Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association

Active discussions


Anthony Davis Grand SlamEdit

Anthony Davis is documented as the first player in history to win an NCAA Title, Olympic Gold Medal, FIBA World Cup, and NBA Title.

It has been dubbed as the "Grand Slam" (of basketball), and I included 4 different sources in the article using that term. (including FIBA and the Lakers)

Bagumba says that because the term hasn't been used until now (regarding basketball), we shouldn't use it in Davis' article, and has removed it.

My take is that everything has to start somewhere - the reason the term wasn't used until now is because no one ever accomplished the feat - and the term has been put into public consumption by numerous sources.

What say you?

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The accomplishment is notable. The term isn't a thing at this point. Rikster2 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
When you get right down to it, "Grand Slam" is originally a bridge (as in card game) term. As time has gone on, other sports have picked up on it - most famously baseball to describe a bases loaded home run - and to designate winning four major events/races/championships. Tennis uses the term to highlight the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S, Open. Golf uses it for the Masters, British Open, U.S. Open, and PGA Championship. In 2015, when American Pharaoh became the first horse to win the Triple Crown (Kentucky Derby, Belmont, Preakness) and Breeder's Cup, it was called a Grand Slam. Show business has a "grand slam" (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony - "EGOT") Even professional wrestling promotions - though not pure competitive contests - have termed winning four specific championships as their "Grand Slam". Now basketball is getting in on the act now that Anthony Davis became the first to win NCAA/Olympic/FIBA/NBA titles. Can't say the term isn't a "thing" when it's been thrown out there. Seriously - if it's acceptable to document grand slams in pro wrestling, why not basketball...especially when the term has been put out into public discourse? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I did what I think should work as a compromise - winning all 4 titles is a lede worthy accomplishment, and the term "Grand Slam" has been thrown out enough where it can't be ignored, but I worded it in such a way where it doesn't sound like it's an official designation. Doesn't have to be all or nothing, there's always a middle ground, and I hope/think I've found it. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Do not insert that pathetic "Grand Slam" thing until this discussion is over. There are no reliable sources for your claims so just stop it. WP:OR is forbidden. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Sabbatino No "reliable" sources? I had 3 references - FIBA, Lakers, Cutch Points - using the term. And how is the term "pathetic" when others are using it? I didn't make up the term, all I did was point out what others deemed Davis' accomplishment, so your OR claim is faulty. It almost sounds like you don't want the term in there because it's not some "pure" basketball phrase. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Lets see – ClutchPoints is not reliable, and they most likely called it "Grand Slam" after seeing the Twitter message by the Lakers. FIBA wrote "he became the first player to complete what fans in America could view as the grand slam of basketball." It is clearly WP:OR, because what you are trying to do is WP:SYNTH – you implied that "Grand Slam" is a term and put it in Davis's page. Where is the "Grand Slam" usage by ESPN, Sports Illustrated, CNN, Reuters, The Associated Press and many others? It does not exist. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't "imply" anything...I included the term, because others began using it. How is it OR when I explicitly stated in the article that Davis' accomplishment was deemed by some as the basketball grand slam - with references to back me up. And now you're going from OR to SYNTH. Admit it...you are just biased against the term because it isn't some pure basketball terminology etched on a peach basket by James Naismith (the fact you called it "pathetic" shows your hatred of the term). And since when is ESPN/CNN/AP the grand determiner of anything regarding if a certain phrase is used...you're reaching. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the term "Grand Slam" is probably not appropriate to include in Davis's article until it becomes more mainstream. It's certainly not yet anywhere near as notable of the grand slam of golf or tennis. In these sports, as soon as someone wins the first two events they get put on "grand slam watch", and if someone has a chance to complete it, it becomes a major storyline unto itself. In this case, it appears to have been several days before anyone even realized it had happened. Furthermore, not everyone seems to agree what a "grand slam of basketball" even is: Google searches show "grand slam" being tossed around for all sorts of basketball feats. I definitely think we're a bit premature to be describing it in Wikipedia's voice as anything definitive. CThomas3 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Go Google “Grand Slam of Basketball.” It isn’t a thing. Seems to have started on a couple of bloggy type places from the FIBA article, but FIBA has a vested interest in elevating that stature of its World Cup, which is not seen on the same level of the other three achievements in the US. The only reason people like Bill Russell, Magic and Jordan didn’t do this already is that it wasn’t a thing and they never went out of their ways to participate in the World Cup. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen. Rikster2 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The individual championships are notable, grouping them together is currently trivial for the lead (MOS:LEADBIO) and using the term anywhere is MOS:NEO. Your edit to move his most notable accomplishments out of the lead paragraph doesnt make sense, nor does forcing the grouping of the so called "grand slam" out of the body and into the lead. We should be wary of giving weight to non-independent sources like FIFA and the Lakers, and clutchpoints.com is not reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, well. In Wikipedia - just like life - you win some, and you lose some. Ce la vie. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, when I was editing the K. C. Jones article, it mentioned the "Triple Crown" of basketball, where someone has to win the NCAA, NBA and Olympic titles in a career. Guess the "Grand Slam" will be the one that replaces it. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: The reference on K. C. Jones' page is wrong. The "Triple Crown of basketball" consists of Olympic gold medal, FIBA World Cup gold medal and an NBA championship if we were to believe official Team USA's article, while the reference (which is blog-like and does not seem to be reliable) on Jones' page says it consists of Olympic gold medal, NCAA championship and NBA championship. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The blog's post is old (2016), versus USA Basketball's 2017 page. Perhaps at that time, the FIBA World Cup fka FIBA World Championship was an afterthought (LOL until today), and Americans considered the NCAA, NBA and the Olympics (older than the World Cup) as the "more prestigious tournament". FWIW, the "Triple Crown of basketball" referring to the NCAA, NBA and Olympics championships are actually searchable on Google, although there are other definitions, such as the winning the NBA Finals MVP, regular season MVP and NBA title, and a European basketball definition akin to "trebles". Howard the Duck (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
So I saw you remove that achievement from Jones's article (bless him having dudes take away his achievements once he's dead LOL). I've restored it because when you removed it, it was actually sourced from Sports Illustrated. I know American journalism has taken a beating lately, but I think publishing from SI still means something, more so if they quoted from the Boston Celtics statement on his death, which... gulp... does mention a "Triple Crown", in Title Caps, no less! So I guess, "Triple Crowns" are as real as it gets, but Grand Slams in basketball should show up soon... aside from this type of grand slam. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I did not say that Sports Illustrated is questionable, but I do understand that my edit summary implied that (I meant to refer to that "The Post Game" source). However, it is evident that SI were just mirroring the press release from the Celtics (the same can be said about CNN and many other websites who wrote about Jones' death). Google search does not really help either, because it either lists news articles about Jones' death that are rehashed Celtics' press release or has links to forums, blogs, Reddit, etc., which are all POV to say the least. So it can be implied that the Celtics took some information from Wikipedia, because I have never seen the Celtics or any other NBA team to use the "Triple Crown" moniker up until Jones' death. In addition, I did not find any mention about the supposed "Triple Crown" on NBA's, NCAA's or Olympics' websites. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Howard the Duck: I've removed it per MOS:NEO. It would need to be more widely used, not to mention a consistent definition. The individual achievements are already mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Jeez. The Boston Celtics used it. Sports Illustrated used it. It's searchable on Google. For usage involving basketball players that played in the NBA, it's the definition in 5:1 cases. It passes WP:RS. Outright disappointing! The old dude just died, the team he played for cited this achievement, and Wikipedia dudes are erasing it from his memory. The Boston Celtics said he did this, but nope, LOL. Have some shame! Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Newness is relative, but here's the New York Times talking about basketball's Triple Crown, in 2008, in relation to Candace Parker. The USA Olympic and Paralympic Committee website, in 2017, congratulated Kevin Durant in 2017, three years before Jones's death, and winning this achievement. So what if WP:RS got this from blogs and Reddit? Their usage of the term acknowledges and accepts its existence. If they acknowledge and accept its existence, WP:RS and all, who are we to deny that? To deny that the term exists, and is actually used by real WP:RS, is absurd and shameful! Howard the Duck (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This is totally independent of the Grand Slam though, which is totally within the realms of WP:NEO for now. Maybe if Anthony Davis dies several decades from now people would acknowledge this achievement, but now yet in 2020. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the "Triple Crown" might be a thing but FIBA and Team USA sites are not independent on this matter. Both organizations have a vested interest in pumping up the importance of the World Cup. FIBA has had a pretty aggressive marketing campaign about for 10 or so years, which is why they renamed the "FIBA World Championship" and tries to borrow some prestige from the FIFA event. I can say that in the US, the combo of NBA title, Olympic gold and college title has been something discussed in print and on TV at least since I was a kid and Quinn Buckner was playing for the Celtics. Interestingly, the "grand slam" that was discussed then included those three and a high school state championship (as Magic Johnson and Buckner have done). For better or for worse the US didn't take the World Cup seriously until about 1994. MANY great American players intentionally passed on playing for the FIBA world championship teams because the event just didn't have the same prestige as the Olympics. Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The FIBA World Cup is not a component of any definition of the triple crown of basketball, at least when referring to someone who has NBA achievements. The USOC won't be hyping something up that doesn't directly involve them (FIBA World Cup; the IOC doesn't organize this tournament). The triple crown of NCAA+NBA+Olympics is a thing, the grand slam of NCAA+NBA+Olympics+World Cup is not yet. The FIBA World Cup is still not taken seriously by Americans. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There not even a standard definition of a basketball "Triple Crown". Google finds:

  • Triple Crown (basketball) (European)
  • [1] NBA championship, NBA MVP, Olympic gold
  • [2] Olympics, Champions Cup/Euroleague, and NBA championships
  • [3] MVP award for the regular season, All-Star game and NBA Finals

Per MOS:NEO: They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Sure, it might be in SI or other sources. However, per WP:ONUS: ... not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.Bagumba (talk)

Yeah, I actually talked about this above. When it comes to players with NBA experience, the "triple crown" refers to NCAA+NBA+Olympics on all sources, reliable or not, save for one, where it is defined as NBA MVP+NBA Finals MVP+NBA championship. NY Times talked about this in 2008 about a female player. USOC congratulated Kevin Durant (still doesn't make his rings at GSW relevant LOL) in 2017. The Boston Celtics talked about this on their player who died. If we're talking about NBA players, the triple crown, as per WP:RS whatever their motivations are, on an editorial decision, decided that it means NCAA+(W)NBA+Olympic championships. If we're K.C. Jones winning the "triple crown" the Celtics and SI know what they are talking about. What makes us more reliable than them? Seriously? You'd think yourself to be more authoritative in basketball than the 17x world champion Boston Celtics? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, you and I are engaged in an edit war at K. C. Jones, citing that there's no consensus for this to be added. That's disingenuous as you are a party to the discussion you are citing, and that this was already there before you and Sabbatino removed it. If there's anything here, is that there's no consensus to remove that. Now, you can report me to 3RR and have me blocked, and I have no problem with that, but I just want to point out the disingenuousity (is that even a word) of your practices. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

... you are a party to the discussion you are citing ...: That's usually how disputes are resolved—participation. Someone made a bold edit. You reverted. You were reverted. There's a discussion here. No one supports you here (yet?) But you reverted again anyways. All righty.—Bagumba (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose there should be consensus to remove. Someone added it; it was already there when I edited it a few days ago. You removed it a perfectly cited statement. I added it back. Is the default consensus is to the ones who removed content cited by WP:RS? I dunno, although I suppose consensus is to remove, and the party to the discussion shouldn't be saying that there's "no consensus to add" when I suppose "there should be consensus to remove"? Winning these three achievements in a career is a thing, and that since 2008 the New York Times thought that "hey, I guess someone has been calling this as the 'triple crown', so let's make an editorial decision to call it as such." New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Boston Celtics... I suppose if the LA Times report that the Lakers release a statement that "the triple crown is made up by the Celtics knowing that Lebron won't ever win this", then I say we should remove it... while Lakers are tied with the Celtics in championships, the Lakers' latter titles were made with more teams and longer playoff series than the Celtics' earlier titles, including Jones's. I suppose that's how we determine who's knowledgeable in basketball rather than us imagining "the Celtics must've gotten this on Reddit! Let's fluff up the achievements of our dead player knowing he average 7 points per game in his career." Howard the Duck (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Further improvements to NBA playoff articlesEdit

It's been a few years since you all took up my advice and made the primary sections on NBA playoff articles the actual rounds instead of conferences. I have two requests for future pages:

  1. Utilize Template:NBAbox, as it might be more effective than 4–7 basketball boxes.
  2. Do away with the playoff qualifying tables showing when the specific titles were clinched (I don't see those dates as very important, anyway).

Piranha249 19:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's the WP:MOS page that says if you plan on hiding it, you might as well omit it?
I'd agree stacking 4-7 basketballboxes on top of each other isn't the best way to do it. If we'd be "hiding" stuff we might as well WP:SPLIT it to several daughter articles BUT people here want to put every thing in one article, so unless people want to deviate from that, we won't be seeing any changes.
I added those playoff qualifying tables, and I'd rather change them with the final league standings tables.
If people are open to WP:SPLITting, there's no sense in hiding other stuff and using NBAbox; we can just use {{ThreeLegStart}}, which is expandable up to seven games... now only if someone agrees with changing the headers to "Game #" from "#th leg".
For splitting, there are several ways do it. We can do it per conference or by round. If we'd be doing it per conference:
If we'd be doing it per round: (I'm not sure how article titles are capitalized now)
The MLB and the NFL already split their postseason articles per round (the MLB doesn't have a dedicated postseason article). Other multi-stage leagues from other countries also do this.
If people are intent on keeping all of the information in one article but hate stacking 7 basketballboxes, then NBAbox can be used. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Howard the Duck: MOS:COLLAPSE is what you're thinking of.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd caution against WP:HASTE in splitting. I don't know of many of the playoff articles being WP:TOOBIG, as most are just tables with little prose.—Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
1989 NBA playoffs is terrible. It doesn't even have appropriate templates for game/series results. Compare to 1989 Football League play-offs (English soccer) where at least there are proper footballboxes all around. The playoff articles pre-21st century are in this way. 2000 NBA Playoffs looks somewhat the same as what you'd see on playoff articles in the Adam Silver era. I suppose we can split the 21st century playoff articles (if consensus goes that way), then work the 20th century articles into what the 21st century ones are right now... then again seven stacked basketballboxes are a bad look if you'll include the game statistical leaders, although it looks better if only the results are listed. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Howard the Duck: I'm actually against splitting (and think the way baseball does it is too demanding), but we could look into it and see what it would look like. –Piranha249 16:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I am also against splitting the playoffs' pages. This is not MLB, NFL or soccer for this project to follow them. In addition, Stanley Cup playoffs pages are looking perfectly fine and they are not split. The biggest problem with older playoffs' pages is that nobody is willing to improve them since that takes time. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather fix up the older playoff pages than splitting the new ones now. FWIW, 2019 NBA playoffs is 110k+ in size, but virtually none of it is prose, unless you consider the bullets at the "Overview" section as prose. This - no prose - is a problem in most sports articles I've come across on. If an article is 110k in size and all of that is not prose, that's 110k of junk. By comparison, 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs actually has readable prose in all of its series sections, and it doesn't have that regular season series and previous playoff meetings that the NBA playoffs articles have - and hide! Hockey does hide per-game stats, again, as per MOS:COLLAPSE, this should not be done. If people are doing this, as per that guideline, WP:SPLIT is recommended. If people love stacking 7 basketballboxes, the best way is to just use the minimalist version of it, just the date, link to the box score, final score, location and TV. (There's a better way of presenting this in 1-2 rows of text than seven, though.) Want to hide the game leaders? Go make a daughter article. We shouldn't be showing/hiding stuff. It's inexcusable. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Those regular season series and previous playoff meetings are pure trivia and should be removed. I see those in college football as well (there is/was a push to have a bot remove them from CFB). There's a segment of Wikipedia sports editors that think trivia in a box is cool (my pet peave is those bulky high school recruit boxes e.g. RJ Barrett#Recruiting). Anything to avoid writing coherent prose.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I actually sorta like these, but only in prose form, and just saying when was the last time a pair met in the playoffs, just like what the Stanley Cup playoffs article does. But in its current form, it's terrible. Now, a sentence on how the regular season series went would also provide context on how teams match-up to each other, but a list of all 2-4 games is overkill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard the Duck (talkcontribs) 23:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Piranha249: I'd support removing the tables of qualifying dates. They're trivial. At best, the dominant team of the year could warrant a sentence if they notably clinched early, or some prose on end-of-season playoff races. Reality is most sports editors use clunky, exhaustive tables over topical prose.—Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, I suggest we try using something similar to what WikiProject Ice Hockey does with the Stanley Cup playoffs (use a straight-up numbered list and list what titles the teams have, if any, as seen in 2019). What ideas do you have? –Piranha249 16:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Piranha249: Something like at 2020_NBA_Finals#Road_to_the_Finals is compact, but it needs to identify the specific division winners. —Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest using what I suggested in Talk:2018–19 NBA season#New template. This straight up standings table is a better summary of seeding than anything else, IMO. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Howard the Duck: But how would divisional records and home/road records be incorporated? Those are utilized in the divisional variant of Template:NBA team standings and the variant for this season. Other than that, it might look okay. –Piranha249 15:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been pressuring guys that edit Module:Sports table for years to include additional columns for home and away, divisional and conference records, as these are staples on US+Canada leagues standings tables, but they haven't really budged on this. Either way, division records no longer determine playoff seeding or qualification (If I'm not mistaken division champions are no longer guaranteed playoff qualification), and that conference records are now the primary basis for playoff seeding, and league records are the primary basis for draft orders.
FWIW, there's a customizable Module:Sports table/Custom but it is unusable for US+Canada context as it uses the points system used in soccer as opposed to winning percentage. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. I already took your example and made modifications to it based on those seen in the pre-2013 NHL standings (Example from the Eastern Conference here). Regarding said template, how do I get it to show a lowercase x like you do. –Piranha249 15:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I like these, but most contemporary conference standings tables do not include a column for what division a team is from. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks good.—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I won't really recommend this now until Module:Sports table gets to be used for divisional standings as well, but yes, this is miles better than the current format, plus it aligns with how standings from other basketball (and soccer!) leagues around the world look like. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Howard the Duck: The thread was orginally asking about playoff articles, and I'd lean towards saying home-road and div records are TMI, but fine for the main season article.—Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree on your assessments with home-road and div records, but some people may be attached to those and would insist for those to be included, at least on division standings; for conference standings, those are not usually included. So I've been relying on social media too much lately for NBA standings presentation. NBA.com, ESPN and Yahoo! Sports now have expanded standings that include home-road and div-conf records, plus other unneeded stuff. They've also set the conference standings as the default by now, instead of division standings (probably because division standings don't mean anything by now). As for playoff articles, I'd recommend on transcluding whatever is being used on the regular season article for consistency's sake. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:History of organizational changes in the NBAEdit

There is a draft at Draft:History of organizational changes in the NBA, which is unsourced and I do not think that it even qualifies to have a page. All information that is presented there can be found in NBA season pages or divisions' pages. The draft in question is a copy-paste of History of organizational changes in the NHL. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Overlaps with Timeline of the National Basketball Association and Expansion of National Basketball Association. Could merge, but I'm not crazy about its repetitive tables. Anyways, does not need to be a new page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
An MFD can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:History of organizational changes in the NBA. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Including sub-headers preseason stints with NBA teamsEdit

We need to clarify whether or not a subheader is necessary for a players preseason stay with a team that they ultimately did not make. The example currently is Max Strus and his preseason stint with Boston Celtics before signing with the Chicago Bulls. As it currently stands, his time with the Celtics is under the Chicago subheader. While I agree that the Celtics should not be in the infox, I do believe that a Celtics subheader is appropriate given the amount of coverage he received given he signed a two way contract, then a standard NBA contract and his competition with Javonte Green for the final roster spot gained a coverage (some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). Whether or not Strus made the team is not relevant if his time with the team is considered notable to the player's career history. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • No subheader except for extremely unusual situations And by extremely unusual I am thinking about someone like Andrew Bynum who sat on the Sixers roster for a full season but never played for the team. We don't add a category if a player doesn't make a final roster, we don't add it to the infobox. It feels inconsistent to have separate sub-sections for teams that a player merely passes through on the way to the team they actually play for in a season - for some players they try for 3-4 teams before they stick somewhere. I say handle these with the same philosophy used in basketball articles - if you didn't make the team final roster, you weren't ever really on it. Rikster2 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It's really not inconsistent though. Infoboxes provide a brief summary of a player's career whereas the body of the article goes more in-depth. When looking from the perspective of a player article, being part of a preseason roster often isn't insignificant to the player's career. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is saying the preseason stint shouldn't be mentioned though. I am merely saying it shouldn't have its own section as that preseason move was just a part of the journey to his first team - the Bulls. His signing with the Celtics and those steps certainly has a place in the prose. Rikster2 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Except it technically wasn't his first team. He signed a standard 2 year NBA contract, was paid, and was listed on an official roster with the Celtics before being cut. It's not like this was something informal, fleeting, or unpaid like summer league or being part of a draft night trade. Honestly, his time with the Celtics has gained about as much if not more non-transaction report style coverage as a pro than with the Bulls or the Heat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that’s part of what needs to be determined, now isn’t it? If you don’t make the final roster you never actually made the team. But you don’t need to debate me, our positions are pretty well articulated at this point. The purpose of this discussion is to get what the larger consensus on these situations is. That means other opinions. Rikster2 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
There's more information about the Celtics than the Heat, so I think a Celtics subsection is OK, for now. In the long run, we'd probably want to drop the "1 section per team" structure entirely. Once Strus has more seasons under his belt, we can find better ways to organize the information. Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a whole separate question about the need for sections when an article isn’t particularly long. We have scores of articles with one or two sentences per section. That is of limited use to readers in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have realized that there is a third option that probably should be considered in cases like Strus when it comes to the beginning of a player's career. Because he was with the Celtics in training camp as a rookie, we can leave it under no subheader and under the "Professional career" header before the subheader for the Player's first team. Personally I still think the subheader is the best option but I do think that this should be considered. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment General guidance is at MOS:SECTION: Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
In this case the Celtic's paragraph is substantiative and roughly the same length as the paragraph on his time with the Bulls, where again he appears to have received less coverage even though he was on the regular season roster. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
How the article is written is irrelevant. What is your factual basis for saying he got more coverage for his preseason stint with the Celtics than with his actual time with the Bulls? Rikster2 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I am also against sub-headers for teams that the player did not play for. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it is relevant when looking at MOS:SECTION as the paragraph isn't a single sentence or short. A quick search shows only a few RS articles around Strus with the Bulls, really only about either his signing or his knee injury. His roster spot competition with the Celtics appears to have garnered pretty significant coverage in the Boston media. Again, I'm not saying that signing an Exhibit 10 and being waived a few days later needs a subheader but if you are actually garnering coverage in camp then it's not unreasonable to say that the training camp stay doesn't deserve it's own subsection. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The article would read just fine with "College career" and "Professional career" not having any subsections at all. They're both relative short.—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Rikster2 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox link to BBREdit

Similar to recent NBA link changes to {{Infobox basketball biography}} (see #NBA.com_stats_links_broken), basketball-reference.com support of Wikidata has been added. The template still uses |bbr= if it is specified; if it's not, it will use the value from Wikidata, if it is available there. Let me know if there are any concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Placement of career statistics in articlesEdit

Was there a discussion to put NBA stats in the NBA career section of an article as opposed to having a statistics section after the prose (see Michael Jordan)? In my opinion, this really breaks up the reading flow of the article. If there is a consensus for that status quo I linked at the MJ article I’d like to recommend we revisit it. If there isn’t a consensus I’m just going to start moving the stats and see if anybody complains. Rikster2 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever discussed formally. I usually prefer stats and any honors list after their career, player profile, and legacy prose but before the "Personal life". Jordan, Magic, et al. might be special cases because they have more prose about non-basketball business which is also part of their notability.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, so there is disagreement. Personally I think the article itself should read with a clear flow through and supporting info like stats and lists of achievements should be after the prose in their own sections. But it sounds like this isn't necessarily an uncontroversial view. Rikster2 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Seattle and Oklahoma CityEdit

Just want to inform everyone that the Oklahoma City Thunder have stopped sharing the history with the Seattle SuperSonics per their 2020–21 media guide. I thought about changing the Thunder's page to reflect it, but every older media guide list the Thunder/SuperSonics history as one. And the NBA have not released their 2020–21 official NBA guide yet. I assume that these changes by the team are possibly tied to the rumors about the Seattle and Las Vegas expansion teams. I do know about the settlement, but the statements at the SuperSonics' and Thunder's pages contradict each other. What do you all think? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, I'm not sure either; I would rather wait for the league media guide to be released for any full confirmation about this decision. –Piranha249 15:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, let's follow how the NBA handles this once they have made definitive statements, not assume. The Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans case was a little messy with how they treated it, but in the end they were clear about which history goes with which franchise. Rikster2 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well I am in no rush to change anything. Just wanted to notify everyone about the changes from the Thunder's side. However, as I already wrote, the SuperSonics' and Thunder's pages contradict each other. They claim that:
  1. SuperSonics – "Settlement terms of a lawsuit between the city of Seattle and Clay Bennett's ownership group stipulated the SuperSonics' banners, trophies, and retired jerseys remain in Seattle; the nickname, logo, and color scheme are available to any subsequent NBA team that plays at a renovated KeyArena subject to NBA approval. The SuperSonics' franchise history, however, would be shared with the Thunder." Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City#Distribution of assets says the same.
  2. Thunder – "The owners agreed to leave the SuperSonics name, logo and colors in Seattle for a possible future NBA franchise; however, the items would remain the property of the Oklahoma City team along with other "assets," including championship banners and trophies." There are two "[disputed – discuss]" tags (both tags have been there since January 2016) after each of the sentences.
So which is correct? Do the banners, trophies, and retired jerseys remain in Seattle or are they transferred to Oklahoma City? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what to say about the media guide. As of 2010, Clay Bennett did technically own the trophies, banners, etc. This article says, "MOHAI is kind of like the foster parent for the trophy and hundreds of other artifacts, ranging from banners to team photographs to old VHS tapes, that aren’t on display. Shortly after Clay Bennett and his Raiders settled with the city and moved to Oklahoma City, the items were given to the museum. In early 2009, MOHAI and the Raiders signed an agreement that essentially says the museum will take care of these precious Sonics’ memories in perpetuity. At any time, Bennett could take them back, but he isn’t expected to do so." Zagalejo^^^ 01:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I am an Okie, which may cloud my opinion on the matter. I found several instances of "the franchise," which alludes to the Seattle era. An example is the Matt Pinto section. I think at this point until an announcement occurs, it is WP:OR-ish. As an Okie I would really like to know! (I am WP:AGF here.)-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

CfD notice - team broadcaster categoriesEdit

All team-specific NBA broadcaster categories are up for CfD (as well as MLB, NFL, NHL and NCAA). If you have a POV on these categories, feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Team broadcaster categories. Rikster2 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject National Basketball Association".