IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please do not use rumors and alleged reports as an excuse to update a team's roster. If you want to update a team's roster, please check the team's roster on their official website for news and changes. This way, team roster information is kept official and up-to-date.Dknights411 18:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Okay I looked Oscar Robertson over and made some changes. I can't really give you any recommendations because if I thought something needed changes, I changed it myself. Looks very solid. Quadzilla9919:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
minor point - rpg, apg etc. should be made clearer in the article? in the sense that an ordinary reader who does not know much about basketball would not know what is rpg, apg, ppg... terms which are used many times in the article. Chensiyuan01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
russell's feats/achievements may also be over-repeated throughout the article... i remember reading about him winning a record number NBA titles 3-4 times... Chensiyuan01:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the valuable input, guys!! After doing some stuff myself, I decided to give both articles a go, Oscar is a GAC, and Bill a FAC now. *crosses fingers* —Onomatopoeia08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to tell you thank you very much for the superb work on "Bill Russell" since I was offline for 5 days. Article looks very near to FA now. —Onomatopoeia11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem we definitely couldn't have done any of it without you, you found and built up the article all that was left for us to do was polish it and add a couple of things. Quadzilla9913:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Madison Square Garden split
I've proposed a split at the Madison Square Garden page. To me, the third version of the venue (1925-1968) and the current venue have enough information to justify separate articles for each. Add your comments to the MSG talk page if you want to participate in the discussion. Patken402:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I made a couple of changes, mainly adjusting the pics, and added a pic for the beginning with a fair use rational that should work. One suggestion: add access dates for the references that are solely web articles. By that I mean articles which don't have a date they were published. See the reference sections in Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan for details. Looks very good by the way. Quadzilla9908:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'd be off wikipedia for a couple of days and hopefully i can make those changes when I'm back. Chensiyuan11:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Stories of the Playoffs
From 1994 on, I've added information to the year-by-year playoff chronicle going into detail on certain teams in the playoffs. It's not my intention to tell the story of all 16 teams every year, but I've been mentioning notable stuff like the end of playoff droughts, first conference championships for certain teams, first time a certain team has progressed this far in the playoffs, etc., etc. Anyone who's interested, please check it out and make edits and stuff, or make suggestions on my user page! ekedolphin03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Very impressive work on those articles. Of course I'd be happy for any assistance on the playoff pages that you'd be willing to provide. ekedolphin04:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
1970 through 2006 now all have the "information expansion" as I've taken to calling it. Feel free to check my facts and make constructive edits, of course! ekedolphin09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
separate point -- for the individual NBA seasons, we've got this nice table which allows us to navigate through the seasons with a simple click. we should have this for the NBA Finals entries too. better than relying on the preceded by and succeeded by boxes. Chensiyuan16:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The information expansion is now completed from 1951 to 2006, though please by all means feel free to make edits. Virtually the entire thing has been raw statistical information, stuff that I could quickly glean regarding franchise histories, and very little about the people involved (as that would take longer and require more research). Some of the '60s ones are a little rough, too, but then there's only so many ways you can say "The Celtics beat the Lakers, again." ekedolphin10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Syracuse Nationals
Why not merge the Syracuse Nationals page with the page of their current incarnation, the Philadelphia 76ers? While doing the information expansion for the '52 playoffs I went to the 76ers page to get more information on the Nationals and was surprised to learn that the Nationals records aren't even listed on the 76ers page, let alone the fact that there are two separate articles for them. ekedolphin04:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, the thing is there is no "Nationals" NBA team anymore. IMHO, it is legit to merge the Minny/LA Lakers, the NY/NJ Nets or the Phila/SF/GS Warriors, because the name stayed the same, but I don't know about Nats and Sixers. I personally keep them seperated, but I know too little of that really early NBL/NBA stuff so say more. —Onomatopoeia12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There's another option, and that's to create a separate history page for the 76ers as the Lakers have done with History of the Los Angeles Lakers. As I noted on Talk:Philadelphia 76ers, the Nationals were on the 76ers page until just over a month ago, when someone unilaterally decided to push the Nationals information to a separate page. No reason was given. Perhaps that person thought the 76ers article size was becoming too large. If others agree that that's the case, then a separate history page may be justifiable. Myasuda14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just like any article on Wikipedia, when it gets too long, sections should be split off. Look how long and detailed Syracuse Nationals has become. I'd suggest summarizing the Nats history in the Philadelphia 76ers history section with a ===Syracuse Nationals=== subsection and a {{mainarticle|Syracuse Nationals}} tag for that subsection. Of course the Nats' history is part of the 76er's history, but the history is going to expanded even more, so it should stay split off. -newkait-c17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The one objection I have to this is that no other NBA team article has a separate article for a prior franchise incarnation – all others (e.g. Chicago Zephyrs, Milwaukee Hawks, Minneapolis Lakers, Rochester Royals, etc.) redirect to the current franchise page. I don't think that "Syracuse Nationals" should behave any differently. To support the split that you desire, let me reiterate my suggestion above to have a separate History of the Philadelphia 76ers page as is done with the LA Lakers. Anyone else care to voice an opinion? Myasuda14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm 100% against the practice of redirecting a previous franchise name to the new one. It completly trivializes an important part of a franchise's own history and uniqueness. They may be the same franchise, but it is not the same incarnation. So IMHO, the Syracuse Nationals deserve their own page, as well as the Milwaukee Hawks, and the Minneapolis Lakers. Keep them seperate. Dknights41117:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DKnights. You can and should recap the team's history in the later franchise's article. But you should include a main article header in the section and keep a separate article for the franchise in my opinion. Quadzilla9918:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC):
In fact, the "tradition" (or practice) of redirecting a previous franchise name to the current team is more pervasive than I originally realized. It's done for nearly all professional sports teams (e.g. Houston Oilers, Seattle Pilots, Detroit Cougars, etc.) that I looked at (I found one exception in the NHL). So we'll be charting a relatively new tradition if we retroactively split the NBA teams which have migrated (and there were quite a few that did) from their parent articles. Does anyone know of some archived discussion that led to the original tradition of redirecting? It'd be interesting to know if this has all been discussed before in another forum. Myasuda11:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Being as you are right I guess I would have to defer, even though I don't agree with it a clear precedent has been set all over Wikipedia. Quadzilla9911:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the practice is/was a result of there not being much willingness/intrest in the old teams, compared to new teams. I'm sure most 76ers fans are mostly knowledgeable about what happened in their lifetimes/when they were a fan. -newkait-c03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Next FA drive?
First of all, a great thanks to you all, helping Bill Russell to get GA and now FA! So, I hope this has just started your appetite for more FAs. I would like to ask if you guys have some ideas what articles to get to FA next. My proposals would be:
Toronto Raptors — GA, and it would be nice to write about a franchise rather after dealing with a player (Russell). Also, the Raps are quite young (1994), so the article's scope stays pretty overseeable, IMHO
Michael Jordan — GA, LOTS of things to write about, probably the most best-documented NBA player ever
The one thing about the Jordan article is it's 60 kb and oddly though it's the same size as Russell (and no one complained about the size of Russell's article during FAC) many people have complained about the size of Jordan's article. So we have made a conscious attempt over there to keep the size of the article down. You really have to keep that in mind when you work on it and if you add two to three paragraphs you need to delete two to three paragraphs. Quadzilla9913:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
though i love the Raps i think they are still quite young and less interesting (subjectively speaking -- i think they are very!) than NBA greats. Chensiyuan16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've notified some of the editors of the MJ article and will keep an eye on the peer review as I've done a lot of work on the article. Quadzilla9916:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
One further note I put MJ on the proofread list of the WikiProject:League of Copyeditors a couple of weeks ago and they are working their way towards it. So once this peer review is over I'd wait until that is over before making it an FAC, should take another week or two. Quadzilla9911:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Standardizing NBA Champion boxes
I think we ought to make an effort to standardize the templates that show the rosters of NBA championship teams. In cases like this one:
I think we also should decide, for players who've won more than one championship, if the most recent championship team should be at the top and travel backward chronologically, or whether they should go from first to last. Compare Larry Bird to Shaquille O'Neal, for example.
Also, while I agree the 1995-96 Bulls box should point out that the Bulls had the all-time best record of 72-10, it doesn't actually say that they were NBA Champions! ekedolphin05:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Raises hand* I wrote a majority of the templates, and I was inspired by the soccer World Cup team templates, like
Because many championship squads have players with retired jerseys, I would favour bringing in the numbers. For ordering, I favour the reverse order (most recent championships up). Concerning the Bulls template, it existed before I started, so that is why it a) does not depict them as champs and b)is not collapsible. —Onomatopoeia12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer having the older championships on top. Wikipedia biographical articles are typically ordered chonologically from top to bottom and I think the championship banners should follow the same ordering for consistency. Also, as a player's career progresses, I prefer appending new information rather than inserting it. Yet another reason is that, for those players who have gone on to be coaches, I don't like having the idea of having the coaching championships appear before the championships accrued as a player. Myasuda14:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with going in order of championships oldest first and would also state that the Bulls only have two I am aware of just to let every body know. Quadzilla9916:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Using Onoma's code as, um, a template for the template, I changed the existing Bulls templates to the current style, and also added the '96-'97 one, which didn't previously exist. If anyone happens to know a good reference for jersey numbers, please lemme know, I'd very much appreciate it. ekedolphin04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
i did some work with this article, and for my money i think it's not *too* far off from a GA. sorry if my area of interest appears to be less high profile players but at least im assured the pages dont get vandalised every 2 seconds! anyway, what this article now lacks is a picture(s). the lead and off the court sections can also be improved, but otherwise a lot of stuff is in there already and formatted. FYI, if anyone is interested in pushing this. Chensiyuan18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Its def GA-range, but it draws too strongly the one nba.com source IMHO. Can you find other sources, like ESPN, CNNSI etc. etc.? —Onomatopoeia11:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
ok thanks for feedback. would take in your idea. meantime, hope a pic springs up somewhere, as unlikely as it seems... Chensiyuan13:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony Parker
it seems Tony Parker looks appropriate for a good cleanup and being made into a GA. it has a picture, his career is quite illustrious, and there is a lot of information on him... shall commence soon. Chensiyuan05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
did a bit of cleanup but still some way to go. shall continue later, meantime anyone please feel free to buff it up. Chensiyuan07:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, maybe you have realised that I proposed Bill Russell to appear on the Wikipedia main page on march 12 [1], the day his jersey was retired by the Celtics (his birthday was feb 12 and already passed). Support would be nice, the MP always has stiff competition! Russell is the greatest winner on North American sports, and AFAIK, there never has been any NBA player on the MP. —Onomatopoeia11:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If somebody has some spare time, it would be great if you could work on David Stern. Currently there are major WP:BLP issues. Someone just needs to find some references (and remove any claims that are not sourced) and clean up the article a bit. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Great Job Everyone!!!
Hey everyone! I just wanted to stop by and give everyone a big congrats on the recent accomplishments you guys have done over the past few months. I haven't been all that active on Wikipedia recently (too much school), and I regret that I didn't have a larger part in this past quality drive. As soon as I can get some more time, I'll be back on a more daily basis (and probably get a featured article for this wikiproject ;-) ). But for now, keep up the good work guys! Dknights41100:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bill Russell FAC was a real collaberative effort. It's great to have an actual NBA Featured Article and the process was fun and rewarding. Quadzilla9905:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Team roster templates
Can we have standardization of the current team roster templates? Each of them now look different from one another (e.g. a few have Starting lineups while others don't) and are streamlined. Also, many leagues have also began imitating these roster boxes and perhaps I can create a catch-all template, like Football squad templates? --HowardtheDuck15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Wilt Chamberlain, FAC now?
I just trimmed down Wilt Chamberlain to 76kb now, and now think it could very well become a FAC. I am thinking about nominating it, bypassing peer review or GA nomination; firstly, I honestly think that we have several excellent copyeditors, who can deal with formal issues on the fly, and secondly, the GA pipeline for "sports" is veeeeeeery slooooooow (I had ~30 days waiting time) and also not that suitable for such a long article.
I want to explicitly point out that I do not want to undercut Michael Jordan, the "actual" WP:NBA next FAC-in-spe, but I think that our currently very active Wikiproject can very well handle 2 FACs at a time, as long they do not start at the same time (~3-4 days space would be fine, e.g. nominating MJ today and Wilt on Thursday). But before I do this, I would like to get some feedback first. —Onomatopoeia12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
the WC article looks great (nice assortment of images too), but the MJ article has less problems related to style of prose and maybe even structure. that said, i'm only a wikignome so i'd try and implement the smaller corrections in the meantime. but i would support any FAC nominations. Chensiyuan14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally support your assertion. MJ is closer to FA, but we WP:NBA guys can work on Wilt in relative peace whereas MJ gets vandalised on a hourly basis :/ However, by the end of March, I can see us having 3 FAs. —Onomatopoeia15:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to get rid of this section altogether. I personaly think that it's too much of a hassle to update, and it can be changed in a matter of seconds behind everybody's back. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the official team rosters on the NBA team's own webpage doesn't specify who's a starter and who's not, so maybe its best that we just not bother with it in the first place. What do you guys think? Dknights41100:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
if you refer only to the starting lineup, i suppose you have a point. the roster itself stays right? anyway, who came up with the starting lineup idea. i don't think it's a bad idea, but for some teams it just isn't so certain. Chensiyuan01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be working on forming and standardizing all-time rosters for NBA Clubs. So far I've run across a list of players for the Toronto Raptors that is incomplete; does anyone know of any other lists to use? I've got a template made already for the rosters as well, I will put up the link to it later this afternoon. matt9148616:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template. The Toronto Raptors all-time roster is the first complete one thus far. Please follow that style and use the template for linking between them. Also, if you're going to work on a roster, saying so here would be helpful so I don't double up. I'm about to quickly do the Charlotte Bobcats roster. matt9148616:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a nice idea, but doesn't the "Toronto Raptors players" category accomplish pretty much the exact same thing?Dknights41101:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
i suppose the category pages won't have the red links; so maybe the all-time roster indicates what pages need to be written in that sense (assuming the red links are not already found in the clubs' pages) Chensiyuan01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The categories do exist, yeah, but this is a standard followed for other major sports here and it helps to build the NBA coverage to the same level as MLB and NBA. Here's an example of the baseball ones: New York Mets all-time roster (a really detailed example) or Colorado Rockies all-time roster, a typical one, what we should probably shoot for, definitely at least at first. As you can see, they've got almost all of them filled out, and they're useful places in which articles can be linked up and whatnot. matt9148617:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree with you. i suppose you can run it by a few different monitor resolutions and see if it makes a difference. Chensiyuan14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Over 24 hours have passed without any objections and — although the tables’ heights vary (slightly) on 800×600 — I still think it still looks better than the other layout, so I’ll start working on the layout of each season. If anybody’s interested in helping, keep in mind that the number of divisions is variable throughout the seasons, therefore adjust the width percentage accordingly. —LOL16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone catch this?
On the 2001-02 Season article, somone added this number...
...should we keep this and go the whole nine yards for all the seasons or should we delete this? As much as I like this, I'm leaning towards deleting the thing mainly because of the frustration I had defending the use of sports logos on wikipedia before (logo icons on the standings tables in particular). Maybe of the admins would loosen up their collars a bit, but I doubt that would happen (I'm still fairly bitter about that whole thing by the way, so sorry for the rant). Dknights41118:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say unless someone wants to bring it up on the Village Pump first and see what consensus is to just delete it. Quadzilla9901:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally I know how you feel I added the NBA logo the WikiProject templates before I knew better and it looked pretty nice. Obviously it had to be removed though. Quadzilla9906:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Categorisation by playing position
I'm going to go ahead and create categories for basketball players by position; almost all team sports seem to do this, even those where it's (even) less crisply-defined than basketball. If anyone has any thoughts on the details of this, please share. (And of course, please help populate them...) I mentioned this before at WPJ Basketball, but didn't realize there was also this project -- no slight intended! Alai15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
D'oh didn't think of that! They should be listed at some position on NBA.com. This could prove difficult though. Quadzilla9922:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously a judgement call, but in cases of maximum fuzziness, it'd always be an option to include in both categories. If there's a huge number of such cases, it'd be possible to also create categories for "swingmen" and "forward-centers", though just the basic five (overlapping as necessary) sounds preferable in the first instance. Alai23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed CharlotteWebb has already been helping out with that even though she's not a member of WP:NBA. She's already added it to a ton of players.Quadzilla9919:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing another batch of these, and I notice that forward-center is a pretty common designation. Where it says specifically power forward/center I've just been catting them as both of those, but I don't want to assume forward-center means precisely the same thing, and I certainly don't want to start categorising people as small forwards/power forwards/centers. If people feel these merit their own category, or have a clearer idea on what to do with them than I do, please go ahead.
if anyone's interested i've given Dwight Howard quite a big facelift in my hope to edge it towards GA quality. all contributions to improve it will be very welcome. some aspects of the article are still lacking, which is why i'm asking for help. Chensiyuan11:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
