Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Looking for a collaborator on coach articles

All - There are many D1 college coaches who do not yet have WP articles - some of whom are very significant (coached at 3-4 programs, 20+ year tenures, etc.). I'd like to make a dent in these but I absolutely hate doing coaching record tables - yet the articles feel very empty without them. I know some of you enjoy doing these, so I thought I'd see if anyone wants to help me out here. I'm thinking I could research and create an article and then you come behind and build the coaching record table. Please let me know here or on my Talk page if you are interested. Bill Oates is a recent example of a coaching article I created with no table.

On a separate note, I have been fixing many college coach tables to ensure that distinct seasons are displayed properly. The format should be 6 digit year span in these cases (example 1993–94) unless the season is the turn of a century (example 1999–2000). I think where people are getting a little mixed up is that we use eight-digit date ranges to display tenures in infoboxes (example 2002–2006). But this format is only used in cases where the dates are being expressed as a range (conveying "from 2002 to 2006"). Single basketball seasons use the 6-digit convention, except in the turn of the century example. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the coaches are in need of creation, but I'm with you in that creating them is so tedious. User:Pvmoutside has been adding yearly records to existing coaches as well as making some new ones of current head coaches (thanks Pvm). Personally, I'm more interested in creating important season articles (e.g. 1932–33 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) and interesting games (like the Bradley/Cincinnati post above) to take on head coaches. Maybe down the road I will. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you create any that also served as baseball head coaches, I'll be happy to add the baseball tables as records are available. Billcasey905 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Rikster, I've been adding and cleaning up coaching tables for some time. A couple points here.

1. The turn of the century seasons, e.g. 1999–2000 NCAA Division I men's basketball season, should be displayed in tables in the six-digit format as well. It looks really silly to have one eight-digit year sitting in a column otherwise populated with six-digit years. Furthermore, reliable sources like ESPN and Basketball-Reference do it that way.
2. When creating new coach bio articles, please, please use the latest and greatest version of Template:Infobox college coach. When you created Bill Oates, you incorporated legacy fields that were eliminated in 2010 and field ordering and interpretation that has been much improved upon since then.

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Tables have been what I've been doing for the most part, and adding importance ratings. If you can help provide the info/sources I can help you out there. I'm a MAC fan and started an article on Chris Jans, I can hardly find anything from his JC days but that's the table I've been working with. Feel free to add to that.... Littlekelv (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Littlekelv, thanks for starting that Chris Jans article. A few notes: as I mentioned to Rikster2 above, please, please always use the latest and greatest version of Template:Infobox college coach. The version you used incorporated defunct legacy fields that were eliminated almost four years. Second, junior college and college basketball records should never be combined either as a total in an infobox or in a single head coaching record table. Also, the team fight names (e.g Bowling Green Falcons) should be displayed in the subheading of head coaching record table, not just the school short name (e.g. Bowling Green). Thanks again, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jweiss11 - Thanks for the clarification on the navbox and some of the formatting conventions. Your last note has me a bit confused though - I don't remember any sort of basketball consensus discussion about use of school mascot names in coaching tables. Was this something football decided? Because I think it deserves some discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jweiss11 - I wasn't sure to include JC or not, I had discussed it with Jrcla2 and both agreed to leave it in. The reference from it included it so I did. I'll have to check out the templates, just used one from a previous article. Thanks!Littlekelv (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Littlekelv, I've got no issue with JC records being detailed in an infobox or a head coaching record table. Those records should just never be combined with four-year college records. Rikster2, consensus for football is to include fight names. For consistency, whatever the policy is, it should be same for all college sports. Generally speaking there's plenty of room in the table subheadings to display fight names. I can't see an advantage to omitting them. The template documentation on usage for both Template:CFB Yearly Record Subhead and Template:CBB yearly record subhead says "| name = insert the full name of the team, coach, or conference the following entries will describe". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also no advantage to keeping it on there IMO. Looking at the documentation it looks like that standard was created in 2007. Feels like looking at it again - at least for basketball-only articles - seems appropriate. Personally, I think it looks dorky to have the mascot names in these tables, and it's not consistent with the way these things are shown in the "real world." (take a look at John Beilein's bio, which is pretty representative of the standard). Rikster2 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You know what, after sleeping on it, I'm not going to worry about it. While this isn't the way I'd suggest doing it (for the reason above - it seems to be a "Wikipedia-only" format that isn't widely used in the real world), in the end it's not that big a deal. This isn't something I'll spend time "fixing," though. Rikster2 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

National champion assistant coaches

Since you brought this up, back in 2012, I noted some notable assistant coaches remained undone. Many of these went on to become head coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To head coach

Shawn Finney (1997–98 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Tulane

Jene Davis (1980–81 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team) - HC at Furman

Joe Dean, Jr. (1977–78 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at UCF

Tom Abatemarco (1982–83 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team) - HC at Drake, Lamar and Sacramento St

James "Buck" Freeman (1956–57 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team) - HC at St. John's

Marty Marbach (1984–85 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Canisius

Other

Andre LaFleur (2010–11 and 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team) - Award winning international pro player (also listed at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career assists leaders, which suggests he formerly held the NCAA DI career assists record until Sherman Douglas surpassed him). Note: FWIW, some sources suggest that he was not the third assistant in 03-04, including a couple of his own university bios at UConn and Providence.

Dave Hanners (1992–93 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team)-NBA assistant

Troy Weaver (2002–03 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team))-NBA assistant

Harry Lancaster (1948, 1949, 1951 and 1958 Kentucky) - baseball HC at Kentucky

National champions infobox assistant coach research

None listed

1958–59 California Golden Bears men's basketball team

1953–54 La Salle Explorers men's basketball team

1943–44 Utah Utes men's basketball team

1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team

1941–42 Stanford Indians men's basketball team

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team

Less than 3 listed and unconfirmed as complete

1976–77 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team

Helms AAs who were head coaches

• Claus Benson (Columbia)
• Ray Bohler (Beloit football)
• Orson Kinney (Fordham)
• Francis Stadsvold (West Virginia)
• Donald White (basketball) (Connecticut & Rutgers)
• Albert Peterson (also a 2× AAU All-American)

Bleacher Report

Is Bleacher Report a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I avoid the hassle of using it as the perception (perhaps dated) is that there is no editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#MMA_reliability. I wouldn't have a problem with some of their recent hires who I'd recognize as experts before they joined BR. At least for NBA, there is Howard Beck, Ric Bucher, Kevin Ding, etc. If someone could make sense out of BR's titles like Featured Columnist, etc, perhaps that could be used to objectively sift out "reliable" content from BR. To avoid potential objections over people categorically discounting BR, I usually just cite a traditional source instead if it has the same information.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For now, i am going to include this, but I hope there will be a lot more evaluation of his performance in the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year articles - progress tracker

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress, and the following conference POY templates are complete: America East, American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big South, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League, WAC, Southern Conference, and the SWAC.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

• Summit League - 9
• Southwest - 10 (defunct conference)
• Sun Belt - 9
• MAAC - 10
• Patriot League - 11

• East Coast - 12 (defunct conference)
• Mid-American - 12
• Big West - 14
• Ohio Valley - 15
• Big Sky - 16

• Atlantic Sun - 16
• Ivy League - 18
• MEAC - 17
• Northeast - 16
• Southland - 26

Please take a look at the lists and feel free to create articles on any. Several recent CPOYs are missing articles, with good biographical information readily available. Rikster2 (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you create a page for this tracker and link it in the talk header at the top of this page. See how I do it at WT:TV for high priority fictional characters, high priority episode articles and high priority season articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just one more 2014 CPOY - R. J. Hunter - anybody want him? Rikster2 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hunter is done. Rikster2 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Conference Membership Tables

I also posted this on the College football project: I have noticed some movement in the Conference Membership Tables on conference pages, and I was wondering if there is/should be a set format title, and composition for conference membership tables. I have noticed differences in the Atlantic Coast Conference#Member schools, Southeastern Conference#Member universities, Big 12 Conference#Member schools, Missouri Valley Conference#Member schools, and several Division II such as Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association#Member schools Heartland Conference#Member schools, Division III, and NAIA. Should they all include Titles, Sports, City Population, Mascot etc. If there is a precedent that has already been set I would like to know. Should all conferences include the same types of information. Thanks, UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know there hasn't been a formalized standard of it, but ideally all conference should have the same information. The ACC and SEC are good models to work from. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggest the discussion consolidate to the active thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject College Basketball At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Boatright picture

I am not sure if I overcropped or undercropped File:20140614 Will Bynum and Ryan Boatright at the Nike Chi-League.JPG. I saved over the original. Feel free to revert or if you want Boatright isolated feel free to crop further. I was not sure what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

current rating

I made all 2014-15 seasons under the project as a current rating, cleaned up the future/current ratings to make access to the 2014-15 season for different teams easy. I think i should've mentioned this to you guys. If this is a problem i will change it back. Currently I have 2015 conference tournaments set as future.Littlekelv (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Western Kentucky Hilltoppers

I request that all Western Kentucky basketball article be moved to that title, as opposed to WKU. Literally no publication calls the program WKU, W. Kentucky perhaps but not WKU. I was going to be bold and move the pages, but then I noticed several people had done so already to either moniker. This is akin to renaming Kansas Jayhawks articles KU Jayhawks. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As a WKU alum, I think the university has been seeking to re-brand its teams with the WKU abbreviation instead of "Western Kentucky", presumably to avoid the "directional school" stigma. I think that was the motivation for the article's move to the WKU title. The analogy for Kansas isn't a perfect fit, since Kansas hasn't made the effort to re-brand itself that way. Not saying the university's desire should be the only factor in the discussion, but I thought I'd add this bit to see what other editors think of it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say go by what the school wants to be called, just like UCLA, and USC.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ESPN still calls it western Kentucky, and it calls UCLA and USC by those monikers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be "Western Kentucky." What the school wants is only part of the equation - the name needs to be what people actually identify them as. Very few people know what "WKU" refers to. Totally different than UCLA or USC where people rarely call it anything else. Bottom line, the "WKU" name is not yet the schools WP:COMMONNAME and is likely to confuse many readers who aren't die hard fans. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what the school wants should be considered, but I would use the information in a close call to tip the scale. I don't think this is a close call, so prefer Western Kentucky. If the school is successful we can change then, but we are deliberately followers, not leaders in matter such as this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the verdict on this? Pages either need to be moved or this needs to be put to bed. Rikster2 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the common name is Western Kentucky. It's what ESPN.com uses. It's not Wikipedia's job to brand a school's name. If the school succeeds in getting the national media to use WKU, then we can change it. -AllisonFoley (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mary Willingham (known for claims about UNC basketball) AFD

Would anyone like to participate? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Willingham Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Regular Season Tournaments

Do tournaments such as the 2K Sports Classic and Diamond Head Classic warrant a year by year page? There are 34 different pages currently with 5+ years of brackets for each season. Littlekelv (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's ok to split them since they're recurring, quasi-big tournaments. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Big East/American Page Naming and Content

A discussion on a baseball talk page that some of you might be interested in, regarding naming and content conventions for pages like Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, Big East Conference Baseball Tournament, etc.. Kithira (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WKU/Western Kentucky naming

A discussion I've restarted at the main athletic program page, if anyone's interested. Kithira (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Player notability standards?

Is there somewhere on the site where I can find notability standards specifically for college basketball players? I realize that not everyone on my favorite team is notable enough for a page, but I'd like to create pages for a few. Where do we draw the line? McDonald's All-American seems automatic. Starter on a power conference team seems less so. Mhults7791 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Under WP:NCOLLATH, first-team All-America selections (college, not high school) are usually considered major awards, and that comes with a presumption of notability. In the absence of a major award or NCAA record, college basketball players must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Starting status has no direct impact on notability; it's all about the quality and depth of media coverage. Hope this helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the quick and helpful responses! Mhults7791 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

NCAA Men's and Women's basketball team names

I am coming here to ask how many people use ESPN and rely solely on ESPN for their source when it comes to team names. Recently I have been involved in a dispute about Texas Southern. I have been told we have to use Texas Southern Tigers women's basketball since ESPN doesn't use Lady Tigers. However the Houston Chronicle, NBC, Yahoo, NCAA.com, ESPN3, the conference website, and the school website all denote them as being the Lady Tigers, not the Tigers. Heck, only ESPN uses Tigers alone. I have seen ESPN list multiple teams incorrectly, with most of them being Historically Black teams, though a few others like Liberty are also included. Now I want this to be resolved. I am a member of the women's basketball task force here on Wiki, and one of the things I have been tasked with doing is making sure team names are listed accurately. I bring this up since it would make some team pages, like Texas Southern, become the Texas Southern Tigers and lady Tigers, Arkansas-Pine Bluff becomes the Arkansas-Pine Bluff Lions and Lionettes, Mississippi Valley State become the Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils and Devilettes, Prairie View A&M Panthers become the Priaire View A&M Panthers and Lady Panthers, etc. Bigddan11 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

of course, the bigger question is why the "Lady" prefix is necessary at all for any sports team name. as far as I know, the name of a female panther is still a panther. it's not like we are talking about peacocks and peahens here. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Frietjes, it's an older usage. Most of the women's college varsity teams called themselves "Lady Foos" when they were formed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in contrast to the men's teams from the same colleges who were simply the "Foos." Many if not most women's teams dropped the "Lady Foos" usage altogether, while a distinct minority of others continued to call themselves the "Lady Foos" exclusively. The teams of my American alma maters are officially called the "Foos," just like the men's teams, but also unofficially refer to themselves as the "Lady Foos" whenever the mood moves them. So, it's a real mixed bag. My suggestion is to defer to the official usage of the particular university or college's athletic department, because the "Lady Foos" usage of sportswriters and the media is quite random and may change from article to article, day to day, even for the same publication and sportswriter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

as a female, I am looking forward to the day when such qualifiers are used in a gender-balanced way, or abolished altogether. it's simply offensive. I don't call myself a 'lady professor'. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to be offended on behalf of the Lady Foos, Frietjes. No one is forcing these women's teams to call themselves the "Lady Foos"; it's their choice to be styled so. As I understand it, one of the core principles of feminism is the right of women to choose how they define themselves, and not to be defined by others. I think we -- including other women -- should all respect that, and not seek offense where none is intended, or try to impose our own preconceptions on these women athletes. Most of them are quite capable of expressing their own opinions on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

lol, let me know when the people in charge of choosing these titles are women. by the way, you might enjoy this commentary. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Simon B. Gray

Not directly related to this project, per se, but of tangential interest to some members here as an NCAA Division I athletic director. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon B. Gray. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year articles - progress tracker

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress, and the following conference POY templates are complete: America East, American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big South, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League, WAC, Southern Conference, and the SWAC.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

• Sun Belt - 8
• Summit League - 9
• Southwest - 10 (defunct conference)
• MAAC - 10
• Patriot League - 11

• East Coast - 12 (defunct conference)
• Mid-American - 12
• Ohio Valley - 13
• Big West - 14
• Northeast - 15

• Atlantic Sun - 16
• Big Sky - 16
• MEAC - 17
• Ivy League - 18
• Southland - 26

Feel free to help out and create a couple. Rikster2 (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

College infobox parameter following commitment

What is the proper parameter syntax for a high school player who has committed to a specific college in terms of his infobox. Specifically, what do I do with Jalen Brunson?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You can use "Verbal Commitment," or "Commitment." It shouldn't have a future date (ie Michigan (2015-present). Colors, etc added when the recruit shows up on campus (and dates added then too). Hope this helps. Rikster2 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jersey numbers

FYI

You are invited to join a discussion on the listing of jersey numbers in former players' infoboxes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Jersey_numbers_for_retired_players.—Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles

The following AfDs may be of interest to WP:CBB members because they concern the notability and suitability of stand-alone articles for regular season games. Your participation is welcome in these discussions. There are currently 17 pending articles for deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cowboys Classic;

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cowboys Classic;

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Cowboys Classic;

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Cowboys Classic;

5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Cowboys Classic;

6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Cowboys Classic;

7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M football game;

8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Tennessee vs. Florida football game;

9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;

10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;

11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;

12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;

13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;

14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game;

15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff;

16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff; and

17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights III.

Your informed participation is welcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

CfD - American men's basketball players

There is a discussion underway about this category. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 11#American men's basketball players. This category was created about a year ago and currently has about 60 articles in it (obviously very underpopulated). I would like to see strong representation from people who actually work basketball artices (and other similarly structured sports) weigh in as this would essentially signal a new category structure to be built and implemented (50 state-specific men's and 50 state-specific women's categories). There are pros and cons to the structure, but whatever your views I would like to ensure that the decision reached is one reached by robust dialogue and careful consideration. Especially as this did not occur the last time this category was CfD'ed. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rikster, what's your ideal basketball category hierarchy? I think the current "system," such as it is, with subcat for basketball players by state, by ethnicity, by race, etc., is an over-categorized mess, but the same could be said for many sports. Too many "professional categorizers" intent on adding unnecessary subcats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
  • My personal view is that American basketball player > Basketball players from State X is sufficient (with no need for a gender split). I personally don't think the African-American basketball player category is useful or needed, but there are other users who add it to every article it may fit (including people of South American ancestry at times) .Rikster2 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

CBB rivalry series?

If this (Florida-Florida State men's basketball rivalry) is our standard for stand-alone articles about notable college basketball rivalries, we need to seriously review WP:NRIVALRY and how the notability guidelines are being applied. Does anyone else think of Florida-Florida State when they think of great CBB rivalries? Most such rivalries of marginal notability can and should be addressed in the text of the team articles . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think of this as a big basketball rivalry. Rikster2 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like it would be most appropriate as a section of Florida–Florida State football rivalry. Several rivalry pages have sections for other varsity sports, for when the basketball/baseball/rowing rivalry doesn't reach the same level of coverage. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bill, I'm not a big fan of mixing sports, and we already have sports program articles for most of the major Division I schools. Mixed sports rivalry articles usually wind up being a disorganized coatrack for very marginal content. Marginal rivalry articles have become a long-term problem for the college football project, because there are a handful of editors who believe that any long-term CFB series is a notable rivalry worthy of a stand-alone article. Some of the same handful of editors now seem intent on grinding out similar articles for CBB subjects. What most of these articles usually consist of is an infobox, a brief introductory paragraph and a series record table. Sources and footnotes are usually absent. A clear violation of the spirit of WP:NSTATS, the articles persist in this condition until someone submits them for AfD and then the howling starts, and we often justify keeping them on the basis of a half-dozen trivial mentions of the series as a "rivalry" in routine coverage. WP:CFB is going through a process of deleting many recently added stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games, but I think we need to take a joint approach to getting a handle on the proliferation of rivalry articles of marginal notability. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is some kind of effort underway to look at WP:NRIVALRY I'll take part but it isn't something I am passionate enough about to pursue. I guess I'm kind of wondering why it is necessary to have different rivalry pages for different sports. Indiana-Purdue or UNC-NC State are rivalries that span several sports, why not just have an umbrella article that talks about, for example, football and basketball? But again, not an area I am passionate about. I'm not sure I have ever contributed to a rivalry article aside from maybe reverting vandalism. Rikster2 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rik, the short-answer is that well-defined subjects make for good articles. What happens with a multi-sport rivalry article is that is usually based on the notability of the football or men's basketball rivalry? Other sports teams from the two schools play each, but are they really rivalries? Florida-Florida State is a football rivalry. Is it also a men's basketball rivalry? Well, kinda sorta, maybe. Is it a women's basketball rivalry? Not really. Is it a softball rivalry? Maybe. Is it a rivalry in golf, tennis, swimming, soccer, track, volleyball, gymnastics, etc.? You see where I'm going with this. Once you open the article up to the inclusion of non-notable rivalries in other sports, the article simply becomes a coatrack full of junk. Each rivalry in each sport should stand on its own, and not piggyback on the notability of a real rivalry in another sport. I might also add that one of the biggest problems with rivalry articles in general is that "rivalry" is an amorphous concept that is not particularly well-defined. That's another element of this that needs to be addressed: we probably need a WikiProject internal guideline that defines what a "rivalry" is for purposes of stand-alone articles, and it would be awesome if we could do a single "rule" for all college sports, including a list of the characteristics of what makes a "rivalry" into a traditional college sports rivalry like UNC-Duke. Those are my thoughts. And sadly, none of this is going to get done today, but it's a conversation we should start. I've gotta scoot now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I imagine they have a strong baseball rivalry. However, rivalries in sports that don't get press don't amount to documentable rivalries for WP. So your laundry list of sports rivalry possibilities is a meaningless consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony, if the General Sherman redwood falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, is it notable? Bottom line: I've reviewed the Gators baseball coverage from the 1940s, 1950s, and even 1960s when I was looking for coverage of several coaches and Gator Great HOF'ers, and the typical coverage of major home baseball games was a single paragraph in The Gainesville Sun (with no box score); most games passed with no coverage at all. There's not a lot of significant Gators baseball newspaper coverage out there until the 1980s. Not like football, at all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think to the FSU/UF students it's a rivalry due to being an in-state match-up (north Florida, no less), but no this is not a notable college basketball rivalry. I went to W&M and don't consider Longwood a rival despite the school being 2 hours away in Virginia, for example. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not a fan of mixing sports rivalries. Michigan–Michigan State ice hockey rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry and Michigan–Michigan State basketball rivalry all can coexist with substantively different focusses. I think it is a matter of research. I am quite sure the two Florida schools have vied for talent in storied manners (maybe not as storied as the Michigan-Michigan State battle for Mateen Cleaves), but they must have vied for more talent than are noted in the Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry. I can't imagine there have not been recruiting war as well as meaningful basketball games between the two. I think good research would turn up a true rivalry.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, I realize that the Michigan–Michigan State basketball rivalry completely omits the University of Michigan basketball scandal. I have some work to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like for a rivalry to be notable, the existence of a true rivalry needs to receive more than routine coverage in reliable sources. Simply playing a lot or going after the same recruits (especially for two in-state schools where recruiting overlap is to be expected) isn't necessarily an actual rivalry. In other words, the rivalry shouldn't be a Wikipedia creation. As for mixing sports, I just asked the question, I don't think anyone is actually proposing merging articles. Rikster2 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by a wikipedia creation? Recently, I have wondered if Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry is a WP creation. Last years game had no rivalrous aura. I am not sure what constitutes a rivalry in truth. I think the UF-FSU authors should find articles that preceded "the big game" in past years and summarize them. They should enumerate recruits both schools have gone after. I think they probably have what would constitute a papertrail rivalry if we dig.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rivalries should have WP:INDEPTH coverage, not a trivial routine use of the word "rival" or "rivalry". There also needs to be a level of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. For example, vying for a few championships in a short period is arguably not notable for a standalone article. Finally, WP:GNG needs to be met, esp. multiple sources to ensure there is wide interest.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba, your recent additions to our AfD discussions (including those mentioned above) are already on my hit list to include in a WP:CBB/WP:CFB internal guideline that collect all of the randomly scattered Wikipedia-wide guidelines applicable to the notability/suitability of stand-alone articles for regular season games and rivalries. Good research work on your part duly noted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Aim higher and go for WP:NRIVALRY. This is a rampant problem in pro sports as well.—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bags, one battle at a time, my friend. If we can get some momentum with revisions to WP:NSPORTS and related guidelines regarding regular season games (the low-hanging fruit in light of recent AfD outcomes), then we can move on NSPORTS rivalry and season issues. I have an agenda. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Basketball players from Louisville, Kentucky

You are invited to take part in a discussion about this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Sport players from Louisville, Kentucky. Rikster2 (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested page move of a stadium article with naming rights

Hi there. A recent requested page move of O.co Coliseum to Oakland Coliseum has been re-listed for another week, and thus may need input by participants here at WikiProject College Basketball.

At issue are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA concerns that, if this move request passes, may eventually affect the naming of college basketball arena articles: specifically whether to keep the current practice of renaming arena and stadium articles whenever there is a new sponsor (like renaming Assembly Hall (Champaign) to State Farm Center), or permanently keep them at long-term, stable names (like always keeping articles at, for example, the ASU Activity Center or Providence Civic Center titles instead of their current corporate titles) regardless of current or future changes to the naming rights. Please discuss at Talk:O.co Coliseum#Requested move 2. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trey Burke/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trey Burke/archive1 has been open for 2 and a half weeks without any substantive commentary. Note that Burke is a former National Player of the Year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Recruit images

Now that most 2014–15 pages have been created, I have added some of the recruit pictures that I took at the 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game to some of the articles. Basically, every recruiting class that had more than one MCD A-A recruit now has images from the game in the recruit section. Obviously, I am not a professional photographer, but since we have the images and these pages were all void of images, I felt it would be an improvement to add my images rather than not. Ucla90024 for some reason has an issue at 2014–15 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team. I also went back to 2013 and did the same thing. Now that all the articles exist, we should probably agree to do something consistent for all our MCD A-As since we have pictures of all of them. Should I add images for teams that only have one MCD A-A? Should I undo these from all the articles or what. We had this discussion last April at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 4#Images of incoming freshmen. I don't want to impose my will on the pages because I am obviously biased to think that my own pictures are good. So I am asking for some feedback on whether I should populate the recruit sections with MCD A-A images that we have. Last time Jrcla2 and Rikster2 were in agreement with me that the images belonged in the 2014–15 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team article. Now that I am putting the images in more places, I want to make sure we have some sort of consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You can see the images I have added to 2014–15 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team, 2014–15 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team, and 2014–15 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team last spring and more recently to 2014–15 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team, 2014–15 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team, 2013–14 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team, 2013–14 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team, 2013–14 Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team, 2013–14 Florida Gators men's basketball team, 2013–14 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team, 2013–14 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, which I have added in the last few days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In the past discussion you linked, there was a caveat stated that the "photo placement doesn't make the article look tacky". One could argue that placing it on top of a recruit table with no surrounding text looks tacky. There is also the concern that pictures of recruits gives them undue weight compared to returning players, who might be more important depending on the team. On the other hand, having any picture in the article—even if it's of freshman not even in the college's uniform—could be seen as being better than having no pictures at all in the article. I have no strong opinion when an article is not in GA class. In the meantime, editors can be bold but should avoid edit wars. However, it is understandably frustrating when they are removed without a clear explanation.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba Would the images be better placed below the recruit tables? Also in terms of undue weight, aren't the majority of McDonald's All-Americans going to be day 1 starters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral either way. It's more a question for the reverters whether a compromise can be reached.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

So you think each page should be structured differently according to the editor? FYI, I am thinking of adding the players that are singletons to the side of the recruite tables.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just added all the images that were singletons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alvin Brooks III

I don't think Alvin Brooks III is notable. Can someone please create the AfD? My free time is hard to come by lately. If not no biggie. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Kickstarter campaign by User:TonyTheTiger

Please spread the word about #TTTWFTW, my Kickstarter campaign.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Creighton Basketball Uniforms

The alternate uniform for the Creighton Bluejays does not have the same blue sides that match the blue sides on its home jerseys. Can somebody who is an expert with jersey templates fix this problem? Thanks--User:NJ Jurrjens (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering why pages like this one have been created when the main subject is a redirect (no article) to the main athletics wiki article? It doesn't make sense to create season pages for teams if they don't have a stand-alone article, or at least that is my opinion anyway. The article I mentioned is not the first one I've come across, but don't ask me what the other one was because I can't remember! I know college football teams do not have season articles created if they don't have an article. It is just worthless and makes no sense at all. Has there been a discussion about this before? If there has, can someone point it out to me? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 20:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that 2014–15 Tulane Green Wave women's basketball team is not notable, or just that Tulane Green Wave women's basketball should be a standalone article first?—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm trying to say that the Tulane Green Wave women's basketball should be a standalone article first. I was just confused as to why there was season article, but no main article for the team. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. Some people start articles because they are interested in that specific area. While you could ask people to help in other areas, I'd be less concerned if that content added was in fact notable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

First of all, I'm primarily a football guy, so forgive my hoops ignorance if this has been asked before, or is common knowledge. But, I was wondering if there was any sort of college basketball related site that would approximate the kind of functions that the College Football Data Warehouse does for college football. Specifically, what I'm looking for right now is the ability to quickly and easily look up head-to-head team records (like this). Is there any sort of college basketball site out there that would do the same sort of things the CFDW does for football? Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

sports-reference.com, but it only goes back to 2010–11 so far.—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Big East/The American

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career scoring leaders#Big East footnote to straighten out the basketball relationship between the "original" Big East, the current Big East, and the American Athletic Conference. Please chime in on how all-time scoring leaders for the conference(s) should be shown. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Jahlil Okafor

Jahlil Okafor's article is way too long. Yes, he is a potential number one pick, but that doesn't mean that he deserves this kind of depth of coverage. The same was true for Jabari Parker last year, but that has been cleaned up. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GAR notification

2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TV listings

User:Lewisthejayhawk and I have been in a edit war for awhile concerning MWN (Mountain West Network) being included on Boise State basketball pages under TV. He continues to remove it and has never given a reason why. The way I see it MWN is just as much TV as other online streams that get posted on season pages (ESPN3, OVC Digital, BTN+, SEC+, theW.net, Horizon League Network, Big Sky TV, Patriot League Network, several others). The MWN shows all Mountain West home games that are not on TV by using the stadiums videoboard video along with radio commentary. However, they also stream games that they produce with their own announcers and their own on screen graphics as if it were a TV broadcast. Those are the only games that I have included MWN for on Boise State pages because its more then just a basic video stream. Since there are a ton of online streams listed on other pages, I don't see why this can't be included. Other frustration in the situation comes from the fact that Lewisthejayhawk has been asked several times to A) give a reason for the removal and B) his ignoring me asking him to post on talk pages before the issue is resolved. I have actually started warning him his edits are vandalism for his insistence of never giving a reason for the removal and refusal to actually talk about the situation. Should MWN be included? And if not why are other online streams acceptable to be listed under TV? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good that you started a discussion. Frankly, the edit warring at 2014–15 Boise State Broncos men's basketball team has been going on far too long by both of you. I've formally warned the other editor about edit warring, in the event they were unaware it was not acceptable. I assume you are already familiar with it. Any further reverts without consensus by either of you should be reported to WP:AN3. It's not vandalism per se, but more of a disagreement on content.—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with it but I have also tried to get this resolved. I am the only person who has ever posted on talk pages asking why it has been removed. There has never been a counterpoint given. So yes I believe it to be vandalism. If he had an actual reason for its removal it should be given. He keeps removing it simply because he does not want it there. As far as I'm concerned he has had ample opportunity to give an argument and never has. So sure, it might not technically be vandalism, but it is as far as I'm concerned. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

With all that said though I am done talking about the edit war and would like to start an actual discussion the topic. If MWN can't be there then no online streams should be there. If other online streams can be included then MWN should be included. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also wondered if Internet streams should be listed. I go back and forth. Sometimes I think Internet feeds should be listed, but then I wonder if the TV column should be there at all. What's really the purpose of the column? Especially once a season is over. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I personally like it being there. I like looking back over the years and knowing what game was on what channel. More for football than basketball though. Its easier for football because there are fewer games. Basketball there are so many that are streamed online or broadcasted only locally then picked up by ESPN3. But yes, really they don't need to be there. But they are for now and I'd say all or none when it comes to online streams. Should't have one standard for the big guys (ESPN3, BTN+, SEC+) and another for the little guys (MWN, theW.tv, HLN, a lot of others). Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I like it too.

And my opinion as to whether or not to include Internet feeds is yes, include them and maybe change the column title to "TV/Internet". At some point in the future those two will be the same. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Access to free books

FYI

There are some sports-related title that you may find helpful at Wikipedia:McFarland. Sign up required.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year articles – Help needed

All - Wanted to give an update on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress, and the following conference POY templates are complete: America East, American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big South, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League, WAC, Southern Conference, and the SWAC.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

• Sun Belt - 8
• Summit League - 9
• Southwest - 10 (defunct conference)
• MAAC - 10
• Patriot League - 11

• East Coast - 12 (defunct conference)
• Mid-American - 12
• Ohio Valley - 13
• Big West - 14
• Northeast - 15

• Big Sky - 15
• Atlantic Sun - 16
• MEAC - 17
• Ivy League - 18
• Southland - 26

We could really use the help completing these if anyone has interested in the missing conferences/schools. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

image selections

If anyone would like to help us select new in images for Fred VanVleet and Ron Baker, please stop by at Talk:2014–15_Wichita_State_Shockers_men's_basketball_team#Bio_image_selections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

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

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

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

Requested input

User:Zachlp and I have a little dispute over whether external links should be listed under the "score" section on season articles like in the 2014–15 Drexel Dragons men's basketball team article. Zachlp believes that they should be listed, but I don't. If anything, they should be used as references, not external links. I have listed a discussion on the talk page of the article, where he did not respond. He did, however, post on my talk page his response after my three attempts on his talk page. We would like other opinions who are more experienced with the season article. Please post your opinion on the talk page of the season article. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never liked the use of external links. Really all they do is usually is link to the boxscore on the schools site or a site like ESPN when really if you wanted the boxscore you wouldn't be coming to Wikipedia in the first place. I personally think a reference to the schedule itself should be enough because that link will give you all the scores but a reference for each score I believe is better then using external links. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree about external links - they shouldn't be used (or at most rarely) except in templates and external links sections, etc. in addition to being kind of misleading, there is also the issue that they are subject to change and suffer from WP:LINKROT. Rikster2 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, guys! I guess we'll just wait to see if Zachlp responds here or on the article's talk page... Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:2014–15 Drexel Dragons men's basketball team

—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on a discussion around recruiting sites

There is a discussion about the use (and recent rise) of 247Sports.com for recruiting ranking information here. Please comment. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox color problem

Not sure what the issue is, but the Ohio State colors are a little messed up in the basketball biography infobox. Take a look at D'Angelo Russell – the print is grey and barely readable. Compare that to Buckeye football player Ezekiel Elliott – lettering a nice, clear white. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Football uses Template:CollegeSecondaryHex, and User:Dainomite recently changed from gray to white. Basketball uses Template:NCAA color, and User:Frietjes recently changed from white to gray. I agree that the contrast is horrid, so I've changed it back to white. Others can chime in if they have different opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bagumba. User:Frietjes, even though OSU's main colors are red and grey we cannot use them for this exact reason, it's hard to read and does not meet color-contrast requirements as prescribed in WP:COLOR. Cheers, —  dainomite   18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize Template:NCAA color existed. We really ought to merge the info in Template:CollegePrimaryHex, Template:CollegeSecondaryHex, and Template:NCAA color into one template and have everything run off that. @Frietjes: is this something you might want to work on? A merge would also impact Template:CollegePrimaryStyle, Template:CollegeSecondaryStyle, Template:CollegePrimaryColorLink, and Template:CollegeSecondaryColorLink as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Defintely should be only one ncaa color template that these infoboxes link to. Just make sure the differences in gender team names (as well as oddball cases like the UNLV "Running Rebels" in basketball) are covered in the final solution. Rikster2 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also be good to have a color chart for the NCAA colors like at Module:Basketball color (kudos to Frietjes) for easy viewing. An even further improvement would be to flag which color combinations are problematic by incorporating Template:Color contrast conformance.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

yes, basically my plan was to merge them all into a module like Module:Basketball color, but just haven't had the time to do it yet. however, I can make it a higher priority now that I know that there are more people interested. Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

now mostly done. the colors are now all in Module:College color/data which is used by Module:College color. this version should be more efficient, since (1) it's written in lua and (2) it doesn't need to go through two large switch statements to get the primary and secondary colors. instead, it gets both colors at the same time. the current format is 'primary hex', 'secondary hex', 'tertiary hex'. it will use primary hex for the background, and tertiary for the font. however, if tertiary isn't defined, it will use secondary instead. eventually this can be made even more automatic where secondary or tertiary is the border color for the uses in navboxes, but that will take some time to engineer. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on naming convention for TCU women's team

I just started a discussion at Talk:TCU Horned Frogs and Lady Frogs#Name change in order? to determine if the TCU women's programs – specifically basketball – still go by the "Lady Frogs" name or if they have transitioned to "Horned Frogs." Please chime in. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers men's basketball team

As a personal project, I've been putting a lot of work into 2014–15 Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers men's basketball team. My hope is to get it to GA status once the season is over. Can someone with more experience in the project let me know what I'm doing right (if anything) and what I'm doing wrong? Or maybe it's not even worth the effort at all. Just looking for some feedback. Thanks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential problem edits re college sports national championships

WP:College basketball editors may be interested in the discussion taking place here: WT:CFB#Widespread changes to college sports program articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 1911–12 William & Mary Indians men's basketball team for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1911–12 William & Mary Indians men's basketball team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1911–12 William & Mary Indians men's basketball team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shanata (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

scoutbasketball.com

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

Karl Malone Award

So apparently there is going to be a Karl Malone Award for the first time this season, presented by the Basketball Hall of Fame, recognizing the "top power forward"? Should this be considered a high profile award, i.e. we will have to create its article once the winner is announced? Jrcla2 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The HOF has been busy. Apparently they have created 4 new awards to complement the Cousy Award for top PG. The Karl Malone Award (PF), the Jerry West Award (SG), the Julius Erving Award (SF) and the Kareemm Abdul-Jabbar Award (C). Not sure how to handle it, but given the HOF backing I'd say they are probably more prestigious than the College Insider awards. Rikster2 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I suppose you're right, that the BHOF is a powerful enough organization that these awards will be well-backed. Pretty soon the college basketball awards navbox is going to look like the college football one (bordering on too many awards). Jrcla2 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If you followed rules to a tee, WP:TOOSOON would probably apply. Can probably say it lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage of news of the initial watchlist, but I'm pretty sure the next watchlist will get the same coverage and satisfy WP:GNG by then.—Bagumba (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of season schedule tables

WP:CBB members, please review these discussion threads: [1] and [2]. The changes proposed would affect the way we currently format all single-season NFL articles, and ultimately single-season articles for college basketball and other major sports teams, too. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is invited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Kentucky-Centre College rivalry

I'm not thinking this is a notable rivalry, even within the context of it being historical rather than contemporary. What are others' opinions? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely does not deserve it's own page. If it was a rivalry worth mentioning then something would be said of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball, but there is no mention. I'd say this is a page that should be deleted. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is not needed. Kentucky-Centre is not a rivalry. The University of Kentucky does not recognize it nor have they played in several decades. The only non-D1 rivalry that Kentucky recognizes is the Battle on Broadway with Transylvania University. Trocksuk4415 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notation of post-season on conference standings

2013–14 Southeastern Conference men's basketball standings

	Conf							Overall
Team	W		L		PCT			W		L		PCT
No. 3 Florida †	18	–	0		1.000			36	–	3		.923
No. 2 Kentucky N	12	–	6		.667			29	–	11		.725
Georgia n	12	–	6		.667			20	–	14		.588
No. 23 Tennessee N	11	–	7		.611			24	–	13		.649
Arkansas n	10	–	8		.556			22	–	12		.647
Missouri n	9	–	9		.500			23	–	12		.657
LSU	9	–	9		.500			20	–	14		.588
Ole Miss	9	–	9		.500			19	–	14		.576
Texas A&M c	8	–	10		.444			18	–	16		.529
Vanderbilt	7	–	11		.389			15	–	16		.484
Alabama	7	–	11		.389			13	–	19		.406
Auburn	6	–	12		.333			14	–	16		.467
South Carolina	5	–	13		.278			14	–	20		.412
Mississippi State	3	–	15		.167			14	–	19		.424
† - SEC Tournament winner and automatic bid to NCAA Tournament
N - At-large bid to NCAA Tournament
n - Played in the NIT
c - played in the CBI
Rankings from AP Poll

2013–14 Southeastern Conference men's basketball standings

	Conf							Overall
Team	W		L		PCT			W		L		PCT
No. 3 Florida †	18	–	0		1.000			36	–	3		.923
No. 2 Kentucky	12	–	6		.667			29	–	11		.725
Georgia	12	–	6		.667			20	–	14		.588
No. 23 Tennessee	11	–	7		.611			24	–	13		.649
Arkansas	10	–	8		.556			22	–	12		.647
Missouri	9	–	9		.500			23	–	12		.657
LSU	9	–	9		.500			20	–	14		.588
Ole Miss	9	–	9		.500			19	–	14		.576
Texas A&M	8	–	10		.444			18	–	16		.529
Vanderbilt	7	–	11		.389			15	–	16		.484
Alabama	7	–	11		.389			13	–	19		.406
Auburn	6	–	12		.333			14	–	16		.467
South Carolina	5	–	13		.278			14	–	20		.412
Mississippi State	3	–	15		.167			14	–	19		.424
† - SEC Tournament winner
NCAA Tournament: Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee
NIT: Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri
CBI: Texas A&M
Rankings from AP Poll

I was brainstorming on an idea to include teams' postseason destinations in official year-by-year standings templates, and was hoping to get some feedback on the idea. Some kind of notation to tell which teams played in the NCAA Tournament, NIT, CBI, or CIT, either with the acronym, or maybe just a letter or symbol. I've included an example of one possible way at the right.

It would need to have a key at the bottom linking to the tournament articles (I think? Or maybe it the word/letter/symbol could be a link straight to the tournament article?). Has this been proposed before? What are everyone's thoughts on this idea? Jhn31 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. It clutters the template and is information not directly related to overall/conference standings, which is the purpose of the template. Plus, any conference tournament winner automatically gets an NCAA bid, and for those teams you'd have both the "†" and "NCAA", which is redundant. If someone wants to see what schools made the tournaments, all they have to do is click on the season link in the standings. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I also like how the college baseball articles did it for 2007, 2008, 2009, etc., with the shading. The more recent college baseball season articles (such as 2014) also denote the tournament teams too, just with a "y" which is a little cluttery.

The reason I think it's so important to mark because it's not immediately obvious how good a team is based on its record. When you see a major conference team that ended up 22-10, that could easily be an NCAA team or an NIT team, based on their strength of schedule. The record alone doesn't tell much about how good a team is. As for your point about redundant marks for the conference tournament winners, I think you're right and we could just add a symbol for at-large bids.

Maybe we could also put a list at the bottom of the table of NCAA Tournament teams if we don't like using symbols or shading? I've placed two less cluttered, better notated examples to the right, one with small symbols, and one with a list at the bottom. I'm not sure how to get shading into the template, but that would be a third proposal Do you or anyone else find any of these appealing? Jhn31 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think adding this clutters the template. Seems like this info would be appropriate in a conference season article (where there is more room to work) but in my opinion we shouldn't add it to the templates. Rikster2 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that every division I team has their own season article I think is a reason for not needing any kind of notation in the standings template. We already mark the tournament champion. If anyone wants to know more about a specific team they can go to that teams own article to find out. No reason to cluster up the standings template more. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's only true for the last couple years, though. If I want to look at an article about even a recent year like 2009 or 2010, I won't know who's a tournament team and who's not without going to the page about that year's NCAA Tournament and hunt for team names. Jhn31 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The college baseball wikiproject has only very recently begun to get any kind of traction, and they take 98% of their standardization and formatting based on how the college football and college basketball projects do theirs. The CBBALL and CFB projects have the most editors, most experience, and the most in-the-trenches history of talk page and deletion discussions, guiding the way in most facets of all college sports editing. I strongly disagree that we should be following the college baseball wikiproject on anything. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: There have been some improvement to the template example since the original post (note: it's hard to correlate older comments when changes are made, as opposed to just making another version)—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think NCAA invites are generally considered key information in understanding a conference's season. A single character indicator as opposed to the original proposal of "NCAA" should address clutter concerns. NTI and CBI are less notable, and can be omitted. Conference season articles have generally provided a post-season summary about tourney invites and results, so I don't see why this not being part of the actual conference schedule should necessarily preclude the tourney from being indicated in the template. CFB has College Football Playoff participants in its standings e.g. Template:2014 Pacific-12 football standings, and previously had BCS invites as well. This seems more relevant than trivia like TV partners that are plastered at the top of conference articles.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. Maybe I'm not the norm, but I usually want to know how good a team actually was when looking at the standings table. For example, the SEC used to be a 6-bids-a-year style conference and then all-of-a-sudden we were a 3-bid league, even though the overall and conference record tables don't really look any different. I think adding who the NCAA teams are gives more context to the standings table. Jhn31 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• • However, those college football standing do not include teams that made bowl games. It clutters up the standings template. I've suggested starting an NCAA Tournament participants wikibox for the past two seasons, but get denied each time. I think that'd be more pertinent to put on each individual teams page. Trocksuk4415 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • One character doesn't seem to be much clutter. One could argue selection to the NCAAs is too trivial to include, but I would not agree. I'm not sure what a "wikibox" is; can you elaborate and explain its advantages. Also, do you have a link to the past discussions? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm guessing the "wikibox" he's referring to is some sort of a navbox listing all of the teams' season artile pages as NCAA Tournament participants for that season, which is redundant to Category:2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship participants. It creates navbox clutter and is unnecessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        • If that is what is proposed, I agree the "wikibox" overkill. Conference articles should deal with the ... well, conference. Unless I am missing something here, it sounds like an unconvincing argument that since there was no consensus to have a new navbox with all 68 tourney teams, then a conference article cannot even have a smaller, more relevant subset of it's own tourney teams marked in an already existing navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I would like to echo the sentiment that one character doesn't amount to clutter, and would like to hear if anyone believes it does (it seems like the earlier objection was to putting the whole word "NCAA" in there, not just the letter N." I would also like to reiterate how useless a team's overall record is when there's no context. Seeing in the box that a major conference team went 24-11 overall on the season tells me nothing. That could easily be an NCAA team or an NIT team, depending on the team's SOS and RPI, so that's why I think it's important to denote the team's postseason destination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhn31 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Are these conference tourney infobox field needed

Are these Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Conference Tournament fields needed:

• Attendance: Is this infobox worthy? I don't think it's notable enough to clutter the infobox; it can be in the body. If it is to stay, shouldn't it just be the overall attendance? 2015 Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament currently has the total and championship game breakdown.
• Post tournaments: This isn't even customizable. There's just boilerplate "2015 NCAA, 2015 NIT, 2015 CBI, 2015 CIT" for every infobox, whether or not the conference has teams in those tournaments. Seem like most articles already have Template:2015 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament navbox, which has all the tourneys in it. I propose removing this.

—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either is necessary. I had looked at the post tournament field recently and had thought about how silly it looked Rikster2 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rikster: delete these two parameters. WP:IBX: focus on the core data, don't try to gild the lily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the post-tourneys based on early feedback and the fact it duplicates other navbox. Will wait to see if there is more input on attendance param.—Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for attendance, especially considering that some tournaments are held on campus sites and others on neutral courts. There is also the distinction between total attendance and final game attendance that could cause too much confusion than its worth. ~ Richmond96 T • C 21:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Yale Bulldogs men's basketball team no post season?

I am confused about the situation for 2014–15 Yale Bulldogs men's basketball team. I thought that regular season conference champions and co-champions had automatic bids to the NIT if they are not included in the NCAA field. Why isn't Yale playing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Only the regular season conference champion after all tie breakers gets an automatic NIT bid. In the case of the Ivy, Harvard and Yale tied for the championship and Harvard went to the NCAAs after winning the one game playoff (which is not considered a conference tournament). In the CAA, four teams tied for the championship. The NIT isnt going to commit to three bids for the CAA, but they committed to William & Mary who was the top seed in the CAA tournament once all tie breakers were applied. By not having a conference tournament, the Ivy has pretty much guaranteed that they won't ever get an NIT team unless the team earns it as an at large. Rikster2 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside: And the only conference that can conscionably call its players student-athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have to re-write 2010–11 Ivy League men's basketball season, 2010–11 Harvard Crimson men's basketball team and Tommy Amaker at some point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

USA Today All-Americans

I saw this in the infobox at Stanley Johnson. I traced it to this article in USA Today. Is this a "real" All-American team, or just an informal article written by two writers with their picks?—Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep in mind we consider TSN official even though it seemingly only comes from DeCourcy in most recent years. The list you mention represents what the USA Today will publish as an All-American team. So it is real. I think you could add a sentence to 2015 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans, stating that among the other media outlets to produce All-American teams are USA Today and any others that you may find. I took a lot of heat for cluttering Jabari Parker's article last year, so I am waiting to see what all the possible listings are for Jahlil Okafor before I jump in on that one this year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okafor will be a consensus first team All-American, so that's what would go in the infobox. His case will be very simple - one line. Rikster2 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• TSN (didn't they drop "The" from their name?) gets extra consideration as long as its a selector for consensus AA. I've got no strong opinion for USAT, just wondering what the cutoff would be, as every publication I imagine has some AA list.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we have been agonizing about what should or shouldn't be in the infobox, in my opinion we shouldn't include "non-consensus" All-America teams. I think this is where an awards list in the article comes into play. Yes, USA Today is a major publication, like ESPN and SI, but in truth those selections don't mean anything to the officially recognized teams (unlike Sporting News, which is one of the four selectors for consensus AA). Every publication publishes an All-American list, you have to draw the line somewhere and the consensus selectors are a logical place, especially since you'd still have the option to list these in the article, just not the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Are you saying don't list any that are not used to determine consensus AA e.g. USA Today, or don't list any AA that isn't consensus e.g. AP AA without consensus? I'd be OK w/o USA Today and the like not in the infobox, would need more convincing about removing AP, USBWA, etc selections that were not not consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Oops, Adding missing "not".—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I am saying recognize the teams that are used to determine consensus, currently AP, USBWA, NABC and Sporting News. And why would you need convincing to not include USA Today, which is just one of many media outlets who "me too" All-American teams at the end of the year? Rikster2 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Upon re-reading, we may be on the same page. For example, I'd advocate keeping the AA honors currently in Kyle Anderson's article (granted by orgs used to determine consensus), but am suggesting we draw the line at USAT, SI, or other outlets that aren't part of that equation. We saying the same thing? Rikster2 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I was missing a "not" in there (since added). To be crystal, only these in infobox (because they are used for consensus AA): AP, USBWA, TSN, and NABC.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Uniform colors

@Frietjes or any other color guru: I ran across the roster listing at 2014–15_SMU_Mustangs_men's_basketball_team#Roster, and noticed that color scheme is quite unreadable with blue text against red background. However, SMU player Yanick Moreira in his infobox has white text on red background. Can we make the various color templates consistent regarding the text color used. I think infoboxes are generally fine; it's the other templates that use an inconsistent scheme than can result in unreadable combos. In this specific case, Template:CBB roster/Header should be made consistent with Template:Infobox basketball biography.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, I partially fixed it, by switching the primary coloring, but will need to work on the secondary coloring. see the lists linked in User:Frietjes/ncaa for a nearly up-to-date table of all the colors used in Module:College color, along with the contrast. if you check User:Frietjes/ncaa, you will see that we actually have 3 colors for some teams. in template:infobox basketball biography we always use 1st for the background and 2nd for the foreground. this works for the primary coloring. for the secondary colouring we could probably use (a) 2nd for the background and 1st for the foreground, or (b) if 3rd is defined, then use 3rd for the background and 2nd for the foreground. Frietjes (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

update, I went ahead and implemented the plan outlined above, and it seems to work fine. please, let me know if there is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

New York Bulls

With the appearance of Buffalo in the NCAA Tournament, an editor has inserted the phrase "New York Bulls" as an alternate name for the team, part of Buffalo's "New York Bulls Initiative" to re-brand the university as New York's state flagship. I started a discussion at Talk:Buffalo Bulls#New York Bulls for anyone who has additional insights and sources (especially secondary sources)! Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Tournament scores and seeding in infoboxes

2012–13 Florida Gators men's basketball
SEC Regular Season Champions
NCAA Tournament, Elite Eight
Conference	Southeastern Conference
Record	29–8 (14–4 SEC)
Head coach	Billy Donovan (17th season)
Home arena	O'Connell Center

2014–15 North Florida Ospreys men's basketball
Atlantic Sun regular season champions & tournament champions Cancún Challenge Mayan Division champions
NCAA Tournament South Region 16 seed, First Four vs. Robert Morris L 77–81
Conference	Atlantic Sun Conference
Record	23–12 (12–2 A-Sun)
Head coach	Matthew Driscoll (6th season)
Home arena	UNF Arena

2013–14 Mercer Bears men's basketball
Atlantic Sun Regular Season Co–Champions Atlantic Sun Tournament Champions
NCAA Third Round vs. Tennessee, L 63–83
Conference	Atlantic Sun Conference
Record	27–9 (14–4 A-Sun)
Head coach	Bob Hoffman (6th season)
Home arena	Hawkins Arena

What are others' thoughts on the inclusion of NCAA Tournament seed, region, and game score in season infoboxes? I included three examples to the right to illustrate the different varieties currently seen. I think that including the NCAA region and seed is a bit superfluous. If a reader wants to find that information they can easily scroll down to the schedule, besides a team's seed is not really as important as how far they advanced. The minimalist option is seen on the Florida example; on the other hand the North Florida infobox appears very cluttered with the seed, round, opponent and score. I actually really like what was done on the Mercer example, by shortening "NCAA Tournament" to just "NCAA" and not including the seed, which creates a nice compromise. Thoughts? ~ Richmond96 T • C 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• First one, because it's the simplest. Per WP:IBX: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• First one as well. Also, could we not put that a team won a preseason tournament? In the grand scheme, these aren't very important. Rikster2 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Or at least not have those early season tourneys e.g. 2014–15 Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• A couple of additional points. What about the inclusion of conference championship game scores? (See here). Unnecessary in my opinion. Also, aren't we supposed to use "Round of 64" and "Round of 32" instead of "First round" and "Second round", to avoid confusion with the recent addition of the "First Four"? ~ Richmond96 T • C 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For removing conf tourney, I think that was what the above bullet was saying. And definitely no scores even if it stays.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For the name of a round, "Round of XX" was the consensus at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_4#NCAA_tournament_rounds_in_coaching_records_tables, and I think it's generally followed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have been have been including the scores because It seems like in the past someone always ended up adding them so I decided to do it from the start so it wouldn't have to be added later but I agree, tournament and round. I would say include region and seed but opponent and score not needed. And I absolutely disagree with using Round of xx. We wouldn't even consider that if round of 64 was still first round so I say lets just all get use to it and go with the official round name. It's not that confusing since it's been five years now.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• I would assume same format for NIT, CBI, CIT?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem I see with using first and second rounds is that if you're looking at a page from six years ago, and it says second round, it means round of 32 but if you look at a current article second round means the round of 64. The numbered rounds are able to be used universally across the years and I don't see any drawbacks to using them. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the "problem", but I have never seen it as a problem. The way I see it is if the round of 64 is now officially the second round then it's the second round. If someone has a question about why its called the second round then they can click on the tournaments page and find out. I'd rather list the round the way the tournament itself lists it. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you are starting to change it to round of 64. I would not call that other discussion as being a consensus. There were only like 2 comments.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going off of the previous consensus that Bagumba linked to. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Per a discussion Richmond96 and I have had on his talk page, we are going to put Round of xx in info box and Second/Third round in schedule table. That way the official round name is still in the schedule table but the round of xx that some seem to be less confusing is right in the info box. Will go with that plan for now unless others have better ideas. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mpejkrm (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Underbelly 50 using Category:African-American basketball players

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#User:Underbelly_50_using_Category:African-American_basketball_players on Underbelly 50's use of Category:African-American basketball players as a category for dark-skinned players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Standardizing postseason results on conference pages

Most 2014-15 conference pages have a section that lists the results of the conference tournament, but these are wildly inconsistent. Some of them show the results in bracket format, and some use a box to show the results like this:

2015 SEC Men's Basketball Tournament seeds and results
Seed	School	Conf.	Over.	Tiebreaker	First Round March 11	Second Round March 12	Quarterfinals March 13	Semifinals March 14	Championship March 15
1.	Kentucky‡	18-0	34-0		BYE	BYE	vs. #8 Florida - W, 64-49	vs. #13 Auburn - W, 91-67	vs. #2 Arkansas - W, 78-63
2.	Arkansas†	13-5	26-8		BYE	BYE	vs. #10 Tennessee - W, 80-72	vs. #3 Georgia W, 60-49	vs. #1 Kentucky - L, 63-78
3.	Georgia†	11-7	21-11	3-1 vs. LSU, TAMU, UM	BYE	BYE	vs. #11 South Carolina - W, 74-62	vs. #2 Arkansas - L, 49-60
4.	LSU†	11-7	22-10	3-2 vs. UGA, TAMU, UM	BYE	BYE	vs. #13 Auburn - L, 70-73
5.	Texas A&M#	11-7	20-11	2-2 vs. UGA, LSU, UM	BYE	vs. #13 Auburn - L, 59-66
6.	Ole Miss#	11-7	20-12	1-4 vs. UGA, LSU, TAMU	BYE	vs. #11 South Carolina - L, 58-60
7.	Vanderbilt#	9-9	19-13		BYE	vs. #10 Tennessee - L, 61-67
8.	Florida#	8-10	16-17	1-0 vs. UA	BYE	vs. #9 Alabama - W, 69-61	vs. #1 Kentucky - L, 49-64
9.	Alabama#	8-10	18-14	0-1 vs. UF	BYE	vs. #8 Florida - L, 61-69
10.	Tennessee#	7-11	16-16		BYE	vs. #7 Vanderbilt - W, 67-61	vs. #2 Arkansas - L, 72-80
11.	South Carolina	6-12	17-16	1-0 vs. MSU	vs. #14 Missouri - W, 63-54	vs. #6 Ole Miss - W, 60-58	vs. #3 Georgia - L, 62-74
12.	Mississippi State	6-12	13-19	0-1 vs. USC	vs. #13 Auburn – L, 68–74
13.	Auburn	4-14	15-20		vs. #12 Mississippi State – W, 74–68	vs. #5 Texas A&M - W, 66-59	vs. #4 LSU - W, 73-70	vs. #1 Kentucky - L, 67-91
14.	Missouri	3-15	9-23		vs. #11 South Carolina - L, 54-63
‡ – SEC regular season champions, and tournament No. 1 seed. † – Received a double-bye in the conference tournament. # – Received a single-bye in the conference tournament. Overall records include all games played in the SEC Tournament.

I don't object to the box per se (although I think just having the bracket is enough for a conference tournament), but the boxes can get awfully wide. If we decide to use no brackets and instead a box for every conference, can we agree on a consistent, less wide way to always do it. For example, it's not necessary to include teams' overall records as that is not relevant to the conference tournament (and it looks like they include games played after the tournament anyway). Also, I'd say the seeding tiebreaker procedures are too specific to include on a conference season overview, and should only be included on the conference tournament page itself. Finally, there's no reason to include the "vs" in there, nor the notations for whether or not teams got a bye, since the byes are clearly marked. If we do all of these things, we get a narrower chart:

2015 SEC Men's Basketball Tournament seeds and results
Seed	School	Conf.	First Round March 11	Second Round March 12	Quarterfinals March 13	Semifinals March 14	Championship March 15
1.	Kentucky	18-0	BYE	BYE	#8 Florida - W, 64-49	#13 Auburn - W, 91-67	#2 Arkansas - W, 78-63
2.	Arkansas	13-5	BYE	BYE	#10 Tennessee - W, 80-72	#3 Georgia W, 60-49	#1 Kentucky - L, 63-78
3.	Georgia	11-7	BYE	BYE	#11 South Carolina - W, 74-62	#2 Arkansas - L, 49-60
4.	LSU	11-7	BYE	BYE	#13 Auburn - L, 70-73
5.	Texas A&M	11-7	BYE	#13 Auburn - L, 59-66
6.	Ole Miss	11-7	BYE	#11 South Carolina - L, 58-60
7.	Vanderbilt	9-9	BYE	#10 Tennessee - L, 61-67
8.	Florida	8-10	BYE	#9 Alabama - W, 69-61	#1 Kentucky - L, 49-64
9.	Alabama	8-10	BYE	#8 Florida - L, 61-69
10.	Tennessee	7-11	BYE	#7 Vanderbilt - W, 67-61	#2 Arkansas - L, 72-80
11.	South Carolina	6-12	#14 Missouri - W, 63-54	#6 Ole Miss - W, 60-58	#3 Georgia - L, 62-74
12.	Mississippi State	6-12	#13 Auburn – L, 68–74
13.	Auburn	4-14	#12 Mississippi State – W, 74–68	#5 Texas A&M - W, 66-59	#4 LSU - W, 73-70	#1 Kentucky - L, 67-91
14.	Missouri	3-15	#11 South Carolina - L, 54-63

Any thoughts on this? Do we like the narrower table? Would we rather just use a bracket format? Can we reach a consensus and make all conference pages match each other, so that we don't come back a couple years from now and have to change a bunch of these?

Once we decide what to do on these, we'll also need to agree on what to put in the NCAA/NIT/CBI?/CIT? postseason charts -- we won't be able to do a full bracket on the conference pages, so those will have to be charts, but we'll need to come up with a uniform formatting that's not too wide. Is it necessary to always include the city and stadium, and the name of the bracket/regional the team played in? Jhn31 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend to just include the bracket. I recently streamlined all the Pac-12 season articles to do this e.g. 2014–15_Pacific-12_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Pac-12_Tournament. There are multiple benefits. Since it is transcluded, it doesn't need to be maintained in multiple places. Less work, less errors. No need to worry about proper attribution from copy-pasting. Work aside, there is no reason to duplicate information for readers. That is the point of having separate article—to summarize what is detailed in other articles, not to duplicate it. If someone wants the game-by-game details, that is why the tournament article presumably exists.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the bracket. Its a much more common format and it is easy to follow. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For NCAA, NIT, etc. a summary with maybe region & seed, and last round reached (e.g. like in "postseason" column at Dean_Smith#Head_coaching_record) would be sufficient. Again, avoid spending time copying and maintaining the same results in multiple places. Should always try to summarize. If duplication is necessary, transclusion is always preferred.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This was my proposal for the NCAA, NIT, etc. Much narrower and to the point. I didn't include the Region or specific sites, because people can find those by clicking on the Tournament articles, or on individual team articles: Jhn31 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would propose to leave the scores out for each round ... that's a new proposal you have below here? It duplicates the tourney article. The most relevant info is where they were seeded, and where they finished. The other details are in team & tourney article.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Seed	School	First Four	Second Round	Third Round	Sweet 16	Elite Eight	Final Four	Championship
1	Florida		W, 67–55, #16 Albany	W, 61–45, #8 Pittsburgh	W, 79–68, #4 UCLA	W, 62–52, #11 Dayton	L, 53–63, #7 Connecticut
8	Kentucky		W, 56–49, #9 Kansas State	W, 78–76, #1 Wichita State	W, 74–69, #4 Louisville	W, 78–75, #2 Michigan	W, 74–73, #2 Wisconsin	L, 54-60, #7 Connecticut
11	Tennessee	W, 78–65, #11 Iowa	W, 86–67, #6 Massachusetts	W, 83–63, #14 Mercer	L, 73–75, #2 Michigan

Seed	School	First Round	Second Round	Quarterfinals	Semifinals	Finals
2	Georgia	W, 63–56, #7 Vermont	L, 79–71, #3 Louisiana Tech
2	Missouri	W, 85–77, #7 Davidson	L, 71–64, #3 Southern Miss
3	Arkansas	W, 91–71, #6 Indiana State	L, 75–64, #2 California
5	LSU	W, 71–63, #5 San Francisco	L, 75–64, #1 SMU

School	First Round	Quarterfinals	Semifinals	Finals
Texas A&M	W, 59–43 vs. Wyoming	L, 62–55 vs. Illinois State

• TLDR, Was any consensus reached on this redesign?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

High school picture warning

I am just realizing that I can probably justify use of more of my pictures from the last three years of attending the 3A/4A Illinois High School Association final four. I just noticed that in this years tournament players who are 2015 Associated Press All-state (1st, 2nd or hm) honorees have already committed to the following schools: Northwestern, Nebraska, Colorado State, Buffalo, Villanova, and Rice, with several others still uncommitted and being recruited by top schools such as Duke. I will probably slap pictures of these players in recruiting sections for team-season articles as I notice that they are created. I may go back through the past two years looking for AP honorees to do the same thing with if I have the pics. In the past, I have gotten some pushback on including the McDs AA game images in these sections, but such images seem to have become stable. Admittedly, probably many of them will never become any more notable than AP All-state in high school, but the pictures will have value to the articles. I took 2125 images last weekend at the 2015 IHSA final four and will get around to paring them down as I have time. Please comment if you think including such images in the recruiting sections is inappropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

USBWA National Freshman of the Year - Help Needed

The Wayman Tisdale Award is the men's version of the Freshman of the Year Award, and it is actually called the INTEGRIS Wayman Tisdale Award. You can confirm that by looking at the official website for the award: http://www.sportswriters.net/usbwa/awards/tisdale/index.html

However, the INTEGRIS website actually has a page dedicated to the award, as well: http://integrisok.com/philanthropy/wayman-tisdale-award

Is there any way we can get the copy on the Wikipedia page fixed to include "INTEGRIS" in the name of the award, and can we use the INTEGRIS page as an external link? Please help! Thanks!

Ajoseph213 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the wikipedia page should include the sponsor title. Other award and bowl games don't usually include the sponsor in the page name. E.g., the Academic All-America article has never included the sponsor name in its title. Also look up any college bowl game under its general article and you will see the sponsor consistently omitted from the title.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's OK to mention the sponsor with perhaps a short description of the length and extent of the relationship, but I don't think it needs to be grouped with the award name in the title, not in boldface in the lead. Another link under "External links" seems reasonable too. Anyone should be able to edit the page, so you can be bold an do it.—Bagumba (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Image feedback

The surprising results of recent image feedback requests, has helped me to become a better photographer for wikipedia. Honestly, I have been surprised at how much people prefer frontal views to the peak of the action. I don't know if I will learn anymore from more feedback, but I request your image feedback on the latest images from this weekend at Talk:Jalen_Brunson#Post_IHSA_main_image_candidates. Note that although he has not yet enrolled in college, I intend to use an image of him in the high school recruit section of the 2015-16 Villanova Wildcats article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 season articles

Is it a little too soon to have the 2015–16 team season articles up? (1) Most of them are unsourced and (2) like I said, it is way too soon. The 2014–15 basketball season may be over for most teams, but it isn't for the NCAA season... they're only in the Sweet 16 as of March 26. I think it is a little ridiculous that these 2015–16 season articles are already being established (Just my opinion). I know Big Towel and Big plate (I'm thinking they're the same person) have been creating these articles, some of which are already being speedily deleted. There just isn't enough information/sources to be provided for the next season, yet. I don't know what the WikiProject's guidelines are for these, but I thought I'd bring it up so I know what they are and see what others say about them. Corky | Chat? 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know any of the established rules, but I don't see what the big deal is since they will be created in a few months or less anyway. It seems like too much effort is being raised to delete them all now. ~ Richmond96 T • C 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Most 2015–16 season articles are sourceable. Almost all teams have some recruits committed and some home and home games (preconference games at one school one year and the other the next) scheduled announced. Some preconference tournament fields have already been set. By early April pre-preseason rankings will come out. It is most certainly not too early. For Michigan Wolverine team season articles this would be very late to start them. It has been many years since one has not been created before late March of the preceding year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team that you can comment on.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, thanks for the feedback. I won't do anything with them now. But I think this could be (in my opinion and y'all may disagree) be redirected. There isn't any content on the article beside section headings and "TBA" and the Infobox. Big plate could at least do more than just add those, otherwise I will redirect them. (I've redirected that article once and he's reverted without given an explanation, whereas I did give one, but all well.) Corky | Chat? 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well Corky the Hornet Fan I will create one more article then I will quit On Sunday Night. Thanks Corky Big plate (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Allonzo Trier

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Allonzo_Trier regarding the newly created Allonzo Trier article which seems to be quite deficient. It is absent any sources and full of grammatical errors. I don't think we should put it up for deletion, because the article can sourced. However, the article is in terrible shape. It will soon fall under WP:CBBALL, but does yet so I am not sure where to get help for this article. I don't have time to get involved and know that WP:PROD and WP:AFD are inappropriate. What else can be done to get this article cleaned up? Please join the conversation at WP:BBALL--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014–15 Michigan State Spartans men's basketball navbox

Template:2014–15 Michigan State Spartans men's basketball navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Full team schedules in conference articles

Do we need each school's schedule in a conference article, like the ones just copied to 2014–15 Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball season#Conference Schedule? Throwing aside attribution issues with the copy-paste and whether it would be better transcluded instead of having multiple copies, it seems to bloat conference articles when these details are best left in the respective team articles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• No. Completely duplicates the season schedules of the individual team season articles Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I hate that people add this. Rikster2 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the editor continues to edit the schedules on the conference page despite being notified of this discussion. I'm going to delete it. They can discuss if they disagree.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is there enough consensus here for me to justify removing them from the SEC conference pages? I agree they clutter up the articles way too much. Jhn31 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You can link to this discussion in the edit summary. Consensus can change if someone can provide a good reason to leave it, otherwise WP:SUMMARY would say to leave it out.—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The conference schedules are pertinent to the conference season. Not the entire team schedule is posted, just its conference and postseason. I have been posting the conference schedules within the SEC since the 2009-10 season. It does not clutter the page, it allow the viewer to understand how each school is performing within its league without having to click on an individual page. I disagree that it is meaningless under the guise that it duplicates things and makes it cluttered. It can't be that big of an issue if after six seasons we're just now deciding its irrelevant AND we're just now noticing it this season. So I'd like to be able to continue what me and several others have been doing to the page. It has been a lot of work and we've kept up with it. Trocksuk4415 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem is that when these long charts are included, they take up over 75% of the total height of the page. If I want to know exact dates, sites, TV, and final scores, I can click on the individual team articles. The Conference Matrix is sufficient to show who beat who. Jhn31 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • "allow the viewer to understand how each school is performing": I would think the conference standings and the head-to-head matrix would be sufficient for the majority of readers. If there is consensus to keep it, transclusion would make it so that it is no longer a "lot of work". At any rate, we should keep the discussion focussed on how best to organize and present information. I don't think asking for mercy is relevant, and "guise" unfairly implies editors are not here to improve things.—Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        • If we're talking consensus here, six of the eleven articles for "conference seasons" use the conference schedules. So, my point is there is already a consensus on how the editors want to edit the pages. The charts can be by-passed by clicking on the links in the contents table to take the user to a particular section they wish to reach. I could be in the wrong. However, this is March, and the season started in November. Most editors have been doing this for a few seasons, anyways. So, it's just now being noticed and it's being turned into a problem. I say let the content stay available. Trocksuk4415 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
          • If you could think of a way to display the information without taking up 75-80% of the page, it would probably be fine. In fact, someone already has -- the conference matrix does the trick. For example, if I'm looking at the 2014-15 SEC page and wonder "hmmm, how did Mississippi State do?" I can see the conference matrix and remember "oh yeah, they beat Auburn, Vandy, LSU, Tennessee, and Mizzou twice." If I want more information than that -- dates, times, sites, scores, etc., I can click on the 2014-15 Mississippi State article. There's just no need to page SO much extra information on the SEC overall page, so much that it completely dominates and dwarfs the whole page, when the exact information is already available on the team pages, and anyone wanting that level of detail is going to probably look for the team page anyway. Jhn31 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The 2014–15 conference articles that I see with full scheds aside from the SEC are American, ACC, Big 12, Big East, and Big South.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Barring re-additions, all 2014–15 conference articles no longer have duplicate team schedules anymore.—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Current team in Infobox basketball biography

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Current team in Infobox basketball biography regarding the basketball person's current team at the top of Template:Infobox basketball biography.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry intro warring

At Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry, I have been warring with an IP about some content that I think accurately summarizes part of the content, but an IP disagrees. I am too involved in the content to be objective, so I need some other eyes on this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You said it was sourced, but I'm not really seeing where it is located. Maybe if you could find a source that clearly references it as "white collar" versus "blue collar" it would be better. I might also suggest using different terms that don't sould like stereotypes. Just my 2¢. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Richmond96, I have played around with the wording in various stages of this warring. The sourced content is in this section: "The Cazzie Russell-led 1963–64 Wolverines were known for its "Bloody Nose Alley" defense, while the Jeff Mullins-led 1963–64 Blue Devils were regarded as a team that "played in tuxedos"."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Richmond96 ping again.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony. I've been wrapped up with the schedule issue. Maybe you should try adding that specific citation to your sentence and link to white collar and blue collar. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Final Fours are a year off

Connecticut is listed as the 2014 champion when in fact they won in 2013 and Kentucky is the 2014 champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.0.55 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The NCAA tournament that Connecticut won was the 2014 tournament, at the conclusion of the 2013–14 season, so their championship and final four appearance was in 2014. Kentucky's Final Four appearances were in 2014 and 2015, though they did not win the title either year. Mpejkrm (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Champions, award winners, etc are determined at the end of the season. Since basketball seasons span 2 calendar years that means the championship year is the later year. There isn't a UConn fan alive who would say they won the 2013 championship. Louisville won that year. I was there. In April 2013. Rikster2 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, Kentucky isn't any champion this season. Except SEC champion I suppose.Rikster2 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

ESPN's Associated Press recap reformatting

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#ESPN.27s_Associated_Press_recap_reformatting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Misdated Tyus Jones/Justise Winslow picture.

File:Justise Winslow and Tyus Jones.jpg is dated April 2013. I am guessing it was from the 2014 Jordan Brand Classic. Can anyone help confirm? I flickrmailed the photographer on 27 Jan 15, 9.33PM PDT and got no response.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AfD: 2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game image selection

I am aware that 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game, is outside the scope of this project, but, as you may recall, I added images that I took to the 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game and 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game articles for each player. These images were also used in team season articles and biographies that fall within this project. This year I again took hundreds (over 1800) of pictures at the 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. I have uploaded 160 of them at Commons:Category:2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. I am looking for feedback on which images to add to the article at Talk:2015_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting. Keep in mind that the image that we choose is very likely to appear in three articles (here, the team season recruiting section and the player bio). Please give me some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

247 error on basketball recruiting

Today I started the 2015–16 BYU Cougars men's basketball team page. I added the 247 recruiting info to the team page. For the 247 team name I put byu. At first it appears to work, as it lists 2015–16 BYU Cougars men's basketball team for the 247 recruiting link name. However if you click on the hyperlink in the box for recruiting, it directs it to the football recruiting page. I checked the Gonzaga team page, the only other basketball team page I've found with a 247 link, to see if it were the same there. It is, and Gonzaga doesn't even have a football team. I looked up most of the larger universities, and most of them don't have the 247 links on their recruit pages yet here on Wiki. Is anyone else aware of this bug? Or does anyone have a solution for it? Bigddan11 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Game Name

Is everyone OK if I move the gamename to the opponent column? Fbdave (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer it under the site name because it is less cluttered, and it usually makes the template less wide. But if others want to put it under opponent that's alright. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

With the current format it makes more sense to list it with the opponent since that makes rivalry and special games stand out more. Usually you want specific games, such as tourneys and rivalries, to stand out a bit more. You don't see that with the current format. If the location was next to the team name, like it is with the football template, then it would make more sense to have it with the stadium.Bigddan11 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the game name so that it is under the opponent. Fbdave (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming convention for NCAA tournament

We currently have NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship and Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, but pretty much every article in the category about the tourney uses "Basketball Tournament", not "Basketball Championship" e.g. 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. AFAIK, everybody refers to it as the "NCAA tournament". Typically, only the final game or the title that is won is called a "championship". User:Charlesaaronthompson appears to have moved it in March with reason "Official name is NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship". However, we typically use WP:COMMONNAME for titles, which sometimes differ from official names. Thought I'd take it up here first, where the domain experts are, as opposed to WP:RM.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the user who moved the article name to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. The reasoning given by Bagumba (talk) is accurate. However, even though the official naming convention is "Championship", according to the NCAA as seen here, the names "championship" and "tournament" are, in my opinion, interchangeable. I don't know if I'm the only person who feels that way, or if there are others. I'm not opposed if someone moves the article back to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, using "Tournament" as the naming convention. I also promise not to move it back if someone else moves the article and its template to "tournament". Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Time and TV in schedule

Note: This is branch off from long thread above at #Request for consensus thread.

@Zachlp: there are pieces of important information that should be on the new template (time, TV network, ...) My understanding was that it was still going to be there, but that it would be replaced with the score once the game way played.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Richmond96: I didn't realize you removed the time and TV altogether as parameters to {{CBB schedule entry}}. Alternatively, can we just restore the parameters, but have the template override it in the display with the score if it exists? That way, people don't have to delete info later, and theoretically the info is still there if consensus changes (or super wide screens become the norm) and we display it again later.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds goods to me, I just didn't know how to pull that off within the template syntax. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It would involve more #if statements.—Bagumba (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I got it! ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the best thing to do is make time and TV network optional fields. That is the way that it is done in the other college sports templates at Category:Sports schedule templates. These fields were mandatory, which was probably not the best solution. Fbdave (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The only problem I see with that if is someone decides to include time, TV, and game leaders then the schedule will be very wide, which is the same problem that we had in the first place. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fbdave: Time and TV were optional even when they were dedicated columns. See diff of the change to documentation.—Bagumba (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We should be able to suppress the time and TV columns if the highscorer and gamehighs fields are set to no. Fbdave (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If TV & time are being deleted, so too should the scoring leaders. All of this information can be posted in Game Summary boxes, as shown on the NCAA Tourney Final Four pages for each season. It has always looked sloppy when people list "4 Tied" under something like rebound leaders. Under Game Summaries you list all the names of those tied, and it doesn't intrude with the original scorebox. It also shows both teams info, so you can see how a game flowed more easily. This is what has been done on the BYU schedule pages the past 4 years, and there have never been any complaints. If any of them are included in the schedule box, TV & time are the more desired option.Bigddan11 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that Bigddan11 has said. 32.212.45.180 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for consensus

I would like to bring up an issue once again that produced a lengthy discussion a few years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 3#Game highs in schedule tables. Most editors seemed to agree that there was a clear problem on some CBB season pages caused by the inclusion of the "Points leader", "Rebounds leader", and "Assists leader" columns, which is that the added table length produces line wrapping and distracts from the more important purposes of a team schedule table. (See 2014–15 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team and 2014–15 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team.) There is also the question of whether individual player statistics are appropriate for a schedule table on a team season article. A number of solutions were proposed, but nothing was ever done. I would just like to see if we can come up with a solution; perhaps we can vote on the individual template parameters as was proposed last time. One solution could be to move the game leaders to a separate table altogether or incorporate any notable information into prose. Thoughts? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• No stats leaders in schedule tables. Not core information. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Richmond96: I see that I commented at the end of that thread, basically saying TLDR. Did you want to summarize the key points here, otherwise, we just spend time rehashing the same thing again (and still getting no where). Or just make a proposal of what you want it to look like and say what issues are addressed and which are outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• I've never liked them. I have never removed them and have updated them on pages I edit, but I don't see why they are important or worthy of inclusion. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I should have gone over that before. In the 2012 discussion, User:TonyTheTiger summarized of some of the proposed solutions:

1. Removing columns that collectively take up the most width (game stat leaders)
2. Piping all game stat leader names to just present last names
3. Removing columns that are of little use after the game has been played (game time and network)
4. Removing columns that include redundant content (arena or city/state)

and,

1. Change the font or font size of the table
2. Shorten full tournament names (the site column causes the most wraparound)

Another point discussed was the formatting of NBA schedule tables, which do include game leaders but do not include game time, city/state, and they use two lines of text per game entry by default. My proposal is to simply remove individual game leaders from schedule tables and keep other parameters. The removed statistics could easily be moved to a separate table or incorporated into prose if editors felt they should be retained. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• As I stated in the previous discussion on this topic, there are more helpful ways to trim these tables. I care much more about who was the leading scorer than I care about what time of day a historical game was played at. Similarly, I think "city, state" is redundant with the arena. The game high scorer is considered an encyclopedic fact, IMO and more important than redundant location information or the time of day. I continue to learn a lot about a team from the leader columns. The examples of Trey Burke or Manny Harris/DeShawn Sims that I gave there remain relevant to this discussion. We should trim the fat and not the meat. The stat leaders of a game tell me a much more important fact that some of the other columns that ar currently present.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Richmond96, Dirtlawyer1, Bagumba, Bsuorangecrush Can any of you explain to me why it is more important to keep a log of the time of day of a historical basketball game than the high scorers? I continue to feel we should put the score in the time of day column once the game is completed rather than waste space for a second column. Also, why is it more important to present the city when we are already presenting the arena?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You're asking the wrong person. As far as I'm concerned, WP:NOTTVGUIDE and one can go to the other team's article if they really needed the exact road arena; neutral sites can be footnoted. If one really wants to combine things like time and score, that's what is at http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/kty-m-baskbl-sched.html I don't spend much time on these tables, so I'm not passionate how this ends up.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think that the tables look a lot less cluttered if it says "Tied" in cases where 2 or more players tie for leading in a stat for a game. Also it definitely isn't necessary to have the first name of the players in the stat leader column. Only the initials are necessary if two players share a last name on the roster. This keeps the format of the table organized and doesn't wrap the text. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• @User:TonyTheTiger: Would you be open to removing rebound and assist leaders and just have high scorer? I don't care about the game time after the game has been played but removing that will do little to fix the problem caused by these stats. I still do not believe individual statistics belong in a team season schedule table. As far as the city and state, its not a huge deal but I do personally like it. In my estimation we have 3 users in opposition of the stats, 2 users who appear neutral, and one user strongly in favor of them and we are right back where we started from. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of the !vote are of the "I do/don't like it" variety. Maybe consensus can be swayed if the rationale for inclusion or removal was further explained. FWIW, the stats leader capability has been at Template:CBB Schedule Entry since 2009; not sure to what extent it has been used.—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Indiv stats w/ schedule is not exactly a novel idea. See http://espn.go.com/nba/team/schedule/_/name/gs/golden-state-warriors —Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Bagumba, your point that this is not novel and in fact what ESPN does (omitting time of day, btw), is ambiguous to me. Are you saying (1) Even ESPN does it this way, we should do it too or (2) What is the big deal? Why are we presenting information that can be found on ESPN in our format?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @TonyTheTiger: I was implying that ESPN has that format, which might reassure people that the format is not necessarily that foreign. I don't feel strongly on whether it stays or goes. I don't edit them generally, and I'm ambivalent as a reader. I might choose to !vote to break a tie.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• The core data is date, opponent, location, and score. Everything else is secondary. After the current season, game time and network can be omitted. If you want box score data, e.g., stats leaders, go to the box score. If you want to see how screwed up the line-wrap problem is, go view these extra wide schedule tables on a BlackBerry or small-screen smartphone. It can be just as bad on a small laptop. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Would everyone be okay with agreeing to use "Tied" when there are multiple stat leaders and to only use the last name unless there are two players with the same last name on the team? I have also noticed on the Michigan articles that they have numbers in parentheses indicating how many times that player has led the team in the season. To me this is completely unnecessary, it could be calculated quickly by counting yourself, and it will free up a fair amount of space. I am hoping we can agree to this as a starting point. Thoughts?....TonyTheTiger? ~ Richmond96 T • C 05:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, FFS. Include the number of times that the player led the particular stats category? Are we seriously discussing this? Please see WP:NOTSTATS. Enough of the cruft. It's TRIVIA. The goal is not to pack as many datapoints as possible into an unreadable table, but to present core data in an at-a-glance format. Here's what WP:IBX says about infoboxes: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." This applies equally to any type of tables, graphs, etc. It's Layout & Design 101. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) (1) I would not be open to eliminating any of the three stat leader columns before eliminating time of day. I feel time of day is less important than any of the three. Plus this is what ESPN does as Bagumba has pointed out. We need to merge the score and time of day so that only one appears in the table depending upon whether the game has been played. Just eliminating this column will reduce wraparound issues significantly. (2) I am open to only last name throughout, although I have used entire name for first table mention. (3) I am not sure which is less informative the count or the city/state, but I need to know if I am the only editor using count. (4) I could compromise with tied although I don't like it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Alright, good. We are getting somewhere. Personally I would be fine with merging score and time but that would require some work on the template and possible issues with existing tables. Both are things that I look forward to discussing. And Tony, as far as using the full name for first table mention, that still increases the table width so thats really just as bad as using it throughout. Also, for the Tied stats, you could use a footnote to link to the player names below. ~ Richmond96 T • C 06:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • Glad I came across this discussion. I support removing the TOD for games and/or merging then removing them with/from the date column as they occur. Cities also, if fans of teams visit pages, they should know where their home team plays or if they are away at another's venue, which is normally linked anyway. I am also on the fence about the stat columns as not all team tables use those. All or none. — Wyliepedia 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Home arena can be stated once in the lead and/or in a footnote in the schedule, and not necessarily repeated for every home game.—Bagumba (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Template:CBB schedule start, Template:CBB schedule entry, and Template:CBB schedule end

It appears we have reached a consensus that (1) only player last names should be used unless there are others of the same name on the team, then first initial will be added. (2) Tied will be inserted where there are multiple players leading one category and (3) We will refrain from using numbers in parentheses to indicate how many times a certain player has led his team in a certain category over the season. I applied these guidelines on a few pages and I still experience significant line wrapping on my computer. So we still need to consider other remaining proposals, most of which will require edits to the schedule template(s):

1. Removing the city/state field.
2. Merging the game time field with the score field to only display time pregame. (Take a look at what college baseball does here.)
3. Merging the TV field to only display pregame.
4. Reordering the columns so that the score is closer to the opponent.
5. Removing the year. Is it really necessary since we have the year in the page title?
6. Changing the column titles from "Points leader" to "High points".

Alright guys, I have been working on a new schedule template that I hope will satisfy all parties. It incorporates many of the proposed solutions: the score is moved next to the opponent, city and state are removed unless needed, and game time and TV are only shown pregame. I have thrown all kinds of long names into this table and I still rarely experience line wrapping and if it does I can use a line break. The only problem is that I don't know how or if we can turn this into a template (is that required?). Let me know if this is an attractive option and if there are any tweaks that can be made. Feel free to edit my sandbox if you wish. Attn. @TonyTheTiger, Bsuorangecrush, Bagumba, and Dirtlawyer1: ~ Richmond96 T • C 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd put Record after Result, needs to be closer to Rank column. Template is a must, editors should need to be burdened with formatting. You can just change the logic in {{CBB schedule start}} and {{CBB schedule entry}}. That way, nothing needs to change in existing articles—it's all in the template. That's the beauty of centralizing things in templates: global changes are easier to implement.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is mostly in the template. Counts still have to be removed from leader parameters and full names have to be cut down to last name by hand. However, this set of changes streamlines things a great deal. Obviously things may still be a bit scrunched for mobile viewers, but this is a big improvement. Thanks for being openminded to retaining stat leaders. I think it is a lot more important content than the fields that we are now hiding postgame.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've converted the schedule to templates using my sandboxes, as you can see above. User:Richmond96/sandbox is schedule entry, User:Richmond96/sandbox 2 is schedule start, and User:Richmond96/sandbox 3 is schedule end. The only thing that needs to the entered manually is the footnotes I used to denote in-season tournaments and neutral site stadium locations, unless someone can help me figure that out. I did add a new parameter to the end template where you can enter that info manually. We may experience an initial problem with existing long entires in the gamename field, but we could go around and edit them using the footnotes. I also added a parameter for tournament region in the end template. Still a work in progress as I'm a little concerned with the length but I do think it is a solid improvement. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So, are we comfortable with making this change or is there another step that needs to be taken? Should we vote on it? Also, which do you prefer: using the gamename field under the arena to denote tournament names or using footnotes that link to the notes section below the table, which take up less space and width? Both examples are illustrated in the table above. ~ Richmond96 T • C 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the final form of the example? I don't know what we are voting on.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't really intended to be a final form, but I haven't changed anything about the template except moved the gamename field to under the arena name so that it takes up less width. I tinkered with the content of the entries just to test it out and then I replaced all the entries with a simple transclusion to one of my inboxes just to streamline this page. I didn't think it would make a difference but I won't change it from now on. We are voting on the elimination of time, TV, and city/state fields and the rearrangement of the remaining columns. ~ Richmond96 T • C 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support the changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Will this completely replace the existing template, or would there be a second template instead? Also, I'm not at all convinced that time and TV information are trivial, but if we are going to do that, using "score" to hold time and TV is non-intuitive. I'm not completely familiar with the template code, but is it possible to make it so that the existing time and TV fields appear there if the score field is blank? Puritan Nerd 01:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This proposal was designed to replace the current template so that we would not have to edit every season page from the years past. For putting the time and TV in the score field, that is only done pre-season and during the season. After the game occurs the time will be replaced with the score. If you had the time, TV and score columns all present during the season the table would be far too wide. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I get that, I'm just not convinced that time and TV are such big contributors to the problem that they need to be removed as separate columns. My editing experience is admittedly limited, but I think most of the width problems would be fixed by removing the inline city and state field and adopting a standardized "Apr. 4" date format. IOW, I support changes 1 and 4–6, but oppose 2 and 3. Puritan Nerd 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't support having time, TV, and game leaders columns. The proposed template is already just under the width of my computer screen. Adding columns would definitely cause line wrapping. ~ Richmond96 T • C 18:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Richmond96: Kinda stagnant here. There's no changes needed in articles, right? If so, I think you can just make the changes in the template. It's a centralized undo if for whatever reason consensus changes later.—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep. Nothing needs to be changed in articles for the template to work. Some cleanup still needs to be done in tables such as shortening player names to last name only, shortening dates, etc. But all that can be done gradually. I agree; I'm going to make the change soon if no one objects. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'f you're worried about potential undos, perhaps you can update the template as step 1. Wait a few days, if no further objections, start tweaking the articles.—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Templates have been updated. If anyone has time, please go around and check for any possible bugs, add footnotes to denote the location of neutral stadiums, and continue to clean up the leaders columns. ~ Richmond96 T • C 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Richmond96: One minor change that needs to be made is to have the parenthesis not show up for games in which the attendance is not entered. In games where there is no reported attendance, or in future games, there are ()'s down the Site column that look messy. Also, would it be possible to have the word "Tied" automatically italicized in the stat leader columns? I am also opposed to removing the time and TV fields, even after the game. They are important enough to keep after a game is played.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also prefer keeping time and TV, but with such strong opposition to removing the game stat leaders I felt that it was a necessary compromise because having those as well as TV and time would make the tables too wide. So I would say either we restrict time/TV to pregame only or remove game leaders. The former seems more likely to be accepted. Also: For automatically italicizing Tied, I'm sure it can be done but I don't know how. ~ Richmond96 T • C 20:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I recommend either eliminating the time and TV altogether or keeping it. I don't see how information that we know will be removed later can be encylopedic. Fbdave (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I fixed the attendance problem. For come strange reason, a lot of articles were passing " " for attendance, which was causing the parenthesis issue.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This new template looks terrible!! Just.....awful!! There was nothing wrong with the way it was. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I don't like how the new one looks at all. Particularly, how the city/state of the venue is now gone. It's annoying to have to click on the link of the venue instead of having it listed there. The rank all the way on the left, before the opponent, looks silly, IMO. I understand that the template stretched out a bit, especially with the team leaders, but if people learned to use the correct time and date format we wouldn't be having that problem. Mpejkrm (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The attendance in parenthesis after the arena looks terrible. It looks like its saying the stadiums capacity instead of attendance for the game. And all the little notes about where the game was played for neutral site games is just dumb. Big teams who play lots of neutral site games have too many city's listed at the bottom of the table. Kentucky has 6 city's listed on the bottom of their schedule table. How is that in anyway better then just having the city after the stadium? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Stretching out the bottom of the template with footnotes about neutral site games is worse than just listing the venue. Plus, having the venue all the way to the right, away from the opponent, makes it even tougher to decipher whose venue it is. Mpejkrm (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok guys, I agree on the neutral site footnotes. I realized that after I added them to Kentucky's page. I think they would go better in the gamename field and I'm working on fixing that. But I had no idea how much you guys disliked it. What exactly looks awful about it, BSU? @Mpejkrm:, can you explain why the rank "all the way on the left" looks silly? Seems logical to me. And yes, there was something wrong with the old template. It was more than "stretched out a bit", it was completely unreadable on smaller screens. And no, shortening the date did not fix the problem at all. I'm not sure why anyone would think the number in parenthesis is the capacity when it says "Site (Attendance)" in the column header. There is simply no way we can continue having time, TV, stat leaders, and attendance as a separate column all in the same screen. I thought we were achieving a pretty satisfactory compromise but I guess not. Not sure what to do now. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think having time, attendance, or TV is more important than having the city and the state listed. As for rank, I just feel what we already had was fine with it listed after the opponent. But if the majority rules it looks better that way, then that's fine. We're never going to reach 100% consensus with such a large number of contributors. Besides, I hardly work on season pages anyway, I just happened to notice the change and wanted to give my opinion. Mpejkrm (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

City needs to be listed with stadium like before. Attendance should have its own column. The TV and time in the result part is ok I guess. And I doubt the player stats are going to be on that many pages anyway. I am the one who does most of the updating on non-power conference pages and there is no way I'm going to take the time to do stats on all of those pages from now on. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Stats have always been optional at Template:CBB schedule start, so you dont need to provide them. Someone may choose to add them to articles later.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, I apologize if I seemed rude in my last comment. I'm somewhat emotionally invested in this topic, since its been on my mind for over three years. I do appreciate both of you guys' inputs and hope we can reach a solution that everyone agrees upon. Anyway, to @Mpejkrm:, the reasoning for me moving the rank column left one spot because another editor thought that score and opponent should be as close to each other as possible and I agreed. To @Bsuorangecrush:, let me point out (just for the sake of discussion) that NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL season pages do not list city and state. Do you think that only including them for neutral site games (below the arena name) would be acceptable? Also, may I ask why attendance needs its own column? I'm not criticizing; I'm genuinely curious. Note that NBA pages don't use a separate column. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason that pro sports pages do not list city and state is because there are very few teams compared to a college environment, and almost always, the city in which the venue is located is also in the franchise's name. When you have hundreds of colleges, many of which do not have any connection in terms of name, to the city that they are in, it can be confusing. Mpejkrm (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The actual city an arena is located is not core to understanding a team's season IMO. Per WP:RESOL, we need pages to be viewable on 1024x768 screens, so limits need to be placed on what's displayed. I think it's reasonable to have the few readers that are interested in the location of the arena to click on the wikilink.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say why is the fact that it's a neutral mean the city needs to be cited in a footnote yet other games it's not there? Doesn't the vs. before the opponent note it's a neutral site game? There is nothing for home games and at for away games so I don't see any reason for a footnote. So basically it's all or nothing in my mind. Have the cities for all or none at all, even as a footnote. As for attendance, I just really don't think that's the best way to list it, it looks strange, but If others don't have their own column then I guess we will go with that. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason I think neutral sites deserve to have city and state more than others is because for road games, if it says "at DePaul" everyone knows that the game is at DePaul's home arena. To me it doesn't really matter what city and state that it is located in. But for neutral site games, it simply says "Barclays Center" or "Imperial Arena", so it could be beneficial to denote Brooklyn, NY or Nassau, Bahamas. If I had to choose between "all or nothing" I would say don't include them at all. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this, mainly for the reason that not everybody knows where DePaul's arena is for example, but if the overwhelming majority is to keep it as is, then just do that. Mpejkrm (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Gamename does not appear unless you enter an attendance. See Valparaiso_Crusaders_men's_basketball#NCAA_Division_I_tournament_results. Also, I don't like how the gamename is in a smaller font when it does appear. Fbdave (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh, that's really strange. I can't figure out how to fix it either. Does @Bagumba: or someone else know? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The more I look at it now that I've started editing pages again I don't think the changes are that bad. I was just thrown off by the initial change. Still say cities on all or none and if there is a way to make the gamename text size bigger that would be nice. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Richmond96: The gamename issue should be fixed now by this.—Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Can you sum up the major differences between the new template and the NBA templates Template:NBA game log section and Template:NBA game? Fbdave (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They are pretty similar. The NBA template uses two lines of text by default, so the schedule length is obviously longer but they do split the season up into months. They also have the record column all the way to the right, whereas our new version has it over next to the score. They include the game number within a season and we include team rank and conference record. Other than that they are basically the same. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• I still do think there are pieces of important information that should be on the new template (time, TV network, ...) that are missing. Is there going to be any kind of formal vote on any of these? This long thread of comments is getting out of hand.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there going to be some kind of vote on this, or am I too late to the party? I'm with Bsuorangecrush on really not liking the way the table looks above, but it's a bit difficult (for me) to tell with this gargantuan discussion, having just arrived to it, which changes have the most support and which do not. I personally hate the inclusion of points/rebounds/assists in the tables and am not in favor of any eliminating any other columns/info (TV, time, city/state) in order to accommodate that information, but perhaps that ship already sailed long ago. 32.212.45.180 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D42:DB40:9519:9B63:24C6:5DC6 (talk)

I think that the template was modified already. There were some issues such as city name, which I felt were still up for discussion. Fbdave (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Image preferences

I have finally had a chance to upload Commons:Category:2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game closed practice, which includes images for all players who played in the 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. In several instances, the images for a particular player are superior to the images that I have previously uploaded at Commons:Category:2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. Do we want to use the best picture for identification purposes in WP:CBBALL articles or do we prefer to use an image from the actual game if there is not too much of a qualitative difference?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation guideline for Tony Parker

There is Tony Parker, the French player in the NBA, as well as Tony Parker (college basketball), the American player currently in college which used to be at Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tony Parker (college basketball)#Page move to discuss the conventions for disambiguating basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Rasheed Sulaimon on Template:2015 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball navbox?

Does Rasheed Sulaimon belong on Template:2015 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball navbox. I see he has been added and am unsure of protocol.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, he is not on the official Duke roster found here: http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=4200&SPID=1845&SPSID=22727 He also did not receive a championship ring from the NCAA. If Sulaimon was included, one would have to include mid-year transfer Semi Ojeleye as well, which I think nobody would argue for. Sean Kelly and Nick Pagliuca WERE actually on the team the whole season and DID receive rings but presumably aren't included because they did not play enough (although I don't know of any cutoff). Having somebody who is not on the official roster and did not receive a ring under the title of a navbox saying "NCAA Champions" would make absolutely no sense, particularly as a couple people who were actually on the team aren't included. You'd also have to include Olek Czyz on the 2010 Duke champions navbox, another mid-year transfer if including Sulaimon made sense.-Bluedog423^Talk 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In past years the practice has been to add any notable player who appeared in a game in the championship year (different standard than NBA where they needed to be on the playoff roster. There have been several cases where this has come up - Marcus Ginyard was injured most of the 2009 UNC season but did play a few games and was on the roster, Edgar Lacy quit the 1968 UCLA team, etc. Probably the biggest name is K. C. Jones, whose eligibility at San Francisco expired before the 1956 NCAA tournament. Jones is ABSOLUTELY considered a member of the 1956 title team by the school (which is probably different than how Duke views Sulaimon). We need a consistent practice. Bluedog423 has a strong view that Sulaimon should not be on the 2015 Duke template, and I see his/her point. However, I do desire a consistent standard and it feels like it would be wrong to remove someone like Jones from the 1956 template. My estimate is there are maybe 20 or so cases this would effect over the last 75 years. I plan to peg some other college basketball editors (and college football to see how they handle it). I can go either way, but there needs to be a real consensus reached. Rikster2 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

To me, it seems clear that if a player is on the official roster, then they should be included. If they are not, then they should not be. An injury is not the same as being removed from the team. If the school and NCAA consider them part of the team, then they are. Here is what I had written before seeing your reply Rikster, but had an edit conflict when I tried to Save: "Just so we have a consensus going forward, it seems to me that if somebody is 1.) included on the school's official roster for that year (i.e. mid-year transfers and players kicked off the team are excluded), 2.) played any games, and 3.) is currently notable (i.e. has a wiki page), then they should be included in the navbox. If a player is out for a large part of the season due to injury or another reason, but is still on the roster then they should be included too. In this case the navbox header is: "Duke Blue Devils Men's Basketball 2014–15 NCAA Champions." To any logical person, what would follow is the list of players that were a part of that NCAA Championship team (i.e. received a ring from the NCAA). I would personally argue that Sean Kelly is much more deserving to be a name listed below (since he received a ring) then Sulaimon who did not. Sean Obi is also on the Duke roster this season as an incoming transfer, but since he didn't play a game, doesn't meet the condition criteria #2 above. (And isn't eligible for a ring per NCAA rules)." -Bluedog423^Talk 19:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sean Kelly isn't at all notable. So he shouldn't be on the template regardless. Rikster2 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Just saying that some templates don't follow that rule. Just chose a championship team randomly: Template:1984 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball navbox. Has 3 players listed without wiki articles. Also, Ginyard absolutely should be included on the 2009 UNC roster, he was a part of the team and on the roster at the conclusion of the season. I honestly don't have enough knowledge of the NCAA in the 1950s to know about KC Jones, but if UCSF considers him part of the championship team, then he should be included too. Ditto with Edgar Lacy (but if he quit the team, I'd think he wouldn't be on the roster, but who knows). The Sulaimon situation is not analogous to Ginyard or KC Jones. -Bluedog423^Talk 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The redlinked players meet WP:GNG, they just don't have articles yet (the redlinks encourage article creation). That is different from someone who doesn't meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -Bluedog423^Talk 20:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What if we generally say a player should still be on the roster at the end of the season (even if injured, suspended, etc) to be considered part of the championship team, with common sense exceptions applied on a per-case basis based on consensus. Seems to be the spirit of WP:IAR.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. -Bluedog423^Talk 21:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this is tough, since K. C. Jones is 100% considered part of that USF championship team, whereas Sulaimon is probably not considered part of Duke's championship team (by most communities internal and external to Duke, Wikipedia notwithstanding). I disagree with Bluedog423 that Sulaimon is not analogous to Jones, they are. As far as !vote on this specific issue to Sulaimon goes, I say leave him off. Nobody disputes Jones was part of USF's team, but we're only one month removed from Duke winning and we've already had numerous editors question Sulaimon's inclusion. Per Bagumba, we should always do a per-case basis, but the standard should be if the player is on the roster as of NCAA Tournament and is eligible to be playing while satisfying GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I also dont think Sulaimon needs an exemption to be added in this case. On another point, I'm assuming redshirt players would generally not be on the template. I know some players play a few games, get hurt, and are then allowed to redshirt that year, but dont know of any cases where that has happened on a national championship team.—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Ginyard played (I think) 3 games for the 2008-09 North Carolina Tar Heels and received a medical redshirt and a fifth year of eligibility. A contrasting case would be Seth Curry, who sat out the entire 2009-10 Duke season as a transfer. I feel Curry should NOT be on the 2010 Duke template and am ambivalent about Ginyard on the 2009 UNC template. I am very adamant that KC Jones SHOULD be on the 1956 USF template. Bagumba, how do you, as a UCLA fan, feel about Lacy on the 1968 UCLA template? Rikster2 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Lacy: It's a disservice to Wooden's legacy to leave him on :-) Seriously, it's hard to consider somebody part of a championship if they voluntarily quit.—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe earning a letter could be another general requirement, as Lacy did not letter for UCLA in 1968 (UCLA Media Guide, p. 158)—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely if a substitute with an article should be, then so should a player who contributed earlier in the season. Unless by national championship one merely wants to assert winning a tournament and not a regular season title as well. Cake (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Unless by national championship one merely wants to assert winning a tournament." Correct. National championship simply means that the team won the tournament. The regular season has no bearing on the national championship at all (except to qualify for the tournament). If a player is not on the roster at all and not eligible to participate (and thus does not receive a championship ring from the NCAA), it doesn't make sense to include them. In my mind, it would be like including a player on an NBA championship navbox that was traded mid-season and saying he's "part of the championship team" because he contributed earlier in the year to the team. Seems like we have a consensus at least at this point. Thanks for the thoughts. -Bluedog423^Talk 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Isaiah Thomas (basketball, born 1989) page move to Isaiah Thomas (basketball)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Isaiah Thomas (basketball, born 1989)#Requested move 4 May 2015.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Standard for tournament seeding on a team's schedule

I have seen a few different methods for entering the seed of a tournament within a team schedule on their season page. In the case of the NCAA Tournament I have seen the seed of the region in parenthesis after the AP Rank, or only the seed and region if the team is not ranked (example of both can be seen here in the last game). If the team is not ranked in the AP poll and they are in a postseason tournament other than the NCAA I have also seen it in parenthesis without a region after the '#' but it looks funny (example), even though there is a key at the bottom explaining the notation. Is there any kind of standard that should be used? Should the seed be entered at all? Maybe the schedule template could use a tune up for allowing a seed input. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! --Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but don't sources usually stop mentioning the rank once tourney starts? Seed seems most relevant at that point.—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it somewhere else, but was consensus reached on this? I see a note was added on April 3 to Template:CBB schedule end with "( ) Tournament seedings in parentheses." Somebody else just went to 1994–95 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team and started adding seedings:

Date time, TV	Rank#	Opponent#	Result	Record	Site city, state
April 3, 1995*	No. 1	vs. No. (2) #6 Arkansas NCAA Championship Game	W 89–78	32–1	Kingdome  Seattle, WA
*Non-conference game. #Rankings from AP Poll. (#) Tournament seedings in parentheses. All times are in Pacific Time.

Footnote or not, I find the double # of rank/seed to be a case of information overload. Seed is really all that is mentioned come tourney time.—Bagumba (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I would go for seed only, for the reasons mentioned above. By the later rounds of the tournament, AP rank hardly matters. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of adding the region ("1 MW") either. Is it really that important? ~ Richmond96 T • C 21:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering there are 16 seeds in 4 different regions I believe the region is very important. Otherwise, someone might think they are that seed for the entire tournament which is simply not true. In the example above, I would read that as Arkansas is the #2 seed in the tournament when they are not. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeds are generally mentioned in relation to a region. Aside from right after the tourney selections, I don't think I see the "overall" seed is mentioned. I don't think we need to clutter things for the non-common usage of overall seed.—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(Apologies if my indentation, or lack thereof, is improper.) Just chiming in to say that I disagree on omitting ranking at tournament time. While the media of course focuses on seeding at the time of the tournament, I don't see this as a sufficient reason to exclude useful information. Various schools' media guides mention teams' records against ranked opponents in a given season, and the rankings of tournament opponents figure into these calculations. I'm curious as to rank as well as seeding, especially since there is sometimes a significant disparity between the two. What makes the above appear especially confusing is the appearance of the "#" sign twice. Below is an alternative way of presenting the info that always seemed readily intelligible to me. The # sign proceeds poll ranking—and only poll ranking—and the seeding number is only enclosed in parentheses. As you can see when you look at the entirety of the schedule, from regular season through the conference tournament to the NCAA tournament, it's much more clear which number represents what when the # sign isn't included with the seed.

Date time, TV	Rank#	Opponent#	Result	Record	Site (attendance) city, state
2009/2/23 8:00 p.m., ESPN	No. 15	at No. 3 Oklahoma	W 87–78	23–5 (12–1)	Lloyd Noble Center (12,625) Norman, OK
2009/3/1 1:00 p.m., CBS	No. 15	No. 11 Missouri Border War	W 90–65	24–5 (13–1)	Allen Fieldhouse (16,300) Lawrence, KS
2009/3/4 8:30 p.m., ESPN2	No. 9	at Texas Tech	L 65–84	24–6 (13–2)	United Spirit Arena (9,883) Lubbock, Texas
2009/3/7 3:00 p.m., CBS	No. 9	Texas	W 83–73	25–6 (14–2)	Allen Fieldhouse (16,300) Lawrence, KS
Big 12 Tournament
2009/03/12 11:30 a.m., ESPN2	No. 11	vs. Baylor Phillips 66 Big 12 Conference Tournament	L 64–71	25–7	Ford Center (14,909) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
NCAA Tournament
2009/03/20 11:30 a.m., CBS	No. 14 (3)	vs. (14) North Dakota State NCAA Div. I Tournament Midwest Subregional	W 84–74	26–7	Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome (15,794) Minneapolis, Minnesota
2009/03/22 1:30 p.m., CBS	No. 14 (3)	vs. (11) Dayton NCAA Div. I Tournament Midwest Subregional	W 60–43	27–7	Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome (14,279) Minneapolis, Minnesota
2009/03/27 8:37 p.m., CBS	No. 14 (3)	vs. No. 8 (2) Michigan State NCAA Div. I Tournament Midwest Regional	L 62–67	27–8	Lucas Oil Stadium (33,780) Indianapolis, Indiana
*Non-conference game. #Rankings from AP Poll. (#) Tournament seedings in parentheses. All times are in Central Standard Time.

I've also seen the information rendered with the seeding preceding rather than following the ranking number (as seen below), if anyone has opinions on which format is easier to follow. (I personally prefer the second approach.) It looks like this switch in order would require some rewriting of the CBB schedule entry code, which I've forgotten how to do in the years since I was last an active contributor.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I'd hate to see the information wiped out if we could agree that an alternative presentation makes things significantly clearer.

Date	Time†	Rank#	Opponent#	Site	TV	Result	Record
2004 Big 12 Conference Tournament — No. 2 Seed
Fri, Mar 12	6 p.m.	#11	vs. Oklahoma*	American Airlines Center • Dallas, Texas (Big 12 Conference Tournament Quarterfinals)	ESPN Plus	W 66–63	22–6
Sat, Mar 13	3:20 p.m.	#11	vs. #18 Kansas*	American Airlines Center • Dallas, Texas (Big 12 Conference Tournament Semifinals)	ESPN2/ESPN Plus	W 64–60	23–6
Sun, Mar 14	3:20 p.m.	#11	vs. #7 Oklahoma State*	American Airlines Center • Dallas, Texas (Big 12 Conference Tournament Finals)	ESPN	L 49–65	23–7
2004 NCAA Tournament — No. 3 Seed
Thu, Mar 18	6:20 p.m.	(3) #12	vs. (14) Princeton	Pepsi Center • Denver, Colorado (NCAA Tournament First Round)	CBS	W 66–49	24–7
Sat, Mar 20	7:10 p.m.	(3) #12	vs. (6) #18 North Carolina	Pepsi Center • Denver, Colorado (NCAA Tournament Second Round)	CBS	W 78–75	25–7
Fri, Mar 26	6:27 p.m.	(3) #12	vs. (7) Xavier	Georgia Dome • Atlanta, Georgia (NCAA Tournament Atlanta Regional Semifinal)	CBS	L 71–79	25–8
*Big 12 Conference Game. †All times in Central Standard Time. #Rank according to Associated Press (AP) Poll. OT indicates overtime.

32.212.45.180 (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been placing the seed and region in the rank field and omitting the poll rank during the NCAA tournament. It looks like this:

Date time, TV	Rank#	Opponent#	Result	Record	Site city, state
1996	No. 14(W)	vs. No. 3(W) Arizona First Round	W 90–51	0–1	ASU Activity Center  Tempe, AZ
*Non-conference game. #Rankings from AP Poll. (#) Tournament seedings in parentheses. All times are in Central Time. (#) during NCAA Tournament is seed..

Fbdave (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The implementation that 32.212.45.180 wrote up looks great! Would love to see it in the template! Can anyone implement this on the template?--Zach Pepsin (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Seed then rank looks better to me. Part if this can be done by not using the opprank field and inserting "(6) #18 North Carolina" in the opponent field. What needs to be changed in the template is removing the automatic # sign that appears in the rank column. But we can't simply remove it, because it would mess up existing transclusions. I'm thinking maybe a new field can be added that when set to "yes" will remove the sign, allowing us to type in "(3) #12" for the rank. ~ Richmond96 T • C 04:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Messy Appearance of Season Schedules

Since many changes have recently been made to the season schedule template in an attempt to make them more organized and set standards for formatting, I think it has become more apparent that schedules become much more difficult to read when some of the games take up 2 lines of text (to display either a "Gamename" field, overflow of date tab, or overflow of the new conjoined Site/Attendance tab. After playing around with the template, I think that the best options to fix this would be to either:

1. Set all games to take up two lines. This way it is much easier to read, and there is more space for displaying information, or
2. Make the schedule template so that there is no text wrapping in any of the cells, forcing every game to not change in number of lines no matter the screen size

Also I think a strong case can be made to have the TV and time fields back in the schedule. Important pieces of information that are now omitted. I'd love to hear input from others on this idea. Thanks --Zach Pepsin (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Pinging: @Richmond96:@Bagumba:@Fbdave:@Fbdave:

• I would vote for the two-line option. Is there a way to implement it by adding a blank line where there is only a single line now? Fbdave (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• The previous version of the template was much worse in terms of games overflowing to two, sometimes three lines. I don't think the new template is messy at all even when there are two lines, but if others want to make two lines the default and add some fields, that's fine by me. By the way, the "new conjoined Site/Attendance tab" takes up less width than having them separate like before. (@TonyTheTiger: and @Dirtlawyer1: may have interest, too). ~ Richmond96 T • C 04:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Richmond96, I believe TV and time fields are now pregame fields that get replaced postgame in the newly reformatted layout. So they seem to have disappeared for past seasons because they only appear pregame.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was the intended effect. Some editors expressed that time and TV become less notable after the event has been played, and removing them post game allowed us to keep the game leader columns without the template becoming too wide. So, I felt this was a good compromise. ~ Richmond96 T • C 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Richmond96: If it were to be two lines per game, then there would be more opportunity to display the time, TV, and result all simultaneously without it taking up too much space or becoming difficult to read. Another defense of the two line format is that as it stands now, some games will take up two lines while others take up one. Having different height rows for different games looks a bit unorganized.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @Zachlp: I will work up an example template using two lines per game and then hopefully we can vote on it. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Effort to redirect 2016–17 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

The 2016–17 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team has already allocated all of its available scholarships and we have sources for the entirety of the expected graduating class. This is an article that can exist in this special situation and should not be redirected, IMO. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is known already considering I'm the one who redirected it. This article should not exist given that consensus between the WP:CBBALL and WP:CFB projects has been to only go one season out. Interestingly, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#2016 CFB season articles (?) just came up a couple days ago. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather than trying to make a special exception for 2016–17 Wolverines, why don't we redirect and userfy for eight months, Tony? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

agreed. The article can be recreated in a year. As it stands it currently fails GNG. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, redirect and userfy. There is no Earthly need for an article on the season after next at this point. WAY too soon. Rikster2 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• We could userfy for eight months, but to me it seems to have as much content as most articles in Category:2015–16 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. Although we can not say for sure that the coaching staff will remain in place that far out or the prior season's record, we can name the entire recruiting class, the projected departures and describe the conference tenure and home arena. Looking at the articles for next season, this is about as much as the other articles have that are missing departures and prior season record in many cases. In 8 months we won't know either of the missing details (prior season or whether the coaching staff will stay on). What is the point in waiting until that point if we don't expect any additional content? Also, I don't see why the article fails WP:GNG or WP:TOOSOON, since we have sources for the content. Also note that since the entire recruiting class of 2016 appears complete for Michigan while the 2015 recruiting class continues to have one open scholarship, so should we be discussing whether the 2015–16 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team should be kept instead?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Whether or not those other articles are underwritten (they are - there is too much season article generation without a commitment to expand them into more than schdeules and rosters) is immaterial. We don't know that those recruits will end up at Michigan as expected, we don't know that those scheduled to be on the roster will still be there, heck we don't even know if the current coaching staff will be in place at that point. It is too early for articles on the 2016–17 season right now. Any Michigan basketball news probably fits into the article for next season. Rikster2 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • By the way, arguing if the 2015–16 season should stay or go because there is an open scholarship isn't the way to go. Go right ahead and delete that one too, no one will care (though no one is telling you that you have to either). Rikster2 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The earliest date the 2016 recruiting class can be signed to a binding letter of intent is November 11, 2015, and it mught be as late as April 2016: [3]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• I continue to support the guideline that season articles for a future season should not be created until the prior season is complete. Rikster also makes good points. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I also support the aforementioned guideline and support redirecting or deleting all 2016–17 articles at this time. While there's plenty of chatter in the media about recruits more than a year out, it's more speculative fancruft than encyclopedic content. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like there's a 5-1 consensus that this article is premature. So, this should either be redirected or put up for AfD, right? Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Seems that way to me. I suggest userfying the article until a year from now. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you are going to userfy please do so with history although I think it would be easier to just redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Tony, I was going to suggest that you make the page move from 2016–17 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team to User:TonyTheTiger/2016–17 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, then fix the redirect from page move to go back to Michigan Wolverines men's basketball. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Elite Eight appearances by coach

I've never nominated an article for deletion before, so I'm not quite sure on the process, but is the List of NCAA Men's Division I Elite Eight appearances by coach really notable enough to exist, especially in it's current format? In the latest NCAA record book, no such list exists. In fact, in the entire 279 page book, there are only 8 references to the Elite 8, as opposed to nearly 500 references to the Final Four. The only Elite 8 records that exist are most appearances by school, consecutive appearances by school, and a comprehensive listing of the seeds to make the Elite 8. The records also date to 1951, when the tournament expanded to 16 teams, not 1985. The article in it's present state has no sources, and is mostly made up of the same people as the Final Four list. I couldn't find any such list on the first few pages of a Google search, either. Anyway, given that the article is in the NCAA tournament navbox, I figured I would start the discussion here. SCMatt33 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Championships are what is important. National championships is the real important thing, but regional championships (final fours) is also important. There is no encyclopedic significance to this list.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Matt & Tony, can one of you provide a linked list of all of our Wikipedia article lists of CBB coaches list by NCAA appearances, NCAA championships, and/or NCAA Tournament stage reached? If memory serves me right, there are several. It might be a good idea to see what's out there, and then discussed what should be merged or deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Championships and Final Four appearances are what I think are reliably reported/listed in record books and in the press. News articles routinely cite that a coach has been to "three Final Fours," etc. Elite Eight appearances really aren't referenced to that degree and seem pretty CRUFT-y. Rikster2 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would be in favor of nominating List of NCAA Men's Division I Elite Eight appearances by coach for deletion per all reasons discussed. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be at least enough support for discussion, so I have tagged the page and started the official discussion. View AfD. SCMatt33 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley athletics

All – UTRGV Vaqueros men's basketball was just created today. It is now time to decide what is to become of this school's athletics pages and categories. As I see it, here is what needs to happen / be determined:

1. Will the common name be UTRGV or Texas–Rio Grande?
2. Does this school retain athletics history from UTB, UTPA, both, or neither?
3. Page moves need to occur rather than create new articles from scratch. For the above example, Texas–Pan American Broncs men's basketball should have been moved, if in fact the new school retains UTPA's athletics history.

Please chime in on all / any thoughts pertaining to this new school. I will ping the regulars, including WP:CFB and WP:COLLEGEBASEBALL users. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably not the only one not familiar with this school. Are there some relevant articles that can provide background on the school and athletic programs, or is it still in flux?—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have to think Texas–Rio Grande Valley would be the best name. I've never seen such a long acronym used for an article title. A similar example I think is Texas A&M–Corpus Christi Islanders, which we use instead of TAMUCC or A&M–CC Islanders. For what its worth, UTRGV Vaqueros produces 8,440 results on Google while Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros produces 117,000. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

UT Rio Grande Valley is what should be used. Show me a Wiki article where the athletic programs name is not used, and I will always say it is wrong. It is for this reason I pointed out and got Brigham Young athletics changed to BYU athletics. The BYU Cougars represent Brigham Young University, but their athletic programs are called the BYU Cougars, not the Brigham Young Cougars. The same thing applies for both UTEP and UT San Antonio. From what I've read on the name change, the athletic program here is officially called the UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqeros, so UT Rio Grande Valley is what should be used, though UTRGV can be used in the template links after the full file name is used. Now, as to address the other question you asked, yes, the Texas–Pan American Broncs and UTB athletic pages should be moved and combined into one article, and it should contain both athletic histories under individual sections discussing when they were UT Pan American and UTB. Since it is 2 articles that need to be moved one should have been moved. After the first one is moved go to the second article that needs to be moved and copy and paste the current content. After copying and pasting it onto something like a Microsoft Word file, or even the Wiki article it is being moved to, delete the original content and create a REDIRECT link on the article so it will go to the new article. Create the redirect link before saving the original content in the new article and you won't be accused of plagiarizing. This is what has to be done when it is 2 or more articles being merged or moved, since only one article can be moved. If you have already created the page without moving both current athletic pages, then you will need to do this process for both articles. I think proof of this is the fact that the basketball coach, Dan Hipsher, is listed as entering his third year with the program this next year, even though it will be his first under the name UT Rio Grande Valley.Bigddan11 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bigddan11: Are you saying that the University or College name should always be in the page name? Wouldn't "Florida Gators" or "Tennessee Volunteers" go against that? ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Richmond, to answer your question: No, "Florida Gators" and "Tennessee Volunteers" don't go against what's being proposed. In both cases, "Florida" and "Tennessee" are sufficient to describe those universities. As for the basic issue... I'm leaning toward using "UTRGV", though I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise. While the full title of the school's athletic department is "The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Department of Intercollegiate Athletics", the department seems to be branding itself pretty consistently as "UTRGV"; note especially the official athletic logo (press release). — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that within a single state system, we do not always have uniformity. E.g., while we have UC Santa Barbara Gauchos, UC Riverside Highlanders, UC Irvine Anteaters, UC Davis Aggies, UC San Diego Tritons, UC Santa Barbara Gauchos, and UC Merced Golden Bobcats, we also have UCLA Bruins and California Golden Bears. Similarly, while we have UNC Greensboro Spartans, UNC Wilmington Seahawks, and UNC Asheville Bulldogs, we have Charlotte 49ers, North Carolina A&T Aggies, North Carolina State University, Western Carolina Catamounts and North Carolina Tar Heels, I am not sure what all the talk about the hyphen above is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever we name it we need to be prepared to move the page to whatever the popular press refers to them as (assuming it is consistent). That's how we reach naming conventions for sports teams. It's actually NOT what the school pushes for until that actually "takes." My concern is that no one is going to have any idea what "UTRGV" is. It is not their WP:COMMONNAME until people actually start using it. Rikster2 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For now I would say Texas-Rio Grande Valley should be the name until UTRGV is established as WP:COMMONNAME. I think questions 2 and 3 are seriously overlooked here. I agree with Jrcla2's assessment that IF UTPA's sports history is claimed by UTRGV then that page should be moved.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with UCO2009bluejay above. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Texas-Rio Grande Valley is the way to go, I think. I don't know what should happen to Texas pan american, whether it should be merged or not. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Eddy, I have just two quick questions: If say UTRGV claims themselves as a inheritant of the UTPA program's history (not just DI status and conference membership) then aren't we obligated to follow their lead? If they don't then are we obligated to follow them on that point as well?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If the school itself claims UTPA as part of its basketball history, then I guess we should merge the articles. If they don't (which they probably should), we should have two seperate articles that acknowledge the situation. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like their new athletic department site isn't live yet, but when it is, we should look for a media style guide or something to determine the proper naming. Barring that, I would lean towards Texas–Rio Grande Valley, in parallel with the format we use for Pan American. With respect to naming and records, I think North Dakota and to a lesser extent William & Mary set a precedent: move the Broncs basketball page, general athletic page, and navboxes to the Vaqueros versions on or around July 1 (IIRC, that's when the merger's complete), and in each article note the merger between Brownsville and Pan American. For the season pages, keep as they are; i.e., it's still 2014–15 Texas–Pan American Broncs men's basketball team, but next season will be 2015–16 Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros men's basketball team. Puritan Nerd 19:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify: my rationale is that assuming that Rio Grande Valley takes the records and history of Pan American, from the perspective of athletics/NCAA, I don't see why it shouldn't be treated any different than a school or program name change. Puritan Nerd 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to schedule template: Round 2

Based on ongoing concerns and discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Request for consensus, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Standard for tournament seeding on a team's schedule, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Messy Appearance of Season Schedules, I have experimented with some changes that I would like everyone's opinion and vote on. The changes that I propose are:

1. Made all game entries appear on two lines of text, which allows for consistency and the addition of more fields.
2. Brought back time and TV fields back thanks to #1.
3. Added two new fields: seed= and oppseed=. They improve the way tournament seeds are displayed and makes the input process more standardized. In a tournament, enter the team's seed in "seed" and the opponent's seed in "oppseed", along with the existing "rank" and "opprank". They will automatically format as shown below.
4. Placed seed in front of AP rank instead of behind. This looks neater in my opinion.
5. Changed gamename text back to original size text.
6. Italicized gamename text instead of using parenthesis which is a cleaner look in my opinion. There were too many parentheses showing in NCAA tournament sections.
7. Conference records will appear underneath overall records by default.
8. Brought back city, state field which will appear underneath the site name and attendance.

Here is an example of these changes using Kentucky's schedule:

Show to see example

Your thoughts? Attention to: @Zachlp:, @Dirtlawyer1:, @Bagumba:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Fbdave:, @Bigddan11:, @Bsuorangecrush:, @Mpejkrm:.

~ Richmond96 T • C 05:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks much better. No complaints on my end. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it looks better. By making everything on two lines it deletes the line wrapping, which was the original concern, and combining the fields this way shows everything people have either asked for or asked as an option. I would be in favor of it. Bigddan11 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you remove Kentucky's AP ranking from one of the NCAA tournament games so we can see how the schedule entry looks with only a tournament seeding? I think that the game name is important and deserves no italicization. Is there any interest in moving the overtime field to line 2 in parentheses? Fbdave (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fbdave: I removed Kentucky's AP rank for the Hampton game. For the game name, I don't think italics makes it any less important and it looks better visually to me as opposed to having so many parentheses. But if you or some other editiors would like to elaborate another opinion I am all ears. As far as moving overtime to the second line, that is an interesting suggestion as it would save some width. I will play around with that. This is what the template entry looks like for the above Hampton game:

{{User:Richmond96/sandbox 2 | date = Mar 19 | time = 9:40 pm | w/l = w | neutral = yes | nonconf = yes | rank = | seed = 1 MW | opponent = [[2014–15 Hampton Pirates men's basketball team|Hampton]] | opprank = | oppseed = 16 MW | site_stadium = KFC Yum! Center | site_cityst = Louisville, KY | gamename = Round of 64 | tv = [[NCAA March Madness (CBS/Turner)|CBS]] | highscorer = Towns | points = 21 | highrebounder = ''Tied'' | rebounds = 11 | highassister = ''Tied'' | assists = 3 | score = 79–56 | overtime = | attend = 21,639 | record = 35–0 }}

~ Richmond96 T • C 17:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I approve.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• The tournament seed looks good. I am not a fan of the parentheses when there is no AP rank listed, but I cannot think of an alternative that would be consistent for all the different scenarios (ranked/unranked team, ranked/unranked opponent). Fbdave (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fbdave: Perhaps for NCAA tournament games, the seed could be outside of the parentheses with the AP rank inside of parentheses when needed. Once the tournament begins, seeding becomes the primary indicator for a team over AP rank in all major media anyway. I also don't think that it would be too confusing to people given that the region is attached to the seed at all times. SCMatt33 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Love it. Looks great! Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the positive feedback I'm going ahead and implementing the changes. Let me know if there are any objections. ~ Richmond96 T • C 04:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Richmond96: fantastic work. I think making every game 2 lines is much better. Having some games with taller heights than others was even more of an eye sore than I thought. 100% Approved! --Zach Pepsin (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Richmond96: Thank you for these changes. They're great! One small quibble: I may have missed it in the above discussions, but what was the reason for increasing the font size on the gamename field? Puritan Nerd 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words everyone. It really does mean something to me; I've been wanting to improve this template for a few years so I'm glad so see us finally come together and get it done. Big thanks to everyone who commented, voted, compromised, and gave many great ideas along the way. @Puritan Nerd:, at least one user mentioned they didn't like the smaller font (The one user was Fbdave). I had made it smaller basically on my own decision because it made the opponent column a little less wider in some cases. I changed it back because no one had really spoken in favor of the small text, while one had spoken negatively, and the width is not really an issue now with the latest improvements. This is something we can definitely discuss if you and other editors feel so inclined. ~ Richmond96 T • C 05:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Richmond96: Late comment to say that the new format looks great. I'm not crazy about the inclusion of points/rebounds/assists from an aesthetic perspective, but I realize that issue was settled some time back, and I no longer have practical grounds for objection anyway, since all previous info has been retained with this new two-line format. My pet concern that I expressed above (as an IP address)—that poll ranking and seeding both be retained at Tournament time—was addressed, and the presentation is very clear. Thanks for all the effort you've put into this. João Do Rio (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Gary Williams listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gary Williams to be moved to Gary Williams (basketball). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Category:African-American basketball players

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Misuse_of_Category:African-American_basketball_players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss infobox suggestions for Christian Laettner

at Talk:Christian Laettner#Infobox. Major changes are being introduced, seemingly just for this article. Rikster2 (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Medals in infobox of bio

FYI

You are invite to join the discussion regarding the handling of medals in the infobox at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Medals_in_infobox_of_bio.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Grouping navboxes

FYI

You are invited to join a discussion about the grouping of navboxes at the bottom at articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Grouping_navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of basketball players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for former college basketball players: Joakim Noah and Michael Jordan. If you have any questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: proposal to permit non-English Wikipedia links in navboxes

There is an ongoing RfC whether to permit non-Wikipedia links in Wikipedia navboxes @ Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?. Given this WikiProject's ongoing interest in navboxes, some of you may be interested in commenting. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Texas Longhorns men's basketball

Please see the current merge proposal at Talk:Texas Longhorns men's basketball. The merge suggests merging the recently new article Texas Longhorns men's basketball records to the main page. Corkythehornetfan 22:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

TfD: SEC law schools navbox nominated for deletion

WikiProject College basketball members, here is a navbox within the scope of our project that I have nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 12#Template:Southeastern Conference Law Schools. Given project members' past interest in related navbox subjects, I thought you would want to know, and we invite your participation in the TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015-16 Iowa State Cyclones men's basketball navbox

Template:2015-16 Iowa State Cyclones men's basketball navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)