Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 27

Nationality in infobox
Steve Nash is a dual citizen. You are invited to help form a consensus on how his nationality should be presented in the bio's infobox. Please comment at Talk:Steve_Nash. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:NBA game not working all the time
Hi all, I came across this: the Template:NBA game seems to be broken on some of the older games. For example, I was on the 2005–06_Toronto_Raptors_season page and none of the box scores worked. Illustrated example:


 * - bgcolor="ffcccc"
 * 1
 * November 2
 * Washington
 * Jalen Rose (20)
 * Chris Bosh (14)
 * Mike James (7)
 * Air Canada Centre 18,106
 * 0–1
 * 0–1

I tried some random teams in the 05-06 year and they had the same problem, (2005–06_Cleveland_Cavaliers_season gets around this by having direct links to box scores). Also, the older seasons seem to be marred by the same issue of broken links via the template. chsh (talk) 20150123154102 15:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKROT is always an issue with any site, but this isnt the first time this has happened on NBA.com. Frankly, I think it's wasted effort to link each individual boxscore when a simple link to say http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2015.html in the "External links" section would allow navigation to the box scores. If there are no objections, maybe we just deprecate that code.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the use of the sports-reference databases instead. There's more information there anyway, and some of the pages uses that instead of NBA already. chsh (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing box scores links from game logs
I dug around some more. It appears Template:NBA game was created in June 2008. Most likely the url format prior to 2008–09 season was different, so "NBA game" perhaps was never intended to work for linking box scores from earlier seasons. I don't mind removing the box score links altogether per Citing sources. A similar box score discussion was atTalk:2014–15 Drexel Dragons men's basketball team. I'll wait for others' input.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Country of teams in infobox
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball. Should a team's country be listed in a player's infobox? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bob Whitsitt
Whilst reviewing Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, I found the Bob Whitsitt article. As I googled him and read the article, I quickly realized that he is a controversial figure, so referencing one or facts in the article isn't really sufficient. Could someone who's more familiar with his career take a look at it, as we need all articles, and especially all BLPs to be referenced. (this message has been cross posted to WT:NFL too) Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Highlights in infobox
The idea was floated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball to paring down the highlights listed in bio infoboxes, or removing them altogether. I also noticed another editor removing honors like 2nd team All-NBA and All-Defense.. Most articles currently reflect what is at WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines. If anything, users have tried to add more things to bios beyond that list, not remove them. For example, a lot of articles have the lesser All-Star events in bios, e.g. Skills Challenge champion, Rising Stars MVP, etc. In my mind, an effective infobox summarizes key facts, either as a preview before reading part or all of the article, or in lieu of reading the article at all. That said, accomplished players can have a long list of accomplishments, and common sense doesn't always prevail, with some of them cluttered to satisfy demands for consistency. There are also editors who do not follow consensus, and are sometimes a challenge to communicate with. What improvements do people want to see?—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is certainly no doubt that all levels of All-NBA or NBA All-Defensive teams should be listed. Not sure yet on what to do with the All-Star Weekend festivities. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All-Star selection and All-Star MVP - fine. Slam dunk/3-point shootout/Rising Stars - overkill.  Vjmlhds (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For NBA, yes to MVP, ROY, 6th Man, DPOY. Yes to All-League (any team), All-Rookie (first team), All Defensive (first team), All-Star.  Yes to championships and Finals MVP.  No to All-Star skills, rising star selection, Kennedy Citizenship Award.  No to records and statistical leader status of any kind (this would be a change).  For college, Yes to major NPOY, DPOY, Freshman of Year, Consensus All-American, Named to a major All-American team (one of the ones that drives consensus, but not HM), Conference POY.  Yes to national championships (not NIT) and NCAA Final Four MOP. Personally, I think first team All-Conference is also worthy, but understand cutting for space.  No to conference DPOY, ROY, All-Academic, etc.  No to records and statistical leader status of any kind.  Yes to retired number for NBA and college.  My 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rikster, but there should be leniency with regards to players who perhaps don't have many actual awards over their careers i.e. Brady Heslip didn't garner any individual awards as a collegiate so to add "NIT champion" shouldn't be a big deal, until he actually earns an award maybe, then remove it. I do agree with not adding records and statistical leader status', like with Heslip's "NBA D-League single game three-point field goals record (13)", but I won't be removing it for now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently, the general practice is to only limit college highlights when there are 5+ pro highlights. Otherwise, WP:CHOOPS can determine guidance on notable college highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Five is not many highlights. College highlights are important in addition to NBA highlights.  We need to determine what college highlights are relevant for ALL players, regardless of how they have performed in the NBA.  This is not just an NBA conversation. Rikster2 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think we are cutting out any of the major ones you mentioned just because they reached 5+ awards. It's not very exclusive right now; can you point out what in college highlight section you disagree with.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to why the second team All-Defense would be excluded? This is still a distinction. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My take is that second team All-Defensive in the NBA is not better than All-American or even first-team all-conference in college. If we're picking spots to differentiate and reduce, I'd be happy to cut off there. Rikster2 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Same point as above, I don't think anyone has advocated removing All-American. Can you point to where  WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines might need clarification?  All-conference was never formally added, though de facto they are in most articles.  Perhaps all-conference should be subject to the 5+ pro highlights cutting block. It's especially overkill if they were NPOY, or consensus 1st team AA.—Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with All-Defensive Second Team? I think being voted as the 6th-10th best defensive players of the season warrant an inclusion in the infobox. Moreover, the media often mentions All-Defensive Team streak without considering First or Second Team honors. However, I agree on removing records and statistical leader status of any kind. — MT (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with that for players with limited professional highlights special consideration should be made. I do a lot of players who are not Kobe Bryant or LeBron James. Manny Harris, Nik Stauskas and Tim Hardaway, Jr.. We should not be eliminating highlights as a rule for players who have lower highlights.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thirded. DaHuzyBru's and TonytheTiger's take makes pretty natural sense. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is fine, but we should still define what that threshold for less decorated players should be. It shouldn't be the wild west for a guy who wasn't Shaq.  Some things should NEVER be in the infobox and we need to spell that out if we are going to have varying levels of highlights.  What would those of you advocating this position (which in principle I can absolutely buy into) suggest should be on this next level? Rikster2 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

scoutbasketball.com
You are invited to join the discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_20 regarding this website.—Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of season schedule tables
WP:NBA members, please review these discussion threads: and. The changes proposed would affect the way we currently format all single-season NFL articles, and ultimately single-season articles for NBA and other major sports teams, too. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is invited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nickname field in the player infobox
An editor recently tried to add David Robinson's nickname to the infobox, and it made me consider whether this might actually be a good idea to include in infoboxes? Player nicknames are found in all editions of the Official NBA Encyclopedia, for instance. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. It's already in the article and usually in the lead in almost all cases.  In the past, WP:HOOPs has discussed it and felt it was at best a "nice to have" and at worst non-encyclopedic. Rikster2 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be in the article, but doesn't need to be in the infobox. Having a dedicated field will just invite people to easily fill it in with minor and/or unsourced ones.  Look at the highlights in the infobox for an example.  Requiring it to be put in prose acts as a deterrent to cruft.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We used to have it in ice hockey and had to remove it because it got ridiculous. People would start adding anything that a player was ever called. Like when a player would call another player their name but then add a y on the end of it. It got to the point where we figured if the name was truly notable it could be included in the prose in the lead with a reference. So I wouldn't support adding it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the grand scheme of things, "nickname" is a low-priority infobox parameter. In addition to editing basketball articles, I also edit a lot of Olympic swimmer articles.  Infobox swimmer is relatively short -- usually only about 3 to 4 inches when fully completed -- so including a "nickname" field is easily done.  Even in a relatively low-key sport like swimming, the nickname parameter tends to attract a lot of cruft (and worse).  I have come to believe that nicknames, if they are truly notable/noteworthy, are best dealt with in the lead.  Furthermore, if they are not well-sourced in mainstream publications, then they should be omitted all together.  Frankly, before any more parameters are added to Infobox basketball biography, we should be considering the elimination of redundant parameters like "career tenure" and finding other ways to reduce the length of an infobox that has become ridiculously long already.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "usually only about 3 to 4 inches when fully completed" That's what she said. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Everyone is a comedian, JW.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would definitely agree with shortening the box. I am of the opinion many sports infoboxes and infoboxes in general have gotten way too long and crowded obscuring the truly main points of the article. Personally I think the highlights section of the infobox should just be a section in the article. It essentially is a replication in its entirety of sections already in the page. I understand listing say hall of fame in the infobox, but not every single award. But I recognize I am probably in the minority with that thought. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree on all points, although I expect there would be significant resistance to removing the "highlights" section among WP:NBA and WP:NFL editors at large. In particular, the highlights section of Infobox NFL player has become a cruft magnet for every minor Pepsico Rookie Punter of the Week accolade, and we need to have a serious discussion about how we deal with that.  Infobox basketball biography suffers from similar problems.  My personal rule of thumb: if it's not important enough to be mentioned and footnoted in the main body text, it certainly is not important enough to be mentioned in the infobox.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Baseball had a big long many hundreds of kb discussion on theirs, and they specifically decided on exactly what awards could be listed. Like I say, I personally say leave them out completely like hockey does, but I could see what baseball does as a middle ground. Because more often than not the list of awards in the infobox is the exact same list that is listed in the Awards/Honours section so its overkill.-DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is essentially what basketball does too - have a list of highlights included. But it needs to be further defined (scroll up on this page for the latest dicussion).  Eliminating the highlights section altogether (except medal and HOF flags) is an idea I maybe could warm too.  But I think most people like having something there. Rikster2 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Highlights serve to summarize key achievements of a person's career at a glance; many readers might not want to read the whole article, or even the lead (and let's face it, a comprehensive lead is the last thing written in a decent article). The problem is a lot of editors (esp.  drive-bys) want to be consistent in which specific awards are listed, and will add in "missing" ones that may be minor for a more accomplished person.—Bagumba (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that when you list every award you stop being a highlight. You shouldn't have a comprehensive list in your infobox of anything. I often literally see the exact same content in an "Awards" section of a page and the infobox. The infobox shouldn't be replicating anything in its entirety. As I mentioned above I can see adding the most important honours a player can have. ie HOF, or even championships. But once you start adding every major award like various MVPs etc. then you stop being a highlight of a section of the article and you start being the section of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DJ, based on my past conversations with Bagumba, I don't think he disagrees with you, but is merely stating factually how and why the "highlights" cruft grows in sports bio infoboxes. Is that correct, Bags?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it generally should not be comprehensive. Ideally, it could be comprehensive for less accomplished athletes as long as it is not overwhelming for the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the length of the infobox, but other than that, point taken. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IBX encourages keeping infobxes as small as possible. "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Too often fields are added in an infobox to compensate for laziness in finding the proper location in prose.—Bagumba (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tenures of players who miss an entire season
Was looking at Damien Inglis as he is ruled out for the season and thinking about the proper timing to change his career start and Bucks tenure to 2015. So I looked at Blake Griffin to check out the precedence and saw that he is listed as having a career that started in 2009 and a Clips tenure that started in 2009. I understand that use the contract date for start dates, but these cases make me want to ask we revisit this policy. When you miss a whole season, that is pretty extreme. Blake Griffin's career started in 2010. Nerlens Noel's started in 2014. Contracts mean something, but not everything. After all, we don't even list Andrew Bynum's tenure with the 76ers because he was injured all year. What do others say? Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be consistent to reflect the games actually played, not when they are under contract. Then we would be handling career tenures generally the same as we already do we with team tenures. And the team tenures should be handled the same, regardless if it is in the middle of a career or beginning. I assume we would do the same for the end of a career e.g. Steve Nash with LAL if he retires after this year. If we do choose to treat this as contract tenures instead, we should expand players' team categories to reflect that as well; don't know if anyone is going to invest the time in that, plus it's a pain to verify. Should clarify at Template:Infobox basketball biography once this is decided.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with games played as the standard. This also makes creating consistent articles for historical players easier as often you can't find a record of when they signed, only when they appeared in a game (for minor-league or European appearances for example).  I know that User:DaHuzyBru was passionate about using contract dates last time we talked about this. No way we should have team categories rest on contract vs. actually playing.  That is not the standard used by the NBA to denote an "NBA player" Rikster2 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retirements are another good example. Ray Allen supposedly will decide if he will retire after the All-Star game.  He hasn't played since last year and isn't under contract.  He should have a career end of 2014 not 2015 in that scenario, regardless of when he gets around to actually announcing. Rikster2 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi-radical idea of is to just remove the career field as redundant to the itemized team listing.  However, I know I've started some bios where they played mostly overseas and a source mentions they ended playing in XXXX year, but the exact team tenures haven't been identified.  So it's also useful as kind of a placeholder for bio in development.—Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The last time we talked about this was when dealing with Andrew Bynum's 76ers tenure and I totally agree with not listing that as he didn't appear for them. But for Blake Griffin, I am with the idea that it should be "2009–present Los Angeles Clippers" because even though he didn't play for them in 2009–10, he eventually debuted for them. If we were to make Griffin "2010–present", then a 2015 rookie (for example) who perhaps doesn't make their debit until January would have to be "2016–present". I argued this case with Seth Curry and his Griz tenure. Even though he didn't play for them within the six remaining days of December 2013, his tenure is still "2013–2014" because he did make his debut for the team during his brief tenure before being waived. As long as the player makes their debut at some point during the tenure, the "full" tenure should stick. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, lets say Damien Inglis doesn't play until October 28, 2016 (if he missed two seasons with injury), and was waived the following day after just one game over two and a bit seasons with the team, it should still be – instead of just . But lets say he was waived in October 2016 before playing for them, then yes, nothing should go in the infobox just like Bynum. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DaHuzyBru - But why does contract not matter at all if a player doesn't ever get into a game but it means everything if they clock in for 30 seconds? Blake Griffin was eligible to be (and won) the 2011 NBA Rookie of the Year.  Why?  Because his first year playing professional basketball was the 2010-11 season.  He was drafted in 2009 and started playing in 2010.  It is these full-year misses (and Joel Embiid promises to be another) that shine a light on why we should go with games not contract terms.  If we are interested in a consistent standard that is. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they played for them?? A team category is added when a player makes their first appearance, not when they sign a contract, so the same kinda goes for the team as it is officially stamped into the infobox once they debut – so to speak. Imagine the confusion for general people with your proposal. Lets say Embiid doesn't make his 76ers debut until January 2016, are you proposing we put "2016–present"? Years down the track, people will think that's odd. I like the current format and I think it's pretty consistent. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So why are we using a different standard to determine dates? Why not one standard?  One concern is people look at the team tenures to get a sense for what teams a person played for.  Blake Griffin didn't play for the 2009-10 Clippers.  It is the same rationale used to determine college playing years. Rikster2 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @DaHuzyBru: Would you propose the same for the end of a tenure e.g. Nash will have –2015 for his Lakers tenure if he retires.—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another one. David Robinson was drafted by the Spurs in 1987 with the knowledge he'd serve 2 years in the US Navy before playing for them.  According to this the Spurs signed him on November 6, 1987.  Did his Spurs and professional career start in 1987 or 1989?  I would submit that most knowledgeable fans would say 1989 (which is what the article shows today).  How is this different than Nerlens Noel signing with the Sixers after being drafted in 2013 but debuting in 2014? Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe there can be exceptions like with Robinson, I just feel like infoboxes could become really patchy and year spans missing all over the place because they didn't play at a certain time. Regarding Nash, yes, of course. If he retires following this season, we aren't going to put "–2014" just because his final game came on April 8, 2014 are we? What if his final game came on December 31, 2014, would we put "–2014"? For someone like Ray Allen, if he retires following this season having not signed with a team, I'm definitely in for putting 2014. That's how it's always been, Darko Miličić as an example, as the "Pro career" line shouldn't have "2001–2013" when his final team year came in 2012. Nash is still with the Lakers, he is still a Laker now. His Lakers tenure will end in 2015 if he retires this year. I'm surely not the lone wolf here who is still with the current style. There were many who voted this style, right now there's just not enough people contributing to this. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See, why would Robinson be an exception while Griffin, Noel and Nash aren't? Seems like if Nash's career effectively ended in the 2013-14 season then the infobox should reflect it, regardless of when he actually announces it.  And does a player's career not start when they take the floor?  Noel had no pro career before this season - he just had a paycheck.  When we were talking about Seth Curry and it was the difference of a week within the same season that was one thing, now that I see these extreme cases I change my mind from the earlier discussion about how to handle this.  You can certainly go find the old discussion and invite anyone back who hasn't chimed in this time. Rikster2 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the pro career line for Griffin and Noel could be "2010–present" and "2014–present" respectively, but for the career history, it should be to do with the amount of time a player was with a team as long as they debut (not ideal for them to be different, I know). If we put "2014–present Philadelphia 76ers" for Noel, it's incorrect and confusing – general readers will change this stuff for sure. He's been with them since 2013 and has since made his debut, so there should be no problem – it sticks in the infobox and a cat is added. The same should/would have gone for Bynum if he had stayed with the 76ers and debuted for them in 2013–14 i.e. it could have been "2012–present Philadelphia 76ers". All this debate and questioning is because of bloody Bynum... eh. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, Rikster - do you think Joel Embiid should have "2014–present Philadelphia 76ers" right now, or should there be nothing under career history until he debuts? Inglis too, because that's what you are essentially proposing. Should we remove it as if they aren't with the team? If so, that would mean we don't add teams under infobox career history until they debut, which in my opinion is stupid and goes against the way it's been done for ages on Wikipedia. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am suggesting. We give exceptions for signed active players anyway.  A rookie is drafted in June, a free agent signed in August – we currently update the colors and club history and give benefit of the doubt that the person's career will follow the path the majority of cases do and debut around the time the season starts.  We still should do that.  In Embiid's case we could certainly leave it at a "2014" start date until he actually debuts then change it when he actually debuts (we won't know when he will start anyway) at the same time we add the player category - in truth you and I probably update 80% of the NBA debuts.  Or, we could decide that in cases of delayed debuts and retirements we use the relevant year for the start/finish of the season in which they debuted/retired (so "2014" for Embiid regardless of whether he first plays in November or March or if Nash played any game this year and retired we'd use 2015 for career end).  It's really not that many cases, we could call them out specifically as exceptions. Rikster2 (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm all up for a truce. We are a tight nit community here and shouldn't be bickering amongst each other – this is it when it comes to users who consistently edit NBA-related articles with general updates and maintenance. And yes, I'm aware these cases don't come up very often so specific exceptions should work. I reckon we circle back to this for a final verdict on Nash when/if he retires at the end of this season. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "general readers will change this stuff for sure": Whether we use contract date or first played date, you know there will be drive-by editors that will change it to the other method. Therefore, neither choice is better from that specific perspective. As long as it's documented for reference and regular editors are consistent (whether or not it's their first preference), that's about as good as we can expect.  Unless there's more arguments, I personally would just flip a coin.  Both are imperfect.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How do reliable sources deal with such cases? – H T  D  18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any stat listings explicity list a career span. basketball-reference.com lists "Experience", which is the number of years played. Their entry for Andrew Bynum does not count the year he did not play with 76ers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I was going to suggest to follow what reliable sources say but it could get tricky if there are different ways of handling this type of situation. – H T  D  20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So ... where did we land here? Did we land? Rikster2 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You and DaHuzyBru should come up with an agreement. I can help break a tie for the sake breaking one, but I'm not gonna care too much to go around enforcing it myself, unless there is a dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that no matter the outcome here, appropriate changes will inevitably be reverted, rather negating an outcome here. - Bossanoven (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These players still receive a salary in these situations, yes? I guess technically it is part of their career, then, and should be reflected as such on their pages.  I don't know about the categories, however, that would make a mess. - Bossanoven (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is. I don't think it's right, but I'm not that worried about it. We are putting too much emphasis on contract. That isn't something that is particularly verifiable if you go back more than 20 years. Rikster2 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rip Hamilton officially retired today after not playing since the 2012–13 season – what should his Infobox read as a career end date? I vote 2013 because that's the season when his career actually ended (announcement notwithstanding). Rikster2 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Last year he played, 2013. This isn't one of those weird cases where he's under contract and didn't play.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I had already put it back to 2013. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

List of transactions in bios
Do people find lists like Kendrick_Perkins necessary, where all the player's signings are listed? I'm ok if an article is relatively bare, and it starts off in list format. However, is it still needed in list form once there is adequate prose with the same info? That type of list is already at the basketball-reference.com page that is usually in the EL section already.—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think their necessary and I know Dahntay Jones recently had a similar list removed. There aren't too many NBA player articles with these though as Perkins and Al Harrington are ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm all up for voting against them. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Should be covered appropriately in the prose in narrative form.  Every transaction isn't necessarily noteworthy. Rikster2 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. They should be covered in prose, without these list sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I always thought it was pointless. –DangerousJXD (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Analytics list notable?
I dont follow analytics in basketball much, so I'll see if anyone thinks List of National Basketball Association top individual game scores meets WP:LISTN. Or should it just be converted to a general article on "game score"? No idea if that is notable either.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see many references to it on the Internet. Perhaps enough to warrant an entry at APBRmetrics but maybe not a dedicated article. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * and the rest: AfD opened at Articles for deletion/List of National Basketball Association top individual game scores.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft Templates
Hello, I was wondering if for the templates for different NBA drafts, that appear on the bottom of players' pages, anyone would consider adding a "Notable undrafted players" section like the ones that are found on the respective draft's page. We could add these updates templates to undrafted players that do not have them also. I think it would add some good information to different undrafted players' pages. What are your thoughts? Miamiheat631 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think it should be made bigger. There's already a link to the draft article for those that want more info.  Frankly, I don't even think yearly draft navboxes are needed. —Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. Thanks for the feedback. Miamiheat631 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Frankly, I don't even think yearly draft navboxes are needed." Blasphemy it may be, but it's blasphemy with which I agree.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't let TonyTheTiger hear you guys talking like that! :) Jweiss11 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blasphemer! Heretic!  Witch!  Burn them!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Does football not have team-specific first-round draft pick templates, year-specific team-specific draft pick templates and starting quarterback templates for every pro and college team? Not sure there's any place to talk. But I also vote NOT to add notable undrafted players. These are rightly on the draft articles but don't need to be on the draft templates. Rikster2 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, Rik, the biggest offender when it comes to bottom-of-the-page navbox cruft is undoubtedly WP:NFL. Anytime you want to charge the machine gun nests and propose the universal deletion of NFL Draft navboxes, I'll be happy to throw my body across the barbed wire so you can lead the assault.  With regard to the draft navboxes, rarely has more effort been spent on a less worthwhile endeavor.  And, yes, I hate those fucking starting quarterback navboxes, too.
 * In the mean time, I'll settle for not adding "notable" undrafted players to the NBA Draft boxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am wholly dispassionate about draft navboxes but I'm pretty over other sports projects trying to make basketball more like theirs. If that's not what's happening here then I apologize.  Every project seems to want us to follow their lead yet are unwilling to give up any of their quirks (and we all have 'em). Rikster2 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rik, while I'm sure you have good cause to bitch, I had/have no intention of singling out WP:NBA. When it comes to navbox cruft, I'm well aware of who the biggest offender is (see my comment above).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing keeping these from being nominated (if not deleted) is dreading the bureaucracy of tagging a mass TfD. Though I guess TTObot can help. See who gets peaved/bored enough to finally go through with it :-)—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Request
Hey, can somebody fix this stat chart at Clyde Drexler to make it look like every other NBA players stats box thing? It looks weird. I would but it seems like it'll take a while. I left this at the article's talk page as well. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone? It needs fixing. If anyone ever does respond here, or fixes the stat box, let me know. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked at it again and it's even more of a mess than I thought. :o –DangerousJXD (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone likes making those tables from scratch. :) You could try to make the table yourself by looking at how things are formatted in another article. Experiment with things at User:DangerousJXD/Sandbox. Zagal e jo^^^ 15:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I guess I'll ATTEMPT it myself. Here we go. –DangerousJXD (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Failure. Started perfect and I know how to do it but it will take all decade! Oh well. –DangerousJXD (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any factual errors in the stat table? Or is it just an issue with the presentation? Zagal e jo^^^ 04:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no, the stats are correct. There are things like 2.76 which aren't necessary. But the main reason I'd like it changed to match every other NBA players stat box is just that. Just look at it. It is ugly. It isn't destroying Wikipedia though so it isn't a big deal. It would be very lovely to have it "fixed" though. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * David Robinson needs a stat sheet. He doesn't even have one. This is more of an issue than Drexler's. I won't (even though I might one day) do it because of the same reason above. –DangerousJXD (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing says there has to be a stats section, nor does Robinson's article need a stats section. All a person has to do is type in david robinson stats in google and plenty of sources come up. Besides, Robinson's article is loaded already with tables and other stats like records and career highs – his article is pretty jam packed already. I say it's not necessary; it would also take quite a bit of time considering his lengthly career. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Umm...
What's up with this page? --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone laid out a skeleton and assumed someone else would fill in the details. I'm sure it's not the only page like that. Unfortunately, things don't just "get done" on Wikipedia; someone needs to be willing to do the work.
 * (These articles have bothered me for a while. No one is watching them, and the little content that is there often contains errors. I remember there used to be a lunatic IP editor who kept adding incorrect names to the rosters.) Zagal e jo^^^ 20:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias towards recentism not unique to NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Central Texas Sports, etc.
Template:Central Texas Sports and several similar navbox templates have been nominated for deletion. Given that the subjects of these navboxes are within the scope of WikiProject NBA, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Underbelly 50 using Category:African-American basketball players
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball on 's use of Category:African-American basketball players as a category for dark-skinned players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me ...
or are more vandals esp. new accts using deceptive edit summaries these days? Was wondering if a checkuser is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this too. "Corrected info," etc Rikster2 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that. The generic "Typo" or "Added content" seems to used a lot, and always with caps which usually means via mobile. Those type of edit summaries are usually indicators that they are not correcting a typo or adding genuine new content. Ehhh.. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I've made a checkuser request at Sockpuppet investigations/Greg Jacques.—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and accessibility
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility that is related to Template:Infobox basketball biography having data inside a header, such as the current placement of the player's number and team.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join a discussion about adding a list of eligible seniors to 2015 NBA draft
Please go to Talk:2015 NBA draft to take part. The change suggested would impact the structure of future (and presumably past) draft articles, so it would be useful to gain consensus on this issue. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Current team in Infobox basketball biography
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball regarding the basketball person's current team at the top of Template:Infobox basketball biography.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Current team in Infobox basketball biography
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball regarding the basketball person's current team at the top of Template:Infobox basketball biography.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

TfD notice for Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship
With NBA players being on the national team, Template:United_States_Squad_2002_FIBA_World_Championship appears on articles in this project's scope. Please join the discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_24.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The TfD has been relisted at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_3. Regardless of your position, it would be good to get more participation to close this one way or another. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

ESPN's Associated Press recap reformatting
This month, ESPN has reformatted its website. In the overhaul, the Associated Press recaps for basketball games have been reformatted. The recaps formerly had a sidebar of Stats Inc trivia items. Have those been erased or moved somewhere else. I have cited the stats items in many wikipedia articles and am worried if I now have a bunch of uncited cruft in my articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider premptive archiving.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help
could use some help over at New York Knicks all-time roster. I've designed the formatting tables etc. so opinions on whether it is suitable or not would be greatly appreciated. I'm on the slightly tedious task of filling in all the player info at the moment, about halfway through section B in 2 days. Quite time draining so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! RatRat (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion here, you might want to look at Charlotte Hornets all-time roster (a featured list) or Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster (a former featured list candidate). I also created the format used in Miami Heat all-time roster and Dallas Mavericks all-time roster and statistics leaders. My opinion about the all-time roster list are:
 * I suggest leaving out the statistics (games, points, rebounds, assists) as it would be easily outdated if not regularly maintained. Also there are plenty of non-regular editors who will only update their favorite players, leaving the article inaccurate.
 * According to MOS:FLAG, we should accompany flags with country names.
 * I don't think school/college or club team (for foreign players) is relevant in an all-time roster list.
 * You can find it in the Heat or the Mavericks list that I've swapped the statistics with just "Years played" and added achievements column to highlight the players that make significant impact to the franchise. I also removed the nationality column, which would consists mostly of US flags, and I added a separate International players section. In exchange for the statistics column, I also added the top 10 statistics leaders of the franchise. Well this is just my personal preference for maintaining these all-time roster lists. You are welcome to introduce your own style. Cheers. — MT (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point on the stats thing. Though most of the players on the all time roster are past players and therefore there stats won't really change, so I would think that would be OK to include stats. Plus its interesting to see what contributions certain players made to the team. Might emit the school/college section though. I was only really following through example of the template that was there before. Thanks for the message! RatRat (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Colored box on division infobox
Do we really need the colored box in the Division article infobox (see Southwest Division)? It added nothing to the article, not to mention that they're not the colors used in Template:NBA color. —MT (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right colors or not, the format looks tacky and gratuitous.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've invited the editor who restored the colors to this dicussion. — MT (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who restored the colors to the infoboxes of all NBA divisions. I did so, because the other four major professional sports leagues have color legends in the infoboxes in their respective division articles (such as AFC East or American League East). The reason why I did it is for consistency. Also, I can verify that the color legends in the infobox for Southwest Division (NBA) are accurate, per NBA Media Central (http://www.mediacentral.nba.com). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, why do you feel the member teams colors are important enough to be in the division's infobox?—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I felt the member teams' color legends were necessary to the infoboxes in each NBA division's article, because sometimes a fan recognizes which team is which based on that team's color information. I felt it important to distinguish the teams solely based on their colors. For example, the New York Knicks and Philadelphia 76ers both have light blue as a color; however, to distinguish the Knicks and 76ers (based on their colors), it's important to have the right HTML color codes (even if the differences in color are subtle). Also, it's important to have the color legends in the infoboxes, because in the case of the Southeast Division, both the Atlanta Hawks and Washington Wizards use red and navy colors. However, the Hawks list Red as their first color (http://courtside.nba.com/QuickPlace/nbalogo/Main.nsf/$defaultview/78FD994AC08E4244852573780069B342/$File/Atlanta_Hawks_logosheet.pdf?OpenElement), while the Wizards list Navy as their first color (http://courtside.nba.com/QuickPlace/nbalogo/Main.nsf/$defaultview/8E51DECC903132E085257378006EC829/$File/Washington_Wizards_Logosheet.pdf?OpenElement). In my opinion, that's a noticeable difference. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that team colors are important but I feel that placing them in the Division article is irrelevant. A reader can just open each team's individual article to look at their colors. Anyway, great job on using the correct colors from the official NBA release. Perhaps if you have time you might want to have a look at Module:Basketball color/data and check the colors used for Template:NBA color. The Template:NBA color is the color code that are used in the player infoboxes. — MT (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Colored boxes could (not should) be used if they are being used predominantly elsewhere. I don't think I've seen these colored boxes elsewhere (same for other Big 4 sports)... – H T  D  10:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation guideline for Tony Parker
There is Tony Parker, the French player in the NBA, as well as Tony Parker (college basketball), the American player currently in college which used to be at Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tony Parker (college basketball) to discuss the conventions for disambiguating basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Standings templates
There is a discussion at Module talk:Sports table that aims to unify standings tables for all leagues and sports. An NBA-specific template (that could ultimately be used by leagues such as MLB & NFL) is in development. Unlike other templates that do colored shades, the template would only denote playoff qualification via the usually letters z-, y- and x-. Please join the discussion specifically under #PCT mode to help in the development. – H T  D  09:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Skillz
Hello! I saw here that Oscar Robertson, Billy Cunningham and Bob Pettit needed pictures. Well I added some great ones! Should those now be removed as a task? Thanks. Ping me. -DangerousJXD (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any reasons for it to remain. Any editor that thinks something can be improved can just be bold and do it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think Petit, Robertson and Cunningham should not be listed saying they need pictures because they don't. I tried to change it but I don't see how. Hassan Whiteside, Wesley Matthews and Jimmy Butler are players that need pictures. DangerousJXD (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * James Worthy needs pictures too. –DangerousJXD (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this hasn't been archived yet, Bernard King too. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why...
...nobody really works on articles of NBA players from back in the day? —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of different reasons. Recentism is a problem throughout Wikipedia. A lot of editors are probably too young to even remember Karl Malone, let alone someone like Joe Fulks. Even if editors have interest in the older players, they may not have the research skills to get the sources they need. For guys who played before the internet era, it's helpful to have access to books and old newspaper articles. Zagal e jo^^^ 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspected recentism. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created dozens of stub articles (w/complete infoboxes though) on historical NBA, ABA, and NBL players. I don't expand them very much, but I do enjoy getting the basic notable historical players on Wikipedia. I agree with Zagalejo, I think there's a lot of recentism on here, and I go out of my way to get the old timers. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would just like to state that a lot of issues with these articles are the kind of issue someone without knowledge on the subject can fix. Things like changing "1998-99" to "1998–99" or "1979 NBA Draft" to "1979 NBA draft". Other basic copy editing and layout fixing is also common. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The historical players are overlooked and sort of left out to pasture. Every once in a blue moon I'll decide to add an infobox and do cleanup work on a stub article that someone else created, but has since been ignored. I encourage everyone else to do the same; it doesn't take long and it makes even stub articles look so much better. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some projects do stub contests to see how many they can expand. Many NBA player stubs were hastily created when WP was just getting started, but no one went back to the non-stars like Dave Hoppen or Duane Causwell to expand them.  At that point there were so many notable basketball figures without articles (still are) that this became the focus.  And players become newly notable every season, so there is always a constant stream of new articles to be created. Rikster2 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Question re flag icons
(and anyone else who wants to field this question) Why are we using national flag icons for the NBA draft eligibility lists, as well as some current NBA team rosters? The overwhelming majority of these NBA players, American college and foreign players have never been a member of their respective national teams in international tournaments, and do not represent their home country in any meaningful way. We intentionally exclude flag icons from player infoboxes, but then we splash them all over some draft and team pages -- aren't we being a tad inconsistent in our use of flag icons? I have been a strong proponent for the proper use of flag icons in international sports like golf, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, track and field, etc. To me it seems perfectly normal for an Olympic gold medalist to have a "national team" parameter with his representative flag icon in his infobox. It also seems very odd when we start using flag icons for University of Kentucky undergradautes who have declared for the NBA draft, or a Spanish player who was never a member of his national team, or a Turkish high school kid who may be good enough to get drafted by an NBA team? Obviously, any element of meaningful representation is absent here, so can someone explain the logic of the growing use of flag icons in NBA-related articles? Oh, and before someone asks, I have no problem whatsoever with including a flag icon in the embedded medals table for those players who were members of medalist national teams in the Olympics, FIBA world championships, Pan American Games, or other major international championship tournaments. Having said that, the question regarding random use of flag icons in NBA team, draft and season articles needs to be answered. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flags remain where nationality is covered by reliable sources. e.g. award winners. Past discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_19. Seems the press has followed NBA's lead on marketing the league's international players. Which current rosters still have it?  It's rarely mentioned as far as team's rosters (e.g. no quotas), so it was removed from Template:NBA roster header.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I'm not a fan of flags in NBA lists as well, but the flags were already there in several draft articles that already promoted to featured list status and I was too lazy to start another discussion to change the consensus formatting. At least, if the flags are there, we should follow MOS:FLAG which states "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon." You might want to have a look at 2014 NBA draft article where I rewrote the entrants table to follow MOS:FLAG and I also removed U.S. flags from college underclassmen list. I've been planning to do the same for the 2015 article, but I have not find the time to do that. Regarding current NBA rosters, the consensus was to remove the flag and it still hasn't changed. If you're talking about all-time rosters list, there is a lot of flags there, but on the two all-time rosters list that I have rewritten and maintained, Dallas Mavericks all-time roster and statistics leaders and Miami Heat all-time roster, I've removed all the flags from the players list and create a separate "international players" section which contains the flags and the links to foreign national basketball team played by the players. If there are ever a discussion to remove excessive use of flags in NBA articles, I would be happy to support it. Cheers! — MT (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I think you and I are already on the same page. Like you, I would be inclined to start a WP:NBA/WP:CBB talk page RfC to clarify the limited permissible uses of flag icons in college basketball and NBA-related articles.  That said, let's see if some more of the WP:NBA and WP:CBB regulars want to chime in.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

List of eligible players in draft articles
How do we handle the list of eligible players in draft articles? In the past (until the 2010 NBA draft), the list of eligible players were removed after the draft because they were not needed anymore. Since the 2011 NBA draft, the list has remained in the articles. I don't mind the list remain in the articles as long as they're properly referenced and formatted (MOS:FLAG), but the list is growing and there's a discussion to add more players, I think we should start limiting the number of entrants listed. Last year's draft article even includes a section for "Potential entrants who declined to declare for the draft" which I think should not be included in the article. I've divided eligible players to 5 categories according to the eligibility rules and another category for the potential entrants, and I would like to ask for a project-wide opinion whether they should remain in the draft articles. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * College underclassmen who declared as early entrants
 * Keep They are properly referenced and the league announced this list every year. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as these types of players are not excluded: — X96lee15 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP: Is a tertiary source tasked with summarizing secondary sources that list these names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * International players who declared as early entrants
 * Keep They are properly referenced and the league announced this list every year. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP: Is a tertiary source tasked with summarizing secondary sources that list these names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * College seniors (automatically eligible)
 * Oppose College seniors were never listed in the draft articles but has received some support from this discussion. I believe limiting the list to notable seniors or seniors who have won college awards would not be the answer and we should omit college seniors altogether. There are just too many college basketball seniors who will not be drafted or even have a professional basketball career. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A general list would not be useful. I could support a list of seniors who were at least AP honorable mention All-American.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If we leave redlink underclassmen e.g. 2011_NBA_draft, it seems strange to not allow blue link seniors who don't end up getting drafted. Or perhaps just rmv the redlink underclassmen after a few years.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just delink the underclassmen if they aren't drafted Rikster2 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 22 year old international players (automatically eligible)
 * Oppose Oppose for similar reasons with college seniors. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how to winnow this list down.
 * Other automatically eligible players
 * Oppose Although some notable players were/will be drafted through this path (Brandon Jennings, Thanasis Antetokounmpo, Emmanuel Mudiay), I believe creating a comprehensive list would be difficult (if not impossible) and just including notable players is not objective. Moreover, most of the citations don't explicitly say that the players are eligible. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but require sourcing of each case. I think this pool is only going to grow in future years as more players go NBDL or international vs. one and done in college.  This is always a small list and should be manageable.  If desired we could add a note saying it may not be complete. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess if each case is properly cited it's okay, but I'm really concerned about the references that are usually used. Consider Todd Mayo case where the reference is dated back to 2014 when he was still planning to leave college and play professionally before entering the 2015 draft. I think we need a better reference that actually shows that he's already playing professionally for a year and then became automatically eligible for the draft. Also, can we synthesize that a player is automatically eligible after playing professionally for a year if the reference doesn't explicitly say the player' eligibility? — MT (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep each individually sourced name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Potential entrants who declined to declare for the draft
 * Oppose Just not relevant enough to be included in the draft article. — MT (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning above. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This invotes WP:CRUFT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Eligible players after draft is completed
After the draft, would anyone object to removing all the eligible lists? Years later, its really only relevant who actually got drafted, or undrafted players who later make it. Player-specific info can go into the player's bio, if they are notable enough for their own article.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would object. The early entry and eligible international lists are still relevant as part of the picture of who teams were choosing from.  It also just seems a little wonky to delete this much content from an article if it's all accurate.Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. In that case, I would think adding seniors notable enough for their own standalone articles would be acceptable (hypothetically, I don't plan adding them myself). If these eligible player lists stay, any objection if they go after the actual draftees once the draft happens. I always find there's a bunch of stuff to scroll through to get to the core info: who got drafted.  Stuff like the lottery and who is eligible seems secondary once the draft has occurred.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with that. Underclassman and international declarations are generally individually newsworthy and lists of these folks are tracked on just about every sports site.  It's assumed that the universe of college seniors are eligible. Besides, if you think there is clutter already then why would you advocate adding more on the page before the draft results? Rikster2 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: seniors, I thought I was just extending your earlier rationale of providing a "picture of who teams were choosing from". No big, let's leave it to the !vote above.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any objection to moving the draftees section earlier after the draft is completed? There's worse things than leaving it chronological, but I think moving the selections earlier for completed drafts would be an improvement to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally would not have any issue with that. Rikster2 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved the selections up at 2014 NBA draft. Will wait for any feedback before proceeding with the other articles.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to have the selections up in the article. I also have removed the "potential entrants who declined to declare for the draft" section per discussion above. — MT (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and updated articles back to 2006. The ones before that seem to have the selections on top already.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Greater Los Angeles Sports by year navboxes
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 and similiar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Image layout
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kobe_Bryant to reach a consensus on the layout of images in WT:NBA articles.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-NBA leagues
You are invited for the discussion at WikiProject Basketball. It's a general talk on whether we should change Euroleague FGP and 3PFG format from .325 format to 32.5 format. Also, freely express your thoughts on whether or not we should have domestic league coverage, and not only of Euroleague. Think of the consequences it may produce and are there enough contributors willing to do such an enormous job. Even Euroleague stats maintenance is creaky(f.e. I'm maintaining almost all Euroleague stats without any willingness to do so for domestic leagues; but also read counter-opinions). Any interested, please read other opinions and join.-- AirWolf  talk  19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)