Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Jamaal Magloire

What exactly is Jamaal Magloire's current role with the Raptors? Recent news articles about the cup thing have been calling him an assistant coach (eg, [1]), but he's not included as a coach on the Raptors' own website. This NBA.com article calls him a consultant. Zagalejo^^^ 01:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Johnny Au (maybe)? Zagalejo^^^ 15:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

They are still mostly speculation at this point. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this response. He obviously had some role with the Raptors during the last season. I'm just a little confused what his exact job title was. Our article contradicts itself. Zagalejo^^^ 04:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 NBA draft - picks are wrong

When the dust settles could someone go clean that article up? It should shown the teams the players were selected by, not the teams they will ultimately be traded to in a few weeks (for example, DeAndre Hunter was actually selected by the Lakers, not the Hawks. A lot (if not all) of reported trades are incorrect as I type this. I will be mostly offline for a couple weeks so I won’t be correcting it. Rikster2 (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rikster2: I'm confused when you say "a lot (if not all) of reported trades are incorrect as I type this". I agree that the NBA draft page should list the team which initially held the rights to the pick (or the team represented on the hat the draftee wore), but these draft day trades happen and selections are made for other teams as they happen, therefore the asterisk or note next to the team that initially held the rights is just as important, if not more important. RichieConant34 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rikster2: The same goes for the teams' 2019–20 season pages. IP editors (I suspect it is the same person using multiple IPs) are listing wrong players in "Draft picks" sections. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:NBA Draft template list

Can someone please add 2019 to {{NBA Draft template list}}? SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Bagumba did it last time. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportsGuy789: Added. For protected templates, you might get faster turnaround using {{edit template-protected}}.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Spicy P and Mafuzzy Chef

Should we add Spicy P and Mafuzzy Chef as nicknames for Pascal Siakam and Serge Ibaka, respectively?

There are plenty of reliable sources for both nicknames. Not just that, but Ibaka has a YouTube series on his cooking. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If there's good evidence that the nickname is in wide use, then go for it. Sources like this are good. Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Spicy P has been added to Pascal Siakam. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 NBA Finals infobox content

Duplicate : #Finals infobox

I'm looking for opinions on what should and shouldn't be included in the infobox of the 2019 NBA Finals article, as well as other years. Infinite mission (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding years of experience to roster listings

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Player2#Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2019 regarding a request to add a new column to the display the number of years of experience for each player on the roster.—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

NBA Finals Importance

I don't see why we can't seem to agree on a standard for the importance of NBA Finals series.

Top: 2017–19 (WP:RECENTISM??)

High: 2002, 2008, 2014–16

Mid: 1991, 1996–98, 2000–01, 2003–07, 2009–10, 2012–13

Low: 1947–50, 1954–56, 1967, 1971, 1975–80, 1982–83, 1993–95, 1999

Unassessed: 1951-53, 1957-66, 1968-70, 1972-74, 1981, 1984-90, 1992, 2011

There doesn't seem to be a clear reason for some of these year-by-year importance disparities (what makes 2002 and 2008 more important than the rest of the 00's, why are 1991, 1996, 1997, and 1998 more important than the rest of the 90's, etc.). The importance scale suggests that Finals games are High-importance—should all of these pages be reassessed as such? 400spartans (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, those decisions are completely arbitrary. In the big picture, I don't know if the importance scales make a big difference on day-to-day editing. This seems like more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. But I agree that it looks a little silly. Nothing before the 90s is important? Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@400spartans: FWIW, Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Assessment#Importance_scale lists Finals as "high" importance.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Warriors "dynasty"

FYI

There is a discussion at Talk:NBA_Finals#Year_span_of_Warriors'_dynasty regarding an edit war over the year span of the Warriors "dynasty".—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"Other" Awards

I'm curious as to why awards like the Rising Stars/Rookie Challenge MVP or the NBA Hustle Award have been excluded from players' info boxes. I know the Hustle Award if fairly new, but the Rising Stars/Rookie Challenge MVP had been included for several years now. Would appreciate any feedback and/or opening up a proper discussion. Jay Starz (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

For Rising Star, the previous consensus was not to have it in the infobox per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_24#NBA_Rising_Star. The Hustle Award seems obscure. The infobox is not meant to be exhaustive. WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS lists what's generally included. Other awards can be mentioned instead in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see any consensus as for the MVP of the game though. Why would excluding an MVP given during the All-Star Weekend be better or make more sense than including it? Jay Starz (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS would be on you to establish consensus to include it in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

But where was the original consensus for removing it in the first place? Jay Starz (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dont recall if they were removed or just never consistently listed. At any rate, the defacto consensus is that it's generally not on current pages, whatever the reason. Feel free to form a new consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Davis

Just wanted to say please keep in mind now that Anthony Davis is a Laker it's probably time to add a new header for both of the Lakers history articles... Even though it's not official till free agency. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Right now, Sun Yue has accomplished more for the Lakers than Davis has. It's still possible that Davis never pays a game for the Lakers. We need to be patient with this stuff. Zagalejo^^^ 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sports Fan 1997: We went over this with you less than a year ago on multiple occasions after the Lakers acquired James. You insisted that with James, the Lakers are playoff team and we MUST define a new era. How did that work out? At what point will you understand that We do not write the future? Yosemiter (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Well what I don't get at all is how come there are other sports teams articles that already has an era when they first join a team? Like example the Raptors, Kawhi Leonard joined the team in July last year and it was already a new header of Kawhi Leonard era after 2013-2018: DeRozan and Lowry era, Not one game was played or anything and it was on their considered an 'era' all season. I don't get it, I really don't. It's like some teams can already have it but others can't. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because other pages get it wrong doesn't mean we perpetuate the error. In other words WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. oknazevad (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

    What a shame to deny. I think most of y'all knew the whole time but whatever. Be it. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Zagalejo I get the patience but I still don't think 2016-present: Post-Bryant era should still be as the current header. They have a good roster right now with 2 superstars in LeBron and AD, Kuzma on the rise. That's a title contender.

LeBron James

Anthony Davis

Kyle Kuzma

DeMarcus Cousins

Danny Green

Quinn Cook

Rajon Rondo

JaVale McGee

Jared Dudley Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sports Fan 1997: Please stop beating this dead horse. As we have pointed out to you for the last year, your crystal ball is broken. Right now, most experts out there don't even think the Lakers are the best team in LA, much less the entire NBA. We have no idea how next season will play out, so just stop. Yosemiter (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I really need to go convince others to support my idea. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

May I create a discord server for this Wikiproject?

Just wondering, may we create a server for this Wikiproject? In my opinion, interesting discussions and more productivity can occur if we make a server. If yes, the invite is https://discord.gg/e9kjnKp DerpieDerpie:D 23:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Clippers RfD

FYI

There is an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5#Clippers about Clippers currently being targetted to Los Angeles Clippers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Finals infobox

I made edits to replace the infobox in the Finals articles with one that to me seems to only include pertinent information, appropriate for an infobox. I'd like to get some opinions. Infinite mission (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes since you did not discuss it with anyone and were just WP:BOLD. Your next step per WP:BRD is for you to present the changes here and try to convince the editors of this project to make the change. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In above discussion at #Infobox_for_each_NBA_Finals, I supported removal of referees and broadcast info. The refs are already in the body in the game summaries, and the broadcaster info is too bulky for the infobox, and not a core part of the event's notability. It's OK in the body. However, if there is consensus to remove all or some of this, we should update the template {{Infobox basketball final}} itself, not just use another template (which has its own set of undesireable parameters).—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion/request, could someone who knows what they're doing (unlike me), create a new infobox, perhaps based on {{Infobox basketball series}}, that leaves out the individual game info, uniforms, and other unnecessary parameters, leaving simply the teams, games won, MVP, and links to the previous and next finals articles. That to me seems to be all that is warranted for the infobox. Infinite mission (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 NBA Finals

[[File::2019 NBA Finals logo.png|frameless]]
Team Coach Wins {{{champion}}} {{{champion_coach}}} {{{champion_games}}} {{{runnerup}}} {{{runnerup_coach}}} {{{runnerup_games}}}
Dates	May 30 – June 16
MVP	Player X
Hall of Famers	Player Y and others
Eastern finals	Raptors defeated Bucks, 4–2
Western finals	Warriors defeated Trail Blazers, 4–0

@Infinite mission: The parameters for television, announcers, HOFers, radio network and its announcers, and referees at Template:Infobox basketball final are optional. You can just remove them and there will not be any errors. I already experimented with it, and I would support the removal of all these useless listings, and it would look like this:

However, that will still need consensus. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Infinite mission: Your changes at the template have been reverted since you do not have consensus for that. What I meant in my message above is that some parameters are optional and you can either use them or not. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Do you have an opinion on the template changes? Do you support them, but want to give more people a chance to discuss, or do you oppose the changes? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: My opinion on the template changes is that parameters should not just be blindly removed since many of the are optional. However, that is not specified in the documentation so I can understand why the other editor removed them. We need to specify which parameters are optional. And yes, I want more people involved in this discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the parameters be deleted as they are not pertinent information for the infobox. Leaving them as optional means that they can be filled in eventually. Infinite mission (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Infinite mission: As Bagumba advised below – stop changing the template. It seems that you do not know what WP:CONSENSUS is and I am considering to report you for disruptive behavior. Please back off. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: At this point, given the WP:SILENCE from others, I propose that we go ahead and remove the referee and broadcast information from {{Infobox basketball final}}. Do you have any objection?—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: No objections. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you please hold off on making more mass changes to this template until you establish consensus? I had to fix your removing the bolding for the champion. Are you using the existing testcases? This should have been easily caught in the sandbox. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Official transaction and team announcements

I believe that once a transaction is official, it can be found here. But User:‎Sabbatino said that even if it is already included in the NBA transactions page, as long as there is no team announcement or an NBA news article, the transaction is not official. Can someone shed a light on this? ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally I am OK with using the NBA.com transaction tracker as it is at least an “official source” and we have enough issues with editors jumping the gun with every Woj tweet. That said, you can argue that a player can’t be “on the roster” until the team announces them. Personally, I’d accept either but this isn’t 100% clear in the consensus and I’d like to hear other opinions. Rikster2 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the Knicks signings listed there under July 8 for Julius Randle, Bobby Portis, Wayne Ellington and Elfrid Payton. However, another NBA page https://www.nba.com/freeagents/2019/tracker does not list a new team for these players yet. There is also nothing on these signings at https://www.nba.com/knicks/news. So even though you were basing your edits off of what you thought was reliable, and cited it in the edit summary, there is reason to doubt the source, at least in these cases. Not sure if this is a one-off inconsistency with stats.nba.com or if it really should not be trusted—will need to monitor this. At any rate, I think it's OK that you are editing and citing your sources, but it's also OK if people find conflicts with other "reliable" sources and decide to revert. The good thing is that we are discussing this now.—Bagumba (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This constant questioning of whether or not something is considered "official" is exactly why this policy needs reworking. The grey area is huge and I feel like we could come to some consensus if someone could come up with a system/specific source(s) that work. I have made my case above as you know. RichieConant34 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Team's announcement is the only reliable source. The NBA free agent tracker is updated when a press release by the team is released. The "NBA Stats" page tends to add premature information despite it being operated by the same entity. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Building consensus on players signed to Exhibit 10 contracts and their relationship with the team they are signed to

I'm trying to build consensus on how the relationship between [[Exhibit 10 contract players and the team that they have signed with. Currently, they are often listed as still being free agents similar to other participants in the Summer League, most of whom are invited to participate but are not under contract players, even though they signed a contract with an NBA team and therefore cannot sign with another team. Exhibit 10 players are under the control of their respective organizations and and although technically on the active roster. Additionally, the fact that the G League side of the bonus kicks in after being waived by the NBA team strongly indicates that they should be considered members of the organization. I think a good way of accurately depicting the status of Exhibit 10 players is to follow the protocol for non-roster invitees and minor leaguers in baseball and identify that they are with X team in the lead and infobox, but not put team and years play for in the infobox given that they are not rostered players and then make the necessary adjustments to the article after they are cut or signed to an actual full contract, whether it be NBA, G League, or Two Way. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a current player? If it's reliably sourced that they signed an NBA contract and not just for the summer league, it seems Ok to consider them part of the team. As for being waived and joining the G League affiliate, I think it's undue to put the NBA team in the lead. Unlike in baseball, I think these Exhibit 10 players can sign with any other NBA team or any other league even after they join the G League.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ky Bowman is an example, while teams don't particularly don't announce Exhibit 10 there are plenty of reliable sources stating that he signed as an undrafted free agent on a non-guaranteed contract, which is a more substantial connection to the Warrirs organization than a player that is only invited to play on the Warriors summer league team and not offered a contract that continues an affiliation with the organization beyond playing in summer league. I'm proposing that we list them as being with the team in some capacity only during the time that they are under such a contract, so before the player is actually waived or signed to a guaranteed contract with the team. I just think its a more accurate way of representing the player's status in professional basketball during the time frame that they are clearly under the control of the team. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, the main issue is that nobody has confirmed on the record that he's signed, right? And what are you proposing to determine who to list?—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's part of it, although I'd like to think that multiple reliable sources would be enough to confirm the player is signed as an undrafted free agent that should be enough. Maybe not though, I guess it doesn't matter as much as I originally thought especially in Bowman's case given it's been reported he's going to sign a two way contract and in general over the next few months we'll have a better idea of who all of the exhibit 10's are when training camp rosters are announced. I guess you could only identify and correctly label exhibit 10's in conjunction with the teams that signed them piecemeal through non-team sources anyway. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of Global Logos over Primary Logos

For almost all of the teams, the "Global logo" that displays the full team name is already the main logo displayed on each page. However, for Cleveland and Denver, the primary logo that does not display the full team name is used on their team Wiki pages. This seems inconsistent and I'm not sure why the global logo, which functionally serves as the primary logo in the old sense, is not the preferred logo for the sake of the WikiProject. I understand their use if strictly holding onto the term "primary logo" as the only basis, but I would argue that the global logo is more representative of the teams and should be used for all teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TevWool (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Records vs Opponents boxes

I've noticed that a few "historical" pages have a "records vs opponents box" e.g. 2003–04 Seattle SuperSonics season. I know this is similar to what is on the MLB season pages but they use templates ex Template:2006 NL Record vs. opponents. In any event later pages don't have these e.g. 2018–19 Oklahoma City Thunder season. Should these be proliferated as part of a template, or removed entirely?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a compelling argument to have them?—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly my question, I don't see how it is relevant to put on a Seattle article what the Bulls' record against Atlanta was. They were added by @Scrubbbo:, maybe he would have a reason. In any event they should be included universally or not at all.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, I feel they are on the wrong side of WP:NOTSTATS, probably even for 2003–04 NBA season, and their is no de facto standard to include them.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, you can remove them if need be, I made them when I was younger with a bunch more time and it got to the point where I couldn't finish them in the latter seasons. The early seasons look fine but the newer seasons are much too cluttered and ugly, I don't mind whatever fate happens to them anyhow, I don't really edit those kinds of things in anymore due to no time. @Bagumba: -Scrubbbo (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

NBL awards articles - WP:SPINOUT?

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award

A user has declared that my NBL awards and honors articles should not exist independently because they're under 100k bytes. I find this to be kind of ridiculous, considering they're notable awards from a major basketball league in the U.S., but I'd like to know if I'm in the minority with that sentiment. Please do not bother discussing on this WP:NBA talk page; rather, I'd like there to be a more engaged dialogue at the above AfD (for posterity). Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Lakers colors

I think there's a mistake on the team uniforms colors section, it's got purple, gold, black but not white. They started wearing white in the early 00s as their alternate (association). They don't wear black much they started that in the early 2010s when it was called 'hollywood nights'. http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/237/Los_Angeles_Lakers/ Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaugural season navboxes

FYI

Should there be a special roster navbox for a franchise's first season? You are invited to join the related TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22#NBA inaugural roster navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Team stats format

{{NBA roster statistics full}} was recently created even though {{NBA roster statistics start}} already existed to form the stats table header. The difference with the new "NBA roster statistics full" is that it added a column for player postion, which unnecessarily duplicates what is on the player roster already. Additionally, shooting percentages are removed, and the stats are the raw totals and not averages. See a new example at 2018–19 Golden State Warriors season#Player statistics versus an old example at 2016–17 Golden State Warriors season#Player statistics. The creator of the new template, Ayomaju, hasn't responded on their talk page. They have edited the old template before, so this was presumably a conscious decision to start a new format. As percentage and averages are more informative than raw season totals, and the positions are duplicated, I prefer the old format.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I prefer the original as well, for many of the same reasons. CThomas³ (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I tried to show players' contribution in related season for the team with the new template. Per game statistics are already used in players' page. I'm sorry if it's annoying. Thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayomaju (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles Clippers

Can someone please explain to me as to why and how are the Clippers got a new header of 2019-present: Surprise arrival of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George? Am I missing something? Not a single game has been played with them on the team but they get a new header in the history books? Right now, Michael Olowokandi has accomplished more with the Clippers than them two. But for 'safety' reasons the Lakers have LeBron (been a Laker for a year) and AD but can't have a header for them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Clippers#2019%E2%80%93present:_Surprise_arrival_of_Kawhi_Leonard_and_Paul_George Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone on Wikipedia who watches every change to the NBA team pages. Most people would not have known about the Lakers article controversy if it didn't spill onto this project page. Zagalejo^^^ 02:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

request page move for 1983–84 Seattle Sonics season

I opened a move discussion at Talk:1983–84 Seattle Sonics season if anybody is interested in contributing.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What is considered an official announcement of a sign, trade, waiving, etc

I'm sure all of us are all too familiar with the severe uptick in edits towards a player's page once speculation in regard to a trade, signing, or other transaction arises in the media. To be clear, I understand many of these reports, tweets, and rumors don't actually come to fruition, but it gets to a point where such a strict system causes Wikipedia to appear as though the information isn't updated constantly and as soon as possible. Of course, it is important to be able to distinguish between something that is "almost a done deal" or "clear front runners" from "Player1 has been traded to City for Player2 and a future draft pick". These phrases are commonly used from reliable NBA insiders like Adrian Wojnarowski and Shams Charania with the third phrase very often indicating an official trade that comes to fruition shortly after. I am aware that ever so often (extremely rarely), there will be an "official" Woj or Shams report/tweet that ends up falling through, namely DeAndre Jordan in 2015, but these outliers shouldn't hold up the editing process of staying up to date with accurate and reliable information.

A perfect example of this, while there are many around this time in the off season, is Aron Baynes. Right now, Aron Baynes is listed as a member of the Boston Celtics on Wikipedia. Looking at the Boston Celtics official homepage, yes, Aron Baynes is still listed on the roster, but this trade was announced by Woj and Shams on draft night and effected the draft selections because the Celtics (technically the 76ers) were making the pick for the Phoenix Suns. The trade was generally reported as: "The Celtics are trading Aron Baynes and the No. 24 pick to the Suns for a future 2020 first round pick. The Suns are focused on Ty Jerome at No. 24." This trade has been reported on multiple times since draft night and in the eyes of the NBA and the players involved, it is a done deal. I'm sure there is some official date or rule that makes it so these trades are technically not "official" yet, but I think it is important not to mislead casual fans who are curious about what team a player is on at any given time. The NBA website has been known to be the last source you can go to when trying to figure out who is on what team, and to me it is honestly embarrassing. I understand that it may be because they wait for everything to be squared away perfectly, but I believe it hurts the reputation of the website and makes it very difficult for fans to keep up to date especially around this time of year.

Now, some of you might argue that Wiki should just go off of what the poorly managed NBA website has to say and when it updates rosters or announces trades, then it is okay for Wiki users to do the same. I don't agree with this at all strictly because the NBA website is always behind, but I'm not even sure that the NBA website is what wiki bases it's "official" edits on. Aron Baynes is listed as a Celtic on NBA.com, a Celtic on Wiki, and a Sun on ESPN. Ty Jerome, the No. 24 pick that was involved in the Baynes trade, is listed a 76er on NBA.com, a Sun on Wiki, and a Celtic on ESPN. Clearly, there is some discrepancy on what is official and when it becomes so, among other huge information platforms as well. Carsen Edwards, another draft day trade, is listed as a 76er on NBA.com, a Celtic on Wiki, and a Celtic on ESPN.

I am all for accurate and reliable information on Wikipedia, but I also believe people come to Wikipedia for updated information as well, especially for sports. Due to their resumes and positive reliability over many years, I believe that a report by Woj or Shams stating "Player1 has been traded" or "Team1 and Player1 have agreed to a stated contract", should be considered legit and therefore warrant an update on the player or players page(s). On the off chance that a reported done deal falls through, then these edits are easily revertible. When reports do start to come in, as they already have, moderators do a great job on getting protection on the pages so only certain people can make edits and I think this is necessary and important going forward if the community decides to go through with this idea. Please let me know any other suggestions, agreements, disagreements you all have. RichieConant34 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time, there is a very clear statement in the form of an official press release. For example, this. Occasionally, all you'll see is an official tweet from the team's PR department. But there's almost always some sort of official statement.

Personally, I stopped fighting over this stuff years ago. I don't know if it's a productive use of people's time. But I will always say that the people who insist on official announcements are right. The date a trade is first reported is not the date it is officially completed. This is why so many players at the NBA Draft are forced to wear the hats of teams they will (probably) not be playing for: because the reported trades are not official yet. Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@RichieConant34: When the team announces the transaction via a press release then it becomes official/completed. Any other reports are merely rumors. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally understand the logic of the "official" press releases, but the fact that extremely reliable "reported" announcements come days prior to the the official statements makes the amount of time and effort spent reverting edits, that will be made "official" within a few days, pointless. It's an uphill battle for Wikipedia users to try to update relevant information that will come to fruition within the next few days. This time of year, when any player signs or is traded you're obviously going to see people going to update that page with the new information while others, usually more active and regular users, go back and fourth reverting these edits until one side finally just gives up. Again, I am all for reliable and accurate, but constantly updated information is valued on the internet, and wiki has that potential. RichieConant34 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@RichieConant34: The problem with that point of view is that trades can and do fall apart after being reported with regularity. Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable source of accurate facts, not a news site for up to second rumors and reports. Even reliable reporters, when rushing to get their news out first, can prematurely call something as official. That is why we use WP:RSBREAKING as the standard for such announcements. It is better to be 100% correct than be first or premature. Yosemiter (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: You say those reported trades or signings fall through with regularity but I challenge you to find two or more instances in which Woj or Shams have reported something completely false, or that didn't come to fruition (not including when Deandre Jordan changed his mind way back in 2015). Like I mentioned in my initial post here, there is a big difference between "Team1 and Player1 are in talks", and "Player1 has agreed to a 3-year $65 million contract with Team1". NBA news is not like many other "Breaking News" situations in which details begin to roll in over the next few days. Sure, for massive trades you might see an extra pick or two thrown in over the next couple hours after reported completion by one of the two sources I've talked about, but we've seen time and again just how reliable and accurate these sources are. RichieConant34 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not particularly worried that trades may fall apart. A bigger issue is that teams can't complete most of these trades until later, due to the NBA's rules. It's factually incorrect to say that Anthony Davis is on the Lakers. He can't be - not yet. Now, maybe it's not practical to worry about this stuff. Frankly, there aren't enough experienced editors to keep these things in order without burning out. But in an ideal world, we should try to be as accurate as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 19:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here’s the thing about this, I can’t speak for MLB or NHL, but with NFL related pages the standard is to wait until the trade can be completed with situations like the Anthony Davis trade (or in the case of the NFL Dee Ford for example), but with NFL pages we do update the infobox when the insiders like Jason La Canfora or Adam Schefter announce the deal when it’s done during the season. When it comes to free agency, infoboxes are updated at the start of the league year which is usually 4 pm eastern time the first or second week of March, not when the team announces it. While I do not edit NBA pages very frequently, I think it makes sense to change the infobox with free agent signings as soon as contracts can be agreed to but not a moment sooner if a reliable source (such as well known NBA insiders) is reporting a contract has been agreed to. Waiting until the official announcement is made can cause edit wars and IPs wrecking havoc on pages. I remember the fighting that came before the Lakers officially announced LeBron’s signing last year.--Rockchalk717 03:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally, WP:SPORTSTRANS is followed, and deals are updated in the lead and infoboxes when the team announces the deal. On a per-case basis, the consensus is sometimes that a reported deal is significant enough to mention in prose e.g. Anthony Davis#Requesting a trade (2018–19) even before a team official has spoken on the record. However, it is clearly mentioned that it is "reported", and readers should not be misled that it's been completed. This only seems to become big deal during the offseason around the July moratorium, when breaking news about a big-time player occurs, but the league does not allow anything to be finalized for weeks. During the season, the team usually announces deals within a day or two, so there is generally no hurry to break news on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: So according to this, Kevin Durant should in fact be listed as a Brooklyn Net, which as of right now he is. If Kevin Durant is considered a member of the team in these scenarios and therefore a factual source, why not have only the most reliable reporters such as Adrain Wojnarowski be considered under this category? His track record is phenomenal and reliable over the past five years and it's at the point now where players themselves are getting trade details that they may be involved in via a Woj tweet. Just as KD announced the news for himself, this is still not "technically" completed yet by the league, so to me, there is a big enough grey area to address the possibility of a change in policy. Due to the advancements in communication technology and popularity of the sport, breaking news can be leaked and spread faster than ever expected even two-three years ago. RichieConant34 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In Durant's case, he can't sign until the moratorium ends on July 6, which his announcement also mentioned. In the case of Woj, I don't see the hurry to consider "reports" a fact, though a "report" can be handled like in Davis' article.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Protection requests Another indication that there is no consensus for treating these "reports" as done deals are the multiple page protections today on NBA players who have reportedly reached agreements, but cannot sign until July 6 after the July moratorium.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yes, I see the protections pop up around this time every year. What is your take on the movement of changing a policy or working out an "outdated" or "impractical" current method? RichieConant34 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it be better if we go ahead and change the policy so we don’t need pretty much every player involved in a transaction to have their pages protected? In instances of actual vandalism (like with Bol Bol after he finally got drafted) that’s a different story. If a player changes their mind like DeAndre Jordan did, then it shouldn’t be that big of deal to change the infobox again. Though I do get the accuracy issue. Kevin Durant, for example, isn’t technically a member of the Brooklyn Nets yet, but at the same token, that’s not how it works with NFL Free Agency. Once a reliable source reports the contract, I think it’s pretty reasonable to go ahead and change the infobox.--Rockchalk717 00:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@RichieConant34 and Rockchalk717: Editors request page protection because edits are not verifiable: typically no source is cited, and WP:PRESERVE fails if research finds the only sources are either breaking news or based on anonymous sources. Making it look like a deal is done in these cases is WP:OR, especially right now during the July moratorium. In Durant's own announcement, it specifically states that he will only sign after the moratorium ends. The WP:ONUS is on editors to establish consensus to include prose about "reported" deals, like Anthony Davis currently has.—Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: In terms of a statement by Adrian Wojnarowski regarding breaking news, it's typical for him not to include a source because in the realm of NBA news, he is the most reliable source there is. You often here people say "it's not official until Woj says it" and, again, even NBA players tune into his statements to get the latest information for themselves. He has been a consistent breaker of factual news for years now, and as time goes on he only continues to get better, faster, and more accurate. RichieConant34 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I’m ok with waiting until the July moratorium ends, but where I have the issue is waiting until the team’s official announcement, which in some cases comes days after the moratorium ends.--Rockchalk717 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@RichieConant34 and Rockchalk717: Reagrding post-July moratorium, there was a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_26#Agreeing_to_vs._signing_a_contract (also referenced in WP:SPORTSTRANS) that suggested not bothering to revert if a player (or his agent) announced their intention to sign. No unnamed source—something directly attributed to a real person. It wasn't an endorsement to add anything before an official announcement, it was more to prevent edit churn with IPs or editors not aware of distinctions with anonymous sources or "agree to sign" vs "signed", etc. As with anything, it's not worth edit warring over. Discuss when there is a dispute. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It seems like you were making a similar movement 5 years ago. So from what I can tell reading that, a self "report" from a player or his agency about a signing is considered legitimate and therefore warrants and edit. Is this just when the July moratorium ends, or would an instance like Kemba Walker expressing his excitement about joining the Celtics on ESPN or Enes Kanter stating that "he is a Celtic" before the ending of the moratorium warrant an edit as well? My proposal is taking that next step, remember the linked scenario is from 5 years ago so you may consider that a little bit outdated. If many of you are completely against changes being made prior to the ending of the moratorium I understand, but my view is that an edit should be considered when an "agreed" upon trade or contract (see my original post to see the difference between "agreed" or "working towards a contract") is announced by the player, his agency, the team, or an extremely reliable NBA source including the "anonymously sourced" highly respected and reliable NBA insiders. RichieConant34 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@RichieConant34: I wouldn't say that a post-moratorium announcement about an intent to sign warrants an edit. I was only suggesting a détente since some sources start to lax after the deadline and not preface these deals with like "reported", making it hard for honest editors. During the moratorium, a deal just can't be completed, and it's relatively easy to point editors to the league calendar.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: So ideally, you would want no changes to infoboxes or pages until the end of the moratorium period? RichieConant34 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be misleading and unverifiable to imply that they have joined a team yet. It's a low bar, but even NBA.com's free agent tracker doesnt list a "new team" for these moratorium period announcements.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Just as ESPN's website does, I continue to advocate for updates to player's pages once agreed upon terms are announced by reliable NBA insiders or sources (that is the player, the team, the player's agency, or a highly regarded NBA source, i.e. Woj or Shams). Yes, the potential for a change of decision or the change in scenarios is possible, but when compared to the amount of moves that are reported correctly, the latter outweighs the former tremendously (when/if these situations do arise, then pages are easily revertible). I am not wiki-savvy enough to create one myself, but I believe some sort of asterisk on a players page involving a reported or pending signing or transaction could be a possible solution to the edits wars that go on during this time. That way, someone searching for current information could easily see in a players info box that, for instance, Paul George is on the Los Angeles Clippers due to a reported trade, but making it clear that this trade is not technically official yet, still tying him to the Oklahoma City Thunder at this point. This reported info could come later on in the player's page, but I think it would be innovative and useful to provide complete and thorough facts to make it so Paul George could be listed as a Clipper on wiki (with the new colors and team in his infobox), but with an obvious asterisk. I reference ESPN because the NBA's website tends to be very behind on updating new rosters even after official team announcements making it a hard "source" to continue to defer to. With the unique ability to have continuous updates, Wikipedia should welcome the idea of providing this information during a confusing time for modest followers of the NBA. Maybe something along the lines of adding "official_team_announcement = no/yes" under the "team =" section, that way modest editors could easily see the difference in edits. A problem that continues to arise calls for change, and this policy needs revamping. Those are my current thoughts and I'm happy to provide any additional examples to support my claims if anyone doesn't fully understand my references. RichieConant34 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I was out of pocket for the majority of this discussion, but I do want to register my opinions as I have clear ones on this issue. I get the zeal that some have to update player articles as soon as someone reports a deal. However, I have a number of issues with changing our consensus of waiting for an official team or league announcement. First, just the plain fact that these deals really aren’t final when only an agreement (not a signed contract) is in place. We see this every year - most recently this offseason with Marcus Morris, who agreed to terms with the Spurs (in a deal I bet Sharms and Woj reported) then reneged and actually signed with the Knicks. Why does this happen? Because deals aren’t actually official until the parties sign them and anything can happen until this occurs. If I put a contract down a house, I am not rightfully the owner of that home until I sign all the paperwork at closing. Likewise, a player isn’t a member of a team until he signs. I get that ESPN.com reports it, but remember that ESPN.com has a different mission than Wikipedia. ESPN is a sports news site (and further one that employs Woj so they have motivation to validate his scoops) while Wikipedia is explicitly NOTNEWS. It isn’t Wikipedia’s job to break news, it’s an encyclopedia meant to reflect valid, sourced reality. Adding signings before they are official are pretty clearly WP:CRYSTAL in my eyes. I also agree with comments about the FA moratorium - no one can sign before it is lifted so it isn’t accurant that they are a member of that team or in that roster until they are signed.

With respect to Woj and Sharms, I am very much opposed to picking a couple of so-called “experts” and deciding that their reporting of unannounced news should be treated as confirmation that something has/will happen. With respect to the football project, there are many places we disagree. It is instructive to know what other projects do, but long ago it became apparent that they could not agree on everything.

In short, the only consistent policy that makes sense to me given verifiability and Wikipedia purpose concerns is an official announcement by the team or league (on NBA.com or an official Twitter account). There are always cases where players change their minds, or teams shift priorities based on salary cap manipulation, or players are promised deals that could be for the parent club or a G League spot (series 10). I frankly don’t think it’s much if an issue that people heard the news Kevin Durant would sign with the Nets weeks before he did. It’s an encyclopedia, there is no obligation for it to be updated before other sites and I’d reckon player movement is typically documented minutes (if not seconds) after an official announcement. In high profile cases like LeBron last year or Durant this year, I’d be open to updating the prose on their widely reported deals, but not the infobox until official and not on roster templates. And we’d need to document the specific cases when this would be appropriate (e.g. if the signing is getting wide press for changing league dynamics, if the player is openly talking about playing for the team in social media like Kanter this year, etc.) Rikster2 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rikster2: I understand your stance and your argument in favor of the current process or standard, but the amount of edit traffic that occurs following the reports by Woj or Shams is almost insurmountable anyway, every year. You will have people editing those pages constantly trying to be the one that updates the info box and seeing the given player associated with their new colors. These pages are edited so much that some lesser known players don't even get reverted so then you have a mixture of players listed on their reported new teams while others are listed on their "technically standard" current team. Additionally, there was no current standard (or so it seems) for all the draft day trades that weren't technically official yet via team announcement on their team's website. As I highlighted earlier in this discussion, some players were listed as a member of the team that originally held their draft rights on draft night, while others were listed on their traded teams roster. The Marcus Morris and Deandre Jordan scenarios are very few and far between, which is why I also presented the idea of having "official_team_announcement = no/yes" within the editing section of the infobox. Regarding the Marcus Morris situation, this report wasn't "incorrect" as they did have an agreement, this was simply a change of decision by the player which is an perfect example of when reverting would actually be helpful. The current system is flawed due to the inconsistency throughout Wiki pertaining to ALL nba players and the amount of unique reports, signings, trades, and waiving scenarios. This is why if the standard was changed to the first reliable report with the addition of something along the lines of "official_team_announcement = no/yes" within the editing section of the infobox, editing wars may be tamed while all the information is factual. RichieConant34 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, I’m not here to argue with you, I’m here to provide my opinion so it’s clear. It’s not that I don’t understand your argument. I do and have considered these factors. I just fundamentally disagree with you on this. And I am well aware of the edit frequency, I don’t think that’s a good reason to go to what I think is a flawed process essentially promoting inaccuracy. I will say draft day trade policy could be debated, but we are past the bulk of that this year and the NBA is talking about changing the order of free agency opening and the draft which may eliminate the problem for next year anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

We obviously disagree, but if no changes are made towards the structure of free agency, I think that we can all agree that the current system is also flawed. There has to be a better option or a "happy medium" if you will regarding this annual issue, otherwise we will continue to dispute this indefinitely. RichieConant34 (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

So to reiterate, what is the consensus for free agency signings moving forward? RichieConant34 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Right now it’s official announcement as it has been for quite some time. If you want to suggest a different path and call for a vote, knock yourself out. I will tell you right now I am not open to tweets from Woj and Sharms as any kind of legit threshold and won’t agree with that (for whatever that’s worth). Rikster2 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Summer League Player's numbers

I'd like to establish a consensus regarding the listed jersey number for Summer League players who go on to sign a contract with an NBA team. For example, someone like Tacko Fall who signed an Exhibit 10 day contract after the 2019 NBA draft and went on to play for the Celtics during Summer League wearing number 55. The Celtics officially signed Fall on July 25 and he is listed without a number on the Celtics website along with other newly signed rookies, Javonte Green, Vincent Poirier, and Max Strus. I'm just using the Celtic's players as an example, but this goes for all/most NBA teams. Another example would be the Heat's forward Chris Silva who is listed as number 73 in his infobox on wiki, but has no number listed on the official Heat website. Should a jersey number be listed for signed players who do not have listed numbers on a team's official website, or does the summer league number suffice? RichieConant34 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think anyone will contest what is on the team's website. Sometimes, people see a social media announcement and update the bio, but the team website might not have been updated yet. That's where it would be helpful if people left a citation, like a URL in the edit summary, but most (unfortunately) do not. If you find something you think is not verifiable, remove it.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with defaulting to a summer league number if one exists. I will say these do change not infrequently as Summer League happens during Free agency and numbers on team rosters become available or unavailable. Most of the time people don’t indicate where they are getting numbers from, though, and they make a lot of assumptions (like when Jordan Bell signed someone added a number of 2 even though that number is retired by the T-Wolves). Best practice is to put a link in the edit summary of adding a number not shown on a team’s official roster. When people link a summer league roster announcement I usually leave it alone (especially for rookies who already have a roster spot waiting for them). Rikster2 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, we should base it off the teams official roster list unless a link to a Summer League roster is provided. RichieConant34 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there are other “official” ways teams announce uni numbers - teams aren’t that quick to update rosters with these. Sometimes it’s a signing pic where they are holding up a jersey, a team store selling a jersey, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So the summer league number should suffice until a team announces it officially. RichieConant34 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Trivia in team, player, etc pages

It seems that Juan Miguel U. Palero (talk · contribs) has been adding trivial and non relevant content to team and basketball personnel pages for some time. SunCrow has already cleaned up Tim Duncan's page, but after further inspection I see that more pages are subject to the same additions. I am notifying everyone here, because I am unable to edit regularly due to my work. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked the at the edits extensively. The thing to be careful, esp. with star players, is WP:NOTDIARY. A player that accomplished much and played almost 20 seasons generally doesn't need most game details included unless it is something that really stood out in their career. The article has WP:FA status, and risks being reassessed if it should ever stop meeting those criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sabbatino. I don't have rollback rights, and I don't relish the idea of undoing all of this stuff manually. Any thoughts on how to proceed? SunCrow (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You can apply for rollback rights here: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

There's also a similar version with Twinkle, which any registered user can use. Bear in mind that with either version of rollback, they generally only work on the most recent edits in the page history. Any older edits still require manually editing if a regular undo is not possible.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Juan Miguel U. Palero: I reverted your edits to the Los Angeles Lakers. Those details are too trivial for the general team article. Consider adding them to the respective Lakers' season articles, if those details were not already there. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

request page move for Charlie Brown (basketball)

I opened a move discussion at Talk:Charlie Brown (basketball) if anybody is interested in contributing. RichieConant34 (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency in schedule tables

Hey y'all. I am just wondering if we should establish some consistency regarding the schedule tables for NBA season pages. For instance, the 2016–17 Oklahoma City Thunder season's links for say Miami would link to the 2016–17 Miami Heat season page. But later pages link to the Miami Heat. If this would be up for a discussion I would want to link it to the season as we do in college articles. Some season articles link the San Diego Rockets to Houston. This is one of those cases it should be consistent. But I would support consensus if it is deemed appropriate to simply link it to the main team page.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For an article about a specific season, it seems in the spirit of MOS:SPECIFICLINK to link to another corresponding season article. As for San Diego Rockets, WP:NOTBROKEN says to leave it as is and not pipe, but that doesn't stop a lot of editors (even long-time ones) who seem to be obsessed to "fix" them.—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Dunk Contest, 3 point contest, Skills Challenge

I'm a little curious as to why the dunk contest and 3 point contest titles are included in players' infoboxes, but the skills challenge title isn't. The three of them are contested on the same day, consecutively, and have been listed on infoboxes throught time, so, why have they been removed? Where was it decided? If there is no case of consensus to remove it, they should be included on players' infoboxes, or all 3 should be removed. Jay Starz (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on this. This is not a new award as it dates back to 2003 and it has actually been very competitive over that span of time. It should definitely be included in the infoboxes along with the 3 point contest titles and slam dunk titles.RichieConant34 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No they should be eliminated out of the infoboxes. It is not a defining award.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay: Do you mind explaining why you this that? RichieConant34 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussions are linked at WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS. But sure, consensus can change. The infobox is quite cluttered in a lot of cases, so it's an editorial decision on whats major enough to include. Personally, I think it's minor, and no reader would expect it to be in the prose of the lead, so no reason to cram it into the infobox. No problem with it being in the body, which in most cases it already is.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll second what Bagumba said, especially after people fan-boy over some "rising-stars" game that is little more than meaningless.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay and Bagumba: Do you mind explaining why it's not a "defining" award? I think it is a defining award more so than other awards that are listed such as the NBA Sportsmanship Award, Second-team Parade All-American, FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship MVP, etc. Additionally, what makes this award less deserving of a spot in the info box than the dunk contest and 3-point contest? RichieConant34 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, in which Bagumba actually was on that side, however consensus opposed it.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I supported dunk and 3-point contest, but there's always been opposition to even listing those. And ideally, I'd leave dunk and 3-pt on a per case basis, but as was pointed out to me (and experience has since proven) "yes" or "no" works better on Wikipedia than "maybe".—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But what makes the 3 point and dunk contest better or superior to the skills challenge? They are all contested in the same night, consecutively... it seems disorganized or biased to include 2 of the 3 contests that are a part of All-Star Saturday. Jay Starz (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

After reading Here I can't help but notice that the Skills Challenge is not even mentioned. Additionally, the discussion is from 2011 and the competition has doubled in age since then, now going into its 18th consecutive year. The skills challenge is just as prevalent as the 3 point contest and dunk contest during all star weekend and you can find articles highlighting the event like Jayson Tatum's buzzer beater to seal the win in 2019 or Karl-Anthony Towns being the first big man to win the event after the switch in format in 2016, just to name a few. RichieConant34 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Prior consensus was Consensus opposes listing all honors (without prejudice) from the All-Star weekend events. I don't see how it can be any more clear cut from that. In any event these events should be listed in the articles, but not the infoboxes because they could easily clutter the infobox. There is a reason that these aren't listed in much the same way that the Home Run Derby champions aren't listed in the infobox of MLB players, and there isn't even an article on the Pro Bowl Skills Challenge. I find the argument about newspaper articles argument to be reaching. You can find newspaper articles about Jordan's 50 point game with the Wizards, or Kobe's 81, should they be listed too? I support the existing consenus that NONE of the all star events (other than being an all-star/MVP winner) should be listed.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying, either include the three contests, or none at all, not just 2 of the three without proper justification. In terms of the example of Jordan's 50 point game or Kobe's 81 appearing in newspaper vs Tatum's Skill Challenge win, your argument is flawed, as they wouldn't compare at all, as this discussion is about actual awards given out to professional players, the other is an individual game statistic. Jay Starz (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Richie's linked the articles as evidence that it is prevalent enough as a defining award. That would be enough to establish WP:GNG for inclusion of the information in a players' article. The fact that an "news" article exists is no reason that it should be included in an infobox, which was my argument. It is not a defining award. If anything his argument is borderline WP:FANCRUFT.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason I included these articles for past winners as evidence is because that's exactly what Bagumba did Here. The Pro Bowl Skills Challenge having no articles has nothing to do with NBA All star weekend. To highlight the issue here: Right now, slam dunk champion, see Zach Lavine, and 3 point shootout champion, see Ray Allen, are listed in infoboxes while Skills Competition wins are not. These are all legit NBA All Star Weekend competitions that are equally as notable and that are all considered main events during the All Star Break. With that said, I'm stating that I believe they should all be listed in the infobox and they would not cause clutter as it's a legit NBA award, more so than some other awards that are currently listed in some infoboxes as I mentioned before. This is my opinion, but I agree with Jay Starz that there is no reason that two of the three should be included, it should either be all or none. To reiterate, I am in favor of all three of these awards being infobox eligible as I would consider them "legitimate" because of the wide spread attention that each of these competition attracts. RichieConant34 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@RichieConant34: You probably missed by comment in the 2011 discussion that it was not a case of recentism or routine coverage, as the sources I cited referenced winners from years ago, not just news from a day or two after—like those that you cited..—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I know what the issue is, you consistently refuse to understand The consensus of that conversation was that, regardless of what anybody wanted at the time, or what you want now. Consensus opposes listing all honors (without prejudice) from the All-Star weekend events. This means that whomever added these after that discussion shouldn't have done so. These events are just as exhibitionary as the Pro Bowl Skills Competition, which aren't included in the NFL infoboxes, and the Home Run Derby winners which I could (but won't) argue is more prestigious than any of these NBA events aren't included in say Justin Morneau's page. It's an All-Star event it isn't like they led the league in slam dunks for that season or anything.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As Bagumba pointed out earlier, there is nothing stopping anybody from opening up a new discussion to re-establish consensus at Template talk:Infobox basketball biography. I'll recuse myself from further discussion, because believe it or not I don't care if these are included, but I will until my last days on the site support consensus. But until consensus changes, I'll maintain that the ALL-star events should be eradicated from the infoboxes.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussions be centralized here. People don't monitor templates as much; free free to leave notification there. Also, note the template used to be NBA specific, but has been merged since those archived discussions there. It's now a generic basketball templates, while this content is NBA specific.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Legitimacy Nobody had said the Skills event is not real. There is just a disagreement whether it is worthy of mention in the infobox. It's already in the body in most cases. Per WP:ONUS, not everything that is true gets automatically included. It's up to those wanting inclusion to establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Other events If the other AS events are not notable, get consensus to remove them; dont just add more cruft for "consistency". It's not WP:ALLORNOTHING. Wanting to remove all only if Skills is not included sounds WP:POINTY.—Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

In Favor I believe that the three main events on All Star Saturday night, the Skills Challenge, Slam Dunk Contest, and Three-Point Contest, all warrant inclusion in the infoboxes of winners due to the relevance and popularity of the awards. As it stands right now, 2 of those 3 awards are included in infoboxes, while the skills challenge is not, which does not make sense. I've gone into more details above. RichieConant34 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No vote, but more people remember Kobe winning the Slam Dunk Contest, then say, him being a part of the All-Defensive Team... Howard the Duck (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

In an ideal world, we'd use editorial judgement and include some notable dunk winners only. However, this is Wikipedia, and you'd only get cries of "bias" when Joe Fan's non-notable favorite isn't listed. So we're (mostly) stuck with yes or no on a per contest basis, becuase WP:IAR will almost never sensibly prevail around here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

But for the time being, should we include all three (dunk contest, three-point contest, and skills challenge) until proper consensus is reached? It just seems extremely disorganized/biased/irresponsible to include just 2 of the 3 contests. Jay Starz (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be edit warring.—Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit disingenuous to imply it's an improper consensus when you participated in 2012 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_20#Career_highlights_order but did not raise issue with Skills being missing. Not that you can't change your mind now, but you don't need to play the role of a victim.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Never said it's improper consensus, as consensus to this particular matter hasn't been reached before (no consensus was reached establishing that ONLY the dunk contest and three-point contest should be included, excluding the skills challenge). In terms of my participation in 2012, I didn't have to raise any awareness to the exclusion of the skills challenge (or any All-Star Saturday night award for that matter) because they were already included in the infobox, so no, I'm not playing the victim, I'm just saying that the removal of the skills challenge was never discussed, users just started removing it. In terms of edit warring, that's why I'm asking here, to see if we reach consensus as to the next step, leaving it up to proper discussion to see what we do, because as of now, it seems disorganized to just include 2 out of the 3 contests. Jay Starz (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment before of "until proper consensus is reached" as referring to the prior consensus. Moving on, in 2015 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_27#Highlights_in_infobox, Vjmlhds and Rikster2 said "no" to Skills in the infobox, and nobody say "yes". In another discussion on Skills' significance, its navbox was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_24#Template:Skills_Challenge_Winners while dunk and 3-pt contest ones still exist.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Rikser2 did oppose the Skills challenge, but Vjmlhds opposed all of the Saturday night contests being included, saying it would be "overkill". So, because one person said no to skills challenge, that's consensus? I'm just proposing that we try and have a proper discussion, but before that, we should organize and decide if we are going to include all 3 at the moment, because including just 2 of the three sees, as I've mentioned before, disorganized. Proper consensus shouldn't be reached just because 1 person said the skills challenge should be removed. For me, I don't mind if all 3 are removed, or if all 3 are included, but including just 2 of 3 seems wrong. Jay Starz (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. I didn’t mean no to the skills challenge, I meant no to all the All-Star weekend skill events. That said, I do see a difference between the dunk contest and the skills challenge in terms of noteriety. I just think the infobox should be judicious in what honors it includes. Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That adds more weight to what I'm trying to say, we should either include all 3 All-Star Saturday night contest awards, or remove them entirely, not just include the dunk and three-point contest and exclude the skills challenge. We should reach proper consensus this time. So, what's our next step people? Jay Starz (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that 2 of 3 (or 1 of 3) isn’t a valid conclusion to be considered. If reliable sources indicate a difference, then we could differentiate. Not saying that’s what I favor, but there is nothing invalid about that option. Rikster2 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So, what is the next step then? This has to be resolved somehow. Jay Starz (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jay Starz in the fact that we should establish proper consensus this time around about the inclusion in the infobox of the "3 Skill Based Challenges" during All Star Weekend: Skills Challenge, 3-point Contest, and Dunk Contest. Right now it seems like a debate over all or none vs just the 2 (dunk and 3-point) so I'd like to say, again, that I am In Favor of including all three skill based challenges in the infoboxes of winners. RichieConant34 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Are we going to properly discuss this? I think it's important that we reach consensus. Jay Starz (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything "improper" here. Some things just end in WP:NOCONSENSUS too.—Bagumba (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant more "officially", and I understand that, but when the skills challenge was suddenly removed from infoboxes, consensus was never reached on doing that, yet, users still removed it. I think this is an important matter that's been discussed way to much throughout the years, yet, decisions seem to be only be made by 2 or 3 users. That's why I'm proposing that we try and vote as to what to do next, either to include all three All-Star Saturday contests (dunk contest, three-point contest, and skills challenge), or remove them entirely. I'm fine with either one, but am strongly opposed to just including 2 out of the 3. Nevertheless, I'd vote to include all three contests. Jay Starz (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "suddenly removed". Also, maybe you are not aware, but WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy says: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. A lot of things are just accepted even though it was never discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but now, since several users have different views as to what should be done, I'm proposing that we reach a consensus as to what should we do. As to my "suddenly removed" comment, I meant that the skills challenge title was always listed on the winner's article, and anyone can check edit history and see that they always were. Right now, I just want this issue resolved, because having just 2 out of the 3 doesn't seem organized. I'm trying to get users to discuss and vote as to what they think should be done, so we can reach consensus. Jay Starz (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

References