Talk:List of NBA head coaches with 400 games coached
 | A fact from List of NBA head coaches with 400 games coached appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Title
editI think this article should be renamed, since it only covers a small percentage of the men who have coached in the NBA. How about List of longest-serving National Basketball Association head coaches, or something like that? Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of adding "longest-serving" to the title. Perhaps adding "with 500 games coached", a similar title with the List of National Basketball Association players with 1000 games played? But I don't really think that the article name should be changed. There have been several Featured Lists that do not includes every items, such as List of Germany international footballers and List of FC Barcelona players. They limit the list with a set of inclusion criteria mentioned in the lead. However, I agree that the small percentage is a problem here. Currently the list only includes 71 out of 290+ NBA head coaches. I'll expand the list to include more coaches. If I reduce the inclusion criteria to 200 games, the list will consists of 125 coaches. What do you think? — Martin tamb (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be most comfortable with adding "...with 500 games coached". I don't really like the approach with the soccer lists. I think an article's title should clearly reflect its contents. Zagalejo^^^ 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't mind the title change. Which one is better "...with 400 games coached" or "...with at least 400 games coached"? — Martin tamb (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- List of National Basketball Association players with 1000 games played doesn't include "at least", so I think we'll be OK without it. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done! — Martin tamb (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- List of National Basketball Association players with 1000 games played doesn't include "at least", so I think we'll be OK without it. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't mind the title change. Which one is better "...with 400 games coached" or "...with at least 400 games coached"? — Martin tamb (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be most comfortable with adding "...with 500 games coached". I don't really like the approach with the soccer lists. I think an article's title should clearly reflect its contents. Zagalejo^^^ 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Page update required
editCould someone please update the article to reflect the most recent NBA developments?
--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, but it's done now. — MT (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Nov 30, 2013: Please add Erik Spoelstra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.212.220.205 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria
editWhy such a low bar of inclusion (400 games) and why not have the inclusion criteria be wins, which is more notable (e.g. 400 wins).—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mind changing the inclusion criteria, though me and User:Chrishmt0423 have talked about expanding this to include every head coach. However, due to various reasons I never had the chance to improve this list,
let alone updating the stats. Anyway, what inclusion criteria do you suggest? In my opinion, numbers of game coached is more notable than number of games won, and with sorting the table can produce list by number of wins anyway. — MT (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)- 400 wins? At least a search on nba 400 win coach gets some relevant hits to show notability. And wins are a positive thing as opposed to just games which means only that someone likes you (for whatever reason).—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well this list already includes every coach with at least 400 wins. What about the idea of including every head coach? I'm leaning towards that because a list with inclusion criteria does not fare well with Featured List reviewer, which is the goal for this list. — MT (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That cant be the case for FL, as baseball has 300 save club and 500 home run club as FL. Where I imagine the problem would be with 400 game coaches is standing up to WP:LISTN and showing that sources actually refer to such a grouping. 400 wins is better than 400 games as far as demonstrating notability, or even 500. Wouldnt a list of all NBA coaches be a list of list of coaches for each team, similar to List of Major League Baseball managers for MLB? Otherwise, a single list would be quite large and will only grow larger.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I was out of FL process for too long. All I can remember is some list of football (soccer) players by club have some strong opposition about its inclusion criteria. Anyway, I think a single list combining coaches from every franchise is good, either with 400 games criteria or 400 wins criteria. It offers a comparison between coaches that the list by team and baseball-style list of all head coaches could not offer. For a complete head coach list, I don't think size is much of an issue here, there is an FL with almost 300 entries. — MT (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That cant be the case for FL, as baseball has 300 save club and 500 home run club as FL. Where I imagine the problem would be with 400 game coaches is standing up to WP:LISTN and showing that sources actually refer to such a grouping. 400 wins is better than 400 games as far as demonstrating notability, or even 500. Wouldnt a list of all NBA coaches be a list of list of coaches for each team, similar to List of Major League Baseball managers for MLB? Otherwise, a single list would be quite large and will only grow larger.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well this list already includes every coach with at least 400 wins. What about the idea of including every head coach? I'm leaning towards that because a list with inclusion criteria does not fare well with Featured List reviewer, which is the goal for this list. — MT (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- 400 wins? At least a search on nba 400 win coach gets some relevant hits to show notability. And wins are a positive thing as opposed to just games which means only that someone likes you (for whatever reason).—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, let me start again. I'm not saying that 400-game coaches is more notable than 400-win coaches. I believe the point of having either list 400-game coaches or 400-win coaches is to list notable coaches along with their statistics and achievements to be compared. However, wins is not the only criteria for a successful coach. Longevity is also a good criteria and to have at least 400 games, a coach must at least coached five full seasons. Lowering the inclusion criteria would also resulted in several notable coaches omitted from the list. For example, championship-winning coaches, Edward Gottlieb, Al Cervi, Paul Westhead, Bill Russell and Hall of Famer coach Bill Sharman did not have 400+ wins and they would be left out if the criteria is changed to 400-win. Sure that 400-win coaches is more notable, but every coaches with 400+ wins are already included in the list of 400-game coaches. I don't think we need a drastic change in the list that has nothing wrong. 400 games is just an arbitrary number and equally arbitrary as 400-win coach or any other number (300-game coach or 500-win coach).
Even though search for "400 games nba coach" has more results than "400 wins nba coach", these searches show that it's impossible to determine which number is more notable than each other. Maybe if the list is sorted alphabetically at default, it would be more neutral for the readers, they can sort by whichever stats they want, wins or games coached. — MT (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)- Note that a search on "400 games nba coach" leads mostly to hits on stories about coaches who won 400 games. The only thing notable about 400 games is that it looks like the qualifying criteria the NBA uses to be ranked for highest winning %. I know a 400-game list would still include coaches with 400 wins—that is not my issue. I'm objecting to 400 games because there arent enough sources that talk about the group to make it notable. And then intuitively, throw out WP guidelines, it just doesnt seem special IMO. Basketball doesnt have obvious "magic number" clubs like baseball, so perhaps 300 wins vs 400 vs 500 is somewhat arbitrary. At the very least, we can find coverage that talks about each of those milestones, even if we somehow dont know how to determine "the" most notable one. I split the difference and choose 400 :-)—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, I did not realize that the search on "400 games nba coach" includes almost every results on "400 wins nba coach", so please disregard my previous statement. Anyway, I still think 400 wins is as arbitrary as 400 games coached and because we can't agree on anything here, I've asked WP:NBA for additional comments and opinions. — MT (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think changing the inclusion criteria is a good idea. 400 games won or 400 games coached are equally arbitrary and I don't see much difference between the two criteria. FL process usually opposes setting arbitrary inclusion criteria and that is a major huddle for lists with arbitrary inclusion criteria to pass through.—Chris!c/t 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Comment from Chris! moved here from project talk page —Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The point for FL would not be to remove criteria, it would be to show that sources mention the grouping is notable at all. I would argue more people are looking for wins as opposed to longevity of a coach, as shown by above point of searches for "400 games nba coach". Also, if you enter "nba coach wins" into WP search field, good luck finding this article.—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think changing the inclusion criteria is a good idea. 400 games won or 400 games coached are equally arbitrary and I don't see much difference between the two criteria. FL process usually opposes setting arbitrary inclusion criteria and that is a major huddle for lists with arbitrary inclusion criteria to pass through.—Chris!c/t 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, I did not realize that the search on "400 games nba coach" includes almost every results on "400 wins nba coach", so please disregard my previous statement. Anyway, I still think 400 wins is as arbitrary as 400 games coached and because we can't agree on anything here, I've asked WP:NBA for additional comments and opinions. — MT (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note that a search on "400 games nba coach" leads mostly to hits on stories about coaches who won 400 games. The only thing notable about 400 games is that it looks like the qualifying criteria the NBA uses to be ranked for highest winning %. I know a 400-game list would still include coaches with 400 wins—that is not my issue. I'm objecting to 400 games because there arent enough sources that talk about the group to make it notable. And then intuitively, throw out WP guidelines, it just doesnt seem special IMO. Basketball doesnt have obvious "magic number" clubs like baseball, so perhaps 300 wins vs 400 vs 500 is somewhat arbitrary. At the very least, we can find coverage that talks about each of those milestones, even if we somehow dont know how to determine "the" most notable one. I split the difference and choose 400 :-)—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of National Basketball Association head coaches with 400 games coached. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409081132/http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/brooksc01c.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/brooksc01c.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323033936/http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/gueriri01c.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/gueriri01c.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517144323/http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/heinsto01c.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/heinsto01c.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614021942/http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/mcmilna01c.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/mcmilna01c.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624045712/http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/pitinri99c.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/pitinri99c.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 20:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Bill Fitch
editIs now a good time to show that Bill Fitch has earned induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a head coach? Or is it still a little too early? Please let me know. Thanks. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Page moves
edit@Muboshgu and Dlambe3: I see there were a recent move of this article to "List of current National Basketball Association head coaches", followed by restoration of the original title, followed by another move to "current". This was an undiscussed move of a longstanding title. I have restored the longstanding title, and have move-protected the article to prevent any further WP:Move warring. It can only be retitled if consensus for the move is reached at this talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I don't understand what happened here. I moved the article back to "List of National Basketball Association head coaches", where it now is, but somehow the talk page became a redirect to this one, "Talk:List of National Basketball Association head coaches with 400 games coached". And I see there is a hatnote at this article suggesting that people see the other article with "current" in the title. I can see there was more going on here than simply the retitling of that one page to "current". Was there some kind of undiscussed reorganization of these pages? Is there some glitch in the history that caused this become a redirect page? @Muboshgu, Dlambe3, and Sabbatino:, can you figure it out what happened here and discuss how these pages should actually be? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I'm not so familiar with the history of this article. @Sabbatino:, was the scope of this page changed at some point? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've fixed the redirect problem. The talk page of "list of NBA head coaches" is now restored and we should be carrying on this discussion here. I still don't know how the original talk page wound up as a redirect to this one, but let's assume that's a separate issue and discuss the title at the talk page of the original article, Talk:List of National Basketball Association head coaches. I will copy my note from here to there to start us off. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I am not aware of any changes to the scope of this page since this move was made without a discussion, which should have been created before making the move. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've fixed the redirect problem. The talk page of "list of NBA head coaches" is now restored and we should be carrying on this discussion here. I still don't know how the original talk page wound up as a redirect to this one, but let's assume that's a separate issue and discuss the title at the talk page of the original article, Talk:List of National Basketball Association head coaches. I will copy my note from here to there to start us off. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I'm not so familiar with the history of this article. @Sabbatino:, was the scope of this page changed at some point? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Basketball Association which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposed Page Rename and Page Restructuring
editCurrently, this article has 107 coaches on the list. Should be capped at 100 coaches based on number of games won. The list should be ordered from highest to lowest, instead of being presented as a group alphabetically. 400 games coached is oddly specific rules, which is leading to an oversized table. On the other hand, only 50 players are shown and correctly ordered at List of National Basketball Association career games played leaders. Thus, this article should be renamed List of NBA head coaches by career games won leaders or open to rename suggestions. If people want to see a list of every single head coach in NBA history, they can go to franchise-specific articles (Template:NBACoach). - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)