Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Misuse of Category:African-American basketball players
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Misuse_of_Category:African-American_basketball_players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Christian Laettner article
It has been almost completely re-written and almost paints him as just a college player (NBA career not even mentioned in lead anymore). Also whitewashes some of his shady business dealings later in life. I already replaced a ton of infobox content that was removed, I'm not spending any more time on Laettner, but that article really needs some scrutiny. Rikster2 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss infobox suggestions for Christian Laettner
at Talk:Christian Laettner#Infobox. Major changes are being introduced, seemingly just for this article. Rikster2 (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Medals in infobox of bio
You are invite to join the discussion regarding the handling of medals in the infobox at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Medals_in_infobox_of_bio.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Persondata has been officially deprecated
Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of basketball players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for basketball players: Joakim Noah and Michael Jordan. If you have any questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment on a merge
Please comment at Talk:Personal life of Wilt Chamberlain to discuss whether that article should be merged into Wilt Chamberlain. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
2015 Finals logo
An editor uploaded File:2015NBAFinalslogo.jpg, which was found on an unconfirmed website that does not seem affiliated with the NBA. This logo does not look like the official 2015 NBA Finals logo and instead looks like "2015" was photoshopped onto an older NBA Finals logo. I have also opened a discussion here on the matter. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's an easy delete. The thing is, 2014 and 2015 Finals articles don't have the annual logos. I looked at Chris Creamer's website and he only stops up to 2009. Can we find anything for the most 2 recent finals? –HTD 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Grouping navboxes
Articles with lots of navboxes typically cap them using {{navboxes}}. However, I see at Michael Cooper#External links that a whole bunch of his coaching navboxes are not grouped. Presumably, this is because the capped ones are titled together as "Michael Cooper—championships, awards and honors". Aside from navboxes related to a person's current role (e.g. roster, current league coaches), shouldn't the rest of them be capped too? How about one grouping for the non-active ones that just uses the default title of "Links to related articles"?—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is more than an NBA issue. It is a college and NBA issue, especially with all the coach movement between the two. Rikster2 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I went and left a notification at WT:CHOOPS.—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I am fine with nesting all except current templates (current roster, "current coaches of," etc). Rikster2 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pinging Jweiss11 and Jrcla2 directly, as you and I seem to be clashing with their latest respective edits regarding the order and general collapsing of boxes at Fred Hoiberg.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what is up with those edits. The current templates always go on top and they are always removed eventually as they reflect temporary states. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- What we've got here is a conflict in standard practices between NBA and college sports. The standard practice for college sports is tenure navboxes sorted chronologically, followed by championship navboxes sorted chronologically, and then awards and honors navboxes sorted chronologically. Tenure navboxes are always uncollapsed. If there are three or more championship and/or awards and honors navboxes, then those are collapsed in a grouping. Current roster navboxes do no exist for any college sports. See Steve Spurrier or Amos Alonzo Stagg for good examples. Pinging Dirtlawyer1 here as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- in basketball, current roster templates for pro players/coaches ALWAYS go on the top. I noticed this isn't true in football (see Tom Brady) but that makes no sense to me. Why would you bury a current roster template when it is the companion to the team-colored infobox? Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Larry Brown (basketball) might be the king of all examples with 13 exposed navs + one "championships, awards, and honors" container with 18 more embedded. Per WP:TCREEP, the easy solution is to just push more into the container. However, it warns: "this solution is not a license to simply hide existing templates behind a curtain without actually doing anything to help reduce the larger problem." Do we want to 1) find the an easy solution, 2) brainstorm ideas to reduce navboxes 3) do nothing?—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Brown is an exceptional case, like Michael Jordan for players. But in Brown's case a lot of it just has to do with his coaching at a LOT of places. As it pertains to infoboxes, it seems difficult to make realistic reductions without cutting whole classes of templates. We have had that discussion and could again, but there will always be that 5% of cases where it gets out of hand. Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can't think of any active American coach who's had more head coaching jobs in college and the pros than Larry Brown, who's now on #12, but there are other historical examples, particularly from the era when college guys coached multiple sports, e.g. E. J. Stewart or Edwin Sweetland. I don't see any way we can really eliminate these tenure succession navboxes. We've done a lot of work in recent years to streamline these footer areas by eliminating redundant succession boxes. But there does look to be some opportunity for paring down among the championships, awards, and honors navboxes. Looking at Larry Brown, do we really need navboxes for the FIBA Americans championships? We've also got two navboxes for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame there, one for the 2002 induction class and another bloated one for entire HOF. How about the similarly bloated navbox for the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree those are likely candidates to remove. That said, in Brown's case it wouldn't solve the template overload problem unless you cut into coaching tenure, major award or championships. He'd still have 22 templates (I am assuming cutting things like current NBA coaches, statistical leadership and AAU All-Americans as well.) Rikster2 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can't think of any active American coach who's had more head coaching jobs in college and the pros than Larry Brown, who's now on #12, but there are other historical examples, particularly from the era when college guys coached multiple sports, e.g. E. J. Stewart or Edwin Sweetland. I don't see any way we can really eliminate these tenure succession navboxes. We've done a lot of work in recent years to streamline these footer areas by eliminating redundant succession boxes. But there does look to be some opportunity for paring down among the championships, awards, and honors navboxes. Looking at Larry Brown, do we really need navboxes for the FIBA Americans championships? We've also got two navboxes for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame there, one for the 2002 induction class and another bloated one for entire HOF. How about the similarly bloated navbox for the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Brown is an exceptional case, like Michael Jordan for players. But in Brown's case a lot of it just has to do with his coaching at a LOT of places. As it pertains to infoboxes, it seems difficult to make realistic reductions without cutting whole classes of templates. We have had that discussion and could again, but there will always be that 5% of cases where it gets out of hand. Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- What we've got here is a conflict in standard practices between NBA and college sports. The standard practice for college sports is tenure navboxes sorted chronologically, followed by championship navboxes sorted chronologically, and then awards and honors navboxes sorted chronologically. Tenure navboxes are always uncollapsed. If there are three or more championship and/or awards and honors navboxes, then those are collapsed in a grouping. Current roster navboxes do no exist for any college sports. See Steve Spurrier or Amos Alonzo Stagg for good examples. Pinging Dirtlawyer1 here as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Any reason why we can't arrange alphabetically except for the current usage on top? Most readers (including me) don't realize it was arranged this way. I thought it was just arranged randomly. For an unsuspecting reader, it being arranged alphabetically looks neat. –HTD 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Navboxes placed on top
The current situation for navboxes placed on top of the heap can be summarized by Jweiss11's comment above: "What we've got here is a conflict in standard practices between NBA and college sports." It appears college articles place tenure navboxes—applicable to team's coaches—sorted chronologically on top. For NBA, current roster navboxes are always on top, as evidenced at GAs like Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Pau Gasol, Tony Parker, etc. As most college players are not notable, there are not roster navboxes for college. Can we decide whether current roster/position navboxes should be on top e.g. current roster like {{Golden State Warriors current roster}}, current league coaches like {{NBACoach}} or {{Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball coach navbox}}?
- Based on absence of opposition here, and the fact that Hoiberg's article has been stable for stable over a week, there appears to be consensus to have current navboxes be placed on top.—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support
- Navboxes related to current roles should be on top, like at this version of Fred Hoiberg. These are the navboxes I imagine are most frequently used based on current news (it applies for me at least), and should preferably be readily accessible and in a standard position.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Echoing Rikster2 below, I'd be fine with not applying this for current college coaches, if that's a sticking point, though I think having them be consistent would be better.—Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- This works well for pro coaches. It gets a little weird for college coaches where there are no current roster templates but there is a current conference coach navbox. For the sake of ease and consistency I'd be fine putting the conference box at the top for college coaches. If the tenures are chronological their current school won't be at the top anyway. I'd also be fine just doing away with {{NBACoach}} and the similar college conference boxes in the name of reducing navbox clutter. Rikster2 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let's table any deletion discussion for after we generally decide here if "current" navs should be on top or not. Trying to avoid going off on a tangent, turning this into a WP:TLDR, and being left with no consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Coaching tenure navboxes
Coaches generally coach multiple teams in their career, and general practice currently is for each team, where college or NBA, to have a navbox with all their respective all-time coaches listed. It seems that bios generally have these coaching tenure navboxes uncollapsed, outside of a {{navboxes}} that is either labelled "championships, awards, and honors" or with the generic "Links to related articles". Some coaches have numerous uncollapsed coaching navboxes e.g. Lenny Wilkens, Larry Brown. Should these coaching navboxes be collapsed; if yes, can they be collapsed with the other "awards", or should they be in a separate group?—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Collapse into generic "Links to related articles" with other honors
- Too awkward and undue to specifically leave multiple coaching navboxes from former stints uncollapsed. I imagine there are plenty of articles like Hoiberg's that need collapsing. Quickly placing them into {{Navboxes}} using the default title of "Links to related articles" requires the least amount of effort. (If there is support to grouping coaching tenure boxes together, my !vote can move there if needed to break any deadlocks.)—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am good with nesting these. I actually have never seen the logic in having them outside the collapsed section. Rikster2 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rikster2, the logic is that collapsed navboxes are harder to access and tenure navboxes are more important the the awards, honors, championships navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- 14-15 navboxes on a page without collapsing looks crappy no matter what they are for. Rikster2 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Why are tenure navs considered "more important the the awards, honors, championships navboxes"?—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bagumba, there may be different thoughts from various editors here, but I think the idea is that the tenures reflect a more defining characteristic of the subject than the awards, honors, and championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- That depends on the subject. I really don't think the coaching tenures of people like Bill Russell, Steve Alford, Danny Manning, etc. are more defining to them than their playing accomplishments. For people like Phil Jackson and Pat Riley they probably are. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bagumba, there may be different thoughts from various editors here, but I think the idea is that the tenures reflect a more defining characteristic of the subject than the awards, honors, and championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Why are tenure navs considered "more important the the awards, honors, championships navboxes"?—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- 14-15 navboxes on a page without collapsing looks crappy no matter what they are for. Rikster2 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rikster2, the logic is that collapsed navboxes are harder to access and tenure navboxes are more important the the awards, honors, championships navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
General question
General question: are we talking about NBA coaches or all coaches? Because any NBA-only solution will necessarily come into conflict with standards of other WikiProjects. And by "all" coaches, I mean at minimum: NFL, NBA, MLB, college football, college basketball, and college baseball—because the populations of those six have significant overlaps. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that an NBA-only discussion won't solve the problem. Rikster2 (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Was hoping for a college/NBA solution, as the coaches cross boundaries. WP:CHOOPS had already been notified of the top-level discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- But once you get into college hoops, you're then already deep into college football and college baseball because of the many, many subjects who have coached multiple college sports, particularly those from the early 1900s, when such practice was commonplace. Then once you're into college football, you're in the NFL. And college baseball brings you, albeit to a lesser extent, into MLB. See Hugo Bezdek for one guy who coached NFL, MLB, and college football, basketball, and baseball. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- If there's a logical reason why it's done the way it currently is, and there is consensus to follow it with WT:NBA and WT:CHOOPS, it should remain. Otherwise, there's enough differences between WikiProjects that a local consensus isn't the end of the world. AFAIK, there is no global WP guideline on this, so in the worse case, this would boil down to subjective preferences. Still, I think the main concern is that it's kludgey to leave many of them uncollapsed, and debatable why it should be treated differently from other navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- But once you get into college hoops, you're then already deep into college football and college baseball because of the many, many subjects who have coached multiple college sports, particularly those from the early 1900s, when such practice was commonplace. Then once you're into college football, you're in the NFL. And college baseball brings you, albeit to a lesser extent, into MLB. See Hugo Bezdek for one guy who coached NFL, MLB, and college football, basketball, and baseball. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Was hoping for a college/NBA solution, as the coaches cross boundaries. WP:CHOOPS had already been notified of the top-level discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Draymond Green's position
Draymond Green starts one game at center in Game 4 of 2015 NBA Finals and now editors are starting to add "Center" to his infobox. I'm assuming we only list primary positions in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Correction, it's only one editor so far Kyle121101, who I'll ping here to discuss.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted it before I saw this. I stand by my action, however. He hasn't played center up until Game 4 and he most likely won't in the future. He's a natural small forward and on a different team under different circumstances, he would most likely be playing SF rather than PF. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is more accurate to say the Warriors didn't start a center in that game. iguodala isn't a PF either. Rikster2 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would say to update Template:Infobox basketball biography to say list a player's primary position, but even primary is subjective and probably won't help.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @DaHuzyBru: FWIW, basketball-reference makes no mention of him at PF[1], but I'm not advocating to change it to SF in his case.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- "...natural small forward and on a different team under different circumstances, he would most likely be playing SF rather than PF" That is exactly what I think. For the article, I think just Forward is best. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agreed with DangerousJXD. @Bagumba, yeah I know but he has definitely being playing PF this season. Just Forward covers both. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is more accurate to say the Warriors didn't start a center in that game. iguodala isn't a PF either. Rikster2 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted it before I saw this. I stand by my action, however. He hasn't played center up until Game 4 and he most likely won't in the future. He's a natural small forward and on a different team under different circumstances, he would most likely be playing SF rather than PF. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
NBA draft early-entry withdrawals
Would we want to maintain a list of players who declare then withdraw from the draft. Today, June 15, is the deadline to withdraw. Presumably, the NBA will publish an official withdrawal list in the coming days, much like they did in 2014. In the meantime, editors have started removing names from the list at 2015 NBA draft#Early entrants without citing a source. Some I can verify easily, the rest might be on non-english website or less intuitive place not easily found on Google. Logistically, maintaining a withdrawal list would make it more intuitive to account for 1) Which players from the original list have been struck, 2) The source that verifies the withdrawal prior to the next official announcement from the NBA.
Otherwise, maybe we just don't remove people until the NBA officially announces it. On the other hand, we already maintain a list of people who reportedly declare for the draft before the NBA announces it. And other ideas?—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Height and weight in lead
I see some articles having a players height and weight being added to the lead. It was just saw it removed from Timofey Mozgov by Stusutcliffe with explanation: "no need for height & weight in opening paragraph. That's what infobox is for". Is there a consensus one way or another? For the record, I don't recall having either added or removed it from the lead of any article, but do think it can sound trivial in the lead. It would be suitable for a "Player profile" section, but only a select number of articles have such a section.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is consensus on this and don't necessarily think there needs to be either. Rikster2 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Does that mean you don't care either way. Or do you think there are some specific cases where it should be in the lead, but feel that it's too complicated to try to qualify when it is appropriate?—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just don't think it matters if it's there or not so long as the paragraph reads smoothly. There are bigger battles. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Does that mean you don't care either way. Or do you think there are some specific cases where it should be in the lead, but feel that it's too complicated to try to qualify when it is appropriate?—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Unless a basketball player's height and/or weight are somehow exceptional, the exact numbers are trivia and do not belong in the lead. The lead section serves two related purposes: (1) it succinctly states the reasons for the subject's notability, and (2) it summarizes the major points of the article. The lead is not the place for random trivia (e.g., birthplace, relatives, height, weight, etc.). The height of most NBA players falls somewhere between 6'4" and 6'9"; a current player shorter than 6'0", or a true 7-footer, are exceptional and perhaps worth mentioning. A player's exact weight is rarely, if ever, noteworthy, except in those odd instances where he has had weight-related issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- And, no, I don't think there needs to be WP:NBA/WP:CBB "consensus" on point to exclude height and weight from the lead; just an exercise of common sense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with what Dirtlawyer1 said above. I will add that I don't think it matters that much. There are better things to worry about. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree with Dirtlawyer1. In some cases the player's specific height (or some history of controversy about his height) is a significant element of notability and is appropriate for the lead (see Hakeem Olajuwon, Manute Bol, Spud Webb, Muggsy Bogues); in most cases, I wouldn't think so.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with what Dirtlawyer1 said above. I will add that I don't think it matters that much. There are better things to worry about. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Draft picks showing NBA colors and team history
I see some editors taking out the new team name/colors for 2015 draft picks because they "haven't signed a contract" with the team. Pretty sure this has not been past practice and seems like a losing proposition as o think it's pretty natural for editors to (for example) add info for the Lakers to D'Angelo Russell's article. I believe that we always made an exception for draft picks, but I can't find the discussion now. Rikster2 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's more of an issue for overseas players, who may not be coming to the NBA for several years. Personally, I wouldn't care if we listed someone like D'Angelo Russell as a Laker. They own his rights, and he's not under contract with anyone else. Zagalejo^^^ 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's odd – this has never been an issue in past years. For some reason, a few editors this year have a huge vendetta over adding the team to the infobox and it's just not worth it. These drive-by edits are not going to stop and I don't think it's necessary to keep people from adding it. It will eventually sort itself out though. I will stay with the current norm of keeping it out until it changes, possibly with this discussion. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- As it wouldn't be technically incorrect to consider them part of the team already, I'd just assume the team be included and avoid the edit warring. Perhaps those removing it should be invited to this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's my rationale for not including the teams until the players have signed official contracts: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yes, the teams that drafted each player own those respective players' rights in the NBA, but what if, for example, Karl-Anthony Towns decides to go back to college instead of signing a contract with the Timberwolves? What if Jahlil Okafor does the same instead of signing a contract with the 76ers? Unlikely situations, for sure, but possible. The fact of the matter is, none of the new draftees are on the actual rosters of their respective teams yet, and therefore, those teams should not be in the infoboxes yet. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- When has a drafted player ever gone back to college? I don't think they even can – they are deemed ineligible to return I'm pretty sure. But if that is a main reason, and being such an unlikely event to occur, it is really worth reverting over and over again? I'm surprised you can even be bothered. In past years, no one has even been this nazi over this issue, especially for first round picks – which, unless they are international players, are most likely going to sign rookie contracts. It's overkill and not worth it. Drive-by users and IPs are not going to stop and/or take any notice of warnings or hidden notes. I personally think you are wasting your time and it will eventually be sort out. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- to be clear, none of these draftees have the option to return to college. But they could hold out (unlikely under today's CBA). To me, second round picks are more the question. It's not that uncommon for them to not make the team and play elsewhere (I think about half of last year's' second rounders didn't play in the NBA this past season). I guess I can go either way, but it seems silly to me for first rounders who aren't contractually obligated elsewhere this upcoming season. Rikster2 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- My mistake. I know that in some other sports drafts, players do have the option to go back to school even if they're drafted. However, the point still remains that they are not officially on their respective teams' rosters yet, which is why I feel that, as I previously mentioned, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to have those teams in the infoboxes already, for the sake of factual accuracy. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that baseball and hockey players can go back to school, but football and basketball players can not. I can go either way. A significant percentage of draftees do not ever play in the league, but I did not have a problem with the previous decisions to immediately add the team to the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- My mistake. I know that in some other sports drafts, players do have the option to go back to school even if they're drafted. However, the point still remains that they are not officially on their respective teams' rosters yet, which is why I feel that, as I previously mentioned, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to have those teams in the infoboxes already, for the sake of factual accuracy. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- to be clear, none of these draftees have the option to return to college. But they could hold out (unlikely under today's CBA). To me, second round picks are more the question. It's not that uncommon for them to not make the team and play elsewhere (I think about half of last year's' second rounders didn't play in the NBA this past season). I guess I can go either way, but it seems silly to me for first rounders who aren't contractually obligated elsewhere this upcoming season. Rikster2 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- When has a drafted player ever gone back to college? I don't think they even can – they are deemed ineligible to return I'm pretty sure. But if that is a main reason, and being such an unlikely event to occur, it is really worth reverting over and over again? I'm surprised you can even be bothered. In past years, no one has even been this nazi over this issue, especially for first round picks – which, unless they are international players, are most likely going to sign rookie contracts. It's overkill and not worth it. Drive-by users and IPs are not going to stop and/or take any notice of warnings or hidden notes. I personally think you are wasting your time and it will eventually be sort out. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's my rationale for not including the teams until the players have signed official contracts: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yes, the teams that drafted each player own those respective players' rights in the NBA, but what if, for example, Karl-Anthony Towns decides to go back to college instead of signing a contract with the Timberwolves? What if Jahlil Okafor does the same instead of signing a contract with the 76ers? Unlikely situations, for sure, but possible. The fact of the matter is, none of the new draftees are on the actual rosters of their respective teams yet, and therefore, those teams should not be in the infoboxes yet. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- As it wouldn't be technically incorrect to consider them part of the team already, I'd just assume the team be included and avoid the edit warring. Perhaps those removing it should be invited to this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's odd – this has never been an issue in past years. For some reason, a few editors this year have a huge vendetta over adding the team to the infobox and it's just not worth it. These drive-by edits are not going to stop and I don't think it's necessary to keep people from adding it. It will eventually sort itself out though. I will stay with the current norm of keeping it out until it changes, possibly with this discussion. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
A bigger issue, in my opinion, is people adding summer league signings. These people aren't even on the team, they have the opportunity to try out for a team. Rikster2 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I was just made aware of this thread, so I'll offer my two cents as one of the editors with a "huge vendetta" (not my words). First of all, I'll second what A guy saved by Jesus said above; WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies. The more important rationale for reverting, in my opinion, is WP:V. Not only is it not verifiably true to say these players are on their draft team, but it's verifiably false. Including false information in an article is completely against the purpose of the project. I don't find it particularly convincing that we should allow the false information to stand because IP editors will continue to add it; that's why we have semi-protection. It's also noteworthy that multiple admins have semi-protected pages accordingly, seeming to indicate that they find the arguments towards not including the information persuasive. I will not provide username links here to avoid WP:CANVASS, but the protected pages include Karl-Anthony Towns, D'Angelo Russell, Jahlil Okafor, and Kristaps Porziņģis if anyone cares to see who protected those pages. ~ RobTalk 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- As an aside, let's leave ad hominem attacks out of this. I've already been called a nazi twice. ~ RobTalk 21:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the constant reverting over a technicality, there is another issue with not including the team with the current draft rights into the infobox. Traded players who have not signed, like Jerian Grant, Rakeem Christmas, Andrew Harrison, Norman Powell, don't have any indication in the infobox that they are no longer controlled by their original draft team.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- In those cases, there should definitely be prose that indicates they were traded. I don't think it's important that this is reflected in the infobox until they sign, similar to a free agent. You could put a note of the trade in the draft team box, but this seems cumbersome and not that useful for the 40 days or so this "issue" exists. Rikster2 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure prose can and should be added, but infobox should provide a concise summary. For draftees, who controls their rights is one of the most sought after pieces of info until they actually sign with someone. I think this new practice is counter-productive with revert churning, and with less info. More footnotes would be kludgey. I sure hope we don't get pedantic and prevent listing teams in "Team history" for active players until an actual game is played. Lord knows we need more reverts.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- If your point is the process is clunky and we could find another way, I could be with you. I had thought that for first round picks we kind of gave the benefit of the doubt and put the team colors, etc. it gets a little more complicated with guys like Dario Saric and Josh Huestis who aren't going to play for their draft teams right away. Second round picks are a crap shoot because you have a mix of guys who will play for their draft teams immediately, not play in the NBA the first year, get cut in preseason, etc. you can't be certain those guys will play for their draft (or draft-day trade) teams. I think the issue is that there really is a little bit of a CRYSTAL element to rookies until they sign, even if it's just 1 or 2 in 30. Rikster2 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like those opposed to adding the team are arguing that it gives the wrong impression that the player is signed to the team. However, this is at the expense of readers not being able to easily determine who currently owns the draft rights to the player. Looking at the page history of Josh Huestis, it seems that Oklahoma City Thunder was not removed until around the time of training camp, when he was still unsigned. I think that is reasonable time to remove it, and has worked in the past (not implying that consensus cannot change). As nothing on the infobox says the player is signed, I'm not worried that the colors in itself is WP:CRYSTAL. The use of colors (or not) in the infobox is merely a matter of Wikipedia convention, and it's arguable that readers (based on the number of edits) would expect to see the draft team's colors, rather than not. The prose can detail that the player has not signed and only that the team currently owns the draft rights.—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- If your point is the process is clunky and we could find another way, I could be with you. I had thought that for first round picks we kind of gave the benefit of the doubt and put the team colors, etc. it gets a little more complicated with guys like Dario Saric and Josh Huestis who aren't going to play for their draft teams right away. Second round picks are a crap shoot because you have a mix of guys who will play for their draft teams immediately, not play in the NBA the first year, get cut in preseason, etc. you can't be certain those guys will play for their draft (or draft-day trade) teams. I think the issue is that there really is a little bit of a CRYSTAL element to rookies until they sign, even if it's just 1 or 2 in 30. Rikster2 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure prose can and should be added, but infobox should provide a concise summary. For draftees, who controls their rights is one of the most sought after pieces of info until they actually sign with someone. I think this new practice is counter-productive with revert churning, and with less info. More footnotes would be kludgey. I sure hope we don't get pedantic and prevent listing teams in "Team history" for active players until an actual game is played. Lord knows we need more reverts.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Tables for high schools stats in bios
I'm thinking tables for high school stats, such as this recent addition for Phil Pressey, is excessive. Should we draw the line at college and pro stat tables only?—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. Hard to truly verify as well. Rikster2 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would say that high school stats, unless they are notable, i.e. national records, are unnecessary. I would also question the legitimacy of sources of high school stats. VeraBaby (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Roger that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Roger that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with such tables si that they have little meaning. I don't know how to compare high school conferences, whereas I understand what stats in the Ivy League mean versus stats in the Big 10. I don't see the value of high school stat tables.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I would have to agree. I think having High School stat lines is kind of excessive. --RichieConant (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Navboxes for national teams
You are invited to join a general discussion on navboxes for national teams at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Nav_boxes_for_national_teams based on the recent creation of Template:United States Men Basketball Squad 2015 Pan American Games.—Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image
The consensus, albeit weak, supports JesseRafe's version as a starting point. There seem to be some issues about various changes within that but edits can be done or discussion can be done at Talk:Jahlil Okafor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JesseRafe has taken a lot of time to prune Jahlil Okafor from this version. I am very close to this article as its main editor and I have decided not to contest much of the prose content that has been deleted. However, I have noticed that he has removed almost all images depicting Okafor's face clearly from the front and all pictures depicting him dunking except the main image. The selected remaining images seems to be somewhat curious in relation to the ones deleted. The single most clear picture of his face (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG) has bee the subject of edit warring. Can someone have a look at the changes and lend an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- "I am very close to this article" sounds a lot like WP:OWNership. I think the removal of images was appropriate, as I stated at the talk page. We don't need a million images of the guy. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 03:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with all of that, especially WP:OWN. Your opinion carries no more (or less) weight than any other editor. As this players profile rises I would caution you to welcome other editors and move away from your self appointed role of "main editor" Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Historically, OWN is ususally used for cases where the person who has been the most active editor tries to say his version of the article was correct and should be left alone. When a person says I am the most active editor and am in a dispute where I need other opinions it is not regarded as OWN. So you guys are losing focus here. I realize that I need the opinion of others and find it hard to believe that we want to remove the most clear picture of his face, almost all pictures showing his face clearly and all pictures of him dunking except the main image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- And (at least) three people disagree with you. I think you should drop the matter. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- if you want to keep the image so much you could make it the Infobox picture. I have nothing against the image per se. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the current infobox picture of him is the best one that we have. However, I think File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is the second best picture of him. I also think several of the images that have been retained are less helpful to the reader than those that have been removed. I am asking if someone would consider which images are the best. Since all of the images are my own, I think I am too close to make a call on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- if you want to keep the image so much you could make it the Infobox picture. I have nothing against the image per se. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would leave File:20140402_MCDAAG_Jahlil_Okafor_dunk.JPG where it is but File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG would probably make a decent addition to the article. It does seem there are not clear shots of his face. I would get rid of the 2nd group of on-court shots rather than adding yet another image. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for focusing on at the subject at issue. Yes, my point was that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is a pretty helpful image to the reader (almost the best that we have). I will readd that if there are no objections. I am hoping others will look closely at this image. Editorofthewiki has stated that the article had too many images and the removal of images was good, but I can not think that he really believes the most helpful image to the readers should be removed. Also, File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG was from the day that the two highest paid coaches in basketball came to call on him and we had a picture of them in the article. How many time do we see the two highest paid coaches in college basketball in a high school gym. Do we want to remove that from this article? Do we want all of the other dunks (from various championship games and all-star games) to remain out of the article? Handpolk you mentioned that you think the two from February 21, 2014 might be unnecessary. Keep in mind that this picture is one of the McDonald's Morgan Wootten National Player of the Year standing next to the Naismith Prep Player of the Year Award winner as crosstown rivals. We may never even see such crosstown rivals again. Do we want to remove this? I am very close to the article, but need constructive feedback here because we may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- "How many time do we see the two highest paid coaches in college basketball in a high school gym" "We may never even see such crosstown rivals again" with this kind of logic this article would contain dozens, possibly hundreds of images. An article like Michael Jordan would contain thousands or tens of thousands. This is not a record of historic images that are related in some way to the article. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- All I am saying is that many of the pictures that were in the article depicted certain events or things that were notable. We need to determine what we want to depict for the readers. Saying "chop some images out" is not really very constructive. I am asking that you help me consider pictures X & Y against pictures Z & W if you want to limit the pictures. I am hoping to discuss the merits of inclusion of particular pictures that were removed versus those retained. I don't think the current set of images is the best considering what is available and what they represent.--TonyTheTiger (T)
- In a BLP we want to cover notable events, the same does not apply to photos. We don't need or want a photo of every important event in their life. Look at Michael Jordan. There are a few important photos, some rather mundane photos -- and a huge gap of stuff that is not in there via images. Because that's not what the article is for. So while you may think 'get rid of some photos' is unhelpful, I find 'this photo is special because X' irrelevant. I see no reason to add additional images to this article. If you want to add that head shot, then you've going to need to remove something. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Handpolk You keep arguing that if Michael Jordan's article doesn't have X, other articles should not have X. Michael Jordan may be the greatest basketball player ever, but his wikipedia article may not necessarily be the standard against which other articles should be measured. Each image should be judged by its contextual relevance and the article's layout. You need to stop looking at Michael Jordan's article to determine whether pictures should be retained in this article. It would be helpful if you would help to consider the content of the current article and consider the contextual relevance of the possible pictures. I admit that since I am close to both the prose and the images because I was the primary contributor of both, I would be aided by other editors who want to consider the content of the article and the context that the pictures may provide. If you could stop judging one article by the content of another that would be helpful. You seem to be willing to spend time on this issue. What I am asking you to consider is things like does the fact that Michael Jordan does not have a picture of himself dunking in a state high school championship victory mean that no other basketball player can have such a picture in his article and the like. Why is the current number of pictures the maximum number of pictures given the amount of content that has no illustration?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- You ignored my point because I provided an example that included WP:OSE. My point was that your original research about the historical importance of a photograph is not relevant. Whether that was the first time Jahlil ever set foot in a Burger King or the first time coach A and coach B ever wore matching polo shirts at the same press conference, does not matter. What matters is whether more or less images would be good and what images those should be. There should not be more images in this article at this time. The face shot would be a good addition. If you want to add it, remove something else. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I do understand that the historical significance of a photo does not matter to its inclusion in an article about another subject. However, per MOS:IMAGES, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." We have a sentence that says "On September 19 John Calipari made Okafor an offer to play for Kentucky,[29] joining Ohio State, Michigan State, Louisville, Illinois, Duke, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona as programs that have offered Okafor." and we have a pair of images depicting Okafor and Calipari on that very date. Those images represent both ths subect and the topic at issue that he was a hotly-pursued blue chip athlete, which is not WP:OR. Those images are significantly and directly related. Similarly, we have a paragraph of content regarding Okafor's run to the state championship and all pictures have been removed regarding that topic. If you look at Commons:Category:Jahlil_Okafor for pictures named with the date 20140322 you can see that there are many images including the one previously in the article that we could use to illustrate this element of the subject. According to MOS:IMAGES, what we need to do is consider which images are relevant, add variety and fit in the article. In regards to your statement that "What matters is whether more or less images would be good and what images those should be.", I concur in a sense. However, you and I differ on the term good. It seems to me that your definition of good means whether we go over a certain number of images. However, mine is that good images are those that are relevant, varied and fit. It is not necessarily the case that all images in an article about person x be of person x. Variety could be added with images of closely related subjects, IMO. 15 images were cut down to 6 during the recent editing. I don't think 6 is a magic number. I think about 3 of the removed images should be reconsidered if they fit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in" does not mean every relevant image should appear. Nor does it mean everything in the article should be backed up with an image, if one is available. That just means that if you want to use an image, it must meet those criteria. "I think about 3 of the removed images should be reconsidered if they fit" I disagree. 6 is plenty. I think your position is driven less on what is right for the article than on your love for the images you have. That's what Pinterest is for. This is an encyclopedia. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Handpolk, first of all, I am not here to discuss love. I am here to discuss "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in", which I do not interpret as "every relevant image should appear". You know that I am not attempting to put every image from Commons:Category:Jahlil_Okafor into the article so lets drop the exaggeration about your claim that I think "every relevant image should appear". I am saying that the content of the article is not illustrated. I have illustrated several biographies with images from a state championship game. You are the first editor who does not feel that we should include images from a state championship victory if we have such an image. Instead you want to insist that an effort to include such an image is based on love for the image. This is ridiculous. Clearly, since every other attempt to include an image from a state championship has been well received, I am having difficulty with your magic number of 6. Jabari Parker's image was overillustrated at one point and has now settled at 8 images from his high school career. Why is the magic number 6 for Okafor but 8 for Parker. When the article was chopped from 15 to 6 images, some things were removed unnecessarily. I could settle at 8 just like Parker.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in" does not mean every relevant image should appear. Nor does it mean everything in the article should be backed up with an image, if one is available. That just means that if you want to use an image, it must meet those criteria. "I think about 3 of the removed images should be reconsidered if they fit" I disagree. 6 is plenty. I think your position is driven less on what is right for the article than on your love for the images you have. That's what Pinterest is for. This is an encyclopedia. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I do understand that the historical significance of a photo does not matter to its inclusion in an article about another subject. However, per MOS:IMAGES, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." We have a sentence that says "On September 19 John Calipari made Okafor an offer to play for Kentucky,[29] joining Ohio State, Michigan State, Louisville, Illinois, Duke, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona as programs that have offered Okafor." and we have a pair of images depicting Okafor and Calipari on that very date. Those images represent both ths subect and the topic at issue that he was a hotly-pursued blue chip athlete, which is not WP:OR. Those images are significantly and directly related. Similarly, we have a paragraph of content regarding Okafor's run to the state championship and all pictures have been removed regarding that topic. If you look at Commons:Category:Jahlil_Okafor for pictures named with the date 20140322 you can see that there are many images including the one previously in the article that we could use to illustrate this element of the subject. According to MOS:IMAGES, what we need to do is consider which images are relevant, add variety and fit in the article. In regards to your statement that "What matters is whether more or less images would be good and what images those should be.", I concur in a sense. However, you and I differ on the term good. It seems to me that your definition of good means whether we go over a certain number of images. However, mine is that good images are those that are relevant, varied and fit. It is not necessarily the case that all images in an article about person x be of person x. Variety could be added with images of closely related subjects, IMO. 15 images were cut down to 6 during the recent editing. I don't think 6 is a magic number. I think about 3 of the removed images should be reconsidered if they fit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- You ignored my point because I provided an example that included WP:OSE. My point was that your original research about the historical importance of a photograph is not relevant. Whether that was the first time Jahlil ever set foot in a Burger King or the first time coach A and coach B ever wore matching polo shirts at the same press conference, does not matter. What matters is whether more or less images would be good and what images those should be. There should not be more images in this article at this time. The face shot would be a good addition. If you want to add it, remove something else. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Handpolk You keep arguing that if Michael Jordan's article doesn't have X, other articles should not have X. Michael Jordan may be the greatest basketball player ever, but his wikipedia article may not necessarily be the standard against which other articles should be measured. Each image should be judged by its contextual relevance and the article's layout. You need to stop looking at Michael Jordan's article to determine whether pictures should be retained in this article. It would be helpful if you would help to consider the content of the current article and consider the contextual relevance of the possible pictures. I admit that since I am close to both the prose and the images because I was the primary contributor of both, I would be aided by other editors who want to consider the content of the article and the context that the pictures may provide. If you could stop judging one article by the content of another that would be helpful. You seem to be willing to spend time on this issue. What I am asking you to consider is things like does the fact that Michael Jordan does not have a picture of himself dunking in a state high school championship victory mean that no other basketball player can have such a picture in his article and the like. Why is the current number of pictures the maximum number of pictures given the amount of content that has no illustration?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- In a BLP we want to cover notable events, the same does not apply to photos. We don't need or want a photo of every important event in their life. Look at Michael Jordan. There are a few important photos, some rather mundane photos -- and a huge gap of stuff that is not in there via images. Because that's not what the article is for. So while you may think 'get rid of some photos' is unhelpful, I find 'this photo is special because X' irrelevant. I see no reason to add additional images to this article. If you want to add that head shot, then you've going to need to remove something. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- All I am saying is that many of the pictures that were in the article depicted certain events or things that were notable. We need to determine what we want to depict for the readers. Saying "chop some images out" is not really very constructive. I am asking that you help me consider pictures X & Y against pictures Z & W if you want to limit the pictures. I am hoping to discuss the merits of inclusion of particular pictures that were removed versus those retained. I don't think the current set of images is the best considering what is available and what they represent.--TonyTheTiger (T)
- "How many time do we see the two highest paid coaches in college basketball in a high school gym" "We may never even see such crosstown rivals again" with this kind of logic this article would contain dozens, possibly hundreds of images. An article like Michael Jordan would contain thousands or tens of thousands. This is not a record of historic images that are related in some way to the article. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for focusing on at the subject at issue. Yes, my point was that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is a pretty helpful image to the reader (almost the best that we have). I will readd that if there are no objections. I am hoping others will look closely at this image. Editorofthewiki has stated that the article had too many images and the removal of images was good, but I can not think that he really believes the most helpful image to the readers should be removed. Also, File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG was from the day that the two highest paid coaches in basketball came to call on him and we had a picture of them in the article. How many time do we see the two highest paid coaches in college basketball in a high school gym. Do we want to remove that from this article? Do we want all of the other dunks (from various championship games and all-star games) to remain out of the article? Handpolk you mentioned that you think the two from February 21, 2014 might be unnecessary. Keep in mind that this picture is one of the McDonald's Morgan Wootten National Player of the Year standing next to the Naismith Prep Player of the Year Award winner as crosstown rivals. We may never even see such crosstown rivals again. Do we want to remove this? I am very close to the article, but need constructive feedback here because we may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- And (at least) three people disagree with you. I think you should drop the matter. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Images must be relevant and significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Furthermore, the guideline states: "images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal ..." In accord with that, I support if possible improving the quality/chose of images -- but do not support their removal. Given the size of this article, the number of images in the first-above-mentioned diff was appropriate, and their removal - rather than either leaving them in, or improving the quality/choice, was not in accord with our guideline. IMHO. Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- JesseRafe, looking at your recent edits I see no talk to consider (as you suggested in your edit summary), but the conversation is here on this issue. Handpolk, has concurred that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is probably a useful image that could be swapped in for another image, which I have done. I swapped it in for File:20140221 Jahlil Okafor floater over Cliff Alexander.JPG in which the players are not very identifyable. After rearranging the images, the two dunking images that I added back on top of swap were added because there is clear room in the text for additional pictures. Above, I mentioned that cutting from 15 images to 6 was extreme. I thought that 8 or 9 high school was a better number for the amount of remaining text (considering Jabari Parker had been cut down to 8). Looking at this version the two additional images that bring the total number of to 8. There was no readability issue with the eight images in the article. The dunking image of Okafor's back is included because it is depicts a moment described in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I do not recall being in a WP:NBA debate without any regs participating. Is it possible that Bagumba, Rikster2, DaHuzyBru, Dirtlawyer1, Jweiss11, Martin tamb, and Zagalejo might consider this issue. The article text has been greatly trimmed and the number of high school images has been trimmed from 15 to 8 or 6 images depending on which version you support. We could use some more eyes on this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't chimed in because I don't believe there is any real policy governing the number of images in articles, despite what some have tried to assert in this discussion. My opinion is that multiple pictures is fine and often enhances the article (as long as the article is of sufficient length that the pictures don't overwhelm). However, I think it's very possible to go overboard and add to many pictures - either pictures of ancillary figures or multiple pictures that convey the same thing. The first version had too many pictures IMO, it was distracting. The current version (time stamped 4:33 on 7/10) looks fine to me. Rikster2 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the current version is good enough. I thought the version linked at the top of this section was acceptable. With that version, removing 4-5 pictures and some of the excessive information would make that good enough. I think it isn't a big deal and this is being made out to be a big deal when it isn't. That happens a lot. I also think some of the arguments are wrong, such as the "readability" argument. How is it unreadable if you're reading it? With 3 pictures across the screen, yeah maybe, but that's solved easily without a fuss. I think it looks awkward, not unreadable. Every version of the page I have seen (so every time I've looked at it) looks awkward. Just wanted to say something. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- JesseRafe, you keep reverting to a 6 high school picture version as if you have some policy based reason to do so. There is consensus that 15 high school pictures was too much. I assert 8 pictures is an acceptable compromise. Epeefleche has asserted that he did not have a problem with the 15 picture count. Rikster2 supported my proposed 8 pictures. DangerousJXD has states support of anything from 6 to 10 or 11. Handpolk has remained silent on my contention that 8 is better and more appropriate than 6, possibly because of my overly snarky presentation of my contention. The difference between my 8-picture version and your 6-picture version is File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG. The former has been widely discussed. Editorofthewiki has stated that "I have nothing against the image per se.", noting that he would even accept it as the main image of the page. Handpolk has noted that it "would probably make a decent addition to the article". These are the people who strongly support your paring down the article. Rikster2 supports my 8-picture version with that image in. Epeefleche supports my 15-picture version with that image in. There is no support here to remove File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG. There has not been explicit discussion regarding File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG, but dispite their different current trajectories, the image has historic importance to his biographical sketch and represents a high school basketball game that was the lead story on SportsCenter. I am reverting until you are willing to come here convince us otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I greatly prefer JesseRafe's version, personally. Eight images in this article is fine, but five in the high school section all clumped together is far too much, especially when a few don't serve any encyclopedic purpose unique from other images already on the page. I'd much rather see the JesseRafe version be kept for now, and then add an image to the college section, which has none. ~ RobTalk 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NBA Summer League Rosters
Hello, I've added NBA Summer League Rosters to the teams of the upcoming season. I feel like it helps add more information to the article. I've added them ever since last Wednesday and I haven't seen any problems with them being added.
UVABallers (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Summer league has little impact on the actual NBA season, so I don't think it is needed in the actual team articles.—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- While a good effort, Summer League is overhyped as it is. Nothing that happens during summer league action really matters, so the rosters do not really either. Summer League is used for trail runs on young players, so recording rosters do not really have a long-term significance. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand they don't have much of a significance, but I believe that it's not a big deal if it's added, and it add more information to the summer league sections. UVABallers (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:BALASPS advises that articles should "not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject ...", which seems to apply to the summer league.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
So... remove the summer league rosters? I made a lot this week because I wasn't sure till I found out today about the rosters. UVABallers (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Summer League rosters, results and honors aren't historically significant and should not be included in season articles. It's just a mechanism for filling out the roster and getting rookies to learn the playbook. Is there another major professional sport that lists their preseason roster on their season page? In the end, this stuff just isn't important. Rikster2 (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am of the belief that information included, should do more good than harm. In any given Summer League roster, maybe one or two players will make the regular season roster. Is there any legitimate harm in including the Summer League roster? I would say No. My opinion only for what its worth. Why not include information that is relevant, factual, and sourced? VeraBaby (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would say it is less significant than an NFL preseason or a MLB spring training roster because probably only about 1/4 of the participants will be on opening day rosters. Over half of the NFL preseason roster is on the opening day roster (or taxi squad) and most of the MLB spring training invitees at least end up in the team's farm system. However, I would include the content in a biographical article for the record.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tony, if you are saying that you would include something like "Joe Blow played for the Dallas Mavericks summer league team in 2012" in Joe Blow's article, then I agree with you. Summer League participation might be relevant for an individual. Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- ^I second that, I add summer league info to individual player articles all the time. However, summer league rosters matter little in the long-term. No one cares about summer league rosters outside of summer league time. Come the end of July, the summer league means nothing. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that summer league info is more relevant in relation to a player's bio. On a related note, articles like 2015 NBA Summer League have questionable WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and are mostly box score and results based on WP:ROUTINE coverage from likely non-independent coverage (anything beyond NBA.com?)—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- ^I second that, I add summer league info to individual player articles all the time. However, summer league rosters matter little in the long-term. No one cares about summer league rosters outside of summer league time. Come the end of July, the summer league means nothing. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tony, if you are saying that you would include something like "Joe Blow played for the Dallas Mavericks summer league team in 2012" in Joe Blow's article, then I agree with you. Summer League participation might be relevant for an individual. Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @VeraBaby: At some point, correct information—if insignificant—can clutter the more relevant information. WP:MISC is relevant here.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would say it is less significant than an NFL preseason or a MLB spring training roster because probably only about 1/4 of the participants will be on opening day rosters. Over half of the NFL preseason roster is on the opening day roster (or taxi squad) and most of the MLB spring training invitees at least end up in the team's farm system. However, I would include the content in a biographical article for the record.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But not everyone in the summer league has an article about them, so with a summer league roster, it adds recognization to everyone for the summer league team.
UVABallers (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- UVABallers - historically, summer league rosters are very trivial parts of a team's season. There is a reason valid sites like basketball-reference don't include this stuff - because it doesn't count for anything. Maybe a third of the players will be in the NBA this year. Having this information on team articles detracts from the information that really is important and that readers in 10-15 years will be looking for. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a collection of every little detail leading up to the season. Rikster2 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Similar situation to Tables for high schools stats in bios below. Not important. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares about the NBA Summer League. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if season-by-season articles like 2015 NBA Summer League are really notable per WP:GNG. However, assuming they are, it seems like rosters are more suitable to be listed there, as opposed to in articles on a specific team's NBA season. Also, a list of participants probably has more historical significance than the actual box scores of individual games. Again, no endorsement on whether these articles should exist to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that they should be added to 2015 NBA Summer League.
UVABallers (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@UVABallers: I'm confused with your revert to reinsert the Summer League info back to 2015–16 Golden State Warriors season, which has the edit description, "It gets taken down on July 20th". If your concern is having the information to copy to another article like 2015 NBA Summer League, it can be retrieved from the page's history without requiring it to stay until July 20. AFAICS, nobody has stated it is OK to have this information here temporarily as long as it is removed before the actual season starts. Please clarify your intention. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for making that confusing. I anticipate to keep all the rosters there till the Summer League ends, then on July 20th, move it to the 2015 NBA Sunmer League. I don't want it taken down because of it takes a lot of time to make the summer league rosters. Another questions, will scores and stats of summer league be kept on the upcoming team's season? Or could that get moved to 2015 NBA Summer League.
UVABallers (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can always get to content from older pages by accessing the page's history. With that in mind, I assume you do any have objection if they were removed before July 20. As for Summer League scores and stats, why do you believe they are relevant to an article on the actual NBA season?—Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we should move the rosters to the 2015 NBA Summer league after the Summer League ends. As for Scores and Stats, I think they could have an impact, because some players that play very well in the summer league, have a chance to sign a contract, so it would be a good idea to see those stats for those players which may sign.
UVABallers (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- As the consensus is to not include the rosters in the team season articles because they are not deemed significant, it would seem inconsistent to justify inclusion of scores and stats in the team articles. Barring a consensus to keep, they should be removed.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be moved to the 2015 NBA Sunmer League. UVABallers (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I invite you or others to move it there, if you wish. In the meantime, if the content should happen to get deleted from the team articles first, it can be retrieved from the page history, as explained above, and copied as needed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay cool, although, should we wait to move the summer league info after July 20th, also, how do you retrieve it from the page history?
UVABallers (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Find in Help:Page history instructions for "view a specific version". Once you have that version, you can edit it to copy the wikitext from that version. WP:HELPDESK may also be able to assist you. As there is no consensus to keep the content until July 20, WP:NOCONSENSUS says that articles will typically revert to the "version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Myself or someone else may or may not get to initiating cleanup before July 20 if it has not been moved.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Adding Career Numbers to Active Players
I've noticed that the "career numbers" part of NBA player's infoboxes is only associated with retired players. I was wondering if we could include this in active players bios as well. I think it is a good idea because I know a lot of people would be interested about what other numbers players have worn in their careers and on what team. For instance, I had know idea that Brandon Bass wore numbers 33 (New Orleans Hornets) and 32 (Dallas Mavericks) in the mid 2000's. I always thought of Brandon Bass as number 30 which he has worn with the Magic and the Celtics. I think if we included these numbers and a link to what team they were on when they wore them, it could be a great addition to active players bios, as well as retired players bios. People would be really interested with how many different numbers players have worn throughout their career. I know recentism was something talked about in earlier posts as most people are more interested in current players. This would give viewers the opportunity to learn another fun fact about some of their favorite current players.
I am totally willing to go through the active rosters and look into what numbers they have worn throughout their careers. I think this is a really good idea and I am excited to see what you guys think. --RichieConant (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- There was an idea at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_25#Michael_Jordan_wearing_the_.2312 to just get rid of the career numbers altogether. Perhaps you'd want to make sure there is still consensus for it to remain before investing a lot of time to expand it's usage. I'm not sure about linking the team to the number, as it is somewhat non-intuitive per WP:EGG.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have an issue with including this, as it would probably be something else that is useful for the reader. There's nothing wrong with the way numbers are presented now, though. I think it should be left how it is. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with everything stated by Dirtlawyer1 below. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Career numbers" should not be added to the infobox of currently active players; old jersey numbers of active players are trivia, and the infobox is already too long in actual practice in many, if not most instances. The goal is not to see how many factoids we can cram into a given infobox, but to emphasize the most important core facts about a given player's career. In most instances, old jersey numbers are not even mentioned in the main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: After hearing some feedback from you guys, maybe we should include the information about career numbers for active players, just not in the infobox. That way, people still have access to that information and it won't clutter up the "too long" infobox. What do you think of that? --RichieConant (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not a problem, as long it is incorporated naturally into the article prose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical about how natural it could actually sound. Aside from mentioning the number if it was part of some "Public image" section if it was a best-selling jersey, or something significantly covered like Jordan or Kobe changing their number, I think mentioning in prose sounds as trivial as mentioning a player's salary for every season. I would suggest that the existing external links to basketball-reference.com would be sufficient in most cases for this type of trivia.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- We are already listing career numbers for retired players. If anything, I think it should be allowed consistently. Either allow it for both active and retired players, or say it's generally kludgey and remove it for both.—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really see why it needs to be the same for active vs. retired. Retired players show all because their career is over and you can theoretically show all their numbers. Active players show their active number because they can only wear one number at a time. I am ambivalent as to if we continue to show career numbers for retired players. Rikster2 (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I believe while it might not be notable enough to include in the infobox, vViewers will enjoy noting players different number with different teams. I was currently going to go through the active rosters of NBA teams and include this in all of their pages. This way it would not seem too "trivial" and become a common inclusion on Wikipedia NBA player's pages. I thought it would be fun for me while also being beneficial to player's bios. If you have a better place to include this please let me know. If you are 100% dead set on opposing this edit, I will stop my research.--RichieConant (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- In prose, retired numbers bear mentioning. Top-selling jerseys with sales info could be appropriate. However, I wouldn't want to see a bio like Joe Smith, who played for 12 NBA teams, have trivial mention of his number each time he moved to a new team. WP:FANCRUFT seems applicable, and external links like basketball-reference.com can provide that info to the few readers that need it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
How do I protect a page?
Hi, I just wanted to see how. There's a guy (who doesn't have an account) persistently adding Bismack Biyombo to this page with no sources at all and with no confirmation from the Raptors. Could you help me, please? Intruder007 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Procedurally, both of you have received warnings about edit warring. As the issue involves a limited number of editors, protection is not typically given; the users are usually dealt with individually in these cases, with blocks being a last resort option, if necessary. I suggest the two of you discuss this, and others might chime in too to establish a consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Understood. The thing, is, I was only asking for sources, and he never gave them (referring me to google) and Biyombo has not been announced in the Raptors page, which is what I asked from moment one. Intruder007 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion in the future is to start a discussion with users and avoid having it escalate into an edit war. Follow dispute resolution. Template:uw-sportstrans has standard talking points for updates on transactions that are generally followed by WP:NBA, and can explain the distinction between announcements by the team versus ones based on anonymous sources. For editors that are willing to discuss, and there was at least dialogue here—albeit in edit summaries only—the issue is usually that they don't initially understand why their generally reliable news site is now considered by someone to be unreliable. If discussion reaches an impasses, posting here is usually good to get others involved to reach consensus, which you eventually did.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Understood. The thing, is, I was only asking for sources, and he never gave them (referring me to google) and Biyombo has not been announced in the Raptors page, which is what I asked from moment one. Intruder007 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Intruder – I've reverted the IP's last addition as a way of "backing you up" so to speak, but in the future, it's not worth edit warring, trust me I know [2]. With that kind of addition, it's not that big of a deal i.e. it's not a player article. When a stubborn IP gets into a tick with you, after two reverts, leave it or go to the IP's talk page. Back and forth reverting over and over again is very disruptive and does not solve the problem. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cool. Thank you, I will try to send everyone to to this talkpage from now on. Intruder007 (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion on final image selection tweaks at Jahlil Okafor
After several discussions regarding warring over which images to include in Jahlil Okafor, we are holding what may be the concluding discussions regarding the possible reinsertion of 3 specific images and the removal of another. Join the discussion at Talk:Jahlil_Okafor#Now_relocated_discussion_on_images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Help Please!!!
Can someone please help me protect Ty Lawson? Everyone keeps changing it to say he is on the Rockets even though it is not official. Please help. Thanks. Miamiheat631 (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you want the article protected, you should request that at WP:RFP. It will likely be answered sooner there than here. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Senior automatically in NBA draft
Should bios mention that a player was automatically entered into the draft because they were a college senior. This was reverted back into Seth Curry by Mathgenious989 with no edit summary. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes They should is it is a very valuable piece of information and its obviously very important for info on a players career directly out of college. Mathgenious989 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Curry's article already mentions that he was undrafted in the 2013 NBA draft. 2013_NBA_draft#Automatically_eligible_entrants covers automatic eligibility. The debate is whether such details are considered major enough to push up to the player bio level as well, and whether this is a precedent for inclusion into bios for the majority of NBA players that did enter the draft automatically.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't news that they are eligible after their senior year. Whether or not they were drafted is relevant. Rikster2 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It's just a irrelevant as stating "he went undrafted" in the lead. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't news that they are eligible after their senior year. Whether or not they were drafted is relevant. Rikster2 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed this for now as there is no consensus to include this.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe all of you are mistaking but i will not argue as it's a very small issue. If there is any articles that need some help just link me to the, and will fix them up! Mathgenious989 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Mathgenious989: Under "Tasks" at WP:NBA, there are some suggestions of things to do. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Butler
Jimmy Butler has made a name for himself in this league and I just realized that currently his page has no picture. I would upload one but I don't know how to because of all the copyright issues. If someone could do this that would be great. Also if someone could share a link for how to add picture to wiki from google images that would be great. Thanks --RichieConant34 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Doug McDermott also does not have a picture above his infobox.--RichieConant34 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can't put Google images on Wikipedia, not the way I assume you're thinking. All pictures need to be uploaded and that can be a complicated mess. Somebody will upload a picture eventually, it can take a while. If you don't know how to upload pictures yourself, and you don't intend to attempt to learn how, there isn't much you can do. There are lots of other NBA players that really should have a picture but don't. There are a lot of articles in general that don't have pictures that should have pictures. (A good example from someone who doesn't know anything about uploading pictures: I made several redirects into articles one day and they still don't have a picture, despite it being easy for somebody who knows how to upload pictures to upload the pictures (there aren't issues with copyright as the type of article and picture has a non-free rational), the fact they are in categories of articles requesting pictures, and I requested it on those talk pages. Oh well.) —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- A good starting point to read is Wikipedia:Image use policy. For living people, typically you will need a free image, which are sometimes available on Flickr.—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)