Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

NBA draft eligibility

Is a player who gets kicked off of an NCAA team after his junior year, gets drafted by the NBADL, and plays a year in the NBADL eligible for the draft. I am unsure whether to undo this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tony - I can't tell which edit you are talking about - can you be more specific? Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think he'd be eligible. Past players have been taken in the NBA Draft after already playing in the D-League; Mike Taylor would be a similar case. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That said, I'm not sure what year (if any) we should be putting in that infobox. It's possible that he will be drafted in 2013, but I don't think there's anything that would prevent an NBA team from calling him up right now. Zagalejo^^^ 06:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Player must be in a draft before signing with NBA. I've updated Eligibility for the NBA Draft.—Bagumba (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
You put something in the WP:LEAD that is not in the main body of the article. It is still confusing to me. Was he eligible for the 2012 draft? Can you clarify what you put in the LEAD by expanding on the main body?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to expand or improve it, they are more than welcome. Note that WP:MOSINTRO say "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text". Not saying it shouldn't, but it's my compromise for now between not doing anything regarding the original question and writing an FA article.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Since you added a citation, people can dig to figure things out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
However, looking at that citation, I think 2013 is his NBA draft class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this, and I think it might be useful to consider the case of Latavious Williams. He entered the D-League straight out of high school, and was not eligible to be called up: [1]. I haven't seen anything that explains Rice's situation specifically, but I was wrong to assume that anyone in the D-League could be called up to the NBA. Zagalejo^^^ 01:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on what I see in the citation at Eligibility for the NBA Draft that User:Bagumba, Rice is ineligible to play for an NBA team until he has declared himself eligible for a draft or he becomes automatically eligible for a draft 4 years after his high school graduation year. I do not believe he declared himself eligible for last years draft. Thus, he will be eligible next year (4 years after his HS grad year). Once he has been eligible for one draft, he can play in the NBA. As I understand it upon being released from GA Tech his options were 1.) Declare for the 2012 draft, 2.) play non-DI college ball in 2012-13 and declare for 2013 draft, 3.) play non-NBA pro ball in 2012-13 and declare for 2013 draft and 4.) sit out one year and play DI 2013-14 and enter 2014 draft. He seems to have chosen 3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RFA notice

Consistent with a centralized discussion, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(Note: Some intervening revisions have been deleted as an unavoidable side effect to supress the IP Bagumba has been editing from accidentally; only the actual diffs have been made inaccessible, the final result of the edits are still there). — Coren (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

April 3, 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game DYK drive

I would like to call everyone's attention to the fact that the April 3, 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game rosters were announced. I would like to encourage the creation of the 24 bio articles for this game. I have created a section at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Special_occasion_holding_area for the 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. This is to encourage you to create WP:DYK eligible articles for all the players who do not have articles. I will attend the game and intend to get pictures of all the guys. So I should be able to get you an image for an article if you create one. We could get them all on the main page on April 3 if we create 1500 character articles for each guy. I would also like to state that I will not be creating any additional articles other than for the game itself because I feel I have too many young guys to follow already, but about 20 really good player need articles and we have a chance to get them all exposure on April 3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are all the participants notable, though? Is Kennedy Meeks notable, for example? Rikster2 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Having created Jabari Parker and expansive high school sections for many athletes, I suggest that you scour ESPN, USA Today, SLAM Magazine and Dime Magazine for articles on these guys. Also, guys from a lot of cities will be easy to expand through local papers like the Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, and Baltimore Sun that cover high school sports well if they live in big cities. In addition, several big cities have ESPN portals for high school sports. I would bet most of these guys have sufficient content for an article--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Parker and Wiggins probably have the most content, but most of these guys should have 1500 characters of content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask if the two highest profile players in the class were notable - I asked if they all were notable. Is Kennedy Meeks notable? He's a nice recruit but it doesn't feel like he gets enough non-routine coverage to meet GNG. But I haven't researched it. For example, Rasheed Sulaimon failed an AfD as a Duke recruit, but ultimately was created once he'd received more coverage as a collegian. Rikster2 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Since Kennedy Meeks is only 41 on the ESPN 100, he is going to likely have among the least content. If you just source the fact that he is McD A-A and Jordan Brand Classic selectee sufficient to declare him notable. Even so here is some starter content for him
SLAM Magazine
Dime Mag
The key for Meeks to getting to 1500 chars would be to find his local papers to augment his minimal national content. However, several of the top 20 guys should be creatable. Maybe only half of the current redlinks will be easy to do, but all of them are huge stars locally, so if you can augment JBC, McD, and Nike Hoops Summit selections with some local content, you could do any of them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait here are some features on Meeks:
ESPN feature
ESPN archive of blog articles
local coverage with his family
a mention
similar article
So yes even Kennedy Meeks is quite doable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In most cases one of the keys to a good article (or section) on a high school career is finding his ESPN blog. Generally, search "First Last" ESPN City (E.g. "Kennedy Meeks" ESPN Charlotte) for big cities. You can find blogs like these Meeks, Matt Jones, Jabari Parker. Then you have to click on each individual article in the blog to get the right link for an inline citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"If you just source the fact that he is McD A-A and Jordan Brand Classic selectee sufficient to declare him notable." There is no consensus at WP:NSPORTS that supports this. They would need to meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you could pass GNG from the above sources. He is one of the harder ones though. There are a lot of easier redlinks than him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year article effort - Update on Progress

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress in the last several months, and the following conference POY templates are complete: American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League and the WAC.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

Please take a look at the lists and feel free to create articles on any. Several reigning CPOYs are missing articles, with good biographical information readily available. We're making progress!

2- or 3-time CPOYs:

Southwest

Rikster2 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FA reviewers

What is going on with this project? It is quite active, but there have been no WP:CBBALL articles whose notability is closely associated with the project promoted to WP:FA since Magic Johnson on 2009-04-18. Although Jackie Robinson, Otto Graham and John Sherman Cooper have passed in the last 4 years, none of these subjects is considered notable for college basketball. Only Graham even mentions the word basketball in the WP:LEAD, just stating that he went to college on basketball scholarship. It seems pretty likely that the project is going to go 4 years without an FA. I am unable to get almost any feedback at WP:FAC, despite the project's current active state.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because a WikiProject has a number of dedicated editors does not mean those editors are ones who want to devote the necessary time and energy into making FAs. There are so many college basketball articles needing creation and/or expansion that those are taking priority. The Baseball WikiProject, for example, not only has a ton of active editors, but many of them love collaborating on FAs. We're a more laid-back bunch at WP:CBB :) Jrcla2 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I am a very active project participant, I just don't have any interest in FAs, GAs and the like. Nothing personal, I just don't find that stuff at all interesting. Rikster2 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 now open. Please consider reviewing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Split University of North Dakota basketball?

Should the University of North Dakota basketball page be split into a men's and women's pages? I know they officially don't have a nickname until 2015, but should the pages be split now and moved once a nickname is chosen? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
For sure. A split is necessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please weigh in on newly created basketball player category structure

FYI

I have started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#New Category - is this a precedent we want? regarding the newly created category Category:Basketball players from Portland, Oregon and trying to ensure we have a long term view of what the basketball player category structure should look like. Rikster2 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Video for WP

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Video_possibilities if you have thoughts on my producing videos to illustrate WP basketball articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Season Champions

Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Season Champions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

College Basketball All-America Team

Would anyone object if I move the NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans article to College Basketball All-America Team? My logic is that the NCAA does not name All-Americans to All-America teams; independent media organization do, and the current article title is misleading. Yes, I know that the NCAA does publish a list of "consensus" All-Americans, but that is derived from the lists compiled by the media organizations. Reactions? I'm asking here on the WP:CBB talk page first, before proposing the move on the article talk page, because this page gets more traffic from WP:CBB regulars. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This article only includes participants at the NCAA level. There are several other levels of college basketball not included. Unless you want to broaden the article, it should stay put.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Tony, I don't understand your point. Unless you're talking about the relatively obscure NAIA, whose members are very small colleges, all American college basketball players compete at the "NCAA level" -- Division I, Division II or Division III. If you're talking about Division II and III, yes, the article probably should include some mention of them, since the NCAA does recognize consensus All-Americans at the Division II and III levels. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Aren't there colleges in other countries that have intercollegiate basketball competition?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer changing it to "NCAA Division I" and leaving the content as is. Rikster2 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rikster2. I may be able to be convinced to include "Division I" in the title, but to move it to "College basketball" would be more misleading. The Philippines has a popular college basketball set-up, for instance, which is why {{Men's college basketball award navbox}} and {{Women's college basketball award navbox}} have "(United States)" in their navbox title. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
True, several Filipino universities do participate in intercollegiate sports, including basketball, among other others. But do Filipino college basketball players receive "All-American" honors? As far as I know, only athletes participating in American college sports receive All-American honors. I would think the inclusion of "All-American" in the article title provides sufficient clarity on this point to distinguish American college basketball players from college basketball players in other countries. Also, were you aware that the governing body for Filipino college sports is also called the "National Collegiate Athletic Association?" As a result, the present use of "NCAA" in the article title is simultaneously both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, given the current article content.
If we want to change the article title to include "NCAA Division I"(a unique identifier) and tweak the content to emphasize Division I All-Americans, I believe that would be appropriate and would resolve these issues.
Guys, I really don't want to "wikilawyer" this, but I do believe that the present article title, which includes "NCAA," is problematic. I raised the issue here because I expect that knowledgeable college basketball editors would also see the problems, too, rather than boldly moving the article, or raising the issue on the article talk page with a more limited audience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The content already emphasizes D1 NCAA All-Americans. I just don't see the problem with the way it is. Personally, I think you might be over thinking this. Rikster2 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Rikster. I really hate belaboring this, but I'm going to take one last stab at explaining my concerns:
1. There is no such thing as an "NCAA Men's Basketball All-American." The NCAA does not publish independently compiled lists of All-America teams; the NCAA does, however, recognize "consensus All-Americans" based on the All-America teams published by various media organizations and other selectors. The current article title implies that the NCAA selects an All-American team; it does not.
2. It is not necessary to include the word NCAA for the purpose of disambiguating U.S. college basketball players from those of other countries. Yes, other countries have universities and colleges that sponsor intercollegiate basketball teams. No, none of those non-American college basketball players are awarded "All-American" honors. The phrase "All-American" serves to disambiguate U.S. college basketball players from those of all other countries.
3. The article title is improperly capitalized. Even accepting the current phrasing, "men's basketball" is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized per MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT.
4. Whether we include "Division I" depends on whether we retain the acronym "NCAA" in the title. I prefer that we drop "NCAA" for the reasons above. If we are going to keep "NCAA" in the title, then we probably should make clear that we are only talking about NCAA Division I athletes. However, there is a potential problem with that, too: the NCAA has only distinguished between major and minor college sports programs since the 1950s, and has only used the "Division I" terminology since the 1960s. The NCAA has retroactively recognized consensus All-Americans back to 1905. The article title should fairly represent the article content. So, do we want the article content to discuss all men's college basketball All-Americans, or major college men's basketball All-Americans, or only Division I men's basketball All-Americans, or only men's basketball consensus All-Americans?
If no one else sees these issues with the current article title, I'm just going to leave it alone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever, I'm kind of Wiki'd out on this kind of stuff. Rikster2 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jarrod Polson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jarrod Polson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarrod Polson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Southeastern Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year navbox

Template:Southeastern Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

NCAA seeding in team infoboxes

I don't agree with region and seed being added to team season infoboxes as shown here. I feel that it is detailed information that is better left for the remainder of the article, and it does not contribute to the overall picture of a team season. Thoughts? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the referenced material on the same basis. Information regarding the seedings can be found in the schedule table. AP/Coaches rankings, however, are important enough for our purposes to be included in the infobox. Ben S. Henderson (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

13-team Bracket

So, Ole Miss has banned themselves from the 2013 SEC Women's Basketball Tournament. So, that would make a 13-team bracket, but such a template does not exist, resulting in this. The &nbsp feature doesn't work, either, to cancel out the table. Any suggestions? Ben S. Henderson (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1907–08 IAAUS men's basketball season listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1907–08 IAAUS men's basketball season. Since you had some involvement with the 1907–08 IAAUS men's basketball season redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). I also added 1921–22 NCAA men's basketball season in the same nomination. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding linked NBA seasons in basketball player infoboxes

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for a basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the NBA player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Marshall Plumlee

Marshall Plumlee has been AfD'd. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

NCAA regional tournament teams

Do they have Regional tournament teams? I am looking for the south region.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Russ Smith (basketball)‎

Russ Smith (basketball)‎ was made afew days ago can anyone check it for errors or problems? I have updated it alot. It needs a picture but I am not sure if we can use pictures from flickr anymore cause it seems they have changed the way pictures can be used there. After that it would be a good DYK nomination with what him and Louisville Cardinals have been doing on the court.Theworm777 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Photos must be released by CC or public domain when uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia by the rights holder (which means the photo's author). See WP:IUP and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing CrazyPaco (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Amir Garrett

Hi. I just created an article on Amir Garrett, and since I'm much more familiar with the baseball side of things rather than the college basketball angle, I was hoping an editor with more college basketball experience could help me to improve this page. Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? It's ready to go for a DYK, but I could use a good hook and figure someone here might be able to help me find a good one. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

NCAA Final Four All-Tournament Teams

I found a good ref for all NCAA Final Four All-Tournament Teams and the Final Four most outstanding players for all tournaments. at http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/04/09/ncaa-all-tournament-teams/ Lots of pages this info could be added to. Theworm777 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations for college names in infoboxes

Hello - Want to try and get consensus on how several university names appear on basketball player infoboxes in the "college" field - please (please) comment so we can get an actual consensus around this. We already use abbreviations consistently for UCLA, UTEP and UNLV. There are several that I don't have a strong opinion on, but do have a strong opinion that they should be consistent. There are a few that I do not believe we should use abbreviations for.

Those for which I could go either way but would like to reach consensus:

  • "Brigham Young" or "BYU"
  • "Texas Christian" or "TCU"
  • "Louisiana State" or "LSU"
  • "Southern California" or "USC"
  • "Massachusetts" or "UMass"
  • "Connecticut" or "UConn"
  • "Virginia Commonwealth" or "VCU"
  • "Southern Methodist" or "SMU"
  • "Alabama–Birmingham or "UAB"

Others for which the same principle applies, but I wonder if they abbreviation is universally known enough:

  • "Western Kentucky" or "WKU"
  • "Illinois–Chicago" or "UIC"
  • "Missouri–Kansas City or "UMKC"
  • "Central Florida" or "UCF"
  • "Texas–San Antonio" or "UTSA"

The pros of using the abbreviations are that the school athletic programs in many cases self-identify by them, it would save space, and in some cases it would match the athletic program articles (like in BYU's case). On the con side, in some cases teh abbreviations may not fully be in the lexicon (I still have to think about what UMKC or WKU stands for) - especially when international edirtors work on player articles, it doesn't match the way most player registers list schools (see Jimmer Fredette's Kings profile, for example), and it does seem like college football take a more formal view of how they list schools than we do, which creates a bit of inconsistency of how athlete articles look. What are your opinions? I will go with any consensus, but my opinion is as follows:

Rikster2, you bring up a good point about schools like UCF and WKU. Can you see clearly in the edit history of WKU Hilltoppers and Lady Toppers that the move from Western Kentucky to WKU was made based on an internal decree and not based on common usage on media. Bagumba is that right there should be a discussion or simply bold, but comprehensive, move on the entire tree of articles, categories, and structure references in things like infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Use common name I see no consistent way to do anything else.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Common name. The abbreviations are generally known anyway, and one click of the button on the school link will let the reader know if they have any confusion. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have a problem using the so-called "common name" to refer to a given university or college's athletic teams, especially in space-limited player infoboxes. However, we also need to distinguish between the universities and the teams. Every Wikipedia article about a university or college uses that institution's full name in the article title, not an initialism (e.g. "LSU") or other abbreviated nickname (i.e. "Ole Miss"). Per MOS:ABBR, every initialism, acronym or other abbreviation should be introduced by spelling out the full term on its first use in an article, with the abbreviation defined in a parenthetical, as in "Bob Jones is an American professional basketball player for the Houston Rockets of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played college basketball for Louisiana State University (LSU), and was recognized as a consensus All-American." Please remember that Wikipedia is not written for Americans, and common American university initialisms will typically not be understood by non-Americans and even many Americans who are not college sports fans. Please do them the kindness of introducing such abbreviations in article text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Full college name should always be used. As Dirtlawyer1 stated, this site is viewed world-wide; and even within the U.S. different regions will think of one school before the other. I grew up in Southeastern Conference states so when I hear "USC" I think of South Carolina not Southern California; when I was in college we had football games against "LSU" as in Livingston State University, now West Alabama, not Louisiana State University; also on ESPN bottom line, when I see "DELST" my immediate thought is Delta State in Mississippi not Delaware State. The number of schools that use the same abbreviations must be considered. I see "ASU" is not on the list but there are currently nine ASU's, in NCAA D-I and NCAA D-II, with one pair soon to be in the same conference and another pair in the same state. Using abbreviations will only confuse or give people wrong information based on where they live or how they think. Schools with absolute unique abbreviations should also be spelled out to keep consistent.Msjraz64 (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

CfD on college sports venues

See discussion here - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 5#Category:US college sports venues. Current noms are for baseball, but likely to be expanded to other college sports as well. Billcasey905 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

College names in athletes' infoboxes

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#College_names_in_athletes.27_infoboxes. —Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame inductees

A recent category for discussion resulted in, IMO, the surprising deletion of Category:National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame inductees. The cfd was not brought to the attention of Talk:National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame, Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball, Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball, nor even Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports. I personally believe the cfd was not properly announced, per cfd instructions to place "a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article" nor relevant Wikiprojects. Further I disagree with the interpretation of consensus and to reasoning to close the discussion by User:BrownHairedGirl. Any interest in bringing this to Wikipedia:Deletion review? CrazyPaco (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I support a DRV. Do we know who created the category?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Ryan2845, not an especially active editor, and apparently, his talk page seems to be the only notification of the cfd given. I didn't even know it was up for cfd until I saw it deleted from a couple of articles I watch. I'm going to be traveling so I may not be able to directly engage in this over the next several days. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It is on the auto-generated watchlist towards the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball, which is where I discovered it (and ultimately voted to keep]. Do others wait for a talk page notification as opposed to monitoring the list? One might argue the close was a WP:SUPERVOTE, but I've seen where other admins might say it's within the closer's discretion. Procedurally, there is no process in place to put a notification in the eponymous article as well; notifying the category and creator is the bare minimum. Also, WP:Basketball banner was not on the talk page, so no auto notification was done for that project. I would suggest that others chime in at WP:OC#AWARD, where there is a discussion, as this was the reason cited for the delete.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can tell you that I rely on talk page notifications on my watch list. I generally assume things of import would be brought to their respective communities. For sure, it was a lapse not having the CBB banner on the category's talk page. IMO, and I'm assuming here, but I chalk this up to the closer of the cfd not be familiar with the topic of college basketball. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow. That looks like an amazingly poor CFD decision, and I am surprised that it came from Brown Haired Girl. I would support and participate in a DRV. Based on the number of sports-related HOF and other award categories, it would appear that WP:OC#AWARD is the exception, not the rule. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
@CrazyPaco:For the record, the CBB banner was on the talk page, and the CFD is still visible (as of this writing) at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball. If anyone intends to pursue this, I would suggest to kindly ask Brown Haired Girl to consider relisting, add her own !vote, and refer her to this discussion as evidence that others might want the opportunity to join the discussion once it is relisted.—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on a deadline today. Today is the 30th day of my copyright application (which is open for 30 days). Just finished all my filing and such. I will contact BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) as a first step to WP:DRV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to follow along at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Potential_DRV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to TonyTheTiger and Bagumba for their comments in the discussion on my talk page. So far, I am not persuaded that I should revise the closure of reopen the CFD, but I will of course consider any further points anyone wants to raise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Delrevxfd}}

Deletion overturned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Adolph Rupp Trophy

Has the Adolph Rupp Trophy been discontinued?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking it is discontinued because there should have been an announcement by now. Rikster2 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I was convinced the Kay Yow Award for the women was discontinued because there was a 1+ year period where no announcement was made, but then CollegeInsider revamped their awards and it came back. The only award right now I'm truly convinced has been discontinued is Chip Hilton Player of the Year Award. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Harrison Barnes' college stats

What are Harrison Barnes' correct college stats? ESPN [2] has slightly different numbers from sports-reference [3], and neither of those sources exactly matches what we've had in the article. For the time being, I removed the college stats table from the article. Zagalejo^^^ 01:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I corrected it to the stats from the UNC site, which were correct. I think these were one of the edits you reverted. Wikipedia stupidly continues to blacklist statsheet, which is relible. espn sucks for college stats. Rikster2 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, statsheet also diverges slightly from UNC on freshman fg%. I guess I'll be content with UNC's own data. I added a UNC media guide link for his career stats. Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1

Emboldened by my success with Juwan Howard, which will be tomorrow's WP:TFA, I have nominated Tommy Amaker at WP:FAC. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Juwan Howard WP:TFA

Juwan Howard is on the main page for WP:TFA right now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Template request for NBA Draft Combine

I forgot to make sure that no one knows about the template I am requesting. Comment at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Template_request_for_NBA_Draft_Combine if I should not be making this request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pending TfD re college basketball team infoboxes

Greetings, all. There is a pending Templates for Discussion thread here that may be of interest to members of the college basketball project. Specifically, it proposes the merge of the infobox templates for men's and women's college basketball teams. I believe we should support this as a reasonable and logical consolidation of unnecessary duplicates. Please participate in the TfD discussion and voice your opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Softball project notice

Hello, everyone. I've recently started the College softball task force, working to help expand Wikipedia's college softball coverage. I thought I'd post a notice around at some of the other college sports projects to give everyone a heads up. If you have an interest in the sport, please consider visiting the project. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wooden Legacy

Please discuss at Talk:John R. Wooden Classic what to do now that John R. Wooden Classic has combined with the Anaheim Classic to form the tournament Wooden Legacy.—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've had the page List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NBA Draft nominated for FL for over two months now and the review needs some more input. I was just curious if some of you with spare time could check out the page and post corrections you spot or if you think the page is fine, then post support on the review. All help is appreciated. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 05:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ACC Player of the Year

After naming a single conference player of the year since 1954 (chosen by the ACC media), this past season they also named Coaches' awards (see this link). As luck would have it, they chose a different winner (Shane Larkin) than the media (Erick Green). I am assuming that we need to adjust the Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year article and corresonding template, as we do with the SEC, Big Ten, and other conferences that name coaches' and media awards? I loathe to do it because I hate competing awards, but it does seem official. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Damn, another conference with competing POY selectors? I hate these dual-CPOY selections, they're ridiculous. To further your point on this seeming legit: [4], [5], [6]. I'll get to adding this to the article today. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Definitely legit and if the ACC site weren't down for its revamp (expansion just became official) you'd see the official press release. I saw it during the season, I just didn't have the stomach to do anything about it. Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought you might get a kick out of this...

http://memegenerator.co/Good-Guy-Wikipedia-Editor. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Like. :) Zagalejo^^^ 06:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Updates to Richard Stengel

Hello, I'm looking for help with some (fairly minor) update requests for the article about Richard Stengel, the editor of Time magazine—and a member of the 1975 NIT champion Princeton Tigers. The current article is not bad, but can be updated with reliable sources to include more recent information. Because I have prepared these updates on Mr. Stengel's behalf, I'd like to find one or more editors to review these changes and make the changes, if they agree. Please see the full explanation on the article's Talk page if you're interested in helping. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

U16, U17, U18, U19, WUG medalboxes in infoboxes

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#U16.2C_U17.2C_U18.2C_U19.2C_WUG_medalboxes_in_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

KU Men's Basketball Roster 2013-14

Updates need to be made to the Wiki KU Men's Basketball Roster 2013-14. All of the jersey numbers have been assigned. Results are listed below:

0 Frank Mason 1 Wayne Seldon 3 Andrew White III 4 Justin Wesley 5 Evan Manning 10 Naadir Tharpe 11 Tyler Self 14 Brannen Greene 15 Christian Garrett 20 Niko Roberts 21 Joel Embiid 22 Andrew Wiggins 23 Conner Frankamp 25 Tarik Black 31 Jamari Traylor 33 Landen Lucas 34 Perry Ellis 42 Hunter Mickelson

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KUBball Rocks (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Be bold and try it yourself. That's why Wikipedia is open to anyone editing. We will get around to it eventually if you don't do it, but give it a shot. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I did try it myself. Someone has a lock on the page. I have requested changes via the recommended edits route. Thanks! Someone recently locked it. I made changes to it with no sign-in back in May. I was not happy when the page became locked. Sad that someone has to feel THAT much power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KUBball Rocks (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

New Big East article title

When the "new" Big East Conference started at the beginning of the month, the article was moved from "Big East Conference (2013) to "Big East Conference (2013–present)" in part because the old conference has the title "Big East Conference (1979–2013)." But almost immediately it was suggested by various editors that we loose the dates for the current conference, and instead have a hatnote with info on the old conference. Since the article at "Big East Conference" became a disambiguation page earlier this year, we requested an admin make the move. However, we haven't had much discussion under the "official" move discussion thread, so the request has entered the backlog at WP:REQMOVE. So if you have opinions about this, now's the time to opine! Thanks-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I vote for the current Big East to be Big East Conference with a hatnote to the original. The current version is the one that will be used the most going forward and the other is a historical league now. Rikster2 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool, that's what I figure. If you can, add that support to the section, so admins know they can close it with community support.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

John Beilein coaching record content deletion reversion war

At John Beilein someone wants to remove some content. Can I get a second opinion on this coaching record content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the utility in having a 'Division I totals' row. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I get it for a guy like Beilein who spent considerable time at the JC/small college ranks. He has an amazing total win count, but the D1 info allows you to compare him to Coach K, Boeheim, etc. Maybe the coach record table isn't the right place to put it, though. Rikster2 (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I can see it either way, so I'm neutral as to what the final outcome of this is. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Grand Canyon Antelopes coaches

I can't find GCU's media guide to verify whether the tenures on the fairly new {{Grand Canyon Antelopes men's basketball coach navbox}} accurately represent the years they've all coached. I happened to find one discrepancy between what's on this navbox versus what is in a coach's biography on Wikipedia, and now I'm not sure which is correct. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I did find this Tucson Citizen article which has a list of coaches up to Pennell's hiring: [7] Where was the discrepancy? Zagalejo^^^ 00:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's with Ben Lindsey. On his article it says he coached from 1965–1982, but on the navbox it says he coached from 1965–1981. Not sure which is right. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

CBB templates - canonical?

I notice that the CBB templates are used on many coaches pages, but rarely on team pages.

I just obtained a spreadsheet with some team summaries for women's basketball, and looking into converting them into Wikimarkup, but when I looked for examples to see how to do it, I was surprised to find so few. I started on the women's side, and wasn't surprised that many team didn't have a team page, but even when a team page existed, a custom format was often used. I looked at what links here and was surprised to see how few times it is used on a team page. Before I start, I want to make sure it is considered best practice to use the template if possible.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Task Force on women's basketball

I'm gathering feedback for the possibility of starting a Task Force on women's basketball, with the intent that it would be a task force of WikiProject Women's sport as well as WikiProject Basketball. I also think it would make sense to be a task force within this Wikiproject. I do not see any task forces listed, so I'm checking to see if anyone would have any objection to my adding this Task Force (if I get enough interested to start it) as a Task force of this Wikiproject as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

NCAA tournament rounds in coaching records tables

Someone passed by and [changed John Beilein's page]. Do we want to say NCAA second round or NCAA round of 64. The former has different meaning over time but the latter seems more informative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • With the tournament having changed several times, even over the past decade, I think it makes the most sense to use the "Round of 64" and "Round of 32" options. We already use "Sweet Sixteen," "Elite Eight," and "Final Four" don't we? City boy77 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This sounds good, but I still need some help on the women's side. I am looking at some information compiled by someone else, and they used NCAA Second Round (Bye) in some cases. I was considering whether to adopt that, when I saw this discussion, and my initial thought is that Round of 64, Round of 32, etc (would need Round of 36, Round of 40 and round of 48 as well) would clearly identify the round. However, it doesn't distinguish North Carlina, who made it to the Round of 32 from Georgia, who made it to the Round of 32. The difference is that North Carolina got a bye, and went 0–1 in the tournament, while Georgia won their first game and lost their second. I'm now thinking that Round of n (for n >16) makes sense, but I will append a (bye) wherever appropriate.
I looked to see how it is handled for the men. I didn't look far, I looked at LSU to see how their bye in 1954 was handled, but the page seems silent. Is there a convention that NCAA results aren't shown prior to some date?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • When using "Round of 64" etc., how should we handle the first round in, say, 1962? Round of 25, since that's how many teams competed in the tourmament? Round of 18, since that's how many actually competed in the first round? Or simply, First Round? City boy77 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New templates

I created two new templates:

They can be used along with (unchanged) templates:

The new templates do not have one feature that is present in the old ones; while you can add a parameter "no" to suppress the fields in the start template, I do not see how to do that in the entry templates. However, it would make no sense to use these templates if you did not have poll data, so I don't see that as a problem. However, it is a good reason why these are supplemental templates, not suitable for replacement of the existing.

As an example of the use, see North Carolina Tar Heels women's basketball--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

I came across George Hauptfuhrer in the recent deaths list, and upon viewing the article, I'm iffy on his notability (and a few others, actually). He was selected in the second BAA draft (so the second-ever draft by the precursor to the NBA). He, along with three draftees (half the selections), never played professionally. There is assumed notability for drafting in the first two rounds per WP:ATHLETE, but I'm sure that's got a lot more to do with the modern multi-round draft. I think what I'm hinging on is "never played professionally." Also significant is that the only references used for the article consist of a findagrave entry and an obituary. The Harvard Crimson doesn't have much to say about him either. So I guess it comes down to: is he notable as far as this project is concerned? MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NBASKETBALL, "2. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft." This entails all NBA Drafts including the BAA. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would normally agree, except the first two BAA drafts had half their first-rounders never play. Since3 that time, it's been one or none from a much larger number of people per round, and even in the 60s, some second rounders never played. MSJapan (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If a player plays one minute of one NBA game, they're automatically notable regardless of what round they were selected in (or if they were drafted at all). That said, being selected in the first two rounds of an NBA Draft bestows inherent notability because those players were presumed to be the very best amateur basketball players in the world at the time of their selections. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be enough information available to put together a reasonably informative article. I'm sure his college career was well-covered by local papers. (A lot of stuff is behind paywalls, but something like this, for example, may contain something worthwhile.) His name is in NBA history books, and it's reasonable to assume that some people will be curious what happened to him. Zagalejo^^^ 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Since when is 4 of 10 (or 4 of 12) half? We're talking 8 total players here. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Should these schools have their naming conventions updated?

The following schools are in the process of re-branding. I'll list them and then write what we have decided to use for Wikipedia naming conventions followed by what the potential new name would be:

  • Long Island University – currently use "Long Island", might change to "LIU Brooklyn"
  • St. Francis College – currently use "St. Francis (NY)", might change to "St. Francis Brooklyn"
  • College of Charleston – currently use "College of Charleston", might change to "Charleston"

The only school of the above three that ESPN's listing of teams that doesn't match up with the school's re-branding efforts is St. Francis, which still says St. Francis (NY). But Long Island and College of Charleston are both listed using their new re-branded names. My question is, should any or all of those names be updated for categories, parent articles, etc.? I'll get the ball rolling with my opinion in a poll-style format.

  • Long Island
    • Update to show new identity.
  • St. Francis
    • Keep as is with current convention
  • College of Charleston


St. Francis officially goes by St Francis Brooklyn so I think it should be called that here. Link to the article about it.[1] Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI – I've opened up a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 15#College sports retired numbers for retired college jersey navboxes and categories. Some are for basketball and some are for football. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a witness

2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team is a fairly high priority season for this project. The season documents a national player of the year season and a team that was national runner-up. It is being ignored at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned to see it passed GA. I'm taking a look at it, but will probably not review all of it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I read, and commented on parts of it, but I've run out of steam, and there are still more issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Redshirt class identification

I am not entirely clear on how the redshirt information should be entered in the CBB templates.

Case in point—Caroline Doty. As background, her sequence was the following:

  • 2008-09 FR
  • 2009-10 SO
  • 2010-11 RS
  • 2011-12 RS JR
  • 2012-13 RS SR

The 2010–11 year was the year she was injured and sat out.

I do know how to add the symbol to indicate the year that she actually sat out.

See 2010–11 for how I handle it now. 2011–12 is also relevant

However, I do not know whether to list her class as junior or blank (I presume sophomore is not the right option).

If the answer is RS JR, then she would be considered a RS JR in both 2010-11 and 2011-12? Doesn't sound right.

Using a blank class solves that problem, but a reader would want to know which class, as well as the RS status, so blank doesn't seem right.

I assume this is well-settled, but my cursory googling and search of the archives here did not give me solid answers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this for her stat table? Trying to get the context of where this shows up so I can answer. It may be a case where there hasn't been a consensus established but there is a "de facto standard" in place (that could certainly be open for change). Rikster2 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No, not for her stat table, for the roster--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
For convenience, here is the roster in question

Roster

2010–11 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team
Players Coaches
Pos. # Name Height Year Previous school Hometown
F/C 32 Heather Buck 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m)
—
 RS So Stonington Stonington, Conn.
G 30 Lorin Dixon 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m)
—
 Sr Christ the King Springfield Gardens, N.Y.
C 31 Stefanie Dolson 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
—
 Fr Minisink Valley Port Jervis, N.Y.
G 5 Caroline Doty Current redshirt 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m)
—
 RS Jr Germantown Academy Doylestown, Pa.
F 12 Lauren Engeln 5 ft 11 in (1.8 m)
—
 Fr Laguna Hills Laguna Hills, Calif.
G 34 Kelly Faris 5 ft 11 in (1.8 m)
—
 So Heritage Christian Plainfield, Ind.
G 14 Bria Hartley 5 ft 7 in (1.7 m)
—
 Fr North Babylon North Babylon, N.Y.
G 3 Tiffany Hayes 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m)
—
 Jr Winter Haven Lakeland, Fla.
F 25 Michala Johnson 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m)
—
 Fr Montini Bellwood, Ill.
F 23 Maya Moore 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m)
—
 Sr Collins Hill Lawrenceville, Ga.
G 31 Samarie Walker (TRa) 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)
—
 Fr Chaminade-Julienne West Carrollton, Ohio
Head coach

Geno Auriemma

Assistant coach(es)

Chris Dailey
Shea Ralph
Marisa Moseley

Legend
  • (C) Team captain
  • (S) Suspended
  • (I) Ineligible
  • (W) Walk-on

Roster
Last update: 2013-08-23

a Walker transferred to the University of Kentucky 24 January 2011[2]

Personally, I'd just use "RS junior" for 2 years or just take the "RS" off when she is active (my personal opinion is that the "redshirt" designation is meaningless once it's done - what is important is how many seasons of eligibility the player has left). But there is no consensus around it so far as I know. Rikster2 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What you are saying makes some sense, but it is defintely not convention. It is extremely common in football to refer to a player who redshirted their first year, and is playing in their second year, as a Redshirt freshman (in contrast to just a freshman, or occasionally a "true freshman"). Maybe this is only true for freshman, I don't notice it as much for other classes. (I'm probably making too big a deal of it, so I won't sweat it.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The term is used much more in football where redshirting as a freshman is the norm, vs in basketball where it is the exception. Rikster2 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is, in the case you're talking about, convention is to list FR, SO, JR, RS JR, RS SR. With the JR season (not the RS JR season), the |cur_rs=yes and |inj=y listed in the CBB roster/Player section for the particular player. City boy77 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories and Former Big East Schools

In looking through various categories, such as Category:Boston College Eagles men's basketball, I notice they are all categorized under Category:Big East Conference men's basketball even though they are no longer members of the Big East. Before removing these from the parent categories, I looked into the history of the categories and realized that someone had already removed the parent category once and it was re-added, although the edit was not necessarily recently. In the case of Boston College, it was added "for historical purposes" in 2010. Should any teams' categories be listed under a now-unaffiliated parent category? City boy77 (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, those categories should reflect current conference affiliations. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Conference Player of the Year Articles missing - update on progress

All - Time for another check in on the completion of Conference Player of the Year templates and articles effort. We have made progress, and the following conference POY templates are complete: American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big South, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, Metro, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, PAC-12, SEC, West Coast Conference, Horizon League, WAC and the Southern Conference.

Here are the number of articles needed to complete the various conference POY templates:

Please take a look at the lists and feel free to create articles on any. Several recent CPOYs are missing articles, with good biographical information readily available. We're making progress! Rikster2 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zidek

George Zidek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been requested to be renamed -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois" - please help reach consensus

Please help reach consensus Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Category:Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1

This important season (NPOY and national runner-up) for the project needs reviewers at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Division I programs by total expenses

Thought this was interesting and is worth sharing to this project: http://www.bbstate.com/info/teams-hoopsbudget. It lists all Division I's men's team total expenses for the 2011–12 year. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Transfers - ineligible or redshirt?

I'm trying to wrap my head around how we handle transfers in rosters.

The specific issue I want to address is how to handle Hannah Douglas who is transferring from Butler to FGCU.

She isn't listed on the school roster, presumably because she is ineligible to play.

So I thought I could add her name to the list, and use the (I) Ineligible indicator on the roster template.

I looked to see if I could see how such a situation has been handled.

I picked Deuce Bello, who was on the 2012–13 Baylor Bears basketball team. He transferred to 2013–14 Missouri Tigers men's basketball team, but he is listed there as a redshirt. I was thinking that redshirt would be used when a player is eligible to play, but does not, either due to injury, or team decision to sit out a year. I notice that Deuce Bello is listed on the Missouri roster. Why is he on the roster, but Hannah Douglas is not? Is this simply a school convention, or is there something I am missing.

If we don't use the (I) Ineligible symbol for ineligible players, when is it used?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WilliamJE as has made a series of edits that remove links from prominent locations if they are buried in the text somewhere. here is an example where {{main|1980–81 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings}} [[Michigan Wolverines men's basketball]] and [[1981 National Invitation Tournament]] were all removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:See also reads- "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."...William 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Tony, those edits by WilliamJE look good to me, and I make these sorts of edits all the time as well. If there's a link in the article or a navbox on the article, that link doesn't need to be in the see also section as well. The see also sections tend to get cluttered and crufty. I think they do work well for listing out lists that pertain to the subject of the article because those lists can be difficult to integrate smoothly into the prose of the article. But taking 1984–85 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team as an example, links to 1985 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament are already integrated into the infobox and the lead of the article, as they should be. If and when the article is developed further, more links to 1985 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament would be found in the body and the schedule table. No need for yet another link in the see also section. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What about the {{main}} usage in the rankings section for links such as 1980–81 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I didn't notice the rankings page removals were for years where the articles do not exist yet. We expect them to be created going backwards don't we.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Louisiana–Lafayette

There is an open move discussion that the members of this project may be interested in, please see: Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns baseball#Requested_move_2. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lourdes Gray Wolves women's basketball season navbox

Template:Lourdes Gray Wolves women's basketball season navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: UT Martin

There is an open move discussion that the members of this project may be interested in, please see: Talk:Tennessee–Martin Skyhawks men's basketball#Requested_move. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament venue navbox

Template:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament venue navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game

I have finally gotten around to going through my hundreds and hundreds of pictures from the 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. These guys will almost all be starting their college careers in the next week. I believe I have a picture of every player who dunked in the game in the act of dunking (which is about half of the players, although at least one dunked with his back directly to the camera). I have posted an action photo of every player who played in the game in the article. Also, see commons cat Commons:Category:2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game if you want to swap out my selected photo with some other photos. I have about 1000 other photos that are not uploaded. You will notice that I am not using the best equipment so I did not capture the best light for a lot of these, but you get what you pay for. I welcome any assistance in rearranging the photos.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to migrate men's college basketball players and coaches to Template:Infobox basketball biography

All, awhile back I asked on here if there was interest in moving away from Template:Infobox NCAA athlete for college basketball players (previous conversation here). I would like to formally propose that we do so and move all college players (as well as former players who did not play professionally and coaches) to the existing template Template:Infobox basketball biography. Here is a synopisis of my recommendation:

  • Advantages - Infobox basketball biography is a wider, more aesthetically pleasing infobox that as been refined over the years to become extremely functional for basketball figures. Also, this move would eliminate the need to convert infoboxes after college players use up their eligibility. With one infobox, a player would carry the same infobox (with changing information within it) for their high school, college, professional and coaching careers.
  • Disadvantages - There is currently some information in the NCAA template that does not reside in basketball biography - academic class, major, tournament participation, etc. Also, historically there are coaches who have coached more than one sport (example - football and basketball) and basketball biography is not equipped to handle this.
  • Suggested changes to basketball biography - To make the change workable, I recommend adding a new field to the template for academic class to be used only while a player is an active college athlete. I also recommend linking the infobox to a color table to color the infobox for all Division I teams.
  • Suggested college use of existing fields - I suggest current field "team" would be the college (we could decide if format is - for example - "Iowa," "University of Iowa," or "Iowa Hawkeyes"), the basketball program link would go in the "team_link" field, and the conference would go in the "league" field. The club history fields ("years1," "team1," etc.) would not be used until the player is a professional. Also, guidelines for what goes in the "highlights" section could be drafted for college basketball which would have a lower threshold than the pro guidelines.
  • A note on college coaches - Originally my suggestion did not include NCAA coaches. Since then, basketball biography has been improved to handle player/coach data (see Maurice Cheeks for example). A major problem now is that college coaches with significant playing careers get converted to Template:Infobox college coach and that template is not equipped to handle much playing data (see Jim Les for example). My suggestion would be that coaches who were head coaches for more than one sport continue to use Infobox:college coach (no cases of this the last 50+ years, though, I believe).

What do people think? I think there is a lot of benefit for readers and editors alike in this, and would love to get to work on a solution if there are no objections. Rikster2 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Aside from problems on people associated with multiple sports, the other fields on college athletes can be safely dropped. For example, Johnny Manziel's ESPN and Nerlens Noel's CBS Sports profile doesn't mention anything about his academics (aside from academic class, which would be the issue). –HTD 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • College football has moved to Template:Infobox college football player anyway, so college players of multiple sports can't use the same infobox anyway. I think we just need to determine a players' "primary sport," which in 99% of cases would be pretty clear. As for academic info like major, I agree that it's not that big a deal. Many college sites don't even list it in their player bios and often it is undecided for half the player's career anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
      • years1 and its related parameters aren't "fixed" to link to a specific article so |years1=Freshman |team1=USC would work. –HTD 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Hmm. I really think it would be better to add a clearly-labelled field (since we are only talking one) instead of fundamentally changing the layout of the article. Right now the college with dates appears in the "college" field and I think it should stay there so that the club history fields could be used as intended once the player becomes a professional. Otherwise we are still converting the article at that time and losing some of the benefit of "one infobox." Plus we could position the class at the top vs. compromising because we are using a field in a way it was not intended. Rikster2 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The section heading refers to "men". Is that intentional? I haven't yet had a chance to look at the proposed infobox, but it sounds positive, especially the ability to handle transition from player to coach.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Sphilbrick - Right now female professionals (at least those that play in the WNBA) use Template:Infobox WNBA biography, so moving female college players wouldn't have all the advantages that moving men's players would (you'd still have to transition infoboxes when a player moves college to pro for example). That said, in my heart of hearts I don't see any reason why we could not also migrate the WNBA biography infobox to Template:Infobox basketball biography as well. In fact, in my opinion this would be the best move as we could have common editing standards across all players/coaches of either gender. There would possibly need to be an accomodation to how the club history displays as many WNBA players play in a different league in the Fall/Winter - but I think we could solve that. To answer your question, I did use the term "men" on purpose only because male professionals are already on this infobox and I was just trying to propose one change at a time. However, if we set up the infobox to display D1 college colors, the women's teams would benefit from this as well. I'd be open to get this on one box if possible and would help with conversions if we decided to go that way. For historical context, in the last year or so we have eliminated (or almost anyway) specialized infoboxes for the Australian NBL and the Philippine Basketball Association in favor of the basketball biography template, which has also minimized the need to convert infoboxes when players move leagues (and often lose data in the process). Rikster2 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I'll have to take a closer look so I can weight in with some decent recommendations. One technical point, it is rare to include weight for females, and that is not an optional field. I rewrote the roster templates, but those had a sex= parameter needed for other reasons, so I used that. This infobox does not, so we may have to discuss whether or how to make the weight field optional.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We could easily make the weight field optional. Several European men's leagues don't list it either. Rikster2 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I would support this for the originally stated reasons. The issue about how a lot of college coaches, especially in the 1800s and first half of the 1900s, who have coached multiple sports would need to be figured out. In my opinion the only real way to solve that is to not convert those coaches and just convert basketball-only coaches. So much work has been put in my WP:CFB and W:COLLBASEBALL members (along with us CBBALL editors) to create those multi-sport coaching infoboxes that it'd take more effort than its worth to figure out a way to fix it. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree about multi-sport coaches. They should stay on Template:Infobox college coach in my opinion for the reasons you state. Rikster2 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to give an example of a current coach who has coached multiple sports, Butler's Beth Couture has coached both women's basketball and volleyball. Also, I don't believe anyone has mentioned this yet, but I like that Infobox College Coach has parameters that allow for information to be provided concerning administrative roles. This information is important for multi-sport coaches like Tony Hinkle, as well as single-sport coaches like Barry Collier. Is this available on the proposed template? City boy77 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A current multiple sport coach could still use the college coach infobox if necessary. It's a pretty unsual thing in today's day and age though so I'm not sure I'd advocate making a decision based on the rare exception. Currently there is not an administrative tenure section, though the NBA project has discussed possible including front office positions - perhaps a field name appropriate for either could by found. Rikster2 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation - I would like to recommend that we move to Template:Infobox basketball biography for college players now, but hold off on moving to this navbox for college coaches to work through some of the administrator issues raised above. Are people OK with trying this for the 2013-14 season? We would just need to work on the formatting/data pieces. Rikster2 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so I'd say we use basketball player biography for all basketball players regardless of league or professional/amateur status. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Formatting suggestions - As I convert some current college players to the basketball biography infobox a couple of formatting assumptions I am making - 1) For team name I am using school & mascot. Personally I think this is best because it makes it clear that it is the college team vs. a pro team ("Memphis Tigers" vs "Memphis Grizlies," "Iowa Hawkeyes" vs. "Iowa Energy," etc.) and because many basketball articles are edited by non-US citizens who may be a bit less savvy about college team names. 2) I am spelling out the conference ("Atlantic Coast Conference" vs. "ACC," "Atlantic 10 Conference" vs. "Atlantic 10," etc.) Mainly this is again to help non-US editors by not using jargon and trying to spell out that these are not pro leagues (this may get tougher if spelling out something like the MAAC). Are people OK with these conventions or do we want to debate them? I am still working to try and get the infobox amended to include class in school and colors, but I don't think those should be show stoppers. Rikster2 (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Logo removal

Is this edit to remove the MSU logo at Michigan–Michigan State basketball rivalry kosher?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed in copyright issues, so I can't tell ya. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
A few years back there were major battles about this. The bottom line is, if the spartan head logo is not in the public domain, it should be removed, including from yearly team article's infoboxes. If it is in the public domain, it is ok. In that case that Michigan State claims copyright over it, it can be replaced by a word mark (such as File:Michigan-State-logo-block-s.svg, which does not meet the threshold of originality to hold a copyright). CrazyPaco (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Went with the Block S logo.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential use of voodoo :-!

One can't be certain that Duke Blue Devils men's basketball uses voodoo, but can someone tell me the odds that they sign two of the top five recruits (Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones) in the country on a Friday and then their three top rivals all lose their next game given they are 14, 13.5 and -1 point favorites on a Sunday. Maybe I should just ask what are the odds that a 14, 13.5 and -1 point favorites all lose the same day. Also, is there a way to tell how often North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball, Maryland Terrapins men's basketball and Michigan Wolverines men's basketball have all lost on the same day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

From here, the chance a 14, 13.5 and 1 point underdog win outright is 6.86%, 7.82% and 48.25%, respectively. The chance all three win outright is .0686*.0782*.4825 = .002588 = 0.2588%. If voodoo ISN'T involved, I'll be surprised. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well Michigan was a 1 point dog. So the odds were .0686*.0782*.5175=0.2776%. Duke Voodoo very likely.

Anybody for the other half? How often have North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball, Maryland Terrapins men's basketball and Michigan Wolverines men's basketball all lost on the same day?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Tony, sorry, Michigan is not one of Duke's top three rivals. Even special Tony the Tiger wikivoodoo can't make that happen. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, even though the Michigan-Duke rivalry is one of two on {{Michigan Wolverines men's basketball navbox}}, Ohio State and Indiana are probably both at least as important as the Duke rivalry to Michigan. Ohio State is sort of spillover rivalry from football and Indiana and Michigan have opposed each other as ranked and highly ranked teams quite a bit. They are also regional recruiting rivals as adjacent states.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sure them Dukies hate NC State more than they hate us (Michigan), but we hate them enough to make up for it. Write up an NC-State Duke rivalry and I am pretty sure on paper Michigan's rivalry with Duke looks fiercer. Duke barely recognizes any rivalry other than with Carolina. Duke knows Michigan's rivalrous feelings toward them is real. They may or may not bother to reciprocate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S. my wikivoodoo has made Michigan one of their top three rivalries. Check out Template:Duke Blue Devils men's basketball navbox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

People who attended multiple high schools

I am noticing edits like this and this which only present the final institution are being made. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Listing multiple HSs is standard convention, but it never went through any formal consensus discussion so far as I know. But if listed it should be High School (City, State) not High Scool (year span) or High School (academic class range). That's consensus across hundreds (thousands?) of articles. You should feel free to add back the previous HS if you want to (I'm assuming the info is sourced in the article). Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mass creation of team template navboxes

Can we please reach an actual consensus before the absolutely horrid format for college football navboxes spreads further on this college basketball project? The current team navbox format being inserted across articles within the project by User:Jrcla2 has clear violations of WP:NAV by filling the navboxes with redlinks of non-existant articles. Again, like the college football navboxes, the priority of article placement in the navbox is not at all thought through and is resulting in terrible attempt at foisting one-size fits all navigation tools that has no precedent or consensus on the remainder of Wikipedia. Please stop inserting 100s of navboxes on articles until there can be some consensus on an actual navbox baseline design that attempts to adhere to WP:NAV.

Jrcla2's standardization efforts have my support. This set of navboxes, like its college football analog, has indeed been thought through and supports the development of the subject in the long term. The idea that standardization across templates within a class has no precedent on Wikipedia is clearly false. We have a myriad of examples from within this project (e.g. Category:NCAA Division I men's basketball coach navigational boxes) and elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. Category:United States county templates). It should be noted that WP:NAV is a guidance essay and not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. While there is merit to the idea that navboxes should generally be created to provide navigation between existing articles, WP:NAV fails so far to address the reality of the development of articulated classes of articles such as the succession of a team's seasons. Despite CrazyPaco's failure to recognize it, consensus has been reached on the aforementioned analogous college football navboxes. The form that Jrcla2 has brought here follows naturally from that consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Jcla2's standardizations efforts would have my support if the design was actually discussed and had garnered any sort of consensus. Unfortunately, the undertaking has been taken on without discussion despite both Jrcla2's and Jweiss11's clear knowledge that the college football templates from which they were copied have long been controversial in design. For the uninitiated, the debate has lingered for years at the College Football Project, and you can find major discussions here, here, here, here, with other points at here. In absolutely none of the previous discussions was a consensus reached, as everyone can clearly discern for themselves. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The "controversy" is more of less equivalent to CrazyPaco's objection and that minority objection does not forestall a consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
All: Please follow the above links to discussion and determine for yourselves whether there is a consensus and whether the objections constitute some minority as suggested. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
All: please also note that the discussion of this topic begins at least as far back at here in October 2011. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
All: Please follow Jweiss' link in order to discern for yourselves whether or not that constitutes a consensus for arbitrarily altering and creating 100s of navigation templates. Notice how the suggestions of the major participant in the discussion, Cbl62, were completely ignored in the implementation of the navboxes. Further discussions of improvements and alterations have likewise been completely ignored in rampant violation of WP:OWN. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
CrazyPaco, this is absolutely false and libelous. The idea that I ignored Cbl62's suggestions in particular is absurd. He I and went back and for with much negotiation on the form at Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox, the incubator for this entire stream of standardization. Indication of national championships was added per his demands, and the form of such notation was tweaked in response to the input of many. Furthermore, I didn't create every navbox that takes this standard form. Editors such User:Patriarca12, User:Ejgreen77, User:Jrcla2 have joined me in that effort. If anyone is guilty of WP:OWN, it is you, the way you protect your local Pittsburgh turf Whiskey Rebellion-style from more general consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to take it to mediation or dispute resolution or similar. I find your claims of a nonexistent consensus for your rigid implementation of exact content and format of 100s of navigation templates across 100s of individual topics by virtue of exercising WP:OWN by a single Wikiproject not only counter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, but thoroughly inappropriate and potentially detrimental for Wikipedia at large. Other editors are not patrolling 100s of navigation templates in order to reverse any change, regardless of reasoning, in the name of nonexistent policies and guidelines on rigid template standardization, for which there certainly is no consensus, and for which Cbl62 certainly appeared not to agree with, but he can comment on that himself with his own statements. Regardless, there has absolutely been no consensus arrived at for a baseline college basketball team navigation template since a discussion has not even been initiated until present, unless you are trying to extend your claims of College Football Project ownership to templates that fall within the interest of the College Basketball Wikiproject and the Basketball Wikiproject, not to mention multiple other Wikiprojects for each team. Now if you actual consent to a discussion to help form a consensus on a basic format for 100s of navigation templates, I'd be more than happy to abide by it by that consensus, not that such consensus on a recommended basic format relinquishes ownership of any template to any one Wikiproject or editor. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop making these. CrazyPaco is the only user who has such adamant objections to them, and its root cause is that his precious Pitt football navbox was tailored. It is he who exhibits ownership of all Pittsburgh-related things (by the, putting fries on sandwiches = dumbest thing ever). So while I continue to make program navboxes, because I don't need permission from anyone to do so, I'll also continue to apply what has been standard form to them that not only college football but also college baseball projects adhere to. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to get this straight 1) you never attempted to seek input from editors of the College Basketball Wikiproject or engage in any discussion of the style or format of the navboxes for college basketball prior to the creation and insertion of dozens of templates on articles throughout Wikipedia, 2) you are refusing the present attempt at a discussion whose goal is to achieve a consensus 3) you are ignoring previous discussions and criticisms about similar college football templates by myself and others on the college football wikiproject, 4) you are plowing ahead with mass edits to create and insert 100s of navigational templates and will not accept input or discussion. 5) You appear to violate WP:CIVIL by attempting personal insults. Should I also add that you have begun mass reversions to my corrections of your historically inaccurate information that suggests NIT championships are national championships...a mistake, which by the way, could have been avoided if you tried to get opinions on the format of college basketball navigational templates before you plowed ahead creating dozens of them? (stricken because the reversion stopped). I just want to be clear on the fact you don't intend to engage in an WP:Consensus building or WP:Discussion. CrazyPaco (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's two examples of the templates that were recently created.


Here are some pertinent guidelines that can help develop an effective navbox from WP:NAV.
  • The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?
  • They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value.
  • Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template.
  • Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.
  • If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.

With these guidelines in mind, what makes sense for the majority of college basketball team articles recognizing that each team article is its own topic and falls within the interest of multiple Wikiprojects and is likely to need additional customization to achieve optimal navigation and thus optimal understanding on the topic for the Wikipedia reader? Can this project reach a consensus on a guideline that includes a starting point template for editors wishing to create a navigation template for a particularly college basketball team? CrazyPaco (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Some questions to ponder:

1) What are the best topic categories that would be most universal for all basketball programs, at all levels, and what is their appropriate order within the Navbox? For instance, the college basketball team navboxes created by Jrcla2 have the category of "venues" as the first item physically located at the top of the navbox. Does it make sense for a Wikipedia user (who presumably is using the template to gain a better understanding of the specific topic of that particular basketball team) that the "venues" category is in the most prominent position at the top of the navbox? Considering, therefore, that the first link listed in the navbox is often to an venue that is no longer used and may no longer exist, and in many cases is redlinked (as in the Kentucky example above), does that make sense?

My personal opinion is no, that doesn't make sense at all. Rather, the most current information about the team (eg. the current season article for the team, current venue, current head coach, current conference) would most like make the most sense for the top category which should provide most prominent and relevant links at the top of the navigation template. Perhaps a "program" category similar to the "franchise" category in NBA templates could be used.


2) Is the same information relevant to all programs? For instance, are linking all venues ever played in, which for some college basketball programs represent a temporary or obscure part of their program, even relevant enough to have on the template if the goal of a navigation template is to direct the reader to articles covering the most relevant aspects of the program, per WP:NAV? Is it appropriate for such links to be forced on a template without consultation of WP:EXPERT opinion? Does it make sense that Kennesaw or Wagner follow the exact nav template format used for Kentucky and be forced to have the exact same categories and links? If certain inclusions do make sense for everyone, what are they? Are there exclusions depending on level or achievement?

How do you define an "Expert" as it relates to college basketball? I can promise you I know as much as any historian on the subject and am just as well read on the subject. In non-academic fields I think the term is pretty meaningless. Rikster2 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia definition of expert is not restricted to academic fields. You certainly may be an expert on college basketball, but are you an expert on Kennesaw State basketball? I know that I am not, and I would not presume to be able to determine the import of different aspects of their program when building a consensus with someone more familiar with that program, which is supposed to be what its navigational template is guiding the reader towards learning about. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
That's BS. You don't have to be an expert on a specific program to know generally what categories of information should be on a college basketball program template and it is absurd to suggest as much. Some familiarity with the program might be required to determine what goes in what section, though (what is included in "culture and lore" or "rivalries," etc.). You'd be better off sticking to the substantive questions you've posed rather than pursuing this particular point. I'm happy to discuss all this stuff in good faith, but path is particular item is just verbiage that obscures the actually points of the discussion IMO and we'd be better off just dropping it. Rikster2 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that you had to be an expert on a team to know generally know what categories of information should be on a template. What I said is that expert opinions on the specific topic (and in this case the topics are the individual teams) about what else could be included should not necessarily be outright dismissed. Such an addition should obviously be reversed if it is fan cruft, or it might even have some technical issues such as those that you cite in your opposition to including individuals on the template, but those issues should be explained on edit summaries, at minimum, or explained on the talk pages of templates if there are further issues with additional edits. But if there are legitimate reasons for additions or exclusions, even additional categories, they should be fairly discussed, and I will not presume to dismiss such discussions outright because of purely technical issues effectively enacted as policy by a single Wikiproject. Wikiprojects do not exert OWN of templates any more than editors, and they do not implement policy. Rather, additions or subtractions that aren't inherently or obviously problematic should be open to discussion on a case-by-case basis, on the templates talk page, with the editors of those topics as well as Wikiproject editors. Engagement in discussion is always preferred. This is the very foundation of how Wikipedia works. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This has zero to do with "expert" status - good ideas are good ideas wherever they come from. Again, you should just stick to the actual points of what should be in the Navbox because this assertion holds no water. Rikster2 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the notion that good ideas are good ideas. However, if you think that assertions about editing conduct and Wikiproject ownership holds no water, you may want to review Wikipedia's five pillars and the basics of discussion and editing. I want to be clear on my position. I am not advocating unbridled authority for template customization by (local) experts on a topic, nor am I advocating an abdication of the role played by Wikiprojects in helping to standardize and monitor template content. What I am objecting to the idea of unilateral dismissal of the ability for editors to engage in well reasoned customization of individual templates based on some notion of a rigid control exercised by a WIkiproject. Such an idea is one that lacks any basis whatsoever on Wikipedia. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, I have no history with you but don't come here and ask for a good faith review of what should be on infoboxes on the one hand, then just berate projects as anti-WP on the other. If you want a good faith discussion on this topic, act like it and I will take part. Until then I am opting out because this has grown tiresome and the discussion is so frigging long that it is a hassle to take part in it. Rikster2 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So you appear to be saying that Wikiprojects should set policy or exercise ownership? If that is what you are suggesting, than I submit that is anti-WP since it violates WP:OWN and WP:COUNCIL/G 3.1.3. I do have a major problem with that. I'm happy to have an RfC on that very point, but I'm sorry you don't feel as if you can participate in a discussion because I won't acquiesce to your opinions on what I find to be clearly established Wikipedia policy and guidelines. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure extreme self-righteousness is the best path to Consensus. Good night fellas. Rikster2 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Rikster2, you have some valid points but your view that CrazyPaco is "berat[ing] projects as anti-WP" isn't (let's say) 'relevant', 1st we all have the obligation to AGF, 2nd the origin of this was a few editors not approaching this as equals or asking for our views but basically using their status or membership in a project to 'tell us how it's gonna be'. I have said months ago on this topic that trying to get a one-sized-fits-all for things as desperate as colleges in 6 time zones is difficult enough when you invite discussions at various wikiprojects, the task becomes impossible if you have a few editors tell others in say Pittsburgh that only the template that fits UTexas or Notre Dame should be used. Some of this is a natural human reaction to having contributions deleted, that said I think everyone involved save maybe one has attempted AGF, and I hope that continues. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

3) Does it make sense to link redundant parts of the main team article, which is frowned upon by WP:NAV?


4) Does inclusion of 100s of sequential years make the template unnecessarily large (and keep in mind it will therefore grow infinitely large over time). Should they be split out to a separate navbox as is suggested by WP:NAV and per precedent of all NBA team (and other professional league) navboxes? (see Template:Chicago Bulls seasons for an example, or would a List article of all seasons provide sufficient navigation?)

Reply - Wow, that's long. I probably didn't get it all. But my thoughts are these:
  • I think it is a fine idea to have a separate "seasons" navbox - so long as it is a replacement for not an addition to the program navobox on season articles (except maybe championship seasons which I could realistically see having both).Rikster2 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


5) The list of years creates dozens of redlinked dates in the majority of navboxes. Is this appropriate? Not according to WP:NAV. Are most of these 1000s of redlinked articles even likely to be produced, or even all inherently notable?


6) Regardless of the redlinks, does the listing of 100s of sequential years provide an useful navigation tool for a reader interested in understanding the topic of that particular college basketball team? Does such a listing of every season overwhelm and swamp the navigation to the most relevant articles that would provide the best knowledge of the topic? Would selective years, like championship seasons, be more useful to list on the template? Listing only the most pertinent seasons for a team, such as championship years, is the style use by all NBA team navboxes and all other professional team navboxes, such as seen in Template:Chicago Bulls.


7) Does it make sense to include the most pertinent or key individuals for a program in the template (eg current head coach, Hall of Fame coaches or players, winningest coach) which is the style used by all NBA navboxes and all other professional team navboxes such as seen in Template:Chicago Bulls?

Reply - I do not think coaches or players should be on the program navbox. Coaches have a coach navbox that links them to their predecessors and the program. And my feeling is that it just plain looks dumb to have the "Gonzaga Bulldogs" navbox sitting on, for example, John Stockton's article. Players (especially great ones) get too many infoboxes as it is, a generic program box that tells the reader nothing isn't a wise move IMO.Rikster2 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not think all coaches a should be listed, but I do favor the current coach being linked, as that individual is particularly pertinent to the topic of the team, and something that is very likely to be of interest to a Wikipedia reader. I favor a "current team" or "current program" category with the current year's team, current coach, current facility, current conference, and may current AD or notable assistants. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I reiterate that current coach should NOT be linked in my opinion. Please keep in mind that the current coach already has 2 navboxes by virtue of that role - the program coach navbox and the "Current Coaches in Conference X" navbox. I am adamantly opposed to adding more navboxes - our project gets enough grief about having too many and I don't personally believe the benefit is there for this example to make it an exception case. Rikster2 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


8) NIT national are currently bolded as "national championships" when they are certainly not considered national championships, by anyone, nor claimed by any team as such, post 1950. See referenced information in the history section of the National Invitation Tournament. This is a problem that needs to be corrected because the wording is misleads the reader into something that historical incorrect.

Reply - I agree NIT titles should not be lumped in with national championships. In the 30s-40s they were probably the same (or better), but in the last 50+ years not so much. I'd probably recommend that program templates list NCAA championships, NIT titles and Helms championships in a "Titles" section (all clearly marked as such).
From the NIT article: "Between 1939 and 1950, when teams could compete in both tournaments, only DePaul (1945),[13] Utah (1947),[14] and San Francisco (1949)[15] claim or celebrate national championships for their teams based solely on an NIT championship,[16][17][18][19] although Long Island recognizes its selection as the 1939 national champion by the Helms Athletic Foundation.[20]" Those are the only three NIT titles that should be indicated as national championships, until such time as some team claims another pre-1950 NIT title. Otherwise WP:OR enters the fray. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, NIT titles are not listed on team article infoboxes. It seems unlike they should be given bigger status on a navbox, so I don't think they should be listed. However, if a lesser program wanted to list NIT championships among a category, say, "championship season", I would be ok with that if it is noted as "NIT" and not confused with "NCAA". CrazyPaco (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm keeping up with these discussions & have reserved comment so far, however schools not recognizing titles pre 1960 isn't the focus for me, schools also don't officially recognize fan clubs or certain stats either but the fanbase does & any encyclopedia should recognize pre 1960 NITs in the "championship" infobox & navbox spaces. A fanbase of a school that won pre '60 NITs did celebrate as a national title, navboxes & infoboxes that ignore those defeat their own purpose, especially considering some of the outlandish trivial stuff that a few navboxes do find space for. Should they be indistinguishable and on equal footing with NCAA titles, no, but they should have space. And yes I am aware of all the 9 years of debate points on this but space should be found in boxes. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 21:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think first we have to figure out if it is appropriate to list all of the seasons in the navbox or have more targeted lists of "key" or championship seasons before we can determine what sort of recognition the NIT championships should have there. I'm not opposed to accommodating NIT championships in the team article infoboxes since certainly NIT championships of the 50s are much more meaningful than the ubiquitously listed first round losses in the modern 68-team tournament. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides, the NIT article is wrong. BYU considers their 1951 NIT a national title (see here) and St. John's has also historically positioned their early NIT championships as titles. It is absolutely a fair point that it isn't on equal footing though, which is why I suggested that maybe the navbox should have a section that lists these out, clearly labelled as to what they are (call it what you want if you don't like "Titles"). Pre-1976 NITs are more relevant than Helms titles in my opinion. At least they were decided on the court instead of in some guy's basement. Rikster2 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The NIT article should be be updated as to BYU's claim of 1951 (I will take care of that if you haven't already), but that does not invalidate the general point that they are no further claims and no secondary recognition to equate those titles to national championships. If you find other such claims, they should also be updated. However, there is no direct evidence of St. John's claiming their NIT titles as national titles, and they never print such a claim in their media guide or on their website, nor do they hang banners to that effect, at least in Madison Square Garden. There clearly was a tier to the tournaments beginning in 1950, and you can search back through the AP Poll archive and see the disparity between the two tournaments as far as the participation in the presumed best teams. A review of contemporaneous news articles on Google's archive regarding the selection of tournament teams also represents this view. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at AP polls to gauge the relative claim of the NCAA and NIT sounds a lot like original research to me, but whatever. I think NIT titles are worth inclusion on both the navboxes and the program articles. And St. John's 1943 and 1944 NITs have been mentioned as titles in print, for certain in "Lapchick" by Gus Aliferi. There aren't many contemporary free articles on a Google for those frankly, but it's kind of a moot point since I am not (nor have I ever been) arguing that these should be included as "championships" without designating them as "NIT championships." Rikster2 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem including NIT titles on either the templates or infoboxes as I do believe they are significant achievements, even today. My main problem was elevating NIT titles to national championship status, especially when the schools themselves do not even do so, so it appears that in that regard we are in complete agreement. As you say, they can be labled "NIT championships", and ones that are claimed as national championships can be notated in some manner. Regarding SJU, as far as notation of "national championships" in infoboxes or templates, it is simply a matter of how the school itself handles it. The opinion of Gus Aliferi really isn't recognized as an unbiased authority on championships (like Helms is, rightfully or not) and his opinion isn't even co-opted by SJU itself in how it presents those titles to the world. That does not mean his opinion of the quality of those teams and the NIT titles should not be discussed on St. John's team article. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


9) And at the basic level, is it more important to provide the best possible navigation to the most relevant articles on a topic for a Wikipedia user, or is it more important to enforce rigid uniformity to the navbox template over 100s of articles that are themselves actually individual topics falling under multiple Wikiprojects. The later idea, btw, is one that has no precedent on any other Wikiproject topic except for the above mentioned College Football Project. But certainly, there must be some middle ground between offering some baseline suggestion of standardization and the best and most pertinent navigation that follows from customization that fits each of the team topics, as is done in virtually all other template navboxes ranging from states and cities to NFL teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I think there needs to be some level of uniformity to these navboxes, otherwise people just take them to ridiculous levels of customiztion. Some latitude might be fine, but the playing field needs to be defined.
  • In reality, I think there are very few programs that really warrant an infobox. Probably 15-20. But if you can't define a cutoff I think it is reasonable to assume others will be created
  • I applaud User:Jrcla2 for taking this on because these things were getting to be ridiculous pieces of fancruft. He may not have gotten it 100% right but nobody was really stepping up to help for the good of the project and Wikipedia readers either. Rikster2 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC) ((Thanks for your reply, to keep the issues separated, could you (or I) move your responses under the particular bullet points of discussion?CrazyPaco (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't plan to do so but I don't care of you do. Rikster2 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)))
I do think there should be some level of uniformity, but there also has to be leeway that makes sense as there is on every other project on Wikipedia. Every single Wikiproject, except college football, allows leeway on templates and articles while providing best practice guidelines and templates. They allow this because it is standard Wikipedia practice. Wikirprojects do not own templates or articles, and they don't set policy. They offer guildelines and organize efforts to improve articles. However, it's hard for anyone to step up if it isn't ever brought to the community. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the project has a responsibility to set guidance on these. The reality is that if there is no guidance fanboys of individual programs take this as an opportunity to just do whatever they want with no interest in ease of use for readers whose interests cut across the topic (in this case college basketball). I reiterate that there can be some flexibility, but there ought to be a framework and some nonnegotiable items (use of coach/player links, etc). Wikipedia MOS isn't going to set guidance, I disagree that the projects can't/shouldn't step up and set these. Rikster2 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Reply Like Rikster, I give thumbs up to Jrcla2 for being bold. However, I see no problem with opening this up for discussion if there are now concerns. Very grateful there is not an edit war here. Some random thoughts:
—Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC) (<- this final statement is copied above to relevant question, cp)


CrazyPaco, your attacks on Jrcla2, e.g that he's being uncivil, ring so hollow considering your malicious libel of me above. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems like some parties above (intentionally left ambiguous) should be reminded to WP:AVOIDYOU. If after stepping back and assuming good faith, anyone believes there are real civility issues here, I'd advise following Wikipedia:UNCIVIL#Dispute_resolution. We can then focus on the navbox discussion here. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:AGF are moot once someone has committed libel. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Jweiss, I find it hard to read your points when first you are WP:INCIVIL with such culturally insensitive things as lumping us all as part of a "Whiskey Rebellion", I cringe to think what other social and demographic stereotypes you want to throw around as the discussion continues, if you wish to be referred to with the assumption of AGF it may help us immensely if you would act like you are capable of it. See below for my substantive views on this discussion. Also libel is a legal term, and if you wish to make threats of legal entanglements here there is a procedure that Wikipedia takes which sometimes results in your account being suspended until the legal matter moves through the court system for years and then the appeals system for another few years, I don't think you mean to say you wish for that to occur. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to keep discussions linear this is a reply to Jweiss11's comment in response to the above.

  • Jweiss11, I don't speak for CrazyPaco. I don't see any WP:INCIVIL on his/her part, I see a genuine concern for what some wrong interpretations of wikipolicy will do to the project and encyclopedia. That & reactions to your (at that time unexplained) use of regional stereotypes. WP:CIVIL requires "Don't:Make personal remarks about editors".
  • Jweiss11 wrote:"And I do not appreciate your thinly-veiled and malicious, though vacuous, threat of some sort of blockage", this can easily be told back to you by anyone with Western PA roots after your WR comment but I already attempted to let you know that and please stop reading something that was never written by me ("blockage" etc.), especially if you are asking we don't read "criminal accusation" into words you use. It's curious you feel I can call you "vacuous" back in the future & remain WP:CIVIL.
  • I appreciate of your point of view. I'm encouraged to see clarification on your use of a term that in some jurisdictions is a criminal matter not just civil, when you used that term I actually re-read areas (before I even 1st posted here) out of concern for any editors allegation of a potential 'criminal' activity leveled at another editor. To me theres a wide gulf between that & WP:INCIVIL. To many an allegation like that is very serious & sober. If I was an editor wrongly accused of something potentially criminal an apology is something I would hope for, but that's a matter I'm not involved in so your explanation on the WR matter is closure for me.
  • I too plan to comment again on this matter and I would join you Jweiss & all others in the hope that we can focus on the (voluminous) content issues and avoid any sort of personalized commentary. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 02:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I want to be clear of where I come. It's fair that you feel that way, however, I did not personally insult you or whatever your hometown might be, nor have I ever not abided by consensus or refused discussion. I do challenge your statement of consensus, and there has never even been a discussion about college basketball templates. Moreover, as much as I was discomforted with what I perceived as an exercise of ownerships in the name of the College Football Wikiproject over 100s of templates, an opinion of mine that you are certainly familiar with, I am, however, extremely alarmed that now you and Jrcla2 are apparently attempting to expand this ownership into the 1000s with college basketball and college baseball templates. You are now extending your dubious claim of consensus across the spheres of dozens of different Wikiprojects without even notifying them or attempting to bring in any opinion about how such templates should vary based on the sport, let alone based on the individual team issue that I and others have had previously had issues with in the cfb discussions. Let me be clear, I do not have problems with setting a guideline for any subset of navigational templates and I have no problem routing out boosterism or cruft on these templates. I certainly have no problem with abiding by a consensus. I do have a major problem with the unwillingness to discuss logical deviations from your singular template standard on a template-by-template basis based on what makes sense to the potential navigator of the topic of interest, which in every single case is the actual team, not college football in general or college basketball in general, and certainly not the entirety of college sports in general. It is a dangerous president in my opinion, one that I feel could be very detrimental to the entirety of the Wikipedia project. Again, not creating a standard template, but strictly enforcing the content of that template by constantly citing a dubious consensus from a Wikiproject, and effectively awarding ownership of 1000s of these templates to that Wikiproject. I find that dangerous. That said, I do not intend to stop the production of these templates, just delay them in order to see if they can be improved through consensus. However, I do intend to seek a confirmation about whether there is consensus that templates cannot be customized to some degree. Now all of that said, I'm happy to work with you and Jrcla2 on building a standard basketball template, and even patrol them for cruft, but I am not willing to hand over ownership or policy making ability to a Wikiproject. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
1st see above for my thoughts on the CIVIL etc. concerns.
2nd, purely from a wikipolicy view CrazyPaco can not be more correct in his approach to wikipolicy, how exactly is a sea of red links useful to either the reader or the already strained Wikipedia database and thus future participation by editors who get error messages or lost contributions because so many megabytes are being dedicated to flashing thousands if not millions of redlinks?
3rd, the reason that (as Jweiss points out) there may be a dearth of similar views expressed here is we are past the point of the "TooLongDidn'tRead" axiom.
Conclusion it may be wiser to instead of certain editors twisting the wikipolicies here into a pretzel by packing boxes with redlinks and writing scribes that only Supreme Court jurists could hope to read and comprehend, concerned editors that disagree with CrazyPaco and wikipolicy would better use their time building out such things as North Carolina State basketball 1915-16 season, I know the fires burn hot when someone disagrees with you but whats the point of disagreeing with CrazyPaco's wikipolicy (correct) interpretation of no red-links if those editors who disagree don't wish to build up articles such as those over the years that this discussion has taken? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 21:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
MarketDiamond, per your comments of incivility, it's curious that you seem to have no issue with CrazyPaco's incivility, particularly his publishing of false statements about me. That's what libel is: "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". In no way am I making a threat of legal entanglement. I do not plan to sue CrazyPaco. I don't even know what his real name is, nor do I wish to investigate. I am simply calling a spade a spade. And I do not appreciate your thinly-veiled and malicious, though vacuous, threat of some sort of blockage of my account. Finally, the "Whiskey Rebellion" comment is not a stereotype, nor was it directed at any group. It was directed singularly at CrazyPaco to make a historical allusion to describe his persistent defiance of widely-accepted standards. That he is interested in Pittsburgh and presumably has personal ties to the region only made the metaphor apt. I have no sense that such an attribute is indicative of people, some of whom I know well, who hail from that region. That's all I have time for now. I plan to comment again in the next couple days about the subject matter at hand, the navboxes and the role of WikiProjects. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
See my response above in my attempt to keep the thread topical (Jweiss11 is responding to a post a few posts up). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 02:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

IP adding less important things to infoboxes

110.22.64.13 has been doing nothing but adding things like 3rd team-All conference and Alll-Freshman to articles. These are recognitions that should not be used that often, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:NBA about pro player achievements kind of drew the line at 1st team All-Conference and Freshman of the Year (in addition to NPOY, Conference POY, All-American and National Awards like Defensive POY, National Freshman of the Year, etc) for college awards. I haven't really taken a hard line on enforcing this. Here is the discussion (or at least one of them): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 20#Career highlights order Rikster2 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should encourage this guy to stop. For some articles like Anthony Davis (basketball) he is bloating infoboxes. I removed 3 of the 4 things he added there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Another school display name recommendation

All - in switching over Marshall Henderson's infobox I thought about it and it seems like "Mississippi" should display as "Ole Miss" in the college box. This is not only what the school self-identifies as, it is also what news agencies (like ESPN) use almost exclusively. It's also the naming convention for the school sports articles (Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball). I'll let it sit a little while, then start changing them over. If anyone objects just say so. Rikster2 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, should be "Ole Miss". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

School basketball articles

Has there been an inventory of how many DI schools are missing an X University Mascot men's basketball article? What about X University Mascot, which admittedly is not entirely this project's responsibility?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

The Master table has an inventory of which schools have basketball articles (most but not all do). I don't know if a mascot list exists. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I never said the table was completely up to date, and the program templates are new. But the UNLV article is in the right place because the women's team goes by "Lady Rebels." (http://www.unlvrebels.com/sports/w-baskbl/recaps/120113aaa.html). Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on basketball articles and the "basketball biography" template

Per previous conversation to "try it" I have updated current college player infoboxes to Template:Infobox basketball biography. Please take a look and see what you think (Marcus Smart, Mike Moser or Mitch McGary are good examples). I am still pursuing getting college colors added, as well as a field for academic class, but I think they actually look better than the old templates even without these. I wanted to take another shot at seeing if we could get agreement to move college coaches to this template as well (except those who are just as known for coaching another sport like football or baseball). Compare Kevin Ollie (who is in the basketball biography template) with Johnny Dawkins, a highly decorated played who is in the NCAA coach infobox. We are losing a lot of playing data (teams, awards, draft status, etc.) by moving players to this infobox. It is also not optimal for showing coaching movement between the college and professional ranks. I think basketball biography better represents this. If we can give it a try, I think we can find a good way to preserve winning percentage, etc. What do you think? Rikster2 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We are also losing (tournaments, records, major and maybe some others).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You can include records as is - the threshold for the "highlights" section is lower for college players - though if we permanently go down this path we should figure out what the criteria is for college players. We can certainly debate if tournaments or academic major are important enough to have added (I really don't think so for tournaments - just appearing in the NCAAs or CBI isn't that huge an accomplishment and will be mentioned in the prose usually - but can see both sides of the debate for major). Rikster2 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Category:African-American basketball coaches and Category:African-American basketball players

Are we still restricting use of Category:African-American basketball coaches and Category:African-American basketball players to players with explicit cited content in their articles verifying this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's always been the case. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Verifiability is clear at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never been a big fan of these categories so I rarely add or remove it, but given the history of integration and the role of race in basketball it seems appropriate enough. I do think you are supposed to have some verifiability of ancestry, but I always got a chuckle thinking about if somebody like LeBron James were looking at his article and seeing the "African-American players" category removed simple because he never came out and said "I'm African-American" in an interview. Rikster2 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

College program article titling

Central Connecticut State

Just looked at Central Connecticut Blue Devils men's basketball and was surprised that is was not "Central Connecticut State Blue Devils men's basketball," which is what I know the school as. I noticed it had been moved in 2011 due to the school rebranding as "Central Connecticut." But when I look at pretty much any independent source (ESPN.com, CBSSports.com, etc.) they list the school as "Central Connecticut State." Seems like this article should refelect WP:COMMONNAME until everyone is using this new naming. Thoughts? I thought about just moving the page, but didn't want to be a jerk. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example from yesterday. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm...if the independent sources still use "State" then it ought to reflect that. I'd support it. If it does get moves, all CCSU athletics categories would need to be speedy renamed and all CCSU navboxes would have to be moved/updated as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Even the NCAA site uses CC State. The school and the NEC seem to be the only places that list them only as Central Connecticut. Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

South Alabama

An editor moved South Alabama Jaguars and Lady Jaguars back to South Alabama Jaguars. Apparently the school now uses that nickname for all teams regardless of sex? Can anyone confirm? Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

At this link from the school athletic website the title is "Jaguar Women to Open Two-Game SBC Road Trip at Arkansas-Little Rock." Seems like if they still went by Lady Jags that headline would have started "Lady Jaguars," but I will keep looking. Rikster2 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified 2012–13 VCU Rams men's basketball team player

Who is the defender in File:20130323 Trey Burke shooting during NCAA tournament.jpg?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified 2012-13 Syracuse Orange players

Resolved

Is the defender on either of these photos notable: File:20130406 Tim Hardaway Jr.jpg and File:20130406 Trey Burke.jpg (a player with a page of his own)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The defender in "File:20130406 Trey Burke.jpg" is Brandon Triche, this I know for certain. The defender in "File:20130406 Tim Hardaway Jr.jpg" looks like C. J. Fair although I'm not entirely positive. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it is fair based on this google image search. He seems to be partial to the headband.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

2013-14 Emporia State Hornets women's basketball team

Dear project members,

does 2013-14 Emporia State Hornets women's basketball team meet your notability criteria? I was unsure whether to move to an endashed title or to WP:PROD the article, so it would be very welcome if one of you could handle this issue properly. Thanks in advance, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The only inherently notable college basketball season articles are men's NCAA Division I programs. Some of the top tier women's Division I programs are notable, but not as clear-cut on the whole. Emporia State's, especially the women's program, does not meet notability threshold, no. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I would agree it is not notable and PROD would be fine (though the creator might remove it, in which case I would AfD). There are really not that many programs below division I who have individual seasons that are notable. I just looked them up and they are #2 in the country. That's good, but I think for a D2 women's team they'd at a minimum need to win a championship or set a record to justify an article (maybe not then). Rikster2 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Simplest criteria is to demonstrate WP:GNG. I'm guessing only the local town paper (at best) is giving them independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
PRODded the article. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mid season All-Americans without aritcles

I just got around to reading TSN's midseason All-American team and thought I would note that 3 of the 15 still don't have articles: Nick Johnson (basketball), DeAndre Kane, Tyler Ennis (basketball).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. expanding to the Wooden Midseason 25: Cameron Bairstow, Jordan Clarkson, Adreian Payne, Casey Prather, T. J. Warren, Joseph Young (basketball)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Career scoring list error

In this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men's_basketball_career_scoring_leaders Reggie Lewis is credited as #19 all-time in scoring with 2708 points. Reggie Lewis is also credited as #1 all-time in the America East conference with 2709 points. Certainly, he can't have two different point totals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.199.143 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It should be 2,709 per this source, so I've made the fix. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Melvin Ejim anyone

We could use a Melvin Ejim article. He broke the Big 12 single-game scoring record tonight per this. I don't like being married to articles for guys who are not from someplace I root for. Otherwise I would knock this one out. There are no doubt a lot of people landing on a redlink today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly Tony, why don't you start it? Are you going to limit yourself to Michigan related articles? I could create a stub but it is not easy finding information with Google News Archive down. By the way, what is up with that? Is Google just getting rid of that valuable service? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Because I don't like to do half-arsed bios and I don't want to do a full-arsed bio for this guy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright I wrote a "half-arsed" bio of Ejim. Someone should really expand it though, because he is one of the best players in college basketball. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Standings bot

I had asked Hasteur for some advice to make the updating of wbb standings templates easier. He responded that he could do it with a bot, using the ESPN API. I was more concerned about the women's standings, because there are fewer active editors, but my original plan was to work out the kinks on the women's side, then let the editors of the men's standings know, so that the manual process could be replaced by the automated process. Things are moving faster than I anticipated: See User:BasketBallStatsBot.

I don't yet know the date it will be available, but I wanted to provide a heads up in case there are questions.

For example, on the women's side the ESPN standing were, to be blunt, wrong. That was something that could be fixed manually, as long as you knew where the errors were. It will be a little tougher if updated by a bot. Several of the errors have been reported to ESPN and now resolved, but I certainly don't want a bot coming in to update men's standings if there are known errors in the ESPN standings.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See below for a discussion on whether or not conference standings here should reflect the respective conference's official tie breaking rules, or if they should reflect the multiple sources which (IMO, incorrectly) go by the overall record to break ties in the conference. BenYes? 12:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Conference Standings

So I've been updating Template:2013–14 SEC men's basketball standings and Template:2013–14 SEC women's basketball standings rather consistently recently, and I have always been ranking tied teams (6–6 in the conference, for example) according to how the tournament seeds would appear if the season would end that day. Now, I use the official SEC rules on breaking ties to break the ties, and explain the reason in the edit summaries, but I've noticed that on many other templates, ties are broken by the team with the best overall record, or their ranking, if applicable. I also noticed that some of the teams that I arranged in order of the tiebreaker have been rearranged in order of their overall records to break the tie. ESPN and the SEC websites all break the ties on the standings through overall records. On an unrelated note, NFL templates are arranged in order of the tiebreaker, not their straight records. My question is, is there a right or a wrong in one or both of these ways of arranging the teams? In my opinion, I would rather see the teams in order of how they would be seeded, to prevent when someone goes to the tournament page and sees the teams seeded differently than what is given in the standings template from becoming confused. BenYes? 03:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I like ordering tied teams by tiebreaker too. Overall record has nothing to do with conference standings. I'd rather choose alphabetical order as opposed to overall record. The problem is it's hard to find a source that breaks the ties the "right" way during the season. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you guys think: Richmond96 Tewapack? I saw you edited the Florida page recently. BenYes? 23:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

Notability

What is the notability standard for college basketball players? If they play in the D-League, does that make them notable. A lot of good ex-college players have been Prodded or AfDd recently like E.J. Singler, Chris Babb, Rodney Williams (basketball) which is why I ask. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 03:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCOLLATH covers assumption of notability for college athletes. A can also satisfy WP:GNG and be notable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
So someone like Spike Albrect would probably not pass for inclusion. But what about D-League players? Why are Euroleague players mentioned but not D-Leaguers? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 11:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Spike Albrecht already has a well constructed article. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
D-League is not a top tier league and it's essentially equivalent to a Major League Baseball team's farm system. To meet notability, players have to pass either GNG, NHOOPS, or NCOLLATH. It was determined that D-League player does not equal inherent notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Jrcla2 is right about the D-League. I would add that Euroleague is the top-level pan-European competition and absolutely its players are notable and much more notable than a person who simply plays in the D-League. The top teams in Europe qualify - teams like Real Madrid, Maccabi Tel Aviv, etc. that most people have heard of. These teams get tons of press in their home countries. Last thing I will say is that WP:NBASKETBALL is one of the stricter notability guidelines out there - you should compare it to soccer or hockey. We should do something about it (not that adding the D-League is that something). Several leagues like Turkey and China receive the same level of press that the leagues that currently are named in the guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Also in various stages of PROD or AfD: Trent Lockett, Kammron Taylor, Mac Koshwal and Kenny Kadji. Most if not all of these guys met GNG as college players (maybe not Taylor, I saw the PROD but left it alone) and a couple have played for "similar leagues" like Turkey and France which probably meet N:BASKETBALL on that dimension. The articles probably need improvement and I know I plan to take part in all of the AfD discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is though, all the articles NBAfanAndrew created have for one been poorly started, and two are not needed. Right now, they are nothing D-League players (most first year pro) and just happened to have attended NBA training camps – hence NBAfanAndrew's reasons for creating them in the first place. I just think right now examples such as Kammron Taylor (who actually isn't even on a team right now) and Damen Bell-Horter don't need/deserve an article at this point in their career despite them meeting GNG etc. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. WP:KITTENS, anyone? Jrcla2 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Definitely, check his history. He recently created Kenny Kadji, again not really needed, but it reads well now thanks to Dale Arnett. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree that articles should demonstrate notability. I do have a personal bias that before someone PRODs an article they do a basic search to assess notability per GNG or they should AfD it so a conversation can be had without the article disappearing before anyone knows it's even up for debate. Kenny Kadji was definitely a notable college player - he was an all-league level guy for the ACC champs last year. You wouldn't know it from the article, but seems like the bias should be to improve the article vs. delete articles of notable people because the original author did a poor job on it. Rikster2 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My point about Spike Albrecht is not that it isn't a well-constructed article - it is - but the fact that he is completely run of the mill college player. The kid averages about 2.5 points per game as a backup to Derrick Walton. At this point, he is not even a D-League prospect. Compare that to Trent Lockett, who was a second team all-conference selection. Granted, it was not particularly well written in the beginning, but its a solid stub now. My question is if we can find enough info on a person, even if they were in the NBA for 2 seconds and never played in the top of the Euroleague, would they be considered notable? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"if we can find enough info on a person" is the minimum requirement per WP:GNG, with the key caveat about needing multiple independent sources. I used to argue for a higher standard in my early days, but there was never much support, and the rest of WP follows GNG, so it makes sense to me ... now :-) —Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Eddy, to answer your question "even if they were in the NBA for 2 seconds and never played in the top of the Euroleague, would they be considered notable?" the answer is yes. If a player gets playing time - even if it is literally 1 second - of an NBA regular season or postseason game, they become inherently notable for having played in the top men's basketball league in the world. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
To be clear that its not a totally arbitrary rule, the thinking is that anyone that made it that far usually has a decent amount of coverage in their amateur days or from trying out/making the major pro league itself.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet another request for move - please weigh in

See Talk:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen#Requested move II. An editor has requested that "UMass" be changed to "Massachusetts." Jrcla2 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject College Basketball to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 23:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Year-by-year teams

Not sure where to place this.....Women's basketball only began play in the 1960's. Today, we list the teams as no reference to men's basketball if the women's team has a different name. We also do not use the men's reference if the school has no women's teams (The Citadel comes to mind)...What about in cases where the women's team didn't exist, so prior to 1974 UConn did not have a women's basketball team, should we then just call the men's team prior to 1974 the Connecticut Huskies basketball team? So for the yr 1960-61, we would list it as the 1960–61 Connecticut Huskies basketball team???...Or in the case of Holy Cross they were an all men's school prior to going co-ed in the 70's...Some articles would need to be changed (UCLA and Kentucky come to mind). My guess is it will be a pain to change them over and cause some controversy and confusion, so it may not be worth all the trouble, but I thought we should discuss now rather than later....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just keep a consistent naming convention so we don't confuse users who don't eat, sleep and breathe Wikipedia. It isn't incorrect to call them "men's teams." Just my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So then are you saying we should keep a consistent naming convention and then eliminate the men's moniker in those cases where the women's teams did not exist or are you more in favor of keeping a consistent naming convention and keep the men's moniker throughout their school history (even for years the women's programs weren't available for schools that now have women's programs?...Pvmoutside (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
a consistent naming convention would be what it is today - keep it "men's" historically in these cases. Thought I was clear about that. Rikster2 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, missed the double negative......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
no need to be an ass just because I didn't agree with your suggestion. Rikster2 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I really was apologizing for missing the double negative Rikster2.....And I'm not saying I think changing all the articles is a good idea. I just didn't want to see new pages being created when the issue wasn't addressed. Just making sure everyone is on the same page, that's all......Pvmoutside (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
We can also have redirects too (ex: 1960–61 Connecticut Huskies basketball team -> 1960–61 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team). That seems the best of both worlds. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
so it sounds like you also are in favor of keeping the men's moniker in place even when women's teams weren't playing yet?......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion I guess. Whether or not the article title includes "men's" or not, there should be a redirect with the opposite convention. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
^I second that. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with Rikster2 on this. It's confusing enough to a lot of people when "men's" isn't included on Baylor, LSU articles (etc.). Other than the 10 total of us on this specific WikiProject who would understand why "men's" isn't included, nobody would know why. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of unnecessary work it would take to patrol those pre-women's basketball articles to ensure "men's" wasn't added back because of a page move. The backlog of work for WP:CBBALL is long enough, there's no reason to add patrolling technically correct names to that list. Like Rikster2 said, it's not incorrect to include men's in the historical cases. It's only incorrect to include it when the women's team goes by another nickname. I wholly oppose removing "men's" from historical names. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
We COULD add "men's" and "womens" to those pages missing them even though the team names are different (UMass Minutemen men's basketball, (i.e. UMass Minutewomen women's basketball, Tennessee Volunteers men's basketball, Tennessee Lady Vols women's basketball) to make it more uniform and less confusing......just sayin'....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
No. Just... no. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Conference USA Men's Basketball First Team

Template:Conference USA Men's Basketball First Team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CBE Classic MVP navbox

Template:CBE Classic MVP navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Jabari Parker-Jabari Parker's high school career WP:SPLIT

I have finally WP:SPLIT Jabari Parker's high school career from Jabari Parker. I have trimmed Jabari Parker from 59289 to 46119 characters of readable prose. I could use help trimming further prose, pictures and infobox content from the high school portion of the Jabari Parker article. Feel free to jump in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Axolotl Nr.733 has tagged the main Jabari Parker article with {{Overly detailed}}. This does not seem appropriat to me now that I have trimmed quite a bit. I am not sure what is the best way to repsond, but this is obviously a fairly high priority article for WP:CBBALL so some feedback on this would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You haven't trimmed it, you have forked it. That's quite a difference. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have trimmed the main article from 59289 to 46119 characters and I have forked content from the original 59289 character article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It still has too much needless information, and I'm going to be bold and delete some of it. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
a player's high school career does isn't worth it's own article IMO. It should be trimmed to a reasonable size and left in the main article. Parker will have a long, decorated pro career so having this much "stuff" about him as a high schooler doesn't seem worth it. Rikster2 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I was starting to agree with a lot of the edits at Jabari Parker given that things were being WP:PRESERVEd at Jabari Parker's high school career. However, now that the latter is being AFDed, I am concerned about some of the content that is being removed at the former. Edits like this one that removes a workout where 42 schools sent recruiters to visit or this one that removes content documenting what schools he was considering seem to be a bit rash. Some of this is similar to content in WP:FAs that I have gotten promoted in the last year or so. If you both rashly slash the main article and AFD the forked content we are losing a lot of detail from WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I would just ask if all that detail is actually needed in an encyclopedia article. If there is too much detail, it makes it difficult for readers to get the truly important stuff. But that's fine, I don't care to get any more involved than I have been so far. Rikster2 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The point of forking an article is to retain extra detail for those who want it. Why do we need to actively AFD the detail. People have been reading the article with all the detail in it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is not needed. We don't even have articles about players NBA career, so why high school? FTR, 59KB isn't even that long. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Listing NIT games for conference winners that lost in conf. tournament

Isn't it too early to list TBD NIT games for teams who were the conference champions but lost in their conference tournament? See this for example. It's WP:CRYSTAL when they could still be at-large selections for the NCAA tournament. It's also WP:OR for editors to select which conference winners that lose in their conf tournament will get NIT put on their schedule. If Michigan loses, do they automatically get the NIT game on their schedule? — X96lee15 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Smaller concerence teams who have an absolute zero chance of making the NCAA tournament, like Green Bay, will be in the NIT. There is no reason to wait because there is no chance. Nobody would change Michigan's page to NIT if they lose their conference tourney, it's a given they are in. But High Point, Belmont, Green Bay, Florida Gulf Coast and Davidson (the current conference champs who have lost in their tourney) have zero chance of a tourney bid but get an auto bid to the NIT. There is no reason to wait for something that is not going to happen. Basically use common sense. If they are on the bubble then don't do anything. If they have zero tourney chance but an auto NIT bid then go ahead. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe it still counts as WP:CRYSTAL as much as declaring McDermott the POY or Florida a 1 seed already.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
So a team like High Point out of the Big South, the regular season champion who lost in their tourney, who is 16–14 and have a 0% chance at an NCAA Tournament bid but get an auto bid to the NIT that we should wait to add anything about the NIT to their page just in case? Same with Davidson, 20–11 out of the SoCon, absolutely no chance of a NCAA Tournament bid but get an auto NIT bid. There is no chance these teams get NCAA bids. Green Bay is 24–6 but since they are in the Horizon there is no chance they get a bid. I even looked to see if any of the experts are predicting a NCAA bid and no one thinks its going to happen. Since Michigan was brought up as an example, it should be common sense, at least among the college basketball community, that they are in the NCAA even if they don't win the B1G tournament thus of course we aren't going to say they are in the NIT if they lose. Another example is Gonzaga (I think their final is tonight). If they lose they are on the bubble. Technically they get an NIT bid as regular season WCC champs but since there is a very good chance they make the NCAA they it shouldn't be added yet. I don't see why this is even an issue. Teams with auto NIT bid with zero chance of NCAA bid should be changed. Teams on the bubble should wait. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It's original research for editors to make the distinction about what teams are on the bubble or not. The absolute worst thing would be to list a team in the NIT field that happens to make the tournament. This is a clear-cut WP:CRYSTAL violation. There's absolutely no need to list a team as being in the NIT right now. Just wait until it's official. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Unless you have a WP:RS saying that they will be in the NIT, wait. We are a summary of secondary sources not a compendium of editor opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There is a absolute ZERO chance Green Bay, and the other teams that I have added the NIT to their pages, will be in the NCAA Tournament. Its not like I'm just randomly adding NIT to teams I think will be in the NIT. These teams have an AUTOMATIC!!! bid into the NIT and have a ZERO!! percent chance of getting a NCAA Tournament bid. How hard is that to see? Why the hell can't anyone ever just use common sense anymore (not just in this argument, common sense is going away everywhere and we are worst off for it). Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with you that it's common sense that these teams will be in the NIT, we have to stick by the verifiability principle, one of Wikipedia's pillars. Some of these teams have not been officially announced as NIT participants yet, so we shouldn't add them until that time. I'm reminded of the Men In Black quote, "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." The point of the quote is that it was 'common sense' that the Earth was flat...turns out, common sense was wrong. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No NIT team has been announced yet, none will technically be announced until after the NCAA selection show on Sunday. But these teams have automatic bids and there is absolutely nothing to show that they will even be considered for a NCAA bid. If one thing is 100% and the other better thing is 0% then that's all the proof I need. Granted, technically Green Bay (whose page started this whole discussion) has about a 00.000001% chance of making the NCAA. The other teams do not. With how many teams pages need to be updated at the end of the season I don't see any harm in adding NIT info to teams who will be using their NIT auto bid.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Green Bay is not completely out of it, they own a win over Virginia and are considered a bubble squad. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Green Bay has a better NCAAT profile than Iona did two years ago. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not wait until the tournament fields are officially announced? If anyone is hot to edit something in the meantime, why not attack one of the thousands and thousands of other things that need work? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Bsuorangecrush is continuing to update NIT schedules for teams, despite what appears to be consensus here. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That's because I'm not entirely stupid!! If a team has an automatic bid to the NIT as a regular season champ but WILL NOT!!! make the NCAA due to their resume not being adequate for an NCAA bid then THEY ARE IN THE NIT GUARENTEED!! HOW HARD IS THAT TO REALIZE!! Does anyone think High Point or Davidson or Iona will get an NCAA BID??? NO!! Do those teams have auto NIT bids? YES!! Thus they will be in the NIT!!!. Again, It's not like I'm just randomly adding NIT info to teams I personally think will be in the NIT. These teams are in the NIT as regular season conference champs. They lost in their conference tournament and do not have the resume to get an at large NCAA bid. Since there is no chance they get into the NCAA then They are automatically in the NIT. If anyone can't see that then you have some serious problems. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
What if a team turns down their NIT bid?
I don't understand what it to be gained by putting the information in the teams' articles at this point. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bsuorangecrush You keep using (in fact, shouting) is "will". That's kind of the point here. Well, that and WP:SYNTH and WP:V. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news service or a time machine. Mosmof (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I also err on the side of caution. A team can turn down an NIT bid (although unlikely)..By waiting, that time could be spent updating a team's 2013-14 page that isn't current, for example, instead of creating information that will probably be right, but may not....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I do err on the side of caution, that's I why I would never, in the previous example, say Michigan was going to the NIT if they lose in their conference tournament. They will be in the NCAA tournament thus that would be stupid. These other teams, Iona, High Point, Davidson, have ZERO chance of a NCAA bid. ZERO. ABSOLUTE ZERO. If you think those teams have a chance then you are not a college basketball fan and probably should stop editing college basketball pages. They do, however, have a GUARANTEED AUTO BID TO THE NIT!!!! Period, they are in, they are not going to turn it down. It's not a risk, there is no caution to side on. How in the hell is that not CRYSTAL to everyone?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What if they turn down the NIT bid? What exactly would be gained by that? "Hey team you busted your ass all year and won your regular season title but we just didn't get it done in the conference tourney. Oh well, we have an auto bid to the NIT but we don't want that, season over". That head coach would be fired within an hour! Again, I'm not just randomly predicting these teams are going to the NIT. They get an automatic bid and are not considered bubble teams for the NCAA's. I'm not randomly going out on a limb. These teams will be in the NIT. I've busted my ass keeping most of the midmajor conferences up to date almost by myself most of the year. Updating these certainties now saves me a hell of a lot of time on Sunday when the entire field and opponents are announced. And using that same logic, what if a team turned down their NCAA tournament automatic bid? Shouldn't we wait to include them in that tournament? Sounds pretty dumb doesn't it?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't take anything away from your otherwise excellent work. I applaud all the work keeping up with all the team games throughout the year. That takes a lot of dedication! All I'm saying is there are teams that do not have their regular seasons schedules finished. I would think that a priority over predicting a team that highly will be placed in the NIT but not guaranteed. I do remember some teams turning down their bids in past years....See this link:[8]What's the harm in waiting and concentrating on the other stuff???? Again, wonderful work otherwise!!!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
yes, teams have turned down NIT bids, but not auto bids. I'm not predicting these teams are in the NIT, they are in automatically. If I was predicting then fine, tell me I'm wrong. But I'm not predicting anything. These teams are in. If anyone does not understand how NIT autobids work please look it up and tell me these teams won't be in the NIT. A certainty is not a prediction. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's original research for you to choose which teams you will add the NIT games to. That's why we should wait until the postseason fields are announced. If a team receives an at-large bid, they will not be in the NIT. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I AM NOT CHOOSING WHAT TEAMS WILL BE IN THE NIT? Do you not understand the process for an automatic bid to the NIT? Please, tell me, do you? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand. I didn't say you were choosing which teams would be in the NIT, I said you were choosing what teams you would add the NIT games to. You've said previously that you wouldn't list Michigan as being in the NIT if they lose in their conference tournament. Why no on Michigan but yes on Green Bay? You're applying an unsourced criteria for choosing what teams you think will be in the NIT. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Because Michigan has an NCAA Tournament resume good enough to get an at large bid. Green Bay, and the other teams with auto bids who I had listed in the NIT, clearly do not have anywhere near the right resume to get a NCAA bid. Any reasonable college basketball can can see that. If you think 16-14 High Point, who has a auto NIT bid, is going to get a NCAA bid then you know nothing about college basketball. If you think 20-12 Davidson, who has an auto NIT bid, is going to get an NCAA bid then you know nothing about college basketball. Your logic is horrible. It's complete common sense and readily apparent to anyone who follows college basketball. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's worth pointing out that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a news service or a publisher of original information. And I'm not seeing the harm in waiting for something to be verified before editing. We don't get prizes for being FIRST! Lastly, I'd find a more civil way to respond users on talk pages and to the 3RR notice, which is meant to be a courtesy message rather than an annoyance. Mosmof (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Please be more civil. The point is that Michigan is the obvious case and High Point is probably the other extreme. It's the middle cases that you're applying your criteria in choosing the teams to list the NIT games. This discussion has NOTHING to do with knowledge of college basketball and EVERYTHING to do with WP:V. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is as much harm in waiting as there is in including it because there is zero harm in including 100% facts. Hiding behind "let's be safe" is a terrible argument. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate Bgsuorangecrush adding references to many of the articles in question. I guess I'm OK with keeping the NIT schedule for the teams that have references. However, for the reference given at 2013–14 Iona Gaels men's basketball team ([9]), I don't believe it supports Iona being in the NIT. The ref says, "Iona awaits Selection Sunday (Mar. 16) to determine its next opponent. As MAAC Regular Season Champions, the Maroon & Gold has an automatic bid into the National Invitation Tournament." This is just saying what we already know, not that the team will be playing in the NIT.
Also, Bsuorangecrush has violated the 3RR on that page with 5 reverts in 24 hours. I was going to report to the noticeboard, but I'm too close to the situation to do it in good conscious. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Fine, if you don't feel like that is enough then change it. I found another article saying a NCAA bid looks very unlikely for them, but since it wasn't from a school site or anything affiliated with the school I felt it was even less reliable. I have already found a source for Vermont so I will update that page tomorrow when I'm not just on my iPhone and over the next few days I will update any other teams that fit the auto status criteria that I find sources for. I still feel like it should just flat be common sense for some teams, like Iona, but I'll find sources until Sunday. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
No, since the NIT field has not been announced. We have no proof that HPU, Belmont, FGCU, and Davidson will be in the NIT. They can't turn down an NIT bid anymore FTR. Also, Green Bay IMO will get in and ESPN has them on the ever talked about bubble. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlando Johnson

Towards the middle of the College career section it says: Johnson also led the Gauchos to the 2010 Big West Conference Men's Basketball Tournament title and an NCAA appearance. Would "an NCAA apearance" refer to an NCAA tournament appearance? I just want to make the wording more clear for readers. Robert4565 (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

NCAA tourney results in Template:Infobox college basketball team

It seems like {{Infobox college basketball team}} is missing NCAAroundof64, now that NCAAopeninground should be the field of 68. Seriously though, a section for every round from Elite 8 on seems overkill, especially when the same years are repeated for each round. Is it just me, or do articles like Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball or UCLA Bruins men's basketball look horrendous with the giant infobox?—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think tourney appearances is important, as is everything above Sweet 16. The press refers to this information pretty frequently ("the Gators, making their fourth straight Sweet 16 appearance" is a quote from last night's broadcast. Round of 32 isn't significant generally. Not sure runner up is either, come to think of it. Final Fours and championships are referenced a lot, but finishing second almost never is. Rikster2 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to find a link for the historical list of NPOYs for the Sports Illustrated College NPOY or the Parade High School NPOY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either exists. SI hasn't always even named one every year. It's not really any kind of official award. Rikster2 (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders/Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders

I know it's not a big deal, but I thought I'd make all the basketball pages Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders unless there is some objection. Some of the pages are listed as Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders, so I thought I'd make them consistent moving forward to avoid confusion.....Also, I am not an admin. The Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders men's basketball page should be changed to Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders men's basketball page but is locked. Can some admin do the move honors and I'll clean it all up. Better to do now than later....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree it should be moved. The WP:COMMONNAME is "Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders" - see how they are displayed at sports sites like ESPN, and at the Conference USA site. Heck, their uniforms even say "Middle Tennessee" with no "state." So, yes, it is a big deal and you shouldn't do it. This isn't a mistake, the page is intentionally "Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders." Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, look at their media guide opening page (created by their athletic department). "Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders." The pages you moved should go back to the way they were. They were correct. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll move them to the right name, but I need some guidance. Some pages are Middle Tennessee, some pages are Middle Tennessee State, with no year consistency. Shouldn't they all be the same? I'll move them all over to Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

NIT or bust

It wasn't so long ago that the NCAA tourney had 65 teams and the NIT had 40 (totalling 105). Now they total 100 invites. I have got to think that schools like Maryland and Indiana who were likely on the wrong side of the NIT bubble this year were asked to play in the CIT or CBI. What is the thinking on why they did not accept invitations?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've got to think that playing in one of those is beneath them. Maryland and Indiana are two programs that shouldn't be "happy" to be invited to any postseason tournament. If they can't qualify for the NCAAs, the NIT is still a respectable enough postseason tournament worth winning. The CBI and CIT are money-makers whose credibility does not meet the standards of historically respectable programs (FWIW I agree with Maryland and Indiana's decision to not participate). Jrcla2 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


I thought the CIT was geared towards mid major conferences, which i like, level competition. The CBI is another story. Littlekelv (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

D'Angelo Harrison

Just to let everyone know, St. John's star D'Angelo Harrison is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'Angelo Harrison. Everyone's participation would be welcomed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Conference Help

There are a few groups for some major conferences, but most are 90% or more incomplete prior to 2012. Trying to figure out a way to collaborate and have different groups to expand on all D1 conferences. Suggestions to make this work? I've personally been working on the MAC when i have some free time, it's a mess. Littlekelv (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused as to specifically what help you are referring to. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Asking for help to get articles like 1991–92 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team cleaned up and thought maybe splitting up duties on editing by conference. Seems to be easier to work in the same conference with all the common scheduling every year. Littlekelv (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Images of incoming freshmen

I have uploaded 108 images at Commons:Category:2014_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game. I have cropped about half of them and saved over the original.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit biased, but do we not want to have images such as these in sections talking about the blue chip recruits. I.E., Rockchalk717 has reverted my edit to include these in recruit sections. Is that correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do not feel those pictures are relevant to the article. With it being a page about an individual season, I feel photos should be restricted to photos from said season. While they are big name recruits, I don't feel those photos really add anything to article.--Rockchalk717 06:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I added them to Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky (I would have done so with North Carolina, but the article is still a redlink). I figured that since the sections were about the high school recruiting rankings, being McD's AA was relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but it feels relevant to add the photos of two McDonald's All-American recruits to the page so long as the photo placement doesn't make the article look tacky. Much like Wiggins and Embiid this year, it feels like the recruits will be a prominent story in KU's season next year (especially Alexander). Why not add them to the recruiting or season outlook sections? Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I just don't think the only photos in the article should be two players that have yet to suit up even for a practice.--Rockchalk717 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait. I don't understand your objection. The article is about next years team that includes two of the most prominent high school players in the country. We have pictures of these two players in uniform as prominent high school players, that we can put in a section that describes their high school excellence based on recruiting rankings and such. The pictures actually illustrate the points made by this section by picturing them in the most prominent high school basketball all-star game in the world.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Why not if their status as recruits is relevant to the season? It's an article about a season that's a year away anyway. Whatever, I'm not that passionate about it. Rikster2 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The section isn't for describing their excellence though. I've created the articles for the last 3 seasons and this season and last season I used the same set up in the section. The section I made for roster and coaching changes, I made it the way it is so readers at glance can view the changes made in the offseason not to highlight any individual player or players and putting a picture of those two recruits take away exactly that. Now I am definetly not trying to violate WP:OWN and feel free to tell me if what I am saying does because I feel like it might be.--Rockchalk717 00:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've created several dozen of these types of articles (Michigan, Princeton and Harvard). About a dozen of them are WP:GAs. Sometimes I have used more pictures than others. It depends on what is available. However, I try to find relevant pictures. For most teams the recruit sections just list names and ratings of recruits. However, for a select few teams that have 5-star recruits, that section is showing more than just names of regular players. These are players who we want to have pictures of, IMO. If I understand you correctly, you feel adding pictures of players would highlight them and this should be shunned? That is not the case. I have never heard any discussion of images based on whether players would be highlighted in an undesirable way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how a couple photos of top recruits at one of the best programs of the nation isn't relevant to the article. This does seem a smidge like WP:OWN to me. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it does seem the consensus seems to be keeping the pictures in it so I will revert my edit removing the pictures if it hasn't been done yet. I still don't think it should be, but I won't argue with a consensus.--Rockchalk717 04:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game images

While I have a few peoples' attention, I would request feedback on image choice at 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. There were several players for whom I had difficulty choosing which image from Commons:Category:2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game to use. The ones that I remain pretty unsure whether I should swap images were Travis, Vaughn, Booker and Turner, IIRC. There may be a few others too. Any advice on which pictures I should swap (and maybe crop) would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment page

The Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Assessment page seems to be outdated, there were articles posted on there from 4 years ago for requested review. Does anybody use this?Littlekelv (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's actively used, no. I've seen some of your assessments on articles' talk pages and I think you have a pretty good sense of what is considered low, mid, and high importance. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not quite rocket science but I always like to keep things organized. Gives me something to do while under the weather. Thanks though! Littlekelv (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

NCAA Division I team navboxes complete

I'm pretty sure I just finished off creating all of the NCAA Division I team navboxes yesterday. There are 347 in total, which seems about right. If I'm missing any let me know and I'll create them. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 351 Div I men's basketball teams, so I'm not sure which ones are missing.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well damn, this could be an annoyance to figure out... (help by anyone reading this would be appreciated). Jrcla2 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Just figured out I hadn't created {{Pacific Tigers men's basketball navbox}}. Three to go. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Two of the remaining three are Loyola Marymount and Portland, which I'll make now. If there are 351 teams, that means just 1 will be left. Argh. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mystery solved. Someone had created Template:Northern Iowa Panthers men's basketball back in February but (a) miscategorized it, and (b) did a super half-assed job of a decent attempt. That makes 351, and now all DI navboxes are complete. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
a wonderful fantastic job Jrcla2!!Pvmoutside (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks very much for all of your work on this! Billcasey905 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for awesome effort here, Jrcla2! Jweiss11 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on merit of D2/D3/NAIA team navboxes

  • Do you think we should make navboxes for some of the better D2 programs? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • How would "better" be defined? Seems like these schools don't have many seasons, etc. that are notable, even when you get to the top echelon. Personally, I'd say stop at D1. Rikster2 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • A while back I created {{NYU Violets men's basketball navbox}} due to the fact that NYU was in two Division I-equivalent Final Fours and were retroactively named a Helms National Champion in another, but if the consensus is to avoid team navboxes lower than DI, I would {{userreq}} the template and DIII category, no problem. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, certainly just my opinion at this point, but I would argue that none of NYU's seasons since they moved to D3 (in the 80s I think) are notable. If you accept that premise, that means there are at least 30 redlinks to non-notable subjects on that template. The program certainly deserves an overall article (again, IMO) - as do other "better" lower division programs like Virginia Union, Metro State, Kentucky State, etc. - but I don't think there are enough articles that will ever be created where it will need a template of its own. Just my thoughts on it. Rikster2 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I suppose I tend to agree with that even though I made NYU's team navbox. Plus, now that I think about it, it would be a slippery slope to somehow only have the "important" lower-than-Division I team navboxes. An unknowing editor will see that NYU exists and then get all excited to create all Division III navboxes under the assumption it's fine. I actually reverse my initial opinion on the matter and think we ought to make a hard, collective WikiProject consensus that no team navboxes should be created for any schools that aren't Division I. I want to hear others' thoughts on this first, so I'll ping some college sports regulars. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, the idea of sub D-I navboxes seems necessary unnecessary, at least now. How about we work on the red links, stubs, and messy D-I articles first? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
              • I'm assuming you mean unnecessary? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes, unnecessary! Jweiss11 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
                • In weighing whether to create a navbox, I've generally used a 5-link rule of thumb. In this case, if a program has 5 articles we can link together in a navbox, then I would be ok with creating one, even for D2, D3, and NAIA programs. The key is determining the bar for what seasons, lists, and other types of pages might be notable for these programs. If the determination is that a D2 national championship season is notable (I haven't looked to see if there is a consensus on this), then a program with 4 national championships at D2 would merit a navbox (4 seasons plus the program page). Are D2, D3, and NAIA venues notable? That would be another link. This could get a bit unwieldy to enforce and we'll see additional navboxes pop up simply because others exist, but I think this rule of thumb would allow for growth and is a bit less rigid than a flat no D2, D3, or NAIA navboxes. All this said, I wouldn't start a project of creating navboxes for each of these programs until more progress has been made in filling in red links on existing templates. Just saying don't TFD those that exist or may be added that meet this test. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • Here is where I have the disconnect. For most D1 programs, 90% of the navbox is links to each season of that program's history. If one assumes each of those seasons is notable by virtue of the level of press coverage those schools receive (this is not an assumption everyone would agree with, by the way), then it is fine to have redlinks for each season because it encourages users to create those season articles and flesh out that program's history. With lower division programs, I would adamantly argue that the only seasons that really meet GNG are championship years. So in the case of a program like Virginia Union, they have 3 D2 titles. That leaves probably about 97 seasons that would be redlinks in the current format. You shouldn't redlink a season if it isn't notable because you shouldn't encourage anyone to create an article about some random D2 season that is just going to get deleted. In my opinion, you shouldn't just list the seasons and not link them because there is no navigational purpose to do this (remember, at the end of the day these are navigational aids). So if we are going to start creating lower division program navboxes, there should be a different format that doesn't require every season to be on the template. Maybe just championship seasons (with no other seasons displayed), program article and home venue. But does that REALLY need an infobox to help the user? I'm not so sure. Rikster2 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Rikster2. With all due respect to WP:NODEADLINE, how many of these season articles will realistically ever progress from anything more than stats and game logs i.e. WP:NOTSTATS to actually include prose that explains notable events and players for that season?—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems there just needs to be a different format for sub D1 programs, Rikster2 is on to something. This is something to look at if not familiar A navbox on every page. Littlekelv (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jweiss11 and Billcasey905. There might be some D2 schools that warrent one. I don't think it should be a set rule for no D2 or D3 navboxes. I think we are overthinking this a little too much. Littlekelv (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need a blanket rule for all D2 and under programs. I think WP:EXISTING—yes, an essay—can be followed, in that cookie-cutter creating navboxes with a bunch of redlinks that are not going to be created any time soon (i.e. weeks at most) should be discouraged. All things being equal, it would seem more productive to 1) Populate all red links to D1 navboxes and 2) Come up with guidelines on what belongs in a navbox, before moving on to other divisions. Of course we are all volunteers and can do what we are interested in, so a few may still want to start on non-D1s; I only hope that red links aren't mass-created assembly line style.—Bagumba (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think they are accepatable on a case-by-case basis, but we don't need all of them created.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Big 12 seasons

Somebody went a little overboard on charts with a paragraph explaining the season. Any takers for this? 2012–13 Big 12 Conference men's basketball season A season results chart for every team seems a little overboard. A few other seasons are like that as well. Thought there may be some big 12 fans here somewhere. Littlekelv (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Box score for Bradley/Cincy game?

Does anyone know where I can find the official box score to the 1981 Bradley vs. Cincinnati men's basketball game, which has the record for most overtime periods with 7? Based on this news article, I was able to determine exactly how many points were scored in each of the seven overtime periods, but all I know for regulation is that the game was tied at 61 after 40 minutes; I don't know what the halftime score was. I had to make up some numbers for this article's infobox for its first and second half totals because it needed to added up to 61, but I have no idea if the halftime score was 30-all. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got it. I have the full boxscore from Mike Douchant's Encyclopedia of College Basketball, page 209 (isbn# 0-8103-9640-8, 1995, Gale Research). It was 40-35 Bradley at the half. David Thirdkill of Bradley led the game scoring with 25 (in 68 minutes). If you have a good boxscore template I can add it later tonight. Rikster2 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The box score template I'd recommend can be found at 1992 Troy vs. DeVry men's basketball game. It does take a while to fill in, however, and you've gotta be careful and double check because it's so easy to make a mistake. It's still the best box score format I've seen though. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Rikster, I actually just realized that the news article says that the score was tied at 65 "after the second and third" overtimes, which means the two teams obviously scored only 1 bucket each in the same overtime period between the second and third OTs. However, it doesn't say which OT it was. Did they score their lone bucket in the second OT (with 0 points in the third), or did they score 0 in the second and their lone bucket in the third? Jrcla2 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, I will check and verify the scoring when I am home tonight. Rikster2 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I just double checked the scoring and it is correct in the article. Oh, and I looked at the boxscore template. I ain't doin' that. Rikster2 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for checking. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Neale Stoner

An article was recently created, albeit sloppily by a new editor, for Neale Stoner and has since been proposed for deletion. Stoner is a former DI head basketball coach and athletic director. He's clearly notable. Please comment at the AfD. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Big East

All - there are currently two articles - Big East Conference (1979–2013) and Big East Conference. The issue is that the current Big East actually continues the history of the "old" conference in all sports except football (which is not offered in the new league). See the Big East basketball media guide and notice that it's not the MG of a brand new league. My gut tells me these two articles should be consolidated into one under "Big East Conference" and the other should be a redirect. Other thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment - I just saw where an editor had linked the "next season" of the 2012-13 Big East to the 2013-14 AAC season- this is not accurate. The "new" Big East quite clearly claims the history of the original. The articles concerning this do not reflect reality and it seems that there should definitely not be two Big East articles. The Big East essentially gave up football and had a major change in membership - that does not constitute a new conference. Opinions? Rikster2 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is about to be a huge mess on our hands when football starts up, The Big East should be one article IMO. It's no different from any other conference that have teams come and go. A separate article for dropping football and teams moving might be needed, but the big east is pretty clear about their history. I don't see why people are making problems of this. I've stopped keeping track of talk pages about this.Littlekelv (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Importance rating

As some might have noticed, I've been going through and adding importance ratings. Just simple organizing. I'm running into some specific season tournaments that have been rated as mid. From my understanding the main tournament page for the conference should be mid, but for a specific year it should be low. Anybody against me changing specific years to low importance? Littlekelv (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also making "A generic page for an entire basketball season (e.g. 2006–07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season)"" top importance. Many NCAA season are rated as high, the example given was actually rated high instead of top. I've been following everything on WP: College Basketball/Assessment. Littlekelv (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think both of the proposed changes are good. I'd be ok with those assessments. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm proposing that specific teams that won post season tournaments such as the NIT, CBI, and CIT receive a Mid importance rating.Littlekelv (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Under the current system a team that goes to the NCAA tournament receives a mid rating, so winners of the other tournaments are giving a low rating even though they had success in post season play, while the teams participating in the "play in games" receive a mid for reaching the NCAA tourney.Littlekelv (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.sfcathletics.com/news/2012/11/27/GEN_1127120701.aspx
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Walker transfer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_basketball/Archive_4&oldid=1241289322"