Not yet eligible for Hall of Fame consideration[1]
^A player is not eligible for induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame until he has been fully retired for five calendar years or is deceased; player was not eligible for induction upon the commencement of the 2011–12 NBA season.
I'd lean slightly towards having this noted, since readers seeing players not in the HOF might wonder if its because they are waiting for eligibility (still no guarantee they will get in). However, my main concern is to just be consistent whether we note this or not.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I too have thought of this when I'm looking at other lists and not seeing the green boxes. I could go through as many lists as I can find or think of and add that info in there (since I primarily take care of the statistical lists). Same thing with consistency with active players. Most of the lists have the names bolded as well as being shaded blue...on a few lists I've seen the active players names' haven't been bolded...so I'll make changes to those as well. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need green highlight for players who are not yet eligible for HoF consideration. The highlights are usually used to denote active players and players' achievements (All-Star, HoF, etc). IMO "Not yet eligible for Hall of Fame consideration" is a trivial info and is not that notable to have its own color. As Bagumba said before, even if they have become eligible, there is no guarantee they will get in straight away (see Reggie Miller case). I think, it's either they're in the HoF or not at all, there is no need to highlight the fact that some players are recently retired. I'm proposing we get rid of the green highlight and move (and probably rephrase) the note to the HoF highlights like this:
I looked at baseball lists, where the sport is more obsessed with HOF than basketball, and they dont mark non-eligible players either. So I agree with removing the coloring. As for the footnote, I dont think it is necessary. Most people if they click it will be for a player in the HOF, and the note doesnt really add anything. They are already in. If they wanted more details, they could just click on the link. I dont think this will be much help for the people wondering about those not marked in the HOF.—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree...I believe the footnote is necessary...each page should have as much reference information as possible and I think in this case it would be germane. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Bagumba, the footnote is in the wrong place. If the reader wants to know why Shaquille O'Neal (6th in scoring) is not on the HoF yet, they wouldn't find the information unless they click on the footnote on the yellow highlight for HoF entries, while O'Neal does not have that yellow highlight. Perhaps deleting the footnote and move the details on HoF eligibility to the lead? — MT (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Flags on All-Star Game articles
I'm proposing that we remove flags from All-Star Game articles. Here are the reason:
MOS:FLAG says: "Accompany flags with country names".
Players are chosen irrespective to nationality.
For some players who have multiple nationalities, one flag (or even two flags) could not clearly explain the situation (e.g. /Luol Deng, /Roy Hibbert, /Tim Duncan, /Chris Kaman, and plenty more). These cases has resulted in several revert/edit war on players' flags (see [1], [2], [3])
Furthermore, the flags on All-Star Game articles only exists in few articles (2006, 2008–2012), while all the other articles has no flags, we need to have consistency among these All-Star Game articles — MT (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to chime in uninvited, but wouldn't NBA also fall under this same reasoning, as NBA teams do not represent nations, but individual cities/states.--JOJHutton16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Everybody is invited. I went and removed from NBA article. There's a lot of old NBA season rosters that will eventually need to be cleaned.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure about removing that. All-Star Game MVP award follows the format of other NBA awards articles (all FLs). I guess there is no harm in leaving flag and nationality here. — MT (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess consistency is one argument. For those who support the nationality column, what should be our convention on when to include nationality (flag + country name) and when not to.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NBA — This coming March 2, 2012 will be the 50th anniversary of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. I brought this up about a year ago, but I think that it wouldn't take too much effort to get it to Featured Article status if we all collaborate on it. It's already a Good Article, so most of the legwork has been done.
We should make it a WP:NBA goal to have that article be Wikipedia's main Article of the Day for March 2, 2012. Thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I got a hold of Wilt, 1962: The Night of 100 Points and the Dawn of a New Era. I'll see when I get a chance to read the 200+ pages and make some additions.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I added some major content a few weeks back. If anyone has a chance, an informal peer review would be appreciated while its fresh in my head and I have access to the book.—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Note the brute force method to fix this would be to set "historical profile=y" for retired players and "league=NBA" for active players.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally dislike the league parameter because of its location. In my opinion, if it should exists, it should be located next or near the player's current team. Currently it is located under the Pro career line and therefore it could create ambiguous meaning. For example: in Andrei Kirilenko and Ricky Rubio's infobox, it shows:
For readers who are unfamiliar with these players and those readers who haven't read the whole article or haven't see the career history section below, this could means that Kirilenko has played in those leagues since 1997 and Rubio has played in NBA since 2005
My suggestion is to remove league and use the line profile=player_name manually to create NBA.com links. This could take a lot of work but if the infobox is gonna be used for basketball players around the world, we shouldn't have a default or empty parameter automatically create an NBA.com link. If we do this, the league parameter might need to be renamed to something like nbaprofile or nba-profile if the infobox is gonna be used by non-NBA players. The tag for NBA.com and Basketball-Reference link might also need to be renamed NBA Stats at NBA.com and NBA Stats at Basketball-Reference.com. Any thoughts? — MT (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Even if profile was set before, the NBA.com profile would not show unless league was empty or NBA. I've gone ahead and made it so 1) league param has no bearing on NBA.com 2) profile must be set to display NBA.com. Renaming profile (e.g. nbaprofile, etc) can be done later. Removing league altogether can be discussed on another thread, and involve WP:WikiProject Basketball as well.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've added nba_profile as an alternate parameter for profile. Anyway, I never notice that there is a parameter nba which produces exactly the same thing. I've merged them altogether to produce the same result. Are there any articles that actually uses the nba parameter? — MT (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with the process of college players declaring eligibility for the NBA Draft, therefore I need help to verify this addition to the 2012 NBA Draft article. We might need an extra eye on this article to prevent unsourced additions and speculations. — MT (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I think we need to watch this article in the next few months since information about early entrants will increase rapidly as we get closer to the draft. — MT (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So far as I know, no college players have declared yet (most teams' seasons aren't over yet). Only St. John's Moe Harkless has even talked about the possibility yet. I am positive that many/all of the names added are wrong as I know for a fact folks like Doug McDermott and CJ McCollum have not declared. Others (like Scott Machado) are seniors who wouldn't be declaring early anyway. Usually sports sites like ESPN.com keep a declaration table that starts when announcements begin. Usually bigger name players will get a lot of coverage with their announcements. Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Soon college players will consider announcing. I.E., any player for a team with a record below .500 that has been eliminated from the conference post-season tournament knows his season is over. Next Monday after brackets have been determined, many others will know. This issue needs to be discussed now. Personally, I like to keep much of this information at the college conference level (2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#2012_NBA_Draft), but not all conferences have articles. It could also be kept in the Draft article I suppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As you all probably know, San Antonio Spurs guard T.J. Ford announced his retirement two days ago. His article has been promptly updated and his name has been removed from Template:San Antonio Spurs roster. However, the Spurs have not yet issued any statement about his contract situation and he is still listed on their roster at spurs.com. Perhaps this is done to keep the mandatory minimum 13 man roster or beacuse they might insert him in a trade as a filler. But whatever the case, T.J. Ford is still de jure on the Spurs roster despite being de facto retired. So, shouldn't we reinstate his name in the template until the Spurs officially waive him? Luxic (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
For retirement, we usually just update as soon as major media report it. Maybe we shouldn't do that in the future. I understand that he is still technically on the roster. But it seems pointless to revert at this point since ips and other editors will promptly restore the edit.—Chris!c/t20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should put him on the Warriors roster template because Warriors trade release states that Ford is still contemplating retirement. As far as I know, he has not formally retire by filing paperwork with the league and he is still under contract with the Warriors. We can remove him from the roster when he is waived or formally retires. — MT (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help fix the formatting issue for the table of season rebounding leaders at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season rebounding leaders? I have no idea why it is scrunching everything together when there's clearly a lot of room for the table to expand horizontally. I think it might have to do with the inclusion of O. D. Anosike, because if you look at the page before he was added compared to after I put him in there, you can see the difference. Anyone know how to fix this? Jrcla2 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know exactly what you are seeing, but I added some multicolumn markup to force the images to float to the right of the table. Was this the issue? Plastikspork―Œ(talk)21:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't it. What I mean is the "Player" column is forcing most names onto two lines rather than allowing the column just to extend out to fit the name. For example, Bob Pelkington should show:
My two cents is that a defunct franchise is NOT one that has relocated. A "defunct franchise" is one that has completely ceased operations whereas a "relocated franchise" would be like the Sonics, Grizzlies, etc. Maybe they should be two different categories. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I just thought I should start a centralized discussion on any issues regarding the Brooklyn Nets. It seems that the name change is now official. One immediate concern is that all of the old content from nba.com/nets appears to be unavailable. (All I get is a black screen that says #HELLOBROOKLYN. I can't even get to the team's roster page.) Zagalejo^^^06:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I've already gone through some of the stats pages (regular season and playoffs) and updated the links from New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn Nets. I will be doing this too with some of the others (like most points in a game, most assists in a game, etc) because some of those also need to have the Seattle SuperSonics links redirected to Oklahoma City Thunder (sorry Seattleites). Coulraphobic123 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If the records were set in New Jersey, they should not be blindly changed to Brooklyn. Per WP:NOTBROKEN, we dont change links simply to avoid redirects. It is possible one day we may want to spinout a separate New Jersey Nets article to focus on their time in New Jersey.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This has been debated many times across many US sports Wikiprojects. For the NBA, we don't have a standard. I think all moved teams should have separate articles. Seattle SuperSonics should be separated from Oklahoma City Thunder because Seattle retains Sonics history for a team that moves there.—Chris!c/t01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
A redirect is fine. What we shouldn't do is avoid redirects with [[Brooklyn Nets|New Jersey Nets]] substitution. Also, separate articles are fine if they are consistent with WP:SPINOUT—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the Sonics history is not retained for a future Seattle team. The Sonics history is officially Thunder history...what was saved for a future Seattle franchise was the team name and the colors...but it will not retain the old history/records/stats. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, nationality doesnt exist in the AS articles either. Other than the fact that it is already there, is it really relevant to remain?—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe for award winners nationality is relevant because it allows readers to see the fact that more quality foreign players are entering the NBA.—Chris!c/t02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it pushing a minority POV though? It almost seems akin to listing if the player was straight from HS, declared early, was from a mid-major college, is white, etc. I'd be more comfortable if it was more frequently mentioned in sources in relation to awards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I see similar mention in Turkoglu's article for a ref on the Most Improved award. Agree to removal of flag but keeping nationality.—Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I was about to remove the flags from the article, but a re-read on WP:MOSFLAG uncovered that it mostly discourages the use of flags in infoboxes. In this case, it is in a table, and the country name accompanies it. Since we agreed that nationality can be relevant in the case of awards, the flags can stay if the nationality will be mentioned anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Greg Jackson(s)
Greg Jackson, the former NBA player, died last week. I am happy to create his article, but there is a catch. There is already an article for Greg Jackson (basketball), who is the coach at Delaware State. My dilemma is this, I can either convert the existing article to Greg Jackson (basketball coach) and create Greg Jackson (basketball player). Or, I can create two Greg Jackson (basketball) articles using their DOBs. Which is preferred convention? One is known primarily as a coach and one primarily as a player so I'm not sure which is best. Thanks for your input. Rikster2 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a slight preference for using the birthdates, because coaches almost always played at some level, and players often go on to coach or scout or do other jobs in basketball. That said, it's not always possible to find a birthdate for every basketball personality, so that approach doesn't always work (though I think it would in this specific case). Zagalejo^^^21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think it depends on the specific situation. In certain regions, people might be better remembered for certain accomplishments. Anyway, to me, one key advantage to using birthdates is that it offers precision. Other information can be added to the disambiguation page listings to help people find what they're looking for. Zagalejo^^^21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The auto-suggest feature on the WP search box makes it advantageous to have article titles that readers can disambiguate, and avoid the added step of having to load a disambiguation page first and read the various descriptions.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel that too many links to similar stats sites violate WP:LINKFARM, like Peyton_Manning#External_links and all those (redundant?) links. Could we exclude ESPN and databasebasketball.com? Also, if links can be placed in the infobox, should they still be duplicated in "External links"?—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think having only NBA.com, ESPN, Basketball-reference.com (NBADL and FIBA if applicable) is acceptable. Anymore probably is not a good idea.—Chris!c/t23:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at {{Basketball-reference}}, I realize that for players with distinct name the template links to the right bbr page without the need to use the id on the url at all. For example, {{basketball-reference|Steve Kerr}} links directly to Steve Kerr. It would be great if this is implemented somehow to {{Basketballstats}} since it is easier to use players actual name than to use the bbr id on the url.—Chris!c/t02:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The older templates also has defaults if no params were provided, such as using the article page's name. Did we want to retain those as well? The only thing is that those shortcuts get broken when the external site (inevitably) is reorganized. It's really a matter of how many different options we want to maintain when the site does change. I didnt seem like baseball or football provided those conveniences, not that we need to follow them either.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
ESPN support added. I was wavering if ESPN was redundant, but it has video links and it is "the sports network".—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It will require more params as {{Basketball-reference}} used to, which could make all the combinations more confusing to users. Also, I just remembered that in some cases the article name won't work (disambiguation cases, or other cases where the article name may be different from websites name). Also some sites like ESPN cannot be autogenerated, so it will be even more confusing if some site params support the name and others dont. Factoring that in, I'd rather users do a little more work and verify the actual page and get the necessary id, instead of using the article name which may be different than the website's name. This is not only more reliable for the article, but also easier for long term maintenance of the template.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
As WP is not a WP:LINKFARM, another alternative is to remove them from those articles. Is there a compelling reason to have it as another EL?—Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The one attribute that databasebasketball.com has is its similarity scores. You can tell who was most statistically similar to the given player by age and see a list of currently most similar players. This is a non-trivial ffeature in truth.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Its GHits will be understated because it use to be named basketballreference.com (no hyphen), which has more hits than the current domain name. I'll let them remain separate for now but will include a line in all the bios that I am responsible for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
One of those hits at slamonline.com actually links to basketball-reference.com (with the dash) even though it is displayed as basketballreference.com. I wonder how many others are errors. It seems that the dash site also has "similarity scores", probably a different algorithm. I still feel that databasebasketball.com has a lot of overlap, even its own "similar" player feautre, and am still hesitant to support adding too many similar external sites. I will wait for consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's an Associated Press report that is running on NBA.com. Even if it was an NBA.com writer, most sports leagues claim their website is independent of league offices (wink wink). I'm pretty sure the Chris Paul to Lakers story was ran on NBA.com based on "sources" too. I wouldnt object if it was in prose in the article that "XXX reported that ..." I do have a problem when it is in a list or infobox w/o explanation. Finally, if consensus is to loosen standards on allowing "reports", we need to be consistent come trade/free agent time as well. In the meantime, {{current sports transaction}} was placed in the relevant articles.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, I hate when they do that. Anyway, the wording in that article makes it clear that an official announcement has not been made. ("The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the league has not announced the results.") Zagalejo^^^00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
When I update trade/free agent news, I often just base on NBA reports. In many of those reports, they read like "According to xxx, xxx was traded to xxx for..." Unfortunately, the way NBA.com is run changes. In the past, these ambiguous reports do not appear. Anyway, the consensus seems to be update only when the news is absolutely official. I will keep that in mind.—Chris!c/t00:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The official reports are the press releases. They're all structured in a similar way; the first sentence will usually say, "...the NBA announced today...", and somewhere on the page you'll usually see the words "official release". After you've seen a few press releases, you should be able to spot them easily. Here's the release for Harden's award, to give you an idea. Zagalejo^^^00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer it be in prose, and only if multiple refs mention it in prose for a specific player that has a remarkable measurement. It just doesnt seem that popular in basketball. Otherwise, a list in the draft article might be best if is to be mentioned at all so at least players can be compared to one another.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
When was Steve Novak born?
Sources say either 1983 or 1984. NBA.com itself has been inconsistent, although Novak's current NBA.com profile says 1983. If anyone has any useful insights, please join the discussion at Talk:Steve Novak. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Should there be one? I guess so. The only problem is what to put there. The playoffs aren't as straightforward as the regular season. Gimmes should be:
Duration
Number of teams qualified from total number of teams
Number of games vs. maximum number of games.
You can add:
Team with home court advantage throughout the playoffs?
Winners? Of all series? Only Conference Finals?
Stat leaders?
Playoff format (best-of-x)? Per round?
Also, as much as possible, it should be a universal one that other basketball leagues can use; with that said, there's nothing quite different in the NBA and other leagues playoffs that should be a problem. HTD18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
"Number of games vs. maximum number of games." seems trivial and rarely talked about. Winners of all series might be too cluttered, conference finalists at least should be listed. Stat leaders is also trivial; rarely mentioned after the fact, and players all play different number of game depending on how long they last. Playoff format for rounds listed. Be easier to judge if someone wants to do a mockup.—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The number of games/max no. of games comes in handy when comparing playoffs through the years. Previously, the first round was a best of 5 series, before that there were byes, etc. Stat leaders are sometimes not that trivial. People still remember Jordan's 60+ point game at Boston: was that the playoffs-high for that year? –HTD08:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please lock up the 2012 NBA draft right away? Serious vandalism is going on that page. Please immediately!
Daonguyen95 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd also add a reminder that NBA team categories (E. G. - Category:Sacramento Kings players) should NOT be applied until a player actually competes in a regular season game, not when he is drafted, signed or plays in the preseason. So far the draftees look clean, but I expect some eager beavers to start adding the categories any day now. Rikster2 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The deal has been announced: [6]. That link does note that Williams still has to pass a physical, but since there's already an official press release out, we should be OK. Zagalejo^^^03:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
2008 NBA Playoffs formatting
Yes, I know, it has been a while since 2008 ended. But I'm trying to expand people's NBA knowledge. On the most recent playoff articles, there have been the newer formatting of infoboxes providing more information about the specific game. In the 2008 Playoffs, there are just the usual knowledge - score, date, recap. I have worked to start updating these infoboxes to the newer version of formatting... on the Boston vs. Atlanta series. It's hard. Would anyone like to join me to try to update all of the infoboxes? I would be very thankful. Signed, TheBestZebra 6:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
How could I forget?? With all these posts about the free agency, which has started earlier today. Very hard, and combine it with the Draft the a couple of days ago.! Ughh... TheBestZebra12:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Those templates are going to be hard to maintain over the offseason, since so much is in flux. For the sake of my sanity, I've been focusing mostly on article space. Zagalejo^^^05:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, most second round picks won't make the roster. Technically, isn't a "current roster" only a roster once the final post- preseason names are released? Personally, I won't revert these but also won't put time into them. Rikster2 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
All - In looking at the List of National Basketball Association players alphabetically, it looks like all NBA players up to the mid C's are complete (not including pre-merger NBL/BAA players). I was wondering if there was interest in a concentrated effort on completing ALL NBA players in a certain timeframe. Something like all players through the letter F before the new season starts. This effort would also help WikiProject College Basketball as many of these players also redlink All-America team articles, stat leaders, etc. I don't think it would have to be a huge rush, just a focus on completing them all over time. What do you regulars think? Rikster2 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be a cool accomplishment, but I wouldn't recommend a deadline for anything. It'll be better if people work at their own pace. We could have, like, a progress chart, or something. Zagalejo^^^05:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense. I do wonder if setting a goal or tracking progress might motivate people to create more articles - otherwise there is a tendency to languish on the historical players while new player articles are created quickly. I noticed Bagumba's recent work, as well as NBA Fan44. There was a huge blitz in 2006-07 to create a bunch of historical articles, but it's been pieces and parts since. I have created a number of player articles when they die and have been surprised at how many were without articles. A progress chart would be cool, not sure how to do it, though Rikster2 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
At a minimum I create a stub with a few sentences that state what pro teams and college he played for, along with the infobox, and external links to NBA and basketball-reference.com. If we wanted to expedite this, we could just start with a single sentence that they were a former NBA player, perhaps with the years, along with an external link to NBA/b-r.com, and tag as a stub. At least readers would know that the person does exist and has an external link. The stub could be expanded over time, and it gets IP editors going as they cannot create articles.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Request
Could someone who knows how make Danny Manning's infobox include his coaching career as an assistant at KU and as the head coach of Tulsa? I've tried on 5 separate occasions and it's more difficult then I thought.--Rockchalk71719:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at Avery Johnson for a working example, or post your code here if you still have problems. This could be a good exercise to see if documentation needs improving.—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Free agent signings
Starting a central discussion that individual articles can refer to as questions arise. No free agents can sign until July 11.[7] Until then, all news reports are unofficial, and articles should clearly reflect this. {{current sports transaction}} can be placed on the article to tag that an official announcement is pending based on news stories, but the infobox should not be updated until the trade is official. Per WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, Wikipedia does not need to include every update on a player's possible destination. Consider using Wikinews if you are interested.
Do we have an official position on whether we should keep the "current team" for free agents. I'm personally for keeping the old team, since the player keeps a cap hold on the team payroll until he signs elsewhere or is renounced, and there's stuff like Bird Rights and the ability to match RFA offers. But I'd be okay either way. --Mosmof (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I think Zagalejo updated (all?) the restricted FAs leaving the current team but marking them as restricted, such as in Ryan Anderson (basketball). Since RFAs must have received a qualifying offer already from the previous team, I guess in some sense they are on the team even though no contract has been signed. I don't have a strong preference to either leave the team info in the infobox, or remove it and mention in the lead. I'd weakly say follow it since it is already there, unless a better alternative is presented. As for unrestricted FAs, I believe there is no need to mention a current team.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, my approach is to leave the current team in the case of RFAs (with a note), and to just leave that field blank in the case of UFAs. Zagalejo^^^18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah if the teams/players have announced it I would make a note in the body making it clear that its not official yet. But I wouldn't do anything based on rumours or speculation. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
People have updated Jeremy Lin with the latest reports of offer from Houston. The updates are accurate in that it does <insert>not</insert> mischaracterize that he has changed teams already, but its based on anon sources. "Not news" aside, should accurate info just be left in, as removal inevitable will lead to it being reintroduced. Inaccurate info like in Joe Johnson (basketball) is hard enough to keep out. Constantly reverting is getting tiresome, but not sure if making the effort to add accurate "news" as a compromise would change it.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite follow all of that, but I'll say that as long as things are carefully worded, I'd be OK with them being in the article. Zagalejo^^^02:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was missing a "not" above. I guess we'll see how Lin's article goes to see if it is effective deterrent to lead/infobox changes.—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As for the category - NO. The convention is to apply basketball team categories (college or pro) after the player has appeared in a real game. I personally wouldn't update the infoboxes either because they really aren't on the team unless they make it through the preseason cuts. Applying it now could be confusing for casual readers IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't update the infobox, either. His Summer League affiliation doesn't necessarily mean anything in the long run; anyone can end up signing him. The classic case is Jeremy Lin, who played for the Mavericks in the summer league, but signed his first real contract with the Warriors. Zagalejo^^^03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's put "retired" for team name on every single notable retired NBA player's page
It gives a clear way for the reader to determine that the (former) player in question is indeed retired. The Infobox should sum up all basic information in the article, and the fact that the player is retired needs to be displayed at the top of the infobox. I tried doing this last night, but I got quickly shot down and had everything reverted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewJerseyNetsfan1982 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It is very easy to see that a player is retired. Right in his career information it shows the last year he played. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Clear enough already. Besides the years, the fact that there is no team color suggests the player no longer plays.—Chris!c/t18:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the current team is listed in the infobox also but it is duplicated ... just saying. I'm inclined to say no if there is no precedent in other infoboxes or other websites to make "Retired" more prominent. If we do add it, we can just programatically change the template code to see if career_end is specified and change the display, instead of manually having to duplicate retirement info in thousands of articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah if we did really want that we would best do it programatically. But like I said I don't see it as necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of guys have "retired" from the NBA (read as:been cut) then play many years in other leagues both domestically and internationally. We already have an issue with inaccurate "career end" dates for this reason (most pro leagues aren't as easy to verify as the NBA). I say leave it alone. Rikster2 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been rethinking use of navboxes, as there is a lot of navbox clutter in accomplished athletes' articles. Kobe Bryant might need a link to List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks, but does he need a full blown navbox to all the other draft picks? A reader could click on the article link to get to the list of players. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Boston_Celtics_2008.E2.80.9309_roster made me appreciate more WP:NAVBOX #3, "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." I can see uses for templates like {{Michael Jordan}}, how the links are all related to Jordan (though some links could be pared there too), but I'm more questioning other navboxes now. I'm beginning to lean towards those who think navboxes are used to indicate importance of a person in the bio, as opposed to helping readers navigate.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kobe is a terrible example because he is in the minority of players who have had long careers but never played for the team that drafted them. He is also among the 10 or 20% or so of first rounders who endure clutter. Of course a list of Charlotte Hornets first round draft picks would seem like clutter on his page. IIRC, the last couple of Laker first round draft choices have been Toney Douglas, Javaris Crittenton and Jordan Farmar. The template would not be clutter on any of their pages. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact, if you work backwards through the Laker first round picks none of the recent ones has more than a handful of templates. Continuing on the list you will see Andrew Bynum, Sasha Vujačić, Chris Jefferies, Mark Madsen, Devean George and Sam Jacobson. You have to go back to Derek Fisher just to find someone with more templates than you can count on one hand and I would not even call his page cluttered. The fact is that not more than 10 or 20% (if even that many) of all first round draft choices have cluttered template lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
My bad on Kobe getting drafted by LAL. I used to think articles could discriminately not include a navbox if it was cluttered, but the reality is that doesn't happen, and there would likely be backlash if someone's fav box was no longer transcluded. Navboxes are great for boosting "what links here", may even boost search priority on engines, but is the clutter on the 20%, likely the most read articles also, worth it?—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Although at most 20% of the 1st rounders are cluttered, only a few non-first rounders are cluttered. We are talking about a small fraction of players with cluttered articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
But what is gained from the clutter in this case over just having a link to the list article in the body or as a "see also"? First round picks of a specific team dont evoke interest in each other as often as do, for example, number one overall picks like {{NBA NumberOne Draft Picks}}, players taken in the same draft like {{2012 NBA Draft}}, or players on the same championship team like {{Miami_Heat_2011–12_NBA_champions}}. I do think there is logic behind the guideline that "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." I realize there is other stuff similar to what you are proposing, but I think there is opportunity to improve the standards here, especially if no effort (discounting this discussion) has been invested to create them yet.—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally against any possibility of this. Completely unnecessary; navbox clutter; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and just another way for fanboys to put more banners on their favorite teams'/players' articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
