Jump to content

Talk:2007 NBA playoffs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2007 NBA Playoffs)
[edit]

[1] - can anyone get a backup or something? --Howard the Duck 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was it referencing in the first place? Dknights411 05:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the seeding debate. If we can't a new source we might as well remove the sentence it referenced. --Howard the Duck 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove that shortly if no one objects. --Howard the Duck 07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no updating of score

[edit]

What user:soxrock did is not against any rules. Based on what others said on his talk page, some users claim that his edits violate WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Sports score is not news report. Besides, the rule title indicates that "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." His edits are not "original thought," but rather they are based on a legitimate source. What people said about the Wikipedia server would shut down is absurd. This is a large website and I am sure that their server can handle these edits since this site is flooded with tens of thousands of edits everyday. What I am saying here is that he did nothing wrong and there is no rule against editing every five seconds. Chris 01:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making a ton of edits in a short period of time like what soxrock is doing makes it very difficult to keep up maintenance of the article. If I want to compare a previous version of this article to check for vandalism, which has been a big problem this post-season, I have to navigate through 100s and 100s of edits soxrock made during one specific game. Moreover, I actually think sports scores and sports updates do qualify as news reports, and we do have to guard against the possibility of a server shutdown. Wikipedia may be large, but it is still vulnerable to these kinds of server issues. There's no guarantee that Wiki's servers can handle a sizable spike like that. Sorry to say, but I also think soxrock is breaking that wikipedia rule. Finally, it's more logical to just post the final score at the end (or at least post a "Game in progress" tag on a specific game), and leave it at that. Anyway, that's my two cents. Dknights411 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dknights. It’s bad for the history and bad for the servers (and the article keeps jumping up on my watchlist). By-the-minute updates are excessive for an encyclopedia. —LOL 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have an end-of-quarter update. This is not like soccer or hockey baseball where every run/goal counts. --Howard the Duck 04:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's about as far as it can go IMHO. Dknights411 07:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also if anyone's gonna do live updates, please indicate the quarter and the time remaining. --Howard the Duck 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't agree that wiki's server would shut down just because of little edits, I will stop update the score minute by minute because it is hard to check the history. By the way, someone here got to ask soxrock to stop since he is still updating score minute by minute. Chris 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked his talk page. It seems like he's gotten the message from almost everyone else. I'll send another note his way. Dknights411 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's against WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Michael Greiner 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, why would the fourth quarter be of any more significance in an encyclopedia? Soxrock made twelve consecutive edits for the remainder of the hour (with an average change of 3 bytes per edit). It’s better than 30 consecutive with an average change of less than one byte, but still excessive IMO. —LOL 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve edits are not excessive. In this discussion, we agree to stop updating the score minute by minute only because it would affect the history. Twelve edits are not going to mess up the page. So get over it. Chris 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dozen is already more than half the height of my browser, a quarter of 50, and over 64 kilobytes of data in the history. I should not have the need to get over something that is totally unnecessary. As far as I know, Soxrock was asked to only update at the end of a quarter, and quarters don’t end every 150 seconds. —LOL 03:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what if there are over 64 kilobytes of data on the history as long as it is not messed up. That is the main concern that people have here regarding the updating of score minute by minute. And yes he is asked only to update at the end of quarter, but he does have the freedom here to do whatever he wants. Besides, no one here except you complain. So, I really don't see the problem here. Chris 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having over half my browser cluttered with the same thing on 1280×960 is a mess (and each page of history takes a long time to load on a public, decade-old computer). If actions are disruptive to the community (or if they violate policies), then Soxrock does not have the freedom perform them. Anyway, if nobody else is concerned, let this rest. —LOL 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just enjoy the game with the computer off? --Howard the Duck 04:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone here got to update the score. Chris 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The computer can be opened after the game... it takes away the excitement and concentration if you're updating Wikipedia and watching the game at the same time. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many internet sources of continuous game updates. Doing so in a wikipedia article does nothing except to create clutter in the history. Baseball Bugs 12:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user Hydrogen Iodide is updating score minute by minute. I just send him a message regarding the consensus here on the talk page, but it seems to me that he ignore my word. If anyone have time, please tell him again. Chris 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you think it is or isn't, updating scores of basketball games before the game is over is a news report. About this comment on that talk page that Chrishomingtang left,

.

It's news report to give up-to-date information on something like that. It's not the same as something like the death of Anna Nicole Smith or something like that. That can be "news" because information continues to come in about it and needs to be added to give an accurate explanation of the event which occured. But scores to sporting events change... a lot, especially basketball. If it were something like adding something to the article, then that's fine, but a basketball score changes constantly, therefore making it a sports report.
A discussion between users on the matter on an article's talk page can't overrule an official rule. WP:NOT#PUBLISHER is an official rule and users can't ignore it because of a discussion.
Another note: Soxrock has indeed been warned about this and I have brought that to Wizardman's attention. Wizardman is an admin and also believes that what Soxrock did is wrong; he agrees that he violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER by updating the scores of games when the games were still in progress. I don't want to have to resort to this, but should this happen again to this or any other page, I will have to talk to Wizardman about it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I will continue to follow this consensus regardless of the WP:NOT#PUBLISHER violation. The consensus here is that I can edit score after each quarter. And i will follow this. In response to Ksy92003's comment on my talk page, I also talk to Wizardman regarding this matter. And I am waiting for his response. If consensus can't be followed, then it violated another rules WP:CON and WP:IAR. Chris 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Since I didn't edit the score constantly but rather periodically (look at the history, if u don't believe me), I don't think my edits have violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Chris 23:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone here tell User:Ksy92003 to stop accusing me for violating WP:NOT#PUBLISHER? Chris 01:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he believes that you're in violation of a wiki rule, than he has a right to confront you with it, sorry to say. People just interpret different rules in different ways. That's all iot really boils down to. I know how you feel though. I've had my share of problems with other users over a wiki rule that got me into trouble (the fair use on sports logos fiasco). If you want to take it up to arbitration or something, then go ahead. Even though I'm neutral on this issue myself, you have my support. Dknights411 01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chrishomingtang, about what you said when you said that you edit it periodically rathar than constantly, let me say this one thing: if I vandalize a page once, or if I vandalize it 30 times, I'm still vandalizing it, right? If I violate a rule once or if I violate the rule 30 times, I'm still violating the rule, right? Therefore, that means that no matter how minor or major the violation is, it's still a violation. I'm not straight-up saying that you violated that rule or anything like that. (I think you did, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. This is simply a response to your comment.) If you violate it, you violate it. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if it's something like blanking the page or adding an expletive at the bottom of the page. They're both vandalism. 1:00 left of a game or halftime, it still violates WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. --Ksy92003 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you would argue with me about 1 minute. 1 minute is as short as a blink of an eye, so get over it. Once the game is almost end, you can almost decide the result, so 1 or 2 minute edits prior to the end, is not going to cause a problem. I don't understand why you are taking this rule so seriously. These rules are not the constitution of wikipedia, sometime it can be bent for the sake of consensus. If you like to hold a stop watch and tells user who put up the score 1 second prior the official end to back off, and make a big deal out of that, that is your choice. Chris 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Ksy92003's warning against my in game edit:

Can he do that? Who does he think he is? If anyone here have suggestion, please tell me. Thanks. I didn't break any rule Chris 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I can do that. I can warn any user if they violate a rule.
Anyway, 1 minute or 45 minutes. In the immortal words of... well, whoever said it, "It's not over 'til it's over." Look, just deal with the fact that Soxrock did the same thing as you and was warned several times and required admin intervention. You're not superior to him; I treat all users the same. If two people violate the same rule at different times, I'm going to take the same actions against both people. I'm not going to be any more leniant for you than for Soxrock for any reason. Please just stop and deal with the fact that you violated a rule. Just live with it and get on with your lives. Hopefully, for your sake, you won't lose your right to edit because of a disagreement about you violating a rule, which you did. You may get blocked if you ignore these warnings I've given you; they are fair warnings and 100% valid. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... You can't block me if I didn't break the rule. I don't have to deal with anything because I didn't violated any rule. And nobody here except you said that I break a rule, so it is really your problem that you love to mess with people.
And yes, you can warn me all you want if you think I violate a rule. But if I didn't violate a rule, you can't do anything to me. And you are not, like you said, superior to me either, so stop acting like you are.
If you are not going to stop accusing me, I will talk me another admin regarding your stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise. So if you get blocked in the end, don't blame me. Chris 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now agree that I will stop posting score before the game. Not because I think I break WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, but it is because I follow the idea of WP:CON. I still think I didn't violate any rule. Chris 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still don't get it why you violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, since it was aired ("published") live. You merely relayed what you saw... --Howard the Duck 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's the point. Yet, Ksy92003 continues to accuse me and at one point threaten to have me blocked. You will understand if you read both of our talk page. To end the argument, I am just making a compromise. Chris 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but how can you cite a TV broadcast? Maybe WP:A would've been a better "accusation".
IMHO, the best solution is to turn off the computer and enjoy the game, unless you watched via streaming or something. --Howard the Duck 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better for everybody involved if people would refrain from posting game scores until the game is actually over... among the many things Wikipedia is not is a real-time play-by-play sportscast. There are many hundreds of sports events going on, some in high-scoring sports like basketball, and that the score happens to be 86 - 78 with 3 minutes and 6 seconds left (or whatever) is not a particularly encyclopedic fact. It's a good thing that Wikipedia can be current enough to reflect recently-concluded things such as sports games and reality-TV results (like the American Idol winner), often quicker than the official Web sites of those things, but it's taking things way too far to try to update partially-completed events second-by-second. *Dan T.* 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this argument is that this action doesn't violate any rules (especially WP:NOT#PUBLISHER), so Ksy92003's accusation against me is faulty. Chris 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody interprets rules differently. I think that did violate that rule, you think you didn't. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and interpretations of rules.
I'm not saying it can't be cited, but it makes no sense to update partial information. Besides, the score at halftime isn't the important factor in a basketball game, therefore it isn't relevant to be included in the article with the exception of it having major importance about a team record or something. The final score is the only part of a sporting event that is crucial to the outcome of the game, therefore the final score is the only part that should be included.
Even if this doesn't violate WP:NOT, the score of a non-concluded game still isn't important enough for inclusion in an article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already agree not to update. I am merely pointing out that your accusation is faulty here. But I respect your opinion. Like you said, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and interpretations of rules. Chris 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got an issue with WP:NOT anymore. Right now, I'm merely giving more support to my argument of why I don't think it's notable enough. I, too, respect your opinion. And to be honest, my only support that you violated that rule was because Michael Greiner said that Soxrock violated that rule for a similar edit. So, and thanks to my 11th grade english teacher, I used "false analogy" to accuse you, meaning that because somebody did something and it was stated to be a violation, I took what you did as a violation, as well. Right now, I'm not sure if it is or not, but it doesn't really matter. With the playoffs about to end anyway, this wasn't going to be a discussion that would continue for any more than a couple weeks. But for now, I think we can consider this discussion dead. We don't have a conflict on this anymore. Does everybody agree? --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Finals

[edit]

I entered the teams and locations into the NBA Finals sections of the article. The Eastern Conference has guaranteed itself home-court advantage in the series, due to the fact that the Western Conference Finals are currently pitting teams seeded lower than the participants in the concurrent Eastern Conference Finals.

GOYANKSGONJ 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like that... the Spurs have a higher record (58-24) than either Detroit (53-25) or Cleveland (50-32). --Howard the Duck 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the NBA, the team with the higher regular season record gets home-court advantage, regardless of post-season rankings. Dknights411 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NBA 2007 Playoffs logo.png

[edit]

Image:NBA 2007 Playoffs logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do a fair use rationale, so if anyone here know, please do that before the picture is deleted. Chris 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. I'm also doing fair use on a slew of other images. Am I the only one that thinks that Wikipedia is TOO paranoid when it comes to fair use? Dknights411 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it is annoying, to tell you the truth. Chris 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all for the better. --Howard the Duck 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it might do more harm than good. But there's always that one possibility of a picture ending up creating a lawsuit against Wikipedia. And if Wikipedia shuts down because they get sued, then the best online encyclopedia goes right down the tubes. And of course we don't want that to happen at all, right? So, I guess we have these "fair use" guidelines to prevent something like that from happening; to prevent legal action from materializing.
Sometimes it gets confusing if you're unfamiliar with the code for fair use and whatnot. I'm not sure how to do that for a picture that I took and am thinking of uploading and adding to Los Angeles Avengers. But it's all a precautionary thing. Better safe than sorry. We don't want anything bad happening to Wikipedia. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pussycat Dolls

[edit]

I do think they deserve a mention here. I just forgot the song ESPN and ABC used. --Howard the Duck 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would rather forget that whole thing happened. It was really annoying the way it was used. But that's just me. Dknights411 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps that's the reason why nobody watched the Finals, but I think they're not used on the Finals. Was it "Right Now" or something? --Howard the Duck 05:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NBA 2007 Playoffs logo.png

[edit]

Image:NBA 2007 Playoffs logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Suns-Spurs series

[edit]

The Suns-Spurs series was the real NBA championship series and was essentially decided by a decision by the NBA commissioner's office. I can't remember any NBA title decided in such a fashion. A key point of contention by Phoenix officials was that Duncan went on the court in the same game during another incident and was not suspended. Whether that was an altercation or not, is not the point. The point was it was highly contentious, and this part needs to be included to better understand what this decision by Stern meant. Phoenix had momentum for Game 5 going back to Phoenix and that was wiped out by the commissioner's decision. 98.204.186.237 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid adding your opinions about it being the 'real NBA championship' is not really acceptable; nor are your conclusions about the suspensions. Just stick to facts and provide reliable sources where needed. Thanks. Kuru talk 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never added anything to the article about this series being the real NBA championship series in 2007, tho most experts agree on that. All I added to this was that Duncan was not suspended, even though he stepped on the court during a previous incident in the same game. That is not an opinion; that is a fact. And that was taken out by the high sheriffs here. And it's a key point of contention of the NBA playoffs that I believe should not be shoved under the rug. If you want to put in that the league ruled that the duncan incident was not an altercation, that's fine. But the Suns thought Duncan should have been suspended, if Stoudemire and Diaw were. See http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2872357 for more on this.Jacksonthor (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_NBA_playoffs&oldid=1196502118"