Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 34

Double (basketball)
Double (basketball), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

NBA 2K League
Shaquille O'Neal was named the GM of the Kings' NBA 2K League team. I removed this from the infobox, and moved mention from the opening paragraph to later in the lead. I know little about gaming. Is this the way to go? Does it belong in the lead at all?—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Teams' histories in infoboxes
What is everyone's opinion on the most recent changes regarding the teams' histories in the infoboxes? For example, this. Do we really need to list all the leagues that the teams have played in? The biggest problem with this format is that it removes the pre-1945 history of the Sacramento Kings and people could easily get confused as the founding date is listed as 1923, but the history is listed only since 1945. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the Kings, it's best to ask why he removed part of their listed history.  He can also explain why he believes the new format is an improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason why I made these formatting changes to each team's history is because I wanted to streamline it so that readers know what each team name was, which leagues they played in, and the dates in a linear vertical format. I wanted to make it similar to how the histories are laid out for individual National Hockey League team articles. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However, I have now self-reverted my own edits for each of the National Basketball Association (NBA) team articles, including the Sacramento Kings, in question. I think we should include all editors interested, including, to weigh in and explain what they think about the formatting for each club's history in the infobox of the club's article. I think we should do this in hopes of reaching consensus for all editors involved. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Copying what you see in other infoboxes is almost always not a good idea. Why do we need to list the league in the infobox? Infobox is supposed to include key facts and team name/names always outweigh the league. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What leagues the team played in and when is also a key fact, though, and neglecting to include it gives an incomplete picture. oknazevad (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding (at least in the Spurs diff you provided) was that the league information was already in the history section, and Charlesaaronthompson just repositioned it. Are you objecting to the league being in the history section altogether, or Charles' specific changes?—Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At first I questioned the moving of leagues' in the infobox and removing history of the Kings. But that is now joined by the listing of the leagues. Other leagues are already mentioned in the lede and they are not that significant compared to team's names throughout history (at least in my opinion). – Sabbatino (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but I cannot understand how you can say that a team has played in multiple leagues is not significant enough for inclusion in the infobox. That's a pretty big aspect of these teams' history. It's not like we're removing the name changes to add the leagues, so it's not one or the other. Leaving it out, on the other hand, makes the infobox incomplete, and potentially inaccurate. Let's look at the Brooklyn Nets, for example. Without including the leagues, the infobox section does not indicate that the team ever played anywhere other than the NBA, which is a major omission, and also gives the impression that the NBA once had a team called the New Jersey Americans, which is incorrect. For a few characters, we can easily give a more complete and accurate presentation of the team history without making the infobox too large, better fulfilling WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. oknazevad (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is my position. Is it so hard to understand? You cannot just come and revert it until there is an understanding about this particular thing. As for the Nets' example – "Championships", "Conference titles" and "Division titles" clearly indicate that they played somewhere else than the NBA. The lede also explains that they played in the ABA before joining the NBA. Same goes for history and seasons pages. I will go either way what others decide, but my position will not change for now. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But remember, the infobox should be self-contained to some extent. Leaving out a major fact like being in a different league makes it incomplete. Sure, the Nets infobox mentions their ABA titles, but what about the Spurs? Looking at just their infobox, there's absolutely no indication that they ever played in the ABA. How can an at-a-glance overview of the key facts of the team not include that? oknazevad (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

These are all good points being made. However, I would like to clarify that I will support whatever the consensus is decided among all editors involved here as a result of this discussion. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit of WP:TLDR here. Where are we on this? At a high level, if we are going to list team history at all, the key info is team names, years, and league. Any history that is reliable sourced and WP:DUE weight should be included.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note to Sabbatino
, Do not move 2018 NBA playoffs again, I was starting the process of moving the earliest playoff articles (1950 NBA Playoffs) to lowercase articles, as playoffs is a common term and shouldn't be uppercase. –Piranha249 18:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, I did not move anything. The move was done by a user who has page mover's rights after I requested it. Secondly, the NBA themselves use "Playoffs" instead of your proposed (wherever that may be) "playoffs". Thirdly, you MUST gain a consensus HERE for these planned mass moves. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , You say that, but everywhere I go, we don't go by official terms. Take the Stanley Cup Final(s) (Yeah I know it's a different sport and WikiProject but still. Since this requires consensus, tell me where do I go to get the permits? –Piranha249 15:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to gain a consensus at this project since NBA-related pages would be affected. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , but where specifically in this project? And why can't I revert the move that you didn't make? – Piranha249 02:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Create a new section in this page. All discussions always take place in talk pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the Stanley Cup Finals, but that is all capitalized. What is your comparison to NBA Playoffs?—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually meant playoffs. –Piranha249 22:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for consensus national college player of the year
Is there reliable criteria for calling a player the consensus college player of the year? A prior discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_20, where there wasn't any conclusion. While the NCAA is quite clear of the selectors for consensus All-Americans, it doesn't mention anything for player of the year.(see pp. 16–18)

There has been recent edits at multiple articles to add "Consensus" to the infobox like at Michael Jordan. Also, it changed to the capitalized form of "National College Player of the Year" from the previous "National college player of the year". It is lower case at WP:NBASTYLE. Which is preferred?—Bagumba (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your invitation. Several of these edits were made by me after referring to some other pages. I’ll leave more information once the sun comes out in my time zone. :)J1-N9t@lk 13:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One source I found says: "Consensus is winning four of the national player of the awards that are recognized by the NCAA." However, without more sources, I wonder if that is reliable?—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So my very first intuition of making appending the word "consensus" to "National college player of the year" actually came from how this Wikipedia page listed award winners List of U.S. men's college basketball national player of the year awards. The page highlights players who have swept every "National player of the year" award in those given years. Thus "consensus" in this case means more like "unanimous." I referred to a couple of award winners' Wikipedia pages. Most of them did not have "consensus" even though they swept all "National college player of the year" awards in those years. There were a couple of pages which did list them as "Consensus national college player of the year." I haven't found any official naming of a player who has swept all awards in NCAA's record books or documents. However there have been some reliable media outlets which use the phrase "consensus national player of the year" now and then.A consensus national player of the year."For South Carolina senior A'ja Wilson, her collegiate career ends as the consensus National Player of the Year, having collected the Wooden Award, Citizen Naismith Women's Player of the Year, Wade Trophy, espnW National Player of the Year, USA Today Sports National Player of the Year, Basketball Times National Player of the Year, Associated Press National Player of the Year, and USBWA Ann Meyers Drysdale National Player of the Year."It's former Kansas point guard Frank Mason III, college basketball's consensus national player of the year."Not only were the Jayhawks waving farewell to three starters, including consensus National Player of the Year Mason and No. 4 NBA draft pick Josh Jackson, from a team that claimed a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament and won 31 games, but"This season, she is the consensus national player of the year, and is expected to be the first player selected in the W.N.B.A. draft next month."South Carolina's A'ja Wilson was named the John R. Wooden Award winner Friday night, making her the consensus national player of the year in women's college basketball.". Among these sources, I think we may take regional media outlets with a grain of salt since they may attempt to over-glorify their players. However since national media articles such as Sports Illustrated, ESPN, USA Today, and The New York Times have all been using similar wording now and then (for a player who sweeps all major "National college player of the year" awards), I think using the phrase "Consensus national player of the year" would not cause too much confusion even if it is not an official NCAA concept. As for stylistic changes such as "Consensus national player of the year" and "Consensus National Player of the Year," will offer a bit more suggestions later. J1-N9t@lk 01:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew the term was oft used, but I was wondering how to reliably apply it. For example, do awards from Basketball Times or defunct UPI count, which are listed in the NCAA doc? Luckily, most years one player won most of them, making it moot if we don't know exactly which of the second-tier awards are counted. There were some years where it was almost evenly split. If there is agreement, we can refer to one source like https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/ (click on the individual seasons for consensus winner). Otherwise, it's not clear for years like 1995 (it picked Joe Smith because it didn't include Ed O'Bannon's Basketball Times). Still it's unclear why in 1978 it picked Butch Lee when Phil Ford won 4 awards too. And as another example on how consensus is not uniformly applied, The Topeka Capital-Journal wrote that Frank Mason III, who won 6 major POY awards, was still only "the closest thing to a consensus player of the year in KU history."—Bagumba (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Assume that we would preserve the word "consensus" (otherwise never mind). There are a couple of choices when it comes to which characters to capitalize. Option 3 is simply appending the word "Consensus" to the original expression's front. However I feel that capitalizing leading characters of two words is kind of weird. I think both option 1 and option 2 will be alright, depending whether we consider "national college player of the year" as a title. The reason to choose option 1: It is lower case at WP:NBASTYLE; "national college player of the year" is not a formal title (as formal titles will be "Naismith Player of the Year" etc.); The phrase would roughly cover awards listed in List of U.S. men's college basketball national player of the year awards. The reason to choose option 2: It would be more consistent with other "Player of the Year" awards, especially for conference ones, such as "SEC Player of the Year," "Pac-12 Player of the Year" etc. which are formal names of the awards. Whichever style to choose (or whether we choose to use the expression "Consensus national college player of the year" at all) for the phrase depends on general agreement. I hope people can provide more opinions and preferences. J1-N9t@lk 02:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Consensus national college player of the year"
 * "Consensus National College Player of the Year"
 * "Consensus National college player of the year"

Proposal to delete Portal:NBA
A proposal has been made to delete Portal:National Basketball Association (and all other portals) at Village pump (proposals). What are your views on the NBA portal? Did you even know it exists? It doesn't appear to be maintained or updated on any regular basis. (The last substantive updates of the portal were made in 2011 and 2012.) Is it useful? Even if the broader RfC fails, should the NBA portal be deleted? Alternatively, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move for NBA playoffs
A suggestion has been made to move NBA playoffs. See the talk page for more details. –Piranha249 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Bogut signing
Andrew Bogut is apparently signing with Sydney. While it's not the NBA, I was wondering if this project would treat this as an official-enough announcement when the team tweeted "BREAKING: Press Release with details-10am Monday EST Australia", especially in light of similar situation happening in the NFL this past season with Josh McDaniels and Indianapolis, when the Colts posted that a press conference was upcoming, but the deal fell through and he was not signed. Would we wait for the "official announcement" or not, or is any post from the team good enough?—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose this can be considered official. However, I think that this signing should be added tomorrow since that is when they will make a press release. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And we could interpret that "a new King to come" in their tweet is related to WP:CRYSTAL: they plan to sign him, but have not necessarily done so.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections. I'm happy to wait. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've also left notices at Talk:Andrew Bogut, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Third party eyes
I am too close to this article to determine if we consider this content regarding a speeding ticket to be encyclopedic. Could a third party commwent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it's everywhere on WP, but I find a police blotter of minor infractions that don't get continued coverage to be unencyclopedic.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Teams' valuations
Has there ever been a discussion about the teams' valuations in the lede? If I remember correctly there was a policy or guideline about this, but I cannot find it and cannot remember where it was mentioned. What is everyone else's opinion on this matter? In addition, some teams list it while some do not, and I cannot really see the reason for keeping them since Forbes' valuations change yearly and they are irrelevant to the reader and the teams itself. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems trivial in general, moreso in the lead. People put things in the lead because there isnt an appropriate existing section for their trivia, or nobody's crammed a field into the infobox already.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I intend to remove them from the lede. However, I know that there will be some opposition and most of them (mostly new or IP users) will ignore this discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, most are unaware of this discussion, not necessarily ignoring it. That's just the nature of crowdsourced editing.  If it remains a problem, the compromise might be to allow it for the top-3 teams.—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the valuations from the 7 pages that had them in the lede. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

W-L record format
What do people think of articles using something like, which shows the 16–1 record along with a tooltip that it means 16 wins and 1 loss? I only noticed it now at 2016–17 Golden State Warriors season. While I can see a non-sports person not knowing what it means, it seems that having hover text every time any record is mentioned in an article is overkill (and seeing those squiggly underlines everywhere somehow irks me). Any thoughts?—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Specify what "16-1" means in the first time it is encountered. Like "The Warriors won their fifth NBA Championship, setting the best postseason record in NBA history by going winning 16 games with just 1 defeat" Then at the next time it appears "The Warriors broke over 20 NBA records on their way to equaling their 2014–15 regular-season record of 67–15, their second most wins in franchise history." I also suggest anywhere W–L appears it should be specified that it's a W–L record like "regular-season record of 67–15" as above, or having the winning percentage in parenthesis like "The Warriors set the best playoff record in NBA history by going 16–1 (.941)". Tooltips are not useful in mobile devices; I suggest avoiding that. – H T  D  15:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Al Horford infobox image
A user added to Al Horford a day or so ago. It is undoubtedly a very poor quality image. I reverted the change citing that it was not an improvement. The user has then reverted my revert with no explanation. I then revert again once again claiming that it is a poor quality image and to not revert out of the blue without a counter-argument or reasoning. The user has then reverted my revert again with no explanation – classic stubborn behaviour by users who do not care for edit summaries. An experienced editor such as myself knows to not revert again as this is counter productive and blah blah blah 3RR. Does anyone else agree with my rationale and feel they would like to back me up? The Hawks image, while a few years old now, is the best quality frontal image of Horford we have. Thanks in advance. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, reminds me of that article from The Ringer. If we must have a Celtics image, there's also this one. It's not the most flattering pose, but at least it's an action shot, and it's sharp. Zagal e jo^^^ 14:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Teams' season pages – "Key dates" section
Does anyone else think that "Key dates" sections should not include intricate, unsourced and editorial additions as can be seen at 2017–18 Phoenix Suns season? This is not the only problem as the main editor is doing the same in other basketball-related pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These types of lists are always better as prose, but it's ok if they start out as lists. However, left in a list form, they are liable to have WP:TRIVIA added.  Can you explain further what you mean by "editorial additions"?—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After taking a better look it looks like the whole page has a lot of trivial and unsourced statements. In addition, most of the additions give undue weight. There are also many ideas, which should be avoided per WP:EDITORIAL. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging for their input.—Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I just think it comes down to the information that feels relevant for one reason or another. I admit some of the scoring numbers for players like Eric Bledsoe (at the time), Jared Dudley, and Devin Booker near the end of the season was a bit of a reflection back on some of the older Wikipedia pages for each NBA team at the time. However, for some things that are more immediate to look into, such as coaching or front office changes within the season, certain in-season drama going on with some teams (i.e., trade demands, players wanting coaches fired, etc.), and awards earned by certain people leaving the season (just to name a few examples in mind), they can certainly be brought up a bit more often. In fact, I've seen certain pages like the 2014-15 Chicago Bulls season where the pages went into quite an amount of detail despite not being a champion squad. Meanwhile, I've seen pages with greater lack of detail by comparison for some genuinely good teams like the 2017-18 Houston Rockets season that didn't go into better detail with their season than they honestly deserve, let alone for teams like the Sacramento Kings in question. I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe if we're less transparent and more honest about wanting to genuinely fill up these teams' season pages as best as we possibly can in ways that don't feel like some of us were lazy after the halfway mark sometimes (or admittedly get too carried away with some things sometimes), we could probably be more consistent with how we can fill these season pages up moving forward from here on out. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Information regarding coaching, front office, players or any other personnel changes is good, but they need to be sourced. However, information like "Former Suns assistant coach Igor Kokoškov gets a phone interview with the team while he was helping the Utah Jazz in the first round of the playoffs against the Oklahoma City Thunder." is original research at best and does not belong in Wikipedia. That also includes reports about the supposed firings, hirings or any other events regarding personnel changes. In addition, this project has always had a rule that we wait for official announcement from the team itself about the personnel changes and do not just blindly assume something just because someone named Wojnarowski or similar writes it in his Twitter account. Even more so, please mind the MOS:N'T, WP:DATEFORMAT, WP:NPOV, WP:FORMAL and other guidelines as this is not some kind of personal blog. Just because other pages use bad grammar or format it does not mean that all other pages should follow the same pattern. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on those aspects. However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bad grammar." I would think most of my grammar's just fine. I mean, sure I may use contractions here, but I figured those would be seconds faster to put down sometimes. Unless you mean something else, in which case, enlighten me. I insist in that regard. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The "bad grammar" part was not directed at any user. As for the use of contractions, it is your as the user duty to not use them in the pages (talk pages do not count). It might be faster, but then other users have to cleanup after people who use them. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible new content to LeBron James template
I am proposing to add Trainwreck (film) and The Wall (game show) to his template. I believe this can be done. Robert4565 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * His roles don't seem major enough to bypass WP:FILMNAV.—Bagumba (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Rivalry AfDs
There's a couple of AfDs on recently created rivalry articles at: —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Cavaliers–Celtics rivalry
 * Articles for deletion/76ers–Lakers rivalry

New York Knicks – Management
Could someone help with the situation at New York Knicks page? A user keeps reinstating factually incorrect information and is edit warring. Warnings do not help and the user is not willing to discuss it. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest starting a discussion at the article talk page about the specifics being contested. Otherwise, the edit summaries just say its OR and then rebuttals that it is cited.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The user has since wrote in the article's talk page. However, that can hardly be called a discussion as he just left a message where he accused me of vandalizing the main page. However, another user is in agreement with me. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus will be needed to keep their additions. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. You should better go there and explain to users involved there. I would not be against that addition, but that information is factually incorrect and sources do not say anything about what the user tries to claim when adding that information. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll stay out of it for now. Let me know if any admin action ends up being needed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you should step in. While the dispute has been resolved, the editor just does not see or does not want to see what is written to him, and just started personal attacks toward me among other things (accusations of me being a vandal and personally attacking him). The discussion takes/took place here. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you got your desired content, so consider just disengaging and move on. Otherwise, follow Civility if you so choose. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Baron Davis still active
Baron Davis, who's now 39, last played in the D-League in 2015-16. An IP has changed him from "former player" twice without explanation. Is it reasonable to think he's still looking to play professionaly? He's been listed as "former" as far back as January 2018.—Bagumba (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should list him as retired. There are many players who do not announce anything retirement-related and just silently fade away. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pretty sure his last stop in the D-League was a comeback attempt. If it’s been 2 years since then we can reasonably assume the comeback failed. Plus, it’s easy enough to change him back to an “active” player if he signs somewhere, which is what we did with the D-League stint. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus needed - team season template display names
Hello - I was doing some maintenance on team season pages and noticed that for active franchise “seasons” templates, the header displays all of the previous franchise names (example, the Sacramento Kings reads “Rochester / Cincinnati Royals–Kansas City-Omaha / Kansas City / Sacramento Kings seasons”). This is different than how the top-level franchise templates and the historical coach templates, both of which show only modern franchise name. I’d like to propose we change the seasons templates to match the others and take out the historical names for consistency. We did make a specific decision to remove historical names from the coach navboxes back in 2013 (see here). It seems like the purpose of the template isn’t to reflect all the names, but provide a navigation aids between seasons of a given franchise. The Kings template currently has a format that could preserve the historical names in the body of the template if that is important (but this also shows that there is inconsistency with how these templates are structured as not all the templates are done this way).

Can we get a vote on my proposal to format the seasons templates in the same manner as the coach and main franchise templates for active teams? Rikster2 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I can't think of a reason for an exception here.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and did it given the lack of traction in this discussion. Seems like a no-brainer to standardize and only affects about half the templates. Rikster2 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Supersonics vs Oklahoma City Thunder all-time rosters
I have noticed that the Seattle SuperSonics all-time roster and the Oklahoma City Thunder all-time roster pages overlap (despite the format differences). Yes, I know all about the transition, history sharing, and the controversy surrounding this. But should the all-time roster's overlap as such, or should the OKC page have a link to Seattle, and just list players who played for the Thunder since 2008. (Full disclosure, I am from Oklahoma).UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts are that the OKC roster list is about the franchise history, which currently includes the Sonics (at least as long as there is no new franchise in Seattle). As such, I'm leaning towards an all-inclusive list, not just a link to Seattle.—Bagumba (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Question
I edit NFL and college basketball pages mainly so I'm not too familiar with NBA page policies. It was recently announced that Paul Pierce will be inducted into Kansas Sports Hall of Fame (not for the University of Kansas, the state of Kansas as a whole). Is this notable enough for inclusion in the highlights section of the infobox?? I'm not really sure either way.-- Rockchalk 717 05:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not, especially since he has many more notable honors. For future reference, you can refer to WP:NBASTYLE.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh duh I probably should have figured something like that existed lol. Thank you. I was leaning more towards not being notable but I wasn't sure.-- Rockchalk 717 05:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine to put in prose or in some all-inclusive list outside the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was looking into that. I'm having trouble figuring out a good place to put it that makes sense. Maybe in college career section?? Since he's being inducted for his performance at Kansas primarly?-- Rockchalk 717 06:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * College section is OK. You could mention his college number being retired too, which is actually a bigger deal.  Ideally, there’s should be enough stuff on him to write a dedicated legacy section, which would be an even better place for all this stuff.—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile to add a “Legacy” (or similarly named) section for players where you could cover things like retired numbers, Halls of Fame, being named on prominent “best of” lists, having buildings named after them, all-time records, etc. you could put oddball stuff like Jerry West being the figure for the NBA logo or the dunk being outlawed for awhile because of Kareem. All of this stuff is somewhat “outside” the playing careers and is useful to put in one place - where you can talk about how a player/coach fits into the history of the game. There is a version of this at players like Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but players like Pierce definitely have enough to create a similar section. Rikster2 (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That works. I might just do that. I'll start trying to gather up some sources to get something like that going then throw it in there.-- Rockchalk 717 19:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Division titles in the infobox
Do we need to list the division in the "Division titles" parameter if the team played in more than one during its existence? Some user added that to the San Antonio Spurs]' infobox and I reverted that addition, but it was then added again, which I edited to make it factually correct. I know we do that for "Conference titles" parameter, but is doing the same for "Division titles" parameter too much? What is your opinion – keep or remove? – Sabbatino (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems a little much to me IMO. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

NBA Hustle Award
The NBA have been giving out the "NBA Hustle Award" since the 2016–17 season. As of now two people received it – Patrick Beverley in 2016–17 and Amir Johnson in 2017–18. I thought about creating a page for that, but I have trouble finding sources related to the subject. The only website about the award and its concept is the NBA itself (this and this). All other websites just mention the award without going into any details. Any help? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There’s some independent coverage out there like this. With a list of only size two right now, you might want to write a decent amount of prose with multiple independent sources to avoid hassle of someone thinking it should be AfDed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to list NBA records in the infobox?
Hello, I was making edits under the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar page in order to add the fact that he is the NBA's all-time leader in points scored in a career. In order to make this change, I was referencing the format of the Wilt Chamberlain page where NBA records are listed near the bottom of the infobox. However several users have said that it should not be there. My question is can we come to a consensus as where to list NBA records since it doesn't make sense that we can list records at the bottom of one page but not for the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdrepepper (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior consensus at WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS has been not to include career records.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

NBA rising stars challenge
Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA. Sameem123 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Selections can be mentioned in a bio's prose. There is no consensus at WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS to add them to the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA. You’re not gonna convince me that not necessary to add infobox. Sameem123 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus to add it info box to any nba players who made in their first or second year in nba just like all stars appearances like LeBron, Jordan, Kobe, KD. Sameem123 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can choose to not WP:LISTEN, but saying there "is consensus" does not make it so.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Names in roster templates
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball regarding the reason why we present basketball players' names in the form "[lastname], [firstname]" in our roster templates. I propose that we change to use the format "[firstname] [lastname]" and add a sort key to allow proper sorting. If you have an opinion on this, please contribute to the discussion at WT:BASKET. – PeeJay 19:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

College stats section
Should the listing of a player's college stats be in the bio's "Career statistics" section (e.g. Joel Embiid), or in a subsection of "College career" (e.g. Karl-Anthony Towns)?


 * Background
 * 1) Players that play in multiple leagues including the NBA generally have a section named "Career statistics" (e.g. Jordan Farmar, Acie Law) which is placed at the same level as other sections like "College career" and "Professional career". Stats from multiple leagues (e.g. NBA, Euroleague, etc) are placed there.
 * 2) Players who only play in the NBA generally have a specific section named "NBA statistics" instead, also at same level as sections like "College career" and "Professional career".
 * 3) When present, college stats have generally been included in a subsection of "College career", not at the same level as NBA/Career statistics. Mostly, only bios from the last few years have had college stats included.


 * Advantages of having all stats in "Career statistics"
 * 1) Moves all stats tables to later in the article. For the casual reader, it doesn't interrupt the prose, but stats are still available towards the end for advanced basketball readers.
 * 2) Avoids inconsistent organization of stats where college stats are a subsection of "College career", but pro stats are not a subsection, but at the same level as "Professional career."

Since it seemed straight forward to me, I started changing some players, like recent ones from NBA All-Rookie Team and Rising Stars Challenge, combining the college and pro stats into "Career statistics". I haven't seen much objection, and one of the few reverts was undone by, supporting my change. I have also seen making similar change to combine the stats at Zach LaVine, among others. However, changed Karl-Anthony Towns back to put college stats under "College career", but has not commented on their talk page at User_talk:Underbelly_50.
 * Recent changes

To get explicit feedback before continuing further, are people OK with the new placement of college stats?—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Question


 * I would personally prefer to see college stats combined with NBA/overseas stats in the same section. It doesn't really make sense to have college stats as a subsection but not professional stats in a subsection. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 13:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I started making these edits because it makes logical sense to have all statistics in one section. As noted above, we would never see NBA statistics as a subsection under the "Professional career" section, so why would it only apply for college career? —Kenwistb (talk) 6:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment has also been combining college and pro stats, like at Josh Hart (basketball).—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not passionate about this but am happy to support consensus around combining stats so we can get to a decision. Rikster2 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Playing tenures
For a player like Joel Embiid, who was drafted and signed but didn't play his first two seasons, what should the infobox show as his start year? 2014 or 2016? The last discussion on this topic seems to have been at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_27. There, it seems like with Blake Griffin we list his career start as his draft year and not the year he played his first game. Similarly for Steve Nash, he's listed as retiring in 2015 even though he did not play in 2014–15, when he was still under contract with the Lakers.—Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus is contract start/end if they actually played for that team. That said, I wholeheartedly disagree and think it should be about when the player actually played for the team like we do with everything else Rikster2 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you basically deferred to, though you did state then as well that you disagreed on principle. FWIW, I believe Grffin and Nash have been stable (correct me if I'm wrong), though they have probably been indef semi-protected also.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand by the views I had back then – the contract tenure should be listed so long as they play i.e. if someone is signed in 2018, plays one and only game in 2019, and then leaves in 2020, the "2018–2020" listing should stand. That being said, if the consensus changes, I'm happy to oblige. Such a consensus change would require a lot of tweaks throughout the NBA project. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this is supposed to say. This is confusing. So did Nick Collison spend 14 years or 15 years with the Seattle/OKC organization? You know, because Seattle drafted in '03, but then due to injury, he didn't play until a year later in '04. So, again, would we say Collison played 14 years or 15 years? WanderIsAwesome2001 (User talk:WanderIsAwesome2001) 11:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are asking about prose, there is more freedom to be precise by explaining what the X number of years mean e.g. a 14-year career after sitting out a year, a 15-year career including his first year being inactive, etc. With an infobox, it's just a year (with no qualifiers).—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary So based on this discussion, and looking at current state of Joel Embiid (what triggered this thread) as well as Blake Griffin and Steve Nash, it seems the current consensus for a player's start year is the starting contract year of the first team they played for. Similarly, the end year is the ending contract year of the last team they played for. The same applies for team tenures, except we don't list teams for which a player never played a game.—Bagumba (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Player positions (again)
There's been slow edit war at LeBron James over what position to list him as in the infobox. He's listed by the Lakers as "Forward-Guard". Basketball-reference.com lists him as "Small Forward and Shooting Guard and Power Forward". How do editors generally decide which position to list? The last discussion seems to have been back in March, but didn't reach anything conclusive. proposed listing what NBA.com has, while using basketball-reference.com for specific positions (e.g. NBA.com lists "Guard", then look to b-r.com if they are a PG or SG). Then there are exceptions, like where multiple articles talk of Kevon Looney as a center (including his coach Kerr), but NBA.com only lists him as F, but basketball-reference.com has him as PF-C.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is Kevon Looney different from Draymond Green, who we determined is a forward only here? The Warriors don’t list Looney as a Center, but they do list other players (like Jordan Bell) at that position. Look, not everyone plays a traditional lineup, you could argue the often play three guards and 2 forwards. There are a lot of guys like Looney out there that you could make a sideays argument about, which is why I think it’s better to go with what the team lists them as. Rikster2 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For Green, even b-r.com doesnt list him as center. And even in the playoffs, where he plays center the most, b-r has him as only playing 20% of his time at center.. For Looney, b-r lists him at C,, and they have him as spending over 50% of his time at C the last two seasons, including 70% in these past playoffs. Then there's sources calling him a center, like the San Francisco Chronicle ("Looney leads the team’s centers with ...") and Kerr ("He’s our best switching five"). Using Looney as an example, it boils does to whether we want the infobox to have 1) NBA.com's listed position F, using b-r for specifics on the generic position i.e. PF or 2) combine NBA.com with b-r so PF-C
 * To account for drive-by IP editors, I think combining NBA and b-r positions avoids most edit wars. But I think the most important thing is to just agree on a rule, whatever it is, so we can consistently refer to it.—Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think listing LeBron as shooting guard is too specific and problematic. He was happily listed as just SF for a long time. He can fill so many positions and roles that listing his base/primary position is probably best i.e. he never specifically starts at or plays the two guard. I think even "Small forward / Guard" is problematic and causes drive-bys to seek change i.e. adding PF or changing it to "Forward / Guard". I think listing just SF is ideal, no matter what NBA.com or BR lists - LeBron is often a special case due to his popularity and the sheer volume of page viewers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with some special deal with LeBron as an “iconic” SF. But we’re also talking about people like Kevon Looney, who is a very average NBA player. There needs to be some protocol for active players, just like there is for heights and weights. Rikster2 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should formalize a general rule. As with anything, we can override on a per case basis if there is consensus.  At a minimum, I hope we can agree on the positions at NBA.com, using basketball-reference.com to get specifics on generic Gs and Fs.  Do we also add basketball-reference.com positions if they are not listed on NBA.com?  I would say yes, because i thing it saves reverts, and I think b-r is generally right.—Bagumba (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * LeBron played mostly PF last year with Crowder and Osman mostly starting at SF. Likely to be the same this year with LAL with Ingram, Hart, and Kuzma mostly at SF.  Perhaps list James as "SF/PF" or "F-SG".—Bagumba (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Using bbr if it’s different does create a disconnect with the consensus for team rosters to use official NBA.com roster info (heights/weight/positions). You’d essentially have Looney (for example) as a PF/C on his article and a F only on the roster. And there is so much changing of that data on rosters “just because” that I think that roster guideline needs to stand. Rikster2 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think we put too much emphasis and weight on BR sometimes. Everything on the site is based on the opinions of those who run it, plus you can simply email them and request changes etc. The middle names for example - why do we (me included) cite BR as a source? How do we know they are correct? What's their source? On some instances, they are the only source we can find that states a middle name. Where did they get that middle name from? Same goes for positions. LeBron is listed as a SG by BR because he supposedly played that in his rookie year. That will therefore be listed there forever despite him never playing that position again. Take Paul Pierce for example - he's a bona fide SF yet BR has him as a SG as well due to supposedly playing SG for a few seasons. Regarding Looney, I think center should be listed. He clearly played mostly center this past season and hopefully NBA.com updates him to F-C for 2018/19. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s a good point on bbr for modern players. I will say that when the site first launched a number of years ago their info came from Official NBA Registers, which were published from 1982-2015, so for historical players it tends to be accurate. With respect to Looney, I don’t really agree he should be listed as a center if his team doesn’t see fit to make the change. Like I said in my first post, a few years ago we had this debate about Draymond Green, and now nobody argues he’s a Center. The Warriors play forwards at Center - I mean, Green or Durant is the center in the “death lineup” if you strictly assume all five positions are truly represented in the court. Referring to someone as a Center or five is kind of basketball shorthand. Rikster2 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: Pierce, perhaps a better example is Magic Johnson's profile He was either the SG or at best sharing PG early in his career with Norm Nixon. In Magic's final year, he was all bulked up and playing PF in a point-forward role with Nick Van Exel at PG.  Now I wouldn't argue that Magic played all those positions, the question is what do we list him or Pierce as after they retire? I would argue to use their most notable position(s), which is either common sense or subjective, depending on your perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For team rosters, the source on those templates is the team's NBA.com roster. Most (if not all) edits that conflict don't bother citing a source (edit summary would do), so they can be reverted as unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Love There's also been edits at Kevin Love removing C, although NBA.com lists him as C-F.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not use what's stated in the current league or team official website (team website gets first dibs) for active players, then use B-R's classification for inactive players? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Nowitzki Then there is Dirk Nowitzki, who is listed as PF on Wikipedia, but has been listed as F–C on NBA.com since 2017–18.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Greek Freak And there are also players like Giannis Antetokounmpo who "lose" a position. NBA.com listed him as a as a F–G in 2016, but is now only a F. Do we just want to list their current position, or keep historical ones?—Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would generally go with what NBA.com says currently, so Antetekounmpo would be a forward. I would list LeBron as a Small forward since that is the position he usually plays. This is nothing to start an edit war over. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Player position poll
Let's get a clear consensus that we can document at WP:NBAPOSITION for what to list in the infobox for an active player's position. This is for general cases. As discussed above, there might be consensus to WP:IAR in rare cases, like LeBron James. I see the following as options:

Feel free to suggest others.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use positions listed at player's NBA.com profile. Supplement G or F with specific PG/SG or SF/PF as found on basketball-reference.com
 * Use positions listed at player's NBA.com profile without alteration e.g. do not change G or F to PG/SG or SF/PF.
 * Use positions listed at both the player's NBA.com and basketball-reference.com profile. For example, if a player is listed as F on NBA.com and PF-C on basketball-reference.com, list PF/C in the infobox.
 * Pinging active WikiProject editors as listed at WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject National Basketball Association.—Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * NBA.com, using b-r.com for specifics on G and F


 * NBA.com only, no alterations


 * Combine NBA.com and b-r.com


 * 1) This seems like the most sensible option to me. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 12:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this satisfies WP:V, and is a compromise to the reality that non-regular editors and IPs will always add new positions that they find at basketball-reference.com. There's no need to create an edit war over a rule that won't be intuitive and only regulars know about.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm totally ok with this. Though we might still get the occasional editor that tries to remove a listed position despite it being true (as has been a constant battle at LeBron's page).-- Rockchalk 717 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) This, and cite every position from these websites individually. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Roster ordering
There's been a user(s) with IPs from Athens, Greece, that has been changing roster templates to group by position instead of sorting alphabetically by last name.. I gave the most recent one a note at User talk:141.237.249.167 to discuss the mass changes at WT:NBA, which they should have seen based on their edit history.

On another note, why are roster templates sorted by last name, while navboxes like Template:Phoenix Suns current roster are sorted by jersey number?—Bagumba (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, rosters at Basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters are sorted by jersey #. Not sure if there is a different standard for non-NBA articles (not that they necessarily have to be the same).—Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * is continuing to make their changes at various rosters. I'm going to wait for others to chime in before any more reverts or reporting to noticeboard.—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Pretty longstanding consensus to group alphabetically on roster templates (which mirrors how players are listed on NBA.com team sites) and by number on the current roster. I don’t know why there are different conventions. There is zero consensus to list by position number, that is dumb. Rikster2 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t know why there are different conventions: Are you referring to NBA rosters vs navboxes, or why the Olympic rosters are different? Just thinking that NBA rosters and navboxes should be sorted the same, whatever order is decided.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Luka Doncic's height
There is a discussion at Talk:Luka_Dončić on what height to list in his infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Team captains
Are there reliable sources for these anymore? Template:Golden State Warriors roster lists that they have five. I havne't seen captains listed on NBA.com roster pages for a few years now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think captains are used on NBA.com anymore (though the code still shows in the legend on roster pages). These are hard to source and I find a lot of assumptions are made - people just assume it’s the best player(s). In the case of the Celtics, they famously haven’t had one since Rondo left the team, but every year folks try to note one on the roster page. I say we vote on consensus to remove that note from the template. Rikster2 (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing them if we don't have an easy way to verify them. Currently, the only source on those templates is to NBA.com, and rarely does anyone even add a ref to the edit summary for these.—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it should be completely removed from the template. There are no sources that indicate who is the captain and people tend to add the "C" to random players. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that has remove them from many (all?) of the templates. What to do with "C" in the roster key that shows up from NBA roster footer? If we delete it, it would discourage people from adding it to new templates, but what about older templates where the information might be valid? Do we want to remove it entirely? Or write some code to make a switch whether to make "C" visible?—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I used to remove them, but just got tired of constantly going back and forth. I believe the best solution would also be to remove the  parameter from the template. That way people who have no knowledge of how this works would not be able to re-add it. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Rising stars challenge
Please add it to nba player in their first or second year in NBA. Sameem123 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is different now than when you brought this up last month at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34?—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:NBA game
Hey all, I noticed Template:NBA game is still frequently in use, however, as noted here and here in 2015, this template no longer actually functions. It just links to the main NBA League Pass page (such as for this Oct 19, 2017 CHI at TOR game) or to an error message ( like this one). It seems there was no direct previous consensus, but it was agreed that it either needed to be directed to another sports reference database or discontinued use with just a single link as reference for all games. As it stands now, it is useless and very broken. It would be easier to just enter the score as W 117–100 instead of and would omit the directionless link. Any objections? Yosemiter (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

List of NBA champions tables
I've been working on some tables recently in an effort to clean up the tables seen in List of NBA champions (both champions and appearence tables were slated for such a refresh), and my solution is seen in my sandbox. I tried to implement the changes before, but I was met with backlash over doing so. So I want the users at WikiProject NBA to decide for themselves.

I tried to utilize the format used in List of Super Bowl champions, List of World Series champions, and List of Stanley Cup champions, because tables like these should be as uniform as possible. But if you don't like it, I understood and won't revisit the topic again. –Piranha249 19:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Re-sort roster navboxes
There is a proposal to change the sorting of the roster naxboxes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Roaming IP vandal
Heads up that since at least last year, there has been an IP vandal like this one from service provider Fibernetics located around Toronto, Ontario, that regularly changes players' positions, usually on roster templates and sometimes in bios. Unfortunately, the IP changes often, and a range block is not always possible. Alternatively, I've been semi-protecting frequently attacked pages. Post here if you see anyone like this. And don't bother writing on their talk page if they match the IP description in the hopes that WP:DENY can help. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He’s back. Rikster2 (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's been blocked.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Back again Rikster2 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and protected some of the pages.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Categories
I think we should expand our category system; I already started by spliting up the Conference standings category into Eastern and Western subcategories, alongside adding a Conference Finals category, so that everything will become more organized. What other Categories should be created? –Piranha249 21:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC: XXXX-XX year format
There is a related RFC regarding the XXXX-XX year format of seasons at Village_pump_(policy).—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Position and height/weight changes
An editor has made a bunch of position and height/weight changes as seen in their contributions. From what I can tell, they made them without being consistent with NBA.com, and haven't explained why. I've reverted a few and blocked the editor. Those interested can look the rest if it didn't already light up your watchlist. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Player positions
An offshoot of us using basketball-reference.com for player position is that Dwight Howard gets updated with PF because b-r listed him there in his first two years. Do we need to tweak WP:NBAPOSITION, or leave it to WP:COMMONSENSE?—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been on record for awhile that active players should reflect the positions their current team lists, period. It is a pretty simple, common sense standard. Rikster2 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NBA.com only lists generic positions like G and F, whereas for years WP has been using specific PG/SG/SF/PF positions, presumably supplemented from basketball-reference.com. How do you propose we use the two, or are you saying to list exactly as NBA.com?—Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It tells us whether to add "PF" to Dwight Howard or not. My suggestion is NBA.com as "the source" with bbr as a supplemental source to drill down to specific G or F designation (but not adding other positions not listed on NBA.com if there is a difference). Rikster2 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And what about Draymond Green? PF or PF/SF?—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Davis page move request
It has been 3.5 years since we discussed whether Anthony Davis (basketball) is the primary Anthony Davis. Join the discussion at Talk:Anthony_Davis_(basketball).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

NBA Rising Stars Challenge
It’s award for nba players in their first and second year in NBA. Please add this award in nba players. Sameem123 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not an award per Rising Stars Challenge and the NBA itself. It is just an exhibition game and even being an MVP of that game is not an award either. We decide what should be included by sources and/or consensus and not personal preference. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still WP:NOTGETTINGIT from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34? Or from your disruptive history? Please stop.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)