Wikipedia

Talk:Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball/Archives/ 1

< Talk:Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball
Latest comment: 7 years ago by SportsMaster in topic Removal of divisional championships information


Notable Games

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure about the usefulness of this section. The current contents are problematic -- far too weighted toward recent years -- and definitely should not include the exhibition game by former players during the NBA lockout. And if it were fleshed out in a real way it might end up a mile long. Recommend either deleting or limiting it to a handful of the most notable games throughout the school's history, such as the 1957, 1988 and 2008 championship games and maybe the 150-95 game vs. Kentucky.216.164.44.3 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed someone deleted the schedule and results for this season. Is there any way we could create a 2006 season page, as some other sports teams have on wikipedia, rather than losing all of that information? Wrad 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the season text and schedule to 2006-07 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team. —Mike 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)



Rankings on schedule

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The ranking for USC is (was) the only one on the schedule because they are the first ranked team that Kansas has played this season. And it will NOT consistently change - USC will ALWAYS be ranked #22 for week 4. Although there are two polls (and some wikipedia schedules specify which poll is used), I believe the AP Poll is the "default" ranking used in most sources. I feel displaying the rankings indicates the importance of a particular game - in this case #4 vs. #22 (AP)! But I will skip Kansas in my updates from now on if that is your wish. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Accomplishments on the Side

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whoever put the list together did a terrible job. For example, in the Final Four category it does not list the years we advanced to the title game or won it all. Then, for some reason 2003 is included in tournament apperances, but 2008 isn't?

Kansas typically only celebrates Final Fours and above, I say that's what should be done on here.

Burroughsks88 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The list has been added to and taken away from over time. So, no single editor put it together. The way the list is structured now, it shows the year under the section where KU finished the tournament. I removed the duplicated date. Regardless of the fact that "Kansas typically only celebrates Final Fours and above" (which you didn't provide a source to support), this isn't KU, this is Wikipedia so that does not matter. Now, familiarize yourself with WP:Civility and WP:AGF before you continue throwing around things like, "whoever put the list together did a terrible job". →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I used the same argument that "this is wikipedia" (and only its guidelines should matter) when I edited the Big 12 Conference page once. It listed the basketball tournament Champs, for example:
2005 Oklahoma/Kansas
But I switched it to:
2005 Kansas/Oklahoma
So therefore it would be alphabetical and therefore more logical. However I was lectured on how the Big 12 lists the tiebreaker first. And since Oklahoma had the tiebreaker that year, OU was listed first, only because of Big 12 rules, not because of Wikipedia rules. So there's an instance of using a reference from an outside source and not "wikipedia guidelines" or whatever.
But thanks, I didn't realize this website wasn't KU or a Kansas celebration...
Perhaps it is you that needs to review the Civility section!! (ha)
I might also add that I believe the list on the main page as it is now is satisfactory and representative of the accomplishments of Kansas in a non-bias manner.

Burroughsks88 (talk)

Jayhawks image

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up to those working on this and related articles. The Jayhawks logo must have a fair-use rationale for every article in which it is used (see the "File links" section on the here). Otherwise, it can be removed from the page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:University of Kansas Jayhawk logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved "Home Game Traditions" section to this article from Allen Fieldhouse article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I moved the "Home Game Traditions" section to this article from the Allen Fieldhouse article because it seems more relevant to the Jayhawks team than to the arena. If there is a concern that there may be "original research" in the material moved from the other article, this page may be the best place to consider it. Burnishe (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

suggestion

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

can we put who Kansas loses to for each NCAA tournament? --96.32.138.125 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on CBB InfoBox -- listing of school colors

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that the Kansas colors are listed as Blue and Crimson. Is this a Wikipedia default alpha listing that has to be followed?

I ask because the colors are *always* referred to as "The Crimson & the Blue", starting with the Alma Mater which is called just that. http://kuinfo.ku.edu/cgi-bin/info.shtml?p=q&id=3516

If it is not a WP requirement, the colors should be listed in that order, not blue and crimson.

LTCUSARet (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)



hi maxim kreatcher this is fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobleo9 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of divisional championships information

Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

Why are you User:Rockchalk717 removing [2] sourced information on a Wikipedia article that is relevant to the topic? There is no set practice that because you believe a team has won a lot of conference championships that noting the division championships, which are to be included on the team template shouldn't be included. Those are also all of the divisional championships Kansas has ever won (see [3]). They are included on team pages like Nebraska Cornhuskers men's basketball with no issues.--SportsMaster (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@SportsMaster: There are multiple reasons:
  • 1, divisional titles have no relevancy in college basketball as well as the fact that they are not tracked by any major organization
  • 2, KU doesn't even claim divisional titles
  • 3, The source you are giving is not a reliable source. According to Whois.com the domain was registered in 2012, 16 years after the Big 8 dissolved meaning it has no direct affiliation with conference, to Yahoo Aabaco Small Business, again further proving no affiliation with the Big 8 or any major sports organization that could be considered major.
  • 4, Just because it is sourced, doesn't mean it should be included
  • 5, The reason I use major programs as an example is they are the most traffic and edits by experienced users outside of fans. Smaller programs like Nebraska (yes a major conference but not a basketball school) do not get as much traffic from experienced editors. Look at all major programs, they do not have anything lower then a regular season conference title listed.
  • 6, 1 other school in a Power Five conference besides Nebraska lists divisional championships and that is Penn State, so your arguments that its "standard" is incorrect
  • 7, Your example of Nebraska, you added yourself 1 2 3 3 different times and each time, outside of the most recent edit, it has been removed

All and all, it's looking to me like the consensus is that divisional titles are not to be included, as well my arguments as to why they shouldn't be included.--Rockchalk717 08:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not many power five conference teams have ever been in a conference with divisions to begin with. So your argument doesn't make much sense. What consensus? There has been no input from anyone else. I also have yet to find out why this is such a big deal to you? Why not include more information. Why is this something you're willing to make such a big deal over? Your point about the Big Eight website not being an official website makes little sense. It is sourced and links to a Big 12 Conference website with the historical standings listed. That's a reliable source. I figured you would notice that if you took the time to look up who the webpage is registered too. --SportsMaster (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as "division_season" is an active field in Template:Infobox college basketball team, it seems it should be populated wherever there is relevant information to populate it. However, these's a more fundamental problem with this infobox. It's a disastrous wall of text with all those championship and NCAA tourney years listed. The infobox should be modified to pare it down and bring it more in line with Template:Infobox NCAA football school. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
A division title is completely relevant, in any sport. It's completely noteworthy. I don't see how it can be argued that it should not be included. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with Jweiss and Bsuorangecrush. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree with Jweiss11, and I think the more fundamental issue here is what should be removed as a field from the infobox. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Lets put the notability aside for a moment then because consensus seems to be it would be notable from the people chiming in. There's the underlying issue that the source SportsMaster is providing is unreliable. The Big12Sports.com page sourced within the source provided mentions NOTHING about divisional championships, it only lists the overall conference champions. Only the "BigEightSports" page mentions divisional titles and is not independently reliable. In addition, KU themselves doesn't even recognize the division titles. So why would we include something the team themselves do not claim? Also, no source that would be considered reliable mentions anything about "divisional titles".--Rockchalk717 08:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any dispute that Kansas won the division titles those years. The division champion played in the playoff, thus there were division champions. Division championships are also mentioned on page 155 of the Kansas media guide [4] and page 157 of the Nebraska media guide [5]. --SportsMaster (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Page 155 mentions nothing about division titles on KU's media guide, and no page in that media guide mentions anything about divisional titles. Additionally, that Nebraska media guide you linked only has 10 pages, none of which mentions divisional titles.--Rockchalk717 03:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean by page 155 my apologies. But it still doesn't mention divisional championships.--Rockchalk717 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: @Bsuorangecrush: @Jrcla2: Any chance I can get you guys to chime in on the source issue as well? We've established notability of divisional titles, I'll accept that. But we have not established verifiability of them as no sources considered reliable mention divisional titles.--Rockchalk717 03:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

From the 2005-06 Nebraska Cornhuskers Men's Basketball Media Guide page 157 "Season Notes: For second straight year, Nebraska captured MVC Northern Division title...Kansas took two of three games against Cornhuskers in playoff at Kansas City, Mo., and won conference title". Kansas won the other division, which is why they played in a playoff for the conference title. This media guide is from 2005-06, which is why the pages are in sections because the internet wasn't as fast [6].--SportsMaster (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World (Lawrence, Kansas) on March 10, 1913, page 8 [7]. "The team has been doing well all season, annexed the title in the Southern Division and still is fit for many more hard struggles and the followers of the Jayhawks..."--SportsMaster (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There are also many more like this. From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World, February 28, 1913, page 8. "The Kansas Jayhawkers last night cinched the title of Basketball Champions of the Southern Division of the Missouri Valley by defeating the Tigers at Columbia in the second game of the series by a score of 33 to 26" [8].--SportsMaster (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World, February 21, 1912, page 8. "The Kansas University basketball team left this morning for strange lands to cinch the championship of the southern division of the Missouri Valley" [9]. --SportsMaster (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that SportsMaster has clearly established reliable sources for the existence of these divisions. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I wasn't doubting the existence of the divisions. I've known known all along they've had divisions. What I'm questioning is the verifiablity of division titles having been awarded then. The issue with the sources being providing now are they are paid subscription services so what is being said about these sources cannot be verified, and considered the track record (no offense) of provided sources that don't actually say what is being claimed, we need to make sure the sources actually say what is being claimed.--Rockchalk717 17:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@SportsMaster: If you can provide a source that is reliable and is not on a website that is a subscription service (not just for me but for other editors to verify as well) and the source actually says what you say it says, then you are free to include it, but until that moment do not add it back in when the protection expires tomorrow.--Rockchalk717 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Although I do think that the media guides are more reliable than third-party sources, I'd agree that we need some 3rd party sources that are viewable to non-subscribers for verification. If someone else – other than SportsMaster – who has a subscription to Newspapers.com can verify it, I'll lean towards accepting it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: Here is a link to the newspaper freely availble on Google [10] Looks like we can now revert the edit since User:Rockchalk717 said I had to find it on a freely available website.--SportsMaster (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Rockchalk, anything on Newspapers.com can be clipped by a someone with access and then viewable to anyone. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@SportsMaster: Yes I reverted your edit but I have since reverted it back. I have however removed your source seeing as this is an unreliable source in addition sources are typically avoided in infoboxes. However, I do recommend adding them into the body of the article as well then sourcing them in the body. Even though my version did not that win the debate, I am glad we were finally able to reach a consensus. Please do remember in the future, when contacted to reach a consensus, to respond sooner instead of starting an edit war. According to the admin I reached out too, had you have gone 4 days without communicating with me for a consensus, you would have forfeited the right to your version.--Rockchalk717 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717:There was no edit war. We didn't go OVER three edits each, which is what an edit war is defined as. I refer you to read Wikipedia:EW--SportsMaster (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@SportsMaster: You might want to re-read WP:EW. An edit war doesn't have to more than three, it's "content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Constantly reverting, whether you revert two times or four times, it is still edit-warring. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thank you for your input.--SportsMaster (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball/Archives/_1&oldid=1029656620"