Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 14

Rudy Gay

News just broke that he has resigned with the grizzles,his page says he is still a free agent.\ Rocker368 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Rocker368

That's because he hasn't actually signed his new deal. No new contracts can be signed until July 8.... which gets me to a point that's bugged me. When players become free agents, their ties with their old teams aren't completely severed until they sign with new teams or their rights are renounced. Until then, the old team holds the Bird rights and their old contracts count against the salary cap. Considering that, shouldn't their infoboxes reflect their old team instead of "free agent"? --Mosmof (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what consensus had been at Amar'e Stoudemire; somebody just changed it and said that players are listed with their new teams when the agreement is reached, not when the contract is signed. Had this been discussed here before? I'd think there'd be project-wide consensus on how to handle this. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search of the archives and it doesn't seem like there's any sort of consensus or even a discussion of how to deal with it. Considering this one-week limbo period happens every year and confuses the crap out of eager editors, we should probably come up with a protocol on players who agree to terms before the signing period begins, as well as avoiding the kabuki of severing a player's ties with a team even when there's a good chance he's going back to his old team. --Mosmof (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Solving the free agency limbo period mess

I notice this happen every year - the free agency negotiation period opens, a players agrees in principle to sign with a new team, editors rush to be FIRST!!!! to make the edit, and are quickly reverted because they can't actually sign a new contract until a week after the negotiation period opens. It's happening now with Amar'e Stoudemire, Hakim Warrick and Drew Gooden (not so much with Steve Blake though), and I'm sure it'll happen next year when Carmelo's contract runs out.

Another thing I noticed is that as soon as the free agency period begins, editors rush to remove team affiliation from the intro and the infobox, even when most of the time, they end up re-signing with the old team. And here's the thing - even when a player is an unrestricted free agent, he still has ties to his old team - he still occupies the cap space and the old team owns his Bird rights.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to deal with the above situations, even though it happens every summer. So here's my humble proposal:

1. Move a player to his new team only when the contract is signed: - This seems simple enough to me. As reliable as "agreed in principle" news stories tend to be, they're still talking in future tense, as in, "Player X will join Team Y", not "Player X has joined Team Y". There's always a chance, albeit a slight one, that a player will renege on a verbal agreement. For the sake of WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait until the contract signing.
2. Keep players linked to their old teams until they sign with a new team or are renounced by their old team: This one is a little less clear cut and I expect some disagreement, but because of the reasons I listed above, a player still has some ties to the old team (especially so with restricted free agents). But I think this is the way to go for the sake of simplicity and consistency. Simplicity, because when most players end up re-signing with old clubs, it seems extra trouble to rewrite the intro and infobox, and then reverting just days later. Consistency, because free agents are still listed in team roster templates. This year, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki, Carlos Boozer, Yao Ming and Joe Johnson, just to name a few, fit in this category. Unnecessary edits increase the chances of error or confusion. We can always remove team affiliation when a player's rights are renounced, meaning he can't sign with his old team until December.

Basically, under my proposals, an intro of a free agent article would read something like this:

Player X is an American basketball player who is a power forward for Team Y. He is currently a free agent and has agreed in principle to join Team Z when NBA's free agency signing period begins on July 8.

Thoughts? Mosmof (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "is a power forward who last played for Team Y" and "join Team Z during the NBA's free agency signing period" instead? Technically they are still part of the team but since they have already agreed to sign with another team, it may raise some eyebrows. I also don't want to write "July 8" because I'm not sure that all the free agents will sign a contract on the first day. Other than those, I'm completely fine with your proposal. While I really appreciate your dedication to keeping all the articles factually accurate, I don't want to stress over it too much because everything should blow over in a few days, right? —LOL ^T/_C 03:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Yao Ming is not a free agent this summer. But yes, I like the proposal, with the modifications by LOL. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal and the modifications by LOL. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I could get behind Mosmof's and LOL's proposals. The problem, of course, is enforcing these rules. At some articles, nothing short of full-protection will work. Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rookie of the Year Award in Infobox NBA Draft

Regarding the recent change which added NBA Rookie of the Year Award to the Template:Infobox NBA Draft, I have started a discussions in Template talk:Infobox NBA Draft. I think the Rookie of the Year award does not belong to the infobox and should be removed. Please have a look and comments on the issue. Thanks. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? — Martin tamb (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rosters

Anyone care that the rosters are an absolute mess? People constantly making changes based off of rumors and preliminary reports.... Often deals don't happen... Anyone? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that rosters are pretty meaningless until the day before opening night. But short of locking them down for the entire offseason, I don't have a solution. --Mosmof (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's like this every off-season. Those people love to be the first to "break the news". Chensiyuan (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not lock them down for the entire offseason? --Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything is chaotic. It seems like theres a 20:1 ratio of idiot IPs to competent IPs. I actually wouldn't mind removing the roster templates from the articles until the opening day rosters are set. But, as always, there will be hoards of people putting them back, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. And I can't imagine the people at WP:RFPP semi-protecting everything. Zagalejo^^^ 03:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of NBA prep-to-pro players

I think we should rename this article to List of NBA players drafted directly out of high schools. Not all the readers know what "prep-to-pro" is.—Chris!_c/t 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the "s" on "schools" should be dropped though. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that prep-to-pro is not a good title. But, I think the title List of NBA high school draftees is more suitable and it goes according to the main article NBA high school draftees. However, I've been planning on merging the list and the main article. I'll work on the main article first, and if the article isn't too long, the list could be merged. What do you guys think? — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging is a bad idea imo. Both the list and the main article are pretty long already.—Chris!_c/t 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the main article has a lot of unneeded information and mostly unreferenced. It could be trimmed down to a shorter summaries about the players instead of mentioning almost all the draftees in the paragraph. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess merging is possible since the list is not going to expand any time soon. The controversy section is pretty messy and should be rewritten.—Chris!_c/t 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to rewrite that section and add some references to support the "controversy". — Martin tamb (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I will help when I have time.—Chris!_c/t 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I merged the list to the main article and rewrote the controversy section. I think it could be nominated as a FL down the road.—Chris!_c/t 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Coaching record standardization

Around two years ago, I suggested that the NBA Project should standardize all coaching record wikitables on coaches articles and the proposal was supported by several editors. (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_9#Coaching_statistics) I then went ahead and adopted my version of standardization as the project-wide standard. It can be seen at User:Chrishomingtang/coaching record template. However, I just realized that an ip (User:96.228.208.53) has changed all of the coaching record tables to a different more detailed version without any discussion (See Doc Rivers or Stan Van Gundy). So, here I am trying to determine which version is better suited for our purpose and should be used in our coaches articles.

I, of course, favor my version. It is simpler, containing only the most relevant info. It is also sortable, allowing readers to sort every stats easily. The other version is, in my opinion, less useful. It does not allow sorting and has some MOS issues although it has pretty much the same info. Now, should we choose between these versions? Or should we create a new version that would work best for our articles? Any thoughts?—Chris!_c/t 00:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Chris' version is better as well. My one concern is the abbreviations, which I assume would be explained in a key. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It has a key. So, abbreviations shouldn't be a problem.—Chris!_c/t 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer your version. The IP's version is kind of a pain to maintain, with all the team-specific subtotal sections. Zagalejo^^^ 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I will start working then.—Chris!_c/t 02:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the old version, but you might want to add class="sortbottom" to exclude the career total from the sorting. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add class="sortbottom". I meant to do that.—Chris!_c/t 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Notable figures in team infoboxes

I don't know if anybody realizes this, but the NBA team infoboxes have caused a huge clutter for some players. Take a look at Shaq for example. He has a Magic, Lakers, Heat, Suns, Cavs and Celtics template as he is in each notable players section. I guess he should be a "notable figure" for the Magic, Lakers and the Heat, but the Suns, Cavs and Celtics? He played only a season and a half with the Suns, only a season with the Cavs, which was the worst in his career and has yet to play a game with the Celtics. So why is he in their notable players section? I think it be best if we just remove that section as it appears to be strictly based in opinion. Beast from da East (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the "notable figures" section should be removed from all the navboxes since it's Original Research. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Either that, or change the category to a better-define category, such as Hall of Famers. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

At WP:BASEBALL, we removed all of the "Important Figures" sections because, as X96 said, it's WP:OR and totally subjective as to who makes "the cut". We only use verifiable criteria, like being inducted into the team's walk of fame, etc. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.—Chris!_c/t 01:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of every Notable figures in the templates, it's definitely WP:OR and WP:POV. Template:Los Angeles Clippers and Template:Minnesota Timberwolves even have Blake Griffin and Ricky Rubio who haven't even played any game with them, saying that they are notable also violates WP:CRYSTAL. Replacing the section with the Hall of Famers seems like a good idea. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Beast from da East. As for having a Hall of Famers section, I think that would raise similar problems to what we have now. Should George Gervin or Robert Parish be listed as Hall of Famers for the Bulls? They only played for the Bulls briefly. (Such issues are somewhat easier to deal with in baseball articles, since the Baseball Hall of Fame chooses a specific team's cap to use in each player's Hall of Fame plaque.) A retired jerseys section might be easier. Zagalejo^^^ 07:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I retract my support for the addition of Hall of Famers. By the way, there are some templates that already have Hall of Famers section, should they be removed too? — Martin tamb (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Zagalejo^^^ 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Look like we have consensus. I will start removing if no one objects.—Chris!_c/t 19:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please - lets be rid of them - it's quite comical in many cases. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is done. They'll still have to be removed from each of the pages they're on though. I'll do that whenever I see them on a player's page. Those templates still have some questionable things on them that could be discussed, but I didn't take anything else off for now. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick. I am just about to do it. :)—Chris!_c/t 03:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we are removing team templates from player articles, I say we take out the Hall of Famers section on these team templates as well.—Chris!_c/t 04:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

List of ABA awards

Would anyone mind if I make such a list? --K. Annoyomous (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but ABA has nothing to do with NBA and is not part of this project.—Chris!_c/t 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ABA was merged into the NBA, which makes the ABA pretty relevant to this project. This was also the best place to discuss about this, since I don't think users will reply on WP:BASKETBALL. I'm also planning to make a List of ABA All-Stars just so everyone knows. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Only 4 ABA teams joined the NBA in that so-called merge after that league has disbanded. So, in a sense, the ABA is separated from the NBA.—Chris!_c/t 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, should we consider revitalizing WP:BASKETBALL in some capacity? It is in a poor state.—Chris!_c/t 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the ABA should be within our scope. The Official NBA Encyclopedia devotes a lot of space to the ABA, and lists every ABA player. Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, the ABA may not be directly relevant to this project, but it has significant contributions to the NBA's growth in the 1970s. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I guess they are part of this project.—Chris!_c/t 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New NBA Development League category

I just wanted to make everyone at WP:NBA aware that I've finished creating player categories for every NBA Development League team, both active and defunct (Category:NBA Development League players by club for parent category). I've been trying to populate them as I go along but it's a long and tedious process, so if any of you are working on an NBA player's article and that person has played in the D-League, please add the appropriate category(ies) if they are not already there. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans lists

Currently, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/archive1 there is discussion on what should be in the notes column. My thinking it to include important national awards and recognitions. Things I have been including in the 2010 list which is an WP:FL and the 2009 list which is a WP:FLC have been National POYs , Academic AA POY, NCAAT MOP. I have excluded conference POYs. I am not averse to adding national statistical champions and first overall NBA draft choice as well as any former high school national POYs. Please make comments at the FLC discussion link above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

121.72.175.138 added tons of inappropriate team navboxes

Even though this IP hasn't edited since June 29, 2010, I wanted to make everyone aware that the IP 121.72.175.138 (contributions) has repeatedly added NBA teams' navboxes to individual players' articles simply because they played for them at some point. It's highly inappropriate, and I just now sternly told the IP to stop (albeit two months late...but I hope the next time s/he thinks about it they'll get the message that it's disruptive editing). In the future, if you see a team navbox on a player's page, it might be this IP, so please check to see if it was and then warn him. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All-American FL discussion on Wooden and Senior All-Americans

At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/archive1 it was recommended that I consider adding Wooden All-American and Senior All-American players to the page. Even though Wooden AA are not used for consensus determination and Senior All-American designation is based on off the court considerations as well, I thought the suggestion was valid and implemented the change for the 2009 and 2010 lists. A later editor contested the addition and seeks consensus from concerned editors. Please comment at the above discussion so we can set policy for optimal AA lists going forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic of interest on WP:CBB: Succession boxes

We have been having a discussion at WP:CBB about an issue on college basketball player and coach pages. Many have both succession boxes and navboxes for awards and coaching positions that also have (more comprehensive) navboxes (examples - Wooden Award, NCAA Tournament MOP, etc.). We are making the call to get rid of succession boxes where navboxes exist - from awards and head coach positions. I have been deleting these, but often these pages also have NBA succession boxes which I have mainly been leaving alone. You may want to consider whether you want to follow suit or otherwise set a project standard. I have seen tons of redundant succession boxes, such as NBA Rookie of the Year, #1 Draft pick, Head coach/GM succession, etc - all of which have navboxes with the exact same info (and more). Since our projects intertwine, it might be nice to have a common policy - though we don't have to if you don't like what we have decided. Just thought I'd tee it up for you. Cheers! Rikster2 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove any redundant succession boxes. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree—Chris!_c/t 18:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk: 1963 NBA Draft

Please see Talk:1963 NBA Draft. I just wanted to see if other people think mentioning Herb Magee is worthwhile. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

National Basketball Association

FYI, User:Vanessa Aragon NY is inserting "Kobe Bryant Era" on the main NBA article. I've reverted him several times saying that it is POV, but s/he insisted that the decade of 2000s should be called Kobe Bryant Era. Can someone here look into this? Thanks—Chris!_c/t 01:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NBA articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the NBA articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nets infobox issue

Quick query. The infobox at the article for the New Jersey Nets still has the team's road uniforms in blue, when the team switched to red for the road last year. Anyone know how to update that? That way we can also eliminate the redundant uniforms section, which I have only left in thus far as it does have the accurate red road uniforms.oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Training camp invitees

What should be done about NBA training camp invitees like Brian Scalabrine, who are not listed anywhere on their teams' websites, but are still clearly on the team in some capacity? (Scal was participating in the Bulls media day).

I've noticed that some teams, like the Kings, show the entire training camp roster on their websites [1], while others, like the Bulls, only show the guaranteed deals [2]. Zagalejo^^^ 20:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Can the articles of these players just say they are training camp invitees of a particular team? But the infobox shouldn't list the team since they are not actually signed.—Chris!_c/t 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That works, to an extent, although the problem is that it's not always clear which deals are guaranteed. I've found that NBA.com doesn't post every transaction, which is frustrating. Zagalejo^^^ 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: It seems that the roster at bulls.com now does include Scalabrine, and the other training camp invitees. Zagalejo^^^ 01:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that, if nba.com considers a player part of a team, it's much easier just to follow their lead. But if others disagree, let me know! Zagalejo^^^ 01:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I got the impressions that all training camp invitees must be signed in order to be able to participate in preseason games. Some of the teams (such as Lakers and Wizards) announced that they signed the training camp invitees,[3][4] and as a result the invitees are listed on the roster. Also, some of the signing of training camp invitees were listed on the NBA Transactions list, ESPN Transactions list and Yahoo! Sports Transactions list. So I agree if the training camp invitees are listed on the rosters. — Martin tamb (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AND1 Mixtape tour

What's the status of the AND1 Mixtape Tour? The AND1 site doesn't say much about it anymore. Does the tour still exist?

(I posted the same question at WikiProject Basketball, but I figured I might have more luck here.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't know. I haven't heard of this tour before.—Chris!_c/t 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you edit the Main page to add GA nominations?

Well, huh? Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this article alert bot has been down for six months now. I think it's time to change/get rid of that box on the main page until it comes back or if it comes back. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.—Chris!_c/t 19:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you know how to do it, would you mind changing it around? I don't want to screw anything up. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We can always just revert it when or if the bot works again of course. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Where do I add Kermit Washington? I just copy-edited all (or at least most) of my retardation out of the prose and wanted to add it to like a GA nom list like we used to have here (middle of the page):[5] These lists are interesting even if you're not a reviewer imo, just so you can see what articles have been worked on recently. I'll try to figure this out myself. Quadzilla99 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't have the user-maintain nom list anymore because of article alert bot. But since that bot is down, we can start the nom list again.—Chris!_c/t 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the list. See if it works.—Chris!_c/t 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Boom perfect, ty! Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Parade High School All-Americans (basketball)

Category:Parade High School All-Americans (basketball), which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Not an NBA category, but somewhat related - and looking for input to resolve what I think is a pretty non-controversial proposal. Rikster2 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IRC have created

I have created an IRC channel for us here. The channel name is #wiki-nba. Hope to see you on. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll see me on again after kicking me for no reason. "wtf" wasn't exactly the greeting I was expecting from you anyway. —LOL ^T/_C 04:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A IRC NBA channel is a great idea --G DEULOFLEU ™ 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very good if start using this channel. We can discuss a lot of things on there. LOL:Sorry about that, forgot about you. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NBA roster size

I am a Manny Harris fan and am wondering if he has made the final roster now that the Cavs are down to 15.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he did—Chris!_c/t 02:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So 15 is the final roster size for the NBA? Does the NBA had a 3-man taxi squad?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, final roster size is 15.[6] I don't know anything about taxi squad.—Chris!_c/t 02:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximum player on their roster is 15, but they can have more if the league give them special exemption in case of a long-term injury to one of those 15 players. Heat in 2008 had 17 players on their roster due to injuries.[7] — Martin tamb (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To add a further wrinkle, teams don't have to carry 15; the absolute minimum is 13. Zagalejo^^^ 05:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this all new? When I was a season ticket holder for the knicks in the 1990s they only had 12 man rosters, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Active roster has been 12 for a while - there used to be an injured list which required players to be out for 5 games. They went with an inactive list a few years ago instead which can be changed from game to game (even the playoffs). There was also a separate suspended list. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between active roster and roster?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In an NBA game, a team is allowed to play at most 12 of their players, and they make up the active roster. The roster is the set of players that are signed with the team. —LOL ^T/_C 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So you dress 12, but you are allowed to keep 3 on the side. So I have to wait and see if he is on the regular active roster.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's only been since the last collective bargaining agreement (2005?) that teams have been required to carry more than 12 players. However, there were definitely teams in the 1990s who had 15 players on the rosters. The late 1990s Bulls, for example, usually carried the full load. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Croatian NBA players

FYI, there is a deletion debate going on concerning lists that focus on players of a particular country. Anyone interested should take a look. Thanks—Chris!_c/t 04:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

FA Drive

Anyone interested in going for a push for another FA? I see several articles at a quick glance that with some elbow grease, and perhaps an intense peer review, could become FAs; Wilt Chamberlain, Los Angeles Lakers, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Dennis Johnson. Some of them need more work than others. Usually one of the bigger problems is copy-editing, but maybe if we team up and get some outside opinions from editors who are good copy-editors we can make it through that. Quadzilla99 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly help out. I thought about bringing Dennis Johnson to FA a while ago, but just didn't have the motivation to actually do it. I was also involved with Los Angeles Lakers during its GA run.—Chris!_c/t 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of those two, I'd rather work on the Lakers. It would be great to get a book source but I don't really have time now. Book sources aren't a requirement of FAC though so we could go along with it using just web sources. It would also be much easier that way anyways tbh. I'll stop by the talk page tomorrow and maybe we can create a to-do list. Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one to add. Jerry West. It is A class. I can help with the two time defending champs article as well. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with working on the Lakers. They are one of the greatest teams in NBA history and seeing it reaches FA status would be cool.—Chris!_c/t 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

LA Lakers

Let's do this one by one. We'll do the 6-0 Lakers first (why not?). The main issue is criteria 4 IMO. Pre-1980 includes little information about each season while most post 1980 season do not. How much detail should we put in the main article? IT can get to the point were it becomes a content fork and ever longer. On the other hand, the history section could become a little stubby. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "6–0 Lakers" is, but I'm adding a to do list on the talk page of the Lakers' article. I think I can be useful here because I'm not really a Lakers' fan so I can help make sure its neutral. For instance a couple of things I noticed right off the bat: What I see missing now is that Magic had Westhead fired during the 1981–82 season (he was even vilified for this around the league and booed in several opposing arenas), info about the Kermit Washington punch, and some more info about the ownership history (The Breaks of the Game which I wouldn't mind re-reading anyway had some great Jack Kent Cooke info that was fascinating). I worked on the Washington article and have nominated it for GA, so I can help with that. I propose we take this discussion to the article's talk page where I'm starting a section. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "6-0" is a reference to their current W–L record. ;) —LOL ^T/_C 03:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I started a section on the article's talk page. Please add comments. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL:yeah, I just wanted to have some fun :P. I would keep it here as it is part of a project-wide drive. Anyhow, we'll do both. Yeah, more info is needed about the team in the early 70's and 80s as well as the 1950s and 1960s. I think the most info should be given to the 9171-72 season as the won a franchise record. On the other hand, it could become a content fork. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

Either way is fine, I'm just concerned the discussion could become a little too long for this page. The article should use summary style there already is a History of the Los Angeles Lakers article. If you're researching and see a lot of interesting stuff you want to add you can just add the detailed info there or to the individual season's article. To toot my own horn a little bit, the history article could even end up like the New York Giants history series, which I've done that's up for GA topic status in that it could have several articles. But the main article shouldn't get too long, that's the point of the other articles anyway, really. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify I agree with Evan the article does need more info on the early history sections. As of right there's one small para covering 1959-1967. I've added that to the to do list. Maybe even breaking the 1959-1974 section into two sections, with the latter starting with when they acquired Wilt would be a good idea. The 1972 season section might already be long enough though imho. Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed some crap the belongs in the history section, that belong sin it's main article. Also, the rest of the sections are kinda of stubby. Again, FA criteria #4 is the main issue. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying its too long? Because actually the length is fine and it needs a tiny bit of expansion in the areas mentioned. They go by prose size at FAC and its currently only 33 kbs of prose which is not long at all. Featured articles such as B movie (62 kb of prose), Sound film (57kb), and Shen Kuo (55 kb) and many others are way longer. Edward Elgar which is currently nominated and which is a lock to pass at this point (the current vote is 8-0) is 57 kb. Tim Duncan is 36 kb and Michael Jordan is currently 40 kb of prose and was around the same when it passed, and those are articles for individual players. Ian Thorpe another athlete is 44kb. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with that part you removed though. I've argued before (such as in the Juwan Howard FAC) that people don't need to know every single bit of information about a trade. It bogs down the narrative something fierce imho. As for the length of individual sections I agree with you that the 50s, 60s, and 70s need a little more info, and think that the 2007-09 section could use some pruning. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not mean it was too long. It is decent length, I do not want anything excessive per criteria 4a. This is was happened two one of my articles that went to FAC. Should we mention that Lakers started 7-0? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent, if there is such a word) I don't see how people could argue at FAC if it gets to around 40 kb, I mean Fight Club is 40 kb of prose, and I love that movie but in no way does it need more coverage than one of the top two franchises in NBA history. Plus I've never even heard of Edward Elgar tbh. I'm adding some 60s stuff now. Quadzilla99 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need to focus on duplicate and consistent refs now (and dead links). YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed some dupe wikilinks, and things not linked the first time they appear but linked later. As for this season, some editors I know and respect like Zagalejo like to keep out current season stuff because a lot of the time it doesn't get updated regularly. Also it could be a stability issue not to mention a little tedious if its getting constantly updated during FAC. But if you know you will be here to keep it updated or that other people will I say go ahead. Just change the section title 2007-10. Quadzilla99 (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think this is almost FAC ready. After it passes, ill put the current season stuff in. Putting it know is a risk to run fro someone who has no FA's. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to keep working on it a little while yet. There's also stuff on the to do list yet. I think it will be a lot better in a few more days. There's no real reason to rush imho. Plus a peer review would be helpful especially to have someone take a look at the prose. Here's a link to the checklinks search for this article btw:[8] (unclick good) All of those need to be checked. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I often say stupid things, but I think PR should not be needed. I have been to FAC twice, both of those times we did not do peer review. Peer Review is possible, but I think of it as "what Finetooth says" because that's where 80% of all comments come from. Let's not rush this, but it looks good, very good. I might be able to help tonight. Does anyone here have any comments? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

After glancing through this, should more be said about the 1950's? Looks better and better every time a change appears on my watch list. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've got some things listed on the to do list I think could help, and yes I think the 1950s needs some more info. I was thinking of adding a financial history section or changing the fan base section to "Financial history and fan base" in the next couple of days. That would cover the ownership history, attendance, and other financials See this article I wrote for a vague idea what I'm talking about. If I can remember how I did that Giants graph I could make one for the Lakers, which would be interesting as their value has probably sky rocketed in the last 15 years. I'm done for today though. Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. This is it for today, but hopefully ill have time between homework, school, and watching the Lakers game to work on it tomrow. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added some more info as well. I am not trying to rush, but when should we send it to FAC? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The one main thing I'm concerned with at the moment is copy-editing, since everything else looks to be going good. I've asked Zagalejo to take a look at it, as he is an editor whose opinion I highly respect. I'll work on these dead links:[9] if I have time today. Chris added a note in the to do list that we should add a retired numbers section also. Maybe we could add the info to another section in a subsection as was done here in the Rockets article? Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC is premature right now. I will try to add the retired numbers section (but if anyone wants to do it, go ahead) and cleanup all the references.—Chris!_c/t 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cris (this is Quadzilla btw—changed my name). But there's a lot of good work getting done so if it keeps up like this, I don't see any reason it shouldn't happen. Definitely on the right track. AaronY (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs to be done? We've let the article stabilize over past week, and we should resume operations. I will be available here and on IRC until 3 PM PT (I will be going to a basketball game in real life) to help out. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I'd like to take it to peer review personally. But if you're dying to nominate it we could go ahead imho. Maybe Chris and Lol can comment. I don't care who nominates it, but just be sure that whoever does nominate it has free time to address concerns and work on it. I'll co-nominate but will pretty peeved if someone nominates it then bails, leaving me to do all the work. AaronY (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We can all nominate it, if that is possible. That means we as a project can address issues. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

Technically there has to be a main nominator who nominates the article because whoever opens the FAC is counted as the main nominator. I've been bold and nominated it for peer review. Maybe if peer review goes quickly someone can nominate it by the time winter break begins. That might be helpful since a lot of Wikipedians are college/high school students. AaronY (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a school student as well, but ill have two weeks off starting the 17th. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break for ease of editing

There's a list on the peer review page showing the articles that have been there the longest with no comments. LAL is on there, so I'm reviewing some of the other ones with no feedback to move the Lakers article ahead on that list. AaronY (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should kindly ask User:Ruhrfisch and User:Finetooth to review. Both editors are really the only prolific reviewers at WP:PR.—Chris!_c/t 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth just finished reviewing it. Doesn't look like too much work. If someone wants to work on the concerns, I'll help. AaronY (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done several and will do more later.—Chris!_c/t 18:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wilt Chamberlain

We might work on this next. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, but we could start get looking into this article while we wait for PR comments on the Lakers page. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

2 templates for deletion

I nominated 2 NBA templates for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 3#NBA Conference Final broadcasters and comment. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Consistent article name

Right now, the name of some of our articles are pretty inconsistent, i.e. NBA Rookie of the Year Award vs. List of National Basketball Association player-coaches. What should we do with them? This issue arises when I tried to rename List of French National Basketball Association players. Please see the talk page for the renaming discussion.—Chris!_c/t 00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MOS:ABBR#Acronyms and initialisms in page titles states that "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar)". Is the NBA mainly known only by its full name in some places? It certainly doesn't appear to be in France, at least.[10][11] —LOL ^T/_C 01:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment on Talk:List of French National Basketball Association players?—Chris!_c/t 01:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Key (basketball)/archive2

Everyone is invited to help. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Conference standings templates

Should the teams be ordered by win percentage as they are currently (East, West), or as they are on the NBA, ESPN, and Yahoo websites, with division leaders automatically in the top 4? Tampabay721 (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

They should follow the standings on NBA.com, ESPN and Yahoo!. The three division leaders and one other team in the conference with the best record should be placed in the top 4, with the order based on their winning percentage. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Division leaders should be in the top 4.—Chris!_c/t 07:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So would this also mean if two or more teams have the same record, they shouldn't be listed with the same rank on the template, assuming NBA.com, ESPN, and Yahoo follows the tiebreaker procedure? For example, the Celtics and Hawks are both 6-2, but they would be listed respectively as 2nd and 3rd, as they are on NBA.com, instead of both 2nd. Tampabay721 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is only true for top 4. For the rest of the standing, teams with tied record should be listed with the same rank. I think tiebreaker procedure should only be taken into account in the final ranking after the season ends. See here [scroll down] for the actual tiebreaking criteria.—Chris!_c/t 07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBA at 50 Signature Basketball Collection; Please comment. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)