. It's a great guide because it's right for most cases (ie - it is the 80).  However, there are always that 20% of cases that deviate from a standard that can never be correct for all cases.  I actually could live with either, and agree with Zag that there is evidence supporting both, but I do get pretty tired of MOS zealots trying to turn every issue into a nail that their hammer can "solve."  It is obvious that no real research was done to determine what the right answer is here.  But this is "Wiksturbation" at its finest so I am out.  As an aside, Dick Lyon, you should go apply this logic to the NHL Drafts.  You will probably get an even less polite response from that project.  Rikster2 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the hockey mafia. Best of luck moving the NHL Draft pages. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. You are calling the hockey project rude but you two are taking pot shots at it. I personally don't have a strong opinon personally. Though they do label theirs differently than the NBA ones since they have Entry in the name. Not sure it makes that big a difference but it does make it more obvious a proper noun is being used rather than the generic word draft. That being said, if you guys don't see its all that big a deal why the freak out about it? -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If nobody has any actual reasons to capitalize draft, I'll continue treating this as noncontroversial application of the MOS guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with Jrcla2 that old links to the pages won't be "gradually corrected". I've been monitoring changes at basketball bios for several years now, so I think I have a good understanding of what gets done and what doesn't. If anything, casual editors will just revert any changes and re-capitalize things. It's hard enough to stop people from capitalizing phrases like "free agent" and "shooting guard".
 * Also, note that the MLB, NFL, and NHL draft pages also capitalize the D, so to be consistent, you'll have to move those, too. Before you do that, I would highly recommend you collect some opinions from a broader audience. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What were you thinking? "NBA Draft" is a proper noun; thus "Draft" should be capitalized as the official NBA Draft page does. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the proper MOS section for this is MOS:NAMECAPS. The reason why the word "Draft" is capitalized is because it is a proper noun, for the same reason that the name "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" are in title caps. One could argue invoking MOS:CT if arguing that "each draft is a TV special" (a "[visual media] work"), just as every TV episode title is in title caps. Finally, one can invoke MOS:TM although while the NBA does have some sort of a generic logo for the draft, and specific annual ones, it's not apparent that it is trademarked somewhere. – H T  D  19:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a trademark search before I started, and found nothing there. And sources don't support interpretation as a proper name or composition title, as far as I can tell, so WP:NAMECAPS and MOS:CT do not seem to apply.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt lose any sleep with upper vs lowercase in this instance. I would have stuck with status quo of uppercase, but I dont have the inclination to invest my time to revert them. With all due respect to the guidelines being cited, the one rather firm rule of Wikipedia—consensus—appears to be lacking here with only one editor supporting lowercase here to date.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also add that continuing to label RM requests on this subject as "uncontoversial" seems disingenuous.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, "If nobody has any actual reasons to capitalize draft, I'll continue treating this as noncontroversial application of the MOS guidelines." There's no serious opposition here, and these moves have also got support from others.  See, , ,  as examples.  Normally, routine MOS work is not considered controversial, but sometimes specialists who like to capitalize stuff in their domain object.  I think that's where we are.  We can open a bigger discussion if someone wants to, but as Jrcla2 notes above, the community usually supports styling per the MOS rather than by the specialists in their various domains.  – Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well.... that's an interesting way of spinning Jrcla2's comment. ;) Zagal e jo^^^ 00:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Was that a too-charitable interpretation of "if there's one truth I've learned as an editor on this website, it's that MOS nearly always get their way"? – Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he's implying that many people simply decide to stop fighting over these things. Zagal e jo^^^ 01:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right. But isn't that a good thing, when people decide to stop fighting against the community consensus?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing for the people who agree with your position. I don't think you should assume that the opposition suddenly "saw the light". People just lose the energy to fight for what they believe. (I've seen this happen in the notability fights, as well.) Look, WT:MOS has 142 archives. Obviously, there's been a disagreement or two over the Manual of Style.
 * I don't want to make a big scene here. I'm not going to fight for the upper-case D. I'm just asking that you take a different perspective on things. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Nobody else is really fighting, either, but there are a couple who do hold the belief that "NBA Draft" is a proper name, on the slimmest of evidence.  I was a relative latecomer to the MOS, but very happy to find that we had some central guidance on such things.  That large number of archives (not much of it about caps) represents the broad participation and range of perspectives considered in arriving at a consensus style for WP.  I just go by that.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A little late here, but the point I was making with that spun quote was that MOSers are pushy, stubborn, and generally unwilling to back down. I dare anyone to find any more of a battleground mentality (by both MOSers and non-MOSers alike) on all of Wikipedia than in MOS debates. The MOS supporters are, from my experiences, more blindly faithful than the average editors. They'll force semantics on others in such a way that "[non-MOSers] need to prove why they're right as opposed to why we're wrong." But hey, I don't want to lose my enthusiasm for editing this online encyclopedia, and arguing MOS supporters will kill my buzz. Ergo, I'm stepping aside so that once again the MOS crew can sleep well at night. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like working to bring the encyclopedic closer to compliance with the style guidelines is a bad thing. I think most wikipedians are more supportive of the effort than that.  And I certainly didn't mention right, or wrong, except where I said "You may be right."  The only "battleground mentality" I've seen is with a few individuals that deny that the style guidelines apply to titles.  I don't think that has entered the present discussion.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now opened a move discussion for the main NBA Draft article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned draft picks - on current roster or not?
OK, noticing a discrepency with how current roster templates are being governed - should unsigned draft picks appear on current roster templates? They generally appear on the teams' official current roster (though not always), but I have seen some editors deleting the names when other editors add them (see Template:Detroit Pistons current roster). So which is it? Is it who appears on the official roster (which seems to be the standard used for vets) or is it signed players? Rikster2 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the official rosters are updated in an inconsistent manner, it's hard to say. There is some merit to waiting until someone is signed, especially if it's a guy coming from overseas. To be honest, I haven't been paying close attention to those templates myself, because there just isn't enough time in the day to monitor things. Zagal e jo^^^ 01:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I say leave them on the roster. Using the "note = DP" signifies them as being "unsigned draft pick" per the legend. It really doesn't matter that much though. If they appear on the official roster then, yes, I too would add them. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically you have to have sources to backup whatever you put on the roster. So I would go with whatever is listed on the teams official roster on their webpage. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. The issue is that some teams have a "current" 2013-14 roster on their site (which seemingly always includes drafted rookies) while others still show their 2012-13 rosters and don't change over til the roster is set after training camp (which sometimes includes players who have already left the team).  It is a little tricky to just go with the rosters straight out without creating internal inconsistency. Rikster2 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer sourced over consistency. I have no problem if we are inconsistent for a couple months over summer it means we are upholding with our sourcing values. That being said its a shame the NBA teams aren't better at keeping the list updated. Most other sports are pretty good about it during the off season. But I suppose it all stems from the fact that there is technically no roster during the off-season if you get right down to it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Caption consistency in draft articles
I feel we should establish a more consistent captioning for the pictures in the draft articles. I was going to start to change them but I thought I'd ask for a group consensus first.

An example of the inconsistencies is the 2008 NBA draft article, it states under Derrick Rose's picture
 * Derrick Rose was selected first overall by the Chicago Bulls.

in the 2008 draft article it then says under Michael Beasley's pic
 * Michael Beasley, the 2nd pick

I feel this should state
 * Michael Beasley was selected second by the Miami Heat.

Some draft articles captions don't state the team the player was drafted by but I personally prefer that.

Another question I'd like to raise is the numbering Some captions state the first 10 picks with first, second, third.... while others say 1st, 2nd, 3rd...... Should the articles state
 * Derrick Rose was selected 1st overall by the Chicago Bulls. instead?

Any and all input will be appreciated thanks everyone --Jamo58 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many style guides say that you should spell out ordinal numbers up to ninth. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

When to say that a career is over?
Just looking for some guidance here. At what point would it be fair to say that someone is a former player? Most players don't make a point of announcing their retirement. I'm most specifically thinking about Allen Iverson and Ben Wallace, but there are quite a few inactive players whose status is up in the air. Within the last year, Iverson and Wallace both indicated that they were still interested in playing, but nothing has materialized, and I haven't heard anything about them this offseason. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

George Hauptfuhrer
FYI a non-basketball editor is questioning the notability of George Hauptfuhrer, the third overall pick in the 1948 BAA Draft, over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. I thought this project would be interested. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Miamiheat631 not a fan of sources
This user has taken to adding unsourced uniform numbers and recently I've gone back and forth with him/her on applying Memphis team colors to Josh Akognon who isn't on the team oster and from the look of things probably won't be after training camp. I am not that interested in following him around changing edits, but if someone else is interested knock yourself out. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please weigh in on proposal to migrate college players/coaches to Template:Infobox basketball biography
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Please weigh in and help achieve consensus on this matter. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles on early NBA drafts
I've noticed that there are discrepancies between our draft articles and the draft lists at basketball-reference. For example, compare our 1956 NBA draft article and their page. Does anyone know where the second round listing in the Wikipedia page comes from? I don't think that data is available in official NBA sources. The 2000 print NBA Encyclopedia says that records were incomplete for early drafts, and simply lists most of the players under the name of the teams that drafted them. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The second round (and later) listing came from thedraftreview.com website which already listed on the third general references section. It's the best I could find on the web about the later rounds of an incomplete early drafts. Feel free to remove these if you think thedraftreview is not a reliable source. — MT (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Wonder where they got their info. Some of it still doesn't match up exactly with what we have. Eg, they have several "unknowns" in the second round of their 1952 draft page. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On second glance, we do seem to skip some picks in the 1952 NBA draft article. The other discrepancies are probably due to the placement of territorial picks (though that's another issue in itself). Zagal e jo^^^ 02:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a lot of discrepancies and thedraftreview does count the territorial picks. If I remember correctly (I edit these pages more than 4 years ago), I combined the data from basketball-reference, thedraftreview and APBR. At that time, I think it's best to combine more sources to achieve the most complete draft listing. However, right now I'm not sure whether it's the right thing to do. Also, I don't think thedraftreview qualifies as reliable source. — MT (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zidek
has been requested to be renamed -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Another name change
I didn't see this one coming: Jeff Pendergraph is now Jeff Ayres. Any thoughts about moving the page? Since these moves have been controversial in the past, I thought I'd post a message here. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody just moved the page without discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That was reverted (it was a cut and paste move), but I'm OK with moving the page now. The Spurs themselves have announced it, and eventually NBA.com and other sports sites will be updating their pages. Zagal e jo^^^ 19:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead and moved it. If there are any objections, I'll move it back, but we'd have to move it eventually, anyway. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois" category - please help reach consensus
Please help reach consensus Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 22. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

When do we do the following for new players
I am not sure where we draw the line on the following niceties for articles. I have a couple of non-roster/non-guaranteed contract invitees that are starting camp. However, I have left the feature for players with guaranteed contracts. Most teams have about 13 or 14 guaranteed contracts and have about 18 people in camp for 15 roster spots. I have been removing the team name for non-roster invitees to camp. When are we suppose to do the following for each player.


 * 1) Add team roster to bio
 * 2) Add name to team roster
 * 3) Add team player category to bio
 * 4) Add team name and color to infobox

I probably have asked similar questions in prior years, but it is entirely possible that the answer may be different this year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Typically, I would do 1, 2, and 4 once the team has made any official announcement that they have signed the player. If the player doesn't make the final roster, we can modify things later. We generally don't add the category at all until the player has played in a regular season game for that team. Zagal e jo^^^ 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sign is a loose term. Almost every NBA team has 18 people signed to be in training camp. However, only 13 or 14 of those have guaranteed contracts. E.g., both Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims appear to be fighting 4-way battles for the only non-guaranteed spot on the roster. Should they both have the team added to the infobox and the name added to the roster template?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the way we've done it in the past. If the team itself lists them among their players, then let's consider them members of that team, at least for the time being. Zagal e jo^^^ 08:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I want to run around updating all the roster templates for the 18-man training camp rosters. I think we will find a lot of redlinked guys who end up being 16 through 18. I think I have about 8 guys in camps and unless they are returning or were drafted this year they will not have team roster templates by me. I'll wait until we get down to 15. If I get involved in the 18-man rosters, I will feel compelled to create articles. I have only looked closely at one 18-man roster and already see an article that I feel I might want to take responsibility for, but not unless he makes the 15-man roster.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Francisco García's birthdate
I've realized that different sources say different things for Francisco García's date of birth. NBA.com, ESPN, and some others say 1980, but Louisville, Yahoo, and some others say 1981. Any thoughts? Zagal e jo^^^ 08:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Detail deletion
I consider myself to be the primary editor of at least 12 players who are in NBA training camps right now. Only 3 of those are projected to be starters on opening day if their teams are healthy. It is likely that half of these 12 will be spending time in the NBA D-league if they even make the rosters. Thus, callups and assignments are a type of detail I have and expect to expend energy on. Likewise this preseason, I have spent energy finding details about the activities of the players that I do. Since I have a lot of NBA players to keep track of plus a dozen or so high school and college players and a handful of expats, I welcome the assistance of other editors in keeping the pages current. However, I am noticing a consistent pattern of detail removal by and. I am wondering if this is desired. Edits like these and this remove a lot of sourced content in favor of a very basic statement. Is that what we want?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony - I think what this comes down to is that editing (especially deciding what to include vs. not in prose) is a judgement call at the end of the day. When I look at the specific edits you linked, I can see why some information was removed in each.  For example, in the Darius Morris example, here is what Zagalejo removed (minus refs): "On September 12, 2013, Morris was said to be finalizing a deal to play for the Philadelphia 76ers.  As the September 28 training camp date approached, Morris was expected to battle with Tony Wroten for the backup point guard position behind Michael Carter-Williams."  He changed this to: "On September 27, 2013, Morris was named to the Philadelphia 76ers' training camp roster."  In that case, once a person has signed (or not), there really isn't need to keep the speculation that he might sign.  And what if he hadn't signed with the Sixers?  Then you'd have a short paragraph speculating about something that really is irrelevant - players go through many forms of contract exploration in their careers and it isn't all notable.  I do think there is such a thing as too much detail - in my opinion this makes it difficult for readers to get the really important stuff - who is this person, where did he play, was he involved in any interesting situations his public life, etc.  I do think you should reframe the way that you view articles that you have created, though.  You aren't the "primary editor" for them, you are a guy who created the articles.  Once created, you have essentially released them to the wild - they aren't owned by anyone.  I watch the pages of articles I create mainly so I can catch vandalism or errors, but I have no pretense that the articles are mine or that I have any undue authority over what goes in or not once it's in the mainspace. Just my two cents. Rikster2 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the "releasing it to the wild concept". However, is "Morris was expected to battle with Tony Wroten for the backup point guard position behind Michael Carter-Williams" really irrelevant? I was about to add something about how Manny Harris will likely need to beat either E'Twaun Moore or Doron Lamb out to make the team, but if the Wroten/Morris stuff is irrelevant so is the information about Harris. I don't understand why this type of content is irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see your point - why don't you just re-add that statement and the ref that goes with it? Again, it's a judgment call.  Knowing DaHuzyBru's and Zagalejo's edit histories I seriously doubt there was any malice intended. Rikster2 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored some content to Darius Morris and DeShawn Sims. I also expanded Manny Harris in a similar manner. However, in doing so, I realized the experts have ranging opinions on even the depth charts. In any case, a lot of my guys have work to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be easier to wait until the preseason ends before going into such detail about these players. The phrase you mention above ("Morris was expected to battle with Tony Wroten for the backup point guard position behind Michael Carter-Williams") will have to be rewritten at some point. Either he does battle for a position against those players, or he doesn't. 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome, does the fact that Morris and Wroten battled for the spot ever become obsolete?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's always a chance that someone ends up playing a different position. The sentence as written merely documents an expectation. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)