Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Proposal for player stats

Collapse background discussion

My current focuses on articles about college women basketball players, although this discussion have some impact on professional players as well. It is quite common to add a section on historical statistics for basketball players. Many of these entries follow a similar format, although there are some custom formats. There may be some good reason for custom formats and I don't propose enforcing uniformity for uniformity sake, but there may also be instances where a brand-new editor, unfamiliar with standard presentations of this data, chooses their own format simply due to lack of knowledge of other articles. As I look at the standard formats I see some shortcomings. I created a new format as an example, and I would like you backfeedback from the community. Heading Explanation NBA Legend WNBA Legend WBB player stat legend NCAA stats Arkansas stats GP Games played Y Y Y Y Y GS Games started Y Y Y Y MIN Minutes Y Y MPG Minutes per game Y Y Y Y ORB Offensive rebounds Y DRB Defensive rebounds Y RBS Rebounds Y Y Y RPG Rebounds per game Y Y Y Y Y PF Personal fouls Y DQ Disqualifications Y AST Assists Y Y APG Assists per game Y Y Y Y STL Steals Y Y SPG Steals per game Y Y Y Y BLK Blocks Y Y BPG Blocks per game Y Y Y Y PTS Points Y Y Y PPG Points per game Y Y Y Y Y TO Turnovers Y Y TPG Turnovers per game Y FGA Field goals attempted Y Y FGM Field goals made Y Y FG% Field-goal percentage Y Y Y Y Y 3A Three point field-goals attempted Y Y 3M Three-point field goals made Y Y 3P% Three point field-goal percentage Y Y Y Y Y FTA Free throws attempted Y Y FTM Free throws made Y Y FT% Free-throw percentage Y Y Y Y Y References In the above table I've listed various statistics. The first column has an abbreviation appropriate for a heading, while the explanation provides more detail and is appropriate for a legend. the next three columns list potential legends: NBA Legend WNBA Legend WBB player stat legend The first two are the most commonly used, and the third is one I created recently. The next column identifies information sent to the NCAA for recording in their database The final column represents the statistics presented in the media guide of Arkansas. (different schools may record different sets of information but many use the same provider so this is I believe a typical example) Note that the NBA and WNBA legend are almost identical. The WNBA legend adds turnovers per game. The WNBA legend also suggests that an asterisk can be used to identify league leaders but this is rarely used for college players. Other than that, the content of the two legends is virtually identical although the format is slightly different. I have used the NBA legend in many instances. However, this portrays only a subset of available stats. I'm not about to suggest that all available stats should be portrayed, but I do propose a modest increment. I'd like to add minutes and rebounds. I also slightly reorganize the order, starting with the first few columns unchanged, inserted minutes before minutes per game, inserting rebounds before rebounds per game, then the three shooting percentages and then finally the three other stats that are only presented on a per game basis. Sytia Messer is an example created using the proposed new formatSabbatino made a fair point that I should be demonstrating this in my sandbox, so here it is:User:Sphilbrick/Stats example Reactions?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Strong oppose, because there is already a template for that. - Sabbatino (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Sabbatino, I'm not following your point and I am not happy that you reverted my addition to Sytia Messer without discussion. Among other things it means that people interested in discussing this issue cannot see the example I created. What do you mean there is already a template for that? If there's a template that provides the information I'm interested in presenting please point it out. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Other editors already showed you the templates in this discussion so I do not have to do it. In addition, you should use your sandbox to show examples, which is the purpose of it. And it does not matter that "you are unhappy for getting reverted", because you are supposed to follow WP:BRD. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Sabbatino, I am interested in including minutes as well as rebounds. I'm open to a debate about whether it's appropriate to include those items, but you reverted a template including those items with the edit summary "That's the wrong format. A completely different template is used for that". I am asking a good faith question. What existing template displays that information in a legend? I'm also very familiar with BRD. Reverting with a made up reason doesn't qualify as a good faith reversion. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC) First of all, you added a table and not a template. Secondly, here are the legend templates – {{NBA player statistics legend}} and {{WNBA player statistics legend}}. We list averages for everything except for games played/started. Thirdly, your attitude and accusation indicates that it is not worth discussing anything with you, because you are supposed to comment on the content and not the editor. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Sabbatino, Huh? I added a template and a table. The template is {{WBB player statistics legend}}. The table consists of a heading, four seasons of data and career totals. My proposal is to add raw minutes and rebounds, while keeping minutes per game and rebounds per game. I'm reconsidering whether the minutes should be included, so I'm really mainly asking about the inclusion of rebounds. If it makes sense to include rebounds, we ought to have a template explaining headings. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I did not see it when making a revert. However, that does not change a fact that there is already a {{WNBA player statistics legend}}, which is better. What is the reasoning for listing totals? And for statistics there is {{WNBA player statistics start}}, which is also better than the table that you imply on using. You did not even think about asking here first and added your preferred format (which has no consensus) to many woman basketball BLPs. But on the whole, we should merged {{NBA player statistics start}}, {{Euroleague player statistics start}} and {{WNBA player statistics start}} into a single template, because there is no reason to list TO (turnovers) for WNBA and PIR (for older season it was not counted). While writing this, I also saw that there are {{Basketball player statistics start}} and {{PBA player statistics start}}, which are basically the same as the NBA template but has no tooltips. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC) What's the rationale for raw totals when there are averages? I don't think basketball has as much emphasis on magic number milestones for totals like other sports.—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC) NBA social media has been promoting these milestones lately because of... LeBron. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck: For season, or just career? Career is better left for prose.—Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Bagumba These are career totals, like most points in the playoffs, second most (I guess?) triple doubles in the playoffs, those kinds of stats. You're right though that basketball is one of the sports where statistics are primarily presented in averages instead of raw totals in terms of season-long or career. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Bagumba, I was trying to thread the needle between those stats that are to be presented as raw totals and ratios versus those that could simply be presented as ratios. It was my judgment that assists, steals and blocks were values where the rockraw totals weren't all that important and ratios were fine, while points and rebounds were worth including both. I also propose including minutes but I think I could be persuaded that minutes per game is sufficient. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC) We already have templates: {{NBA player statistics start}} and {{Euroleague player statistics start}} which are practically the same. If there are changes to be done, we'd have to merge these two templates while keeping the current format, order and what stats to include. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck, Practically the same is equivalent to saying different. That's yet a different template which doesn't include a legend. I'm interested in including minutes (not just minutes per game) and rebounds not just rebounds per game, so would like that reflected in the legend. If we modify an existing legend it would make it not applicable to all of the cases where it is used and those stats are not shown. Wouldn't that be problematic for our existing uses. I guess, but it seems that the only difference is that the Euroleague one includes the Performance Index Rating (different from Hollinger's Player efficiency rating) while the NBA's doesn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck, I agree those templates are practically the same as each other. I thought you were suggesting that those templates were the same as what I wanted to accomplish. My bad for my assumption. Neither of those templates include a reference to minutes or rebounds, so they are not suitable. Again, I'm open to a debate about whether those values should be shown, but it is extremely common to display such stats in summary stats about a player. In fact, some schools report the raw numbers and do not report the per game results, leaving the impression that the values are more important than the ratios. I'm happy to debate that issue, but let's debate that issue. Please stop telling me that there are existing templates covering what I want to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC) When most websites present career stats for a player divided per season, they do it almost exclusively on an average per game basis, not on cumulative totals. See for example, Grayson Allen's college career at sports-reference.com. Here's Scotty Pippen Jr.'s career stats playing for Vandy c/o ESPN. The existing templates already do the jobs perfectly well. Now if other organizations do otherwise, well, sure they do. Do we have to follow them? This boils down to WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but arguing on using the presentation most other WP:RS use is a good one. The Wikipedia templates, sports-reference.com and ESPN, if they cite the same statistic, present it on exactly the same order, with GP first, and PPG last. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck, "When most websites present career stats for a player divided per season, they do it almost exclusively on an average per game basis, not on cumulative totals." I haven't done an exhaustive review, but your strong statement surprised me. I've seen sites that present some stats on a cumulative total basis, some on an average per game basis, and some show both. There may be some websites that exclusively show per game values but there are others that show exclusively totals. The NCAA site is probably my source for 90% of statistics. It has the three main shooting percentages on both cumulative made in attempts as well as percentage. Stats such as rebounds, assists, blocks, steals and points it has cumulative totals for the year as well as a per game average. It has cumulative turnovers but no average although I don't typically report turnovers. When NCAA data is not available I typically go to media guides which sadly seemed to be going out of fashion. Most media guides have a mixture of cumulative values and per game averages. However, when both are not present it's more apt to be cumulative totals rather than averages. I have seen an occasional media guide that reports mostly cumulative totals but I can't say I've ever seen in media guide report only per game averages. I don't pretend to have surveyed everything, but I've often run into players without stats and searched high and mighty to find them, and my anecdotal conclusion is that counts and more common than ratios but not by much. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I actually kinda like the shorter template that doesn't have a full-blown legend and simply explains the headings with pop-ups, but I thought that was discouraged for accessibility reasons. It might be a side discussion but perhaps we also need to discuss whether we go with the templates with pop-up abbreviations versus those where the terms are spelled out in text. However, that discussion doesn't answer the question of how to include minutes and rebounds and whether there are good reasons for refusing to display such data. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Popups don't work w/o a mouse either e.g. touchscreens. A legend is still required.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I propose merging {{NBA player statistics start}}, {{Euroleague player statistics start}}, {{WNBA player statistics start}}, {{Basketball player statistics start}} and {{PBA player statistics start}} (there may be more of these, but I did not look for them) into a single template since there is absolutely no reason to have five (maybe more) almost identical templates. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Agreed. I was also contemplating this when reading the discussion. There does not need to be statistics templates for every single basketball league in the world - the templates are all nearly identical (not surprising since they all serve the same sport). Why not merge them all into a single template? In all templates, the fields that are filled in can be displayed in the legend. And the extra fields in the Arkansas media guide are likely unnecessary but they can be included in a merged template: {{Basketball player statistics start}}. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC) It appears that the creator of this discussion decided to ignore this discussion and has continued adding his/her preferred format to woman basketball BLPs. In addition, I cannot believe that an administrator would do such a thing and start acting disruptively by ignoring other editor's opinions. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Sabbatino, There are quite a few different templates, as you know because you listed a handful of them. You made a proposal that they all be merged, but while one person agreed, I don't see anything that remotely constitutes a consensus. In fact, it appears that this discussion is dying without a consensus so I intend on improving articles until such time as the community reaches an agreement on template usage. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC) The number of templates does indicate that there is consensus. Three editors agreed that averages should be listed and not raw totals (your personal preference) and all of the templates that I showed list averages. So yes, there clearly is a consensus. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC) I don't see a compelling reason for women's basketball to display raw totals for minutes, points, rebounds or anything beyond games and games started. Averages are sufficient and preferred.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC) +1. I suppose this (three people plus the great majority of the internet) should act as a consensus now? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck, Sorry, I don't think that's remotely the case. Three individuals might conceivably constitute a consensus in some obscure working project covering a handful of articles, but there are many thousands of basketball articles and hundreds if not thousands of editors. We are discussing some minor issue, we are discussing how one of the key components of autobiographies are to be presented. The desert is far more discussion than has occurred so far. Your argument that it's three people plus "the great majority of the Internet" hasn't been established. I haven't seen any evidence presented that it's the majority of the Internet, and I cited anecdotal evidence that it's the minority. NCAA statistics plus almost all media guides include a mixture of the two main types of information. I saw said media guides that include only raw totals not per game averages. That's admittedly a small sample, but it does mean that it's not true that the "great majority of the Internet" presents only per game results. I'm generally on board with your observation that "...arguing on using the presentation most other WP:RS use is a good one.", I'm simply observing that there are many many reliable sources reporting raw totals per season. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Sphilbrick you'd have to concede that ESPN.com arguably is where people go to get their basketball fix, aside from actual league/conference websites. As illustrated above, all of these do not include per season/tournament totals but xPG. Even The Spanish article for Pau Gasol uses a hardcoded version of the English basketball stats template. A great majority of Wikipedia basketball bios that have stats on them use any of the stat templates provided above, and I'll highly recommend not to change these, or use another format for articles that do not have one, to another template, much less a hardcoded one that the rest of the internet do not use. I'd probably concede that career totals for statistical categories can be added though, on top of the career averages. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck, No, I wouldn't have to concede that. I visit ESPN extensively, mainly for schedules for upcoming games, scores for recent and historical games, and write ups. I did see you provided a link to Scotty Pippen Jr.'s career stats and I was surprised in two ways, first by the shock of realizing that as much work as I have done with statistics I had never seen that site before in my life, and by my negative reaction to the format. I don't doubt that there are people who visit that site for statistics, but I think it looks terrible. However, what you areand I happen to look at isn't evidence of what the consensus preference might be — we need better evidence than what a couple people like to look at. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Sphilbrick How about NBA.com? My man Luka's stats shows what could elicit a negative reaction from you. The default is "Per game" (as it should!) but for people like you who love totals, you can switch it up to what kind of presentation you want. NBA.com though knows that when people look for stats, they are looking for per game averages. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Howard the Duck, I have a different take away. That site makes it extremely easy (with two easy clicks of the mouse) to convert from per game to totals or back. Print publications (and media guides are essentially electronic presentation of print publications) have to make a decision whether to present per game or totals or both. They opted for both in some circumstances and totals in some circumstances but almost never per game only statistics. A website such as NBA.com can provide both options and let the user select. Wikipedia is closer to a website than to a print publication, so it would make a lot of sense for us to follow the NBA.com model and offer both with the conversion as simple as a mouse click. Ideally I'd like the default to be a user preference, which should not really be hard, but if the evidence suggests per game values are slightly preferred I'd be happy making that the default. NBA.com may have concluded that readers prefer per game values, but they definitely did not conclude that readers should only be presented with per game values. Essentially those that are voted so far are saying that we don't want to show totals. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Sphilbrick I suspect that NBA.com generates its stats webpages off a database, SQL and all. For Wikipedia, we usually don't do that, and it's usually WYSIWYG. Wikipedia can also switch around totals and averages, but we'd be stuck with the NBA.com default of showing averages and hiding totals, something that is frowned upon. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC) The alleged majorty of the internet doesn't much matter unless they !vote here.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Bagumba, Of course, but I get the impression that some people are supporting ratios only because of their perception that this is consistent with what the majority of the Internet reports. I would hope that reviewing the facts, showing that ratio only values are rare would inform their !votes. Would you disagree? S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC) See my comment below re: media guides.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Media Guides I did a cursory review of the media guides. I selected them by doing an Internet search and looking at the first 10 in the list. The schools reported stats on almost identical formats. Some schools reported game started as well as games, although some reported only games. Some broke out rebounds into offensive and defensive in addition to totals some reported only totals. There are also some minor differences such as whether fouls and foul outs were reported. However, my conclusion is that for these media guides the important stats are either reported as both raw numbers and ratios, or as only raw numbers. I didn't find an example of a single staff in the media guides that is reported only as a ratio to games. Obviously, I concede that ESPN has a location reporting only ratios, but that seems to be the exception. School Shooting percentages Rebounds Assists TO Blocks Steals Points 1 Creighton both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 2 Virginia Tech both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 3 NYU both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 4 Tennessee both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 5 Maryland both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 6 Clemson both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 7 Lasalle both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 8 Connecticut both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 9 Arkansas both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both 10 Georgetown both both only raw only raw only raw only raw both References I never understood schools not computing averages. If you look at DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL RECORDS from NCAA for 2020–21, starting at p. 38, all the annual leaders are listed by average. Maybe some oild-time SIDs still don't know how to use spreadsheets.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Bagumba, Thanks for pointing that out. I note that the list includes five statistical values: games, field goals, free throws, points, average. Ignoring games because by definition it wouldn't make sense to express that as a per game ratio, three of the four statistics are reported as totals and only one as a ratio. One more example showing that totals are more ubiquitous than ratios. Of course the annual leaders are determined by average, I'm not opposed to averages, they have the place. I'm simply pushing back on the odd notion that only averages should be presented. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC) One more example showing that totals are more ubiquitous than ratios: I think I wasn't clear. The "ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL CHAMPIONS" listed includes categories for scoring avg, FG%, 3FG avg, 3FG%, FT%, reb avg, assist avg, A/TO, block avg, and steal avg. It's the averages that are deemed significant for season stats, and how performance is measured. Sure raw total are listed for completeness and disclosure. But basketball isn't football with magic numbers for 1,000 yards or 3000/4000/5000 yards passing. My view with stats is that we make an editorial decision on what subset to present for reader convenience. The remaining pile of stats are available on ELs. As far as I can see, raw totals can be found on some WP bios for women's college basketball stat tables, and even then it's not consistent, as often the "NBA format" is used. Is that a fair assessment?—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Bagumba, I don't think I understand your point when you say: As far as I can see, raw totals can be found on some WP bios for women's college basketball stat tables, and even then it's not consistent, as often the "NBA format" is used. What is inconsistent about using a legend that provides an explanation of terms in the headings in the subsequent table? S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Sphilbrick, I wasn't referring to the legend, but rather to the table header and data displayed in the columns. Many (most?) WBB college stats on WP seem to use "NBA format", without raw totals for minuted and points. —Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Bagumba, I think that's because I probably created most of them. I have become dissatisfied with the format, and started this thread because I like to explore alternatives. That said, virtually all of the ones I've created a column for points but rarely if ever a column for minutes. I was interested in including minutes but I've backed off from that. I don't see that it's a very common presentation. I'm exploring another alternative but it will take me a couple days to put it together. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Reboot

It is clear that some participants firmly in favor of ratios. I think we can eat our cake and have it too.

I will include a toy example here:

Ratios

YEAR	GP	MPG	APG	BK
1995-96	34	18.56	1.15	0.59
1996-97	28	17.86	1.25	0.54

Totals

YEAR	GP	MIN	A	BK
1995-96	34	631	39	20
1996-97	28	500	35	15

An example with real data can be seen in User:Sphilbrick/Stats example

There are two differences compared to what I have been doing.

First, I haven't been a big fan of using the big box for a legend such as {{NBA player statistics legend}} but it was my impression that the header row with abbreviations such as {{NBA player statistics start}} would fall afoul of Accessibility concerns, but I recently learned, to my surprise

Abbreviations are exempt from these requirements, so the {{abbr}} template (a wrapper for the <abbr>...</abbr> element) may be used to indicate the long form of an abbreviation (including an acronym or initialism).

so I switched to using a single row header with abbreviations.

The second change is while I default to showing the ratios, I include a radio box below the table allowing the user to switch over to totals, or they can see both. This concept of having alternative presentations is well-established. See for example, the alternative map presentations info box of Alliance,_Ohio.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the legend, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Requirement_for_key?—Bagumba (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Regading the raw totals, I still don't see a compelling reason to include them—per the above collapsed discussion. I think external links to stats sites is sufficient for readers interested in that niche. On a technical note, those radio buttons don't work for me on mobile view. I'm also not sure if it meets MOS:ACCESS for screen readers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, I will have to look into why the radio buttons don't work here. I just viewed User:Sphilbrick/Stats example in mobile view and they work fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, It is puzzling why it doesn't work in the mobile view here. I believe I copied and pasted the contents from a discussion at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Ability_to_present_one_or_another_or_two_tables, where it works fine in mobile view. I don't think it's worth tracking down why it fails here, it it generally works. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The technical part was just a side issue. I generally don't think raw totals are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

BIG3 TfD

FYI

You are invited to discuss a BIG3 champions navbox at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_23#Template:BIG3_Champions.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Basketball recreated

Just want to let everyone know that Crossover1370 (talk · contribs) has recreated Portal:Basketball. Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basketball was pretty clear. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Basketball/Did you know (same AfD as for Portal:Basketball) has also been recreated, while Portal:Basketball/Interesting facts was created and redirected to Portal:Basketball/DYK. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the deletion arguments were "no one wants to maintain these," so if someone wants to pick this up, I have no problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the portal war days. I never had much of a problem with it before, so no issue for me.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Basketball Association vandalism

Hey, any way we can probably get some extra hands on guard at pages related to Chinese Basketball Association? I've noticed a lot of vandalism at team pages and the just finished season page this past week (some articles have already been protected for this reason), with it seeming to have stemmed from a large vandal history at Shanghai Sharks in the same timeframe. Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

An addendum to this: it seems this vandalism is stemming from a few external troll posts earlier in the month mentioning Ben Simmons and Kyle Kuzma, but I can't seem to locate the original posts. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help with the Basketball section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WNBA players descriptions/categorizations

So, I've come across some WNBA players whose lead sentence describes them as American-Turkish or whatever, and who are categorized as emigrants to Turkey or American expats in Turkey. I know that male basketball players who get released from the NBA at 25 or whatever might go to Italy and play basically their entire career there instead, maybe living there full time, and it would be reasonable to describe them that way as that's where they played the major portion of their career.

WNBA players play overseas during the WNBA off-season because they earn so little (until recently the median WNBA player made under $60K) that to support their families, they annually play a second season overseas. It's a side gig. (Hopefully the new CBA changes that.)

Yeah, some of them have to get second passports in order to play for whatever teams, but their primary career is in the WNBA. At any rate, I was told at BLPN that some wikiprojects have MOS on this, and I just wanted to check whether I needed to get some consensus here before I started changing these from things like "American-Turkish" to "American. She also holds a Turkish passport." or whatever seems appropriate for a particular article. —valereee (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I see no need for a change if they hold a dual passport. These individuals often play for the national teams of their adopted country, for instance Becky Hammon. Also, it is a rather biased view to consider their career outside of the WNBA some kind of a side gig when they often make much more money there than in the WNBA. Alvaldi (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  For comparison, Chris Kaman, Shawn Bradley, Jordan Clarkson and Andray Blatche are few of several current and former NBA players with American citizenship who became naturalized citizens of another country and have both nationalities listed in the lead sentence. Alvaldi (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, personally, I think it's a bit silly to describe Kaman as "German-American." He was born in Grand Rapids for heaven's sake, and he played for 13 years in the NBA but also in the 2008 Olympics for Germany and for which he had to get dual citizenship. IMO that doesn't make him German-American, and it feels kind of pointy to call him that. If he'd moved to Germany to play a career in Germany, that would be one thing.

  I'll do what we decide, but I just want guidance. To me the WNBA feels like a slightly different animal because so many of the players play off-season somewhere else. Sue Bird was described as American-Israeli, even though she apparently didn't play in international competition for Italy but needed an Israeli passport to play there? (Sorry for my relative ignorance here, I'm not at all a sporty type, just have recently become interested in the WNBA.) —valereee (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Also Shawn Bradley and Jordan Clarkson are a bit of a special case...Bradley was born in Germany to a German mother. Clarkson's mother is Filipinio-born. Blatche looks like same as for Kaman. He's not actually Filipino just because he has dual citizenship, which he got just to play there. I just feel like this feels pointy -- people called Hammon a traitor for playing for Russia. Maybe there's something left over from those kinds of feelings? —valereee (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Bradley was born to American parents in Germany but has an German grandmother according to this article. Regarding Hammon, whatever negative opinions some people might have had regarding her decision on gaining Russian citizenship should have no bearing on her article. Alvaldi (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Alvaldi, but that's the point. These aren't "adopted countries". The WNBA approved the new CBA partially because they're hoping with higher WNBA salaries, these women won't have to go play a second season somewhere else in order to support their families and will therefore avoid off-season injuries and be available for off-season promotion of the WNBA. Becky Hammon is a bit of a special case as her decision seems to have been primarily to play in the Olympics, but I still don't think that makes her American-Russian. I think she's an American who applied for dual citizenship so she could play in the Olympics, which of course was controversial at the time but doesn't make her an expat or emigrant. —valereee (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if something like "Sue Bird is an American-born professional basketball player who holds Israeli dual citizenship and has also played in Israel."? Rather than using a hyphen, which implies a different meaning? —valereee (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding playing somewhere else during a particular leagues offseason is not just found in women's basketball, the same can be found in men's professional basketball also. Regarding Bird, she is of Russian Jewish anchestry through her father according the the article and as far as I can see her Israeli citizenship has nothing to do about her basketball career as she has never played in or for Israel. Outside of the WNBA, she has played 10 years for Russian teams and as far as I know an Israeli citizenship doesn't help there. Alvaldi (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Per the source in the article, the Russian team used her Israeli citizenship as a loophole, since there was otherwise a quota of two Americans per team.[1] However, I don't see how that technicality warrants mentioning her dual citizenship in the lead. The body would be fine.—Bagumba (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  American-born players in the NBA regularly take off-season gigs while also under contract in the NBA? (Again, please excuse my ignorance; I only got interested in the WNBA because these women are awesome people, not because I know anything about basketball.) I figured the NBA would discourage it. That's one of the reasons the WNBA agreed to raise salaries: to discourage playing overseas off-season. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not in the NBA, unless they are a free agent. I can't speak for other leagues around the world.—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  It is not uncommon for professional players to jump straight to another league during other leagues off seasons. I've seen it in many of the European leagues and you can see it with foreign players in the Chinese Basketball Association who join other leagues, including the NBA, when the CBA's season ends. But I'm not sure any of this really matters in the discussion for the topic at hand. Alvaldi (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who's hyphenated for nationality (as opposed to MOS:ETHNICITY) should, at a minimum, be sourced that they hold dual citizenship. Sometimes editors just assume they are or don't understand the nuances of hyphenating. If they played on a different national team than their native country, I'd be inclined to have both in the lead sentence. Anything beyond that is a matter of consensus. NBA players get a lot of drive-by editors who add nationalities, sometimes unrelated to the person's notability; they are not always kept e.g. Kyrie Irving, Ben Simmons. I'm not sure if there is a legal definition of an expat. If there isn't, it's hard to argue how many months out of the year is needed to be considered an expat as opposed to someone temporarily working abroad.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

BIG3 Inclusion

Seeing as they are going on their 4th season I feel it's about time that BIG3 should have accomplishments recognized in info boxes. I understand that the rules are different from the FIBA ways but it's clear that they have formed a league that has reached another level then many expected and are the first major 3 on 3 league that gets national attention. Eerie Holiday (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that they just skipped a season (on top of previous concerns about the league’s stature) tells me we need to see more history here before it is recognized on par with established leagues. I’d like to see them make a comeback and continue to gain recognition before we start treating the league like more established 5-on-5 leagues. It is also a complicating factors that 95% of the players are actually retired NBA players officially Rikster2 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

—Disagree as well. Rikster2 elucidated my general feelings, but to add, this league is still merely a glorified old-timers league. A future discussion of the merits of infobox achievements can be had once the BIG3 reaches 5, 6, 7 or whatever) years. But right now it's not nearly on par with calling legitimate college and professional accomplishments. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It's more than just the number of years that they are around. It needs to get mainstream written press coverage to justify adding more WP:WEIGHT to its amount of text in bios and it mention in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Right now, it's kind of trivial. Catalyst30 (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

While we are at it, I have serious concerns about The Basketball League and the current American Basketball Association. In my opinion neither of these leagues receive enough coverage to make them meet WP:GNG. You can’t even find scores or stats online for them. At least the Big3 has a TV contract. Rikster2 (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is mainstream coverage outside of broadcasts, it's probably WP:UNDUE to mention in bios.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The BIG3 has aired on four of the biggest TV networks there is in sports and television FOX, FS1, CBS and CBS Sports Network. And still currently air on two and now signed a deal with FITE TV the leader in streaming sports / entertainment. I think those are things to take into consideration in seeing something is happening with the leagues credibility. They also get national coverage on all major sports outlets ESPN etc. And did to covid they missed a season and not the only major league to miss a season. Eerie Holiday (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to indicate to us that we should devote more coverage to this? Catalyst30 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think BIG3 accomplishments should be shown in info boxes. The league skipped a season due to COVID-19. The league is getting more and more attention everyday. You have coaches like Julius Erving, Gary Payton, and other NBA legends. Joe Johnson is tearing up the league right now bring more attraction to it. How much more real can it get?? Markwayne125467 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it's not real. It's an editorial decision to not put it in the infobox. You're free to add it into the prose, preferably cited with a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding teams for drafted players before contracts are signed

There is an ongoing dispute as to whether players drafted by NBA teams should have their draft team added to their infobox before they have signed a contract. I argue that we should wait to see if the player actually signs a contract with a team; in every past NBA draft, there have been between 2 and 5 players who have not signed contracts despite being drafted. If you would like to add to the discussion, please do so here.--User:Namiba 18:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Timeline on Canadian Elite Basketball League

Hello - There is a team timeline on Canadian Elite Basketball League that's somehow broken, and I can't see why it's displayed as it is....that is, it has no text displayed within it. An IP made what appears to be a valid edit on Feb 16 2021, but it seems to be the change that broke the formatting of the timeline. Can somebody please have a look and hopefully fix it? Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 15:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Blaixx made the repair. Thanxx Blaixx ! PKT(alk) 13:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Tournament matches template

See also: Template:2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) – Qualifiers matches

Hey everyone, As it happens, many match boxes of Template:Basketballbox collapsible are duplicated throughout the project, as many of them appear in at least 3 locations: The tournament season, home team and away team. This causes much repetitive work and can lead to having mismatching information on similar match boxes.

To solve this problem, I've created Template:2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) – Qualifiers matches for 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) § Qualifiers as a proof of concept. The Template is already transcluded to the groups stage first round page, as well as to every participating team page.

With This template, information of every match is maintained and updated in a single location and transcluded into all three. The benefits of using the template, besides savings of effort and code, are that it still allows for coloring of the match boxes for the winner and loser, as I've explained in the talk page of the template. Here is s simple demonstration with the match of Slovakia vs. Belgium, assuming for the this demonstration that Slovakia won the match.

Code & Result:

2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) § Group A

{{2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) – Qualifiers matches|Slovakia v Belgium}}

Slovakia v Belgium

25 November 2021 (2021-11-25)	Slovakia	57–83	Belgium	Levice
18:00	Scoring by quarter: 11–15, 24–21, 11–25, 11–22
	Pts: Brodziansky, Krajčovič 18 Rebs: Brodziansky 8 Asts: three players 3	Boxscore	Pts: Libert 17 Rebs: Mwema, Van Vliet 6 Asts: Obasohan 6	Arena: Športová hala Levice Attendance: 0 Referees: Yener Yılmaz (TUR), Carsten Straube (GER), Ventsislav Velikov (BUL)
Note:

Slovakia men's national basketball team § 2021

{{2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) – Qualifiers matches|Slovakia v Belgium|round=1|bg=#CCFFCC}}

Slovakia v Belgium

25 November 2021 (2021-11-25) 2023 FIBA World Cup qualifiers – 1st round	Slovakia	57–83	Belgium	Levice
18:00	Scoring by quarter: 11–15, 24–21, 11–25, 11–22
	Pts: Brodziansky, Krajčovič 18 Rebs: Brodziansky 8 Asts: three players 3	Boxscore	Pts: Libert 17 Rebs: Mwema, Van Vliet 6 Asts: Obasohan 6	Arena: Športová hala Levice Attendance: 0 Referees: Yener Yılmaz (TUR), Carsten Straube (GER), Ventsislav Velikov (BUL)
Note:

Belgium men's national basketball team § 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification

{{2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) – Qualifiers matches|Slovakia v Belgium|round=1|bg=#FFCCCC}}

Slovakia v Belgium

25 November 2021 (2021-11-25) 2023 FIBA World Cup qualifiers – 1st round	Slovakia	57–83	Belgium	Levice
18:00	Scoring by quarter: 11–15, 24–21, 11–25, 11–22
	Pts: Brodziansky, Krajčovič 18 Rebs: Brodziansky 8 Asts: three players 3	Boxscore	Pts: Libert 17 Rebs: Mwema, Van Vliet 6 Asts: Obasohan 6	Arena: Športová hala Levice Attendance: 0 Referees: Yener Yılmaz (TUR), Carsten Straube (GER), Ventsislav Velikov (BUL)
Note:

Enjoy. It will save a lot of effort in the future. Deancarmeli (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

NBA seasons: team list?

The articles on NBA seasons contain no section with an explicit list of the competing teams (with wikilinks to their seasons' articles, I'd expect). That role is filled by the section reporting the results for the regular season, which is counterintuitive.

By the way, the name of that section is not uniform throughout all articles: seasons up to 2009-10 have it named "Standings" (which is ambiguous at best), the most recent ones have a more explicit "Regular season" section. Should we apply a standard form to all of them? --176.247.236.239 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Please take this up at WT:NBA. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketball players with dual citizenship

Instead of the typical dual citizenship (Mexican-American), why do infoboxes for basketball players with multiple citizenship use slashes / like "Mexican / American"? --62.165.249.184 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Mexican-American" (for example) also means an American person of Mexican descent who may have no Mexican citizenship. The slash is much less ambiguous. Rikster2 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

Do all North American amateur leagues (other than NCAA) use IAABO rules? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What's IAABO, and what's your definition of "North American amateur leagues"? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

International Association of Accepted Basketball Officials. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't referees follow the rules of whatever leagues they are officiating at? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Team subsection in a player's page

Are there any hard rules or policy if a team subsection gets to be made in a player's article. I'm under the impression that usually we only make team subsection if a player actually plays competitive games for said team because usually there isn't much to be said regarding a player's stay in a team they did not play with. (e.g. "John Doe joined the Los Angeles Lakers in 2018. He later joined Golden State in 2019 where he made his NBA debut and later became the team's season MVP for that season" would be under a subsection dedicated to "Golden State Warriors" only).

However in Kai Sotto's case, he joined the NBA G League Ignite but did not play a single competitive game with the team and later went on to play in Australia with the Adelaide 36ers. But I believe that a separate section for Ignite is warranted because...

• Sotto joining Ignite is at least viewed by the Philippine national media to be a key development in Sotto's career.
• Ignite is not meant to be a competitive team and is not part of the G League structure. They just got the chance to play in the 2020 season due to regular teams forgoing due to COVID.
• It would be awkward to have a supposed section for the Adelaide 36ers to have it's first half dedicated to Sotto's stay in a developmental team.

Mandomanny313 seems to insists that a subsection should not be created for a team a player didn't play a game in a regular season at all.

Any feedback on what should be proper approach to present Sotto's stay with IgniteHariboneagle927 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

General rule has been to create one only if a player appears in games for the team. No idea if there was ever a consensus discussion about that though. As an aside, one of my pet peeves are people putting subsections when only a sentence or two are written about the stint, that isn’t enough prose to warrant a subsection in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think for Kai Sotto's case, his stay with Ignite. Is there enough prose for a subsection?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Result editing

Just to let the project know, editing the formatting of the results on articles such as the national team articles like Great Britain men's national basketball team are getting locked behind templates. Appears to be a WP:SUBSTITUTE violation as far as I am aware. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is known and was previously published. See §Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Archive 17 Tournament matches template. As for WP:SUBSTITUTE, I'll point you to WP:JUSTAPOLICY that states "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" as an argument to avoid in a discussion. please, elaborate. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So you implemented all of that with no comment or consensus from anyone, dam that's bad. I wouldn't be surprised if those templates get deleted. You really do seem to run a dangerous line. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, there was no opposition, the case for this format was clearly made, the templates were transcluded to every relevant article and editors seems to be fine with them – keeping more pages updated with less edits. I'm having some problem seeing your issue, and don't think your vague threat is in place. Deancarmeli (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:INFONAT

@Bagumba:, @Rikster2:, @Sabbatino: Hey guys. What are your thoughts about this user going through infoboxes and making mass changes citing WP:INFONAT. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I see Bagumba asked the user to stop. I think consensus definitely needs to be reached here. As you said Bagumba, INFONAT does not say that the country must be included in the birthplace. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was discussing with Thrakkx on their talk page, where they cited WP:INFONAT. However, that only says not to list a country redundantly in both the birthplace and nationality fields. It does not mandate that the country must be in birthplace instead of nationality, the longstanding convention for basketball infoboxes. I have asked that they stop the mass changes and establish consensus for their desired style.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I read the discussion on this topic at Template talk:Infobox basketball biography, and I’m here to point out some issues.

First, WP:INFONAT states that the nationality parameter of infoboxes should not be used when it can be obviously inferred by the person’s country of birth. This is community-wide consensus, which is important to mention, and seemingly everywhere outside of sports biographies, it is universally followed. Look at any high-profile musician, politician, scientist, etc. None will list the nationality (unless 1) the situation is not simple, such as dual citizenship, etc. or 2) someone erroneously added the nationality in cases where it should have been omitted)

The discussion at the basketball infobox template focused on the excessive listing of a person’s nationality: How many different times and how many different ways do we have to bombard the reader with the fact that the subject athlete is American? So, there was local consensus to not list the country of birth when the nationality suffices. Problem is that this consensus was flawed from the start, because it rests on the fact that the nationality field should be populated, which for most cases it should not be. Additionally, per WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The wider-scale consensus is not to list the nationality wherever possible (INFONAT).

So, surely you all would agree that for non-American players, for example Karam Mashour, I was right to remove his nationality. He is Israeli and born in Israel. We are bombarding the reader of his nationality. Additionally your local consensus, which stipulates that his country of birth should be removed from birth_place, was not being followed anyway, because it lists Nazareth, Israel. For American players, you all may have a different opinion on including “US”, but at the end of the day, the nationalities have to go. You can choose whether to include “US”. Thrakkx (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

First off, stop being an ass and hold off continuing to make these edits while clearly there is a discussion going on and folks have disagreed with your changes. Second, the nationality field for some athletes has a purpose as these athletes compete for their countries and more frequently become naturalized or dial citizens for this reason. Third, none of that guideline COMPELS the action you are taking, so your hardline stance that a community’s ability to drive consistency aren’t valid. Rikster2 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

INFONAT accounts for complex situations involving nationality. If it is not immediately apparent by the country of birth, list it (or alternatively citizenship). Look at John Oliver as an example. Also, it makes no sense to argue that a particular guideline doesn't compel anyone to conform articles to it. What was the point of writing the guideline then? And you are right, the problem here is consistency, which is why sports biographies should respect INFONAT like every other biography on the site. Otherwise you'll have to write a comment attempting to defend this consensus, like the one that appears in Kobe Bryant's article, every single time an article attracts the attention of the wider community. Thrakkx (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion - if this is going to be a big production then my suggestion is just remove nationality field from the infobox. I think it adds value, but if it’s going to cause consternation from otherwise uninterested editors then it’s not worth it. It’s in the lead sentence of the article anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  To date, the "big production" is one person's persistent campaign among reverts by multiple editors. The onus is on them to establish support for their interpretation. INFONAT doesn't seem to say what they think it does.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  You can try to override community-wide consensus if you like, but the onus is on you to convince the wider community that INFONAT doesn't apply to basketball biographies. CONLEVEL does literally list this situation as an example: For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Thrakkx (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  You and what army is pushing for this mass across-the-board change? It is literally YOU vs the basketball community. Why live and die by a guideline that a particular project disagrees with. I would never start going through a bunch of articles of which I do not regularly edit (from say another sport or industry) and start making mass changes, guidelines or no guidelines. You must have expected regular editors of that project to resist? I don't care what INFONAT says – if you can't establish consensus here, I won't be aligning. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  @DaHuzyBru: your two cents on the matter is exactly the reason why there is an ArbCom case associated with CONLEVEL. It’s not me vs you, it’s you vs a well-established, community-wide consensus. Other projects don’t have an issue with minimizing the use of nationalities in infoboxes, and if they do, they respect the greater consensus on the matter, so. Thrakkx (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Except that you interpretation of INFONAT does not equal community consensus. I, and others, don’t read that guideline and get anywhere near the same rigid meaning that you get. That’s why we talk about these things. Rikster2 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Paige Bueckers FAC

I have nominated Paige Bueckers for featured article consideration, and would appreciate any comments at the FAC page. Sportzeditz (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Basketball and Media executive Zack Weiner up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Weiner. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dandenong Rangers or Southside Flyers

While reading about Alison Downie, I came to the page Dandenong Rangers, which seems to have been rebranded to the Southside Flyers. I was wondering if this shouldn't be merged to one page as it is the same team and the Flyers seem to consider Rangers' history as their own? --SuperJew (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cliff Clinkscales

I have nominated Cliff Clinkscales for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing I noticed was the article was not up to date. Clinkscales last played in 2020 and his former team has folded. He was announced as an assistant coach for the KW Titans on Christmas Eve. I updated all this but you may want to copyedit what I wrote. Rikster2 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC to abolish NHOOPS

There is currently pending at RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS a proposal to eliminate NSPORTS, including WP:NHOOPS. Feel free to weigh in there if you have thoughts on the issue. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NBASKETBALL) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT (and no other SNG) providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NBASKETBALL] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." The new proposal is targeted solely at NSPORTS and would not impose similar changes on SNGs for academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)