This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

<<To current talk page

I think there should be a template for team history in NBA players articles

User:Halo_31887

There seems to be some confusion as to at which point a player should be added to the category of players for that team. An edit war involving Ben Wallace and Category:Chicago Bulls players is ongoing. We need to decide on one standard threshhold and apply it universally, so here are the choices:

1. The moment player P gets drafted by, signed by, or traded to team T.
2. The moment player P reports to training camp for team T.
3. The moment player P is listed on team T's official roster at NBA.com.
4. The moment player P suits up for one of team T's games.
5. The moment player P actually enters the game for team T, i.e. logs minutes in the boxscore, i.e. is on the floor in team T's uniform and the clock starts running.

I was assuming #5 was correct, though I'd compromise at #4. "Game", of course, meaning official regular season or playoff game, not exhibition, otherwise we could end up dealing with such names as Master P) — Jul. 15, '06 [17:08] <freak|talk>

Personally, I believe that #1 is correct. And the #1, and #3 are pretty much one in the same. IMHO, once a player signs a contract with that team, he is required to play for that team, thus making him a player for that team, regardless on weather or not we are in the offseason. Which is why the NBA official team rosters on the team's website should be used at all times. Those rosters are updated the moment a contract is signed. And according to the NBA website, Ben Wallace is a Chicago Bull. He is listed on the Bulls roster here, and he official NBA player profile has the Bulls logo here. In other words, the NBA is pretty much saying that Ben Wallace is a player for the Chicago Bulls, despite the fact that he hasn't played a game for them yet.

Moreover, and most importantly, it even says the Ben Wallace is a Chicago Bulls player in the first paragraph in his article. Saying he is a player for this team in the article, but not having a category to match it yet fairly inconsistent. Based on that alone, the category should stay. Dknights411 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, what is your opinion on a player who is briefly on the official roster of a certain team because he is expected to play for them, but for some reason (trade, waiver, injury, retirement, imprisonment, death, etc.) never actually suits up? Some might say "remove him from the category if that happens". I say "he should not have been added yet anyway", because we are not a crystal ball, and because static snapshots of Wikipedia (mirror sites, printed articles, DVD-ROM releases, etc.) will look awfully ridiculous months down the road if they contain unfulfilled expectations phrased as facts.

See also: Dewey Defeats Truman. — Jul. 16, '06 [14:30] <freak|talk>

While we're not a crystal ball; we're not above unreasonable speculation. MANY drafted players are now listed on their respective team's Wikipedia rosters. In the case of Big Ben, the chances that he won't play at least one game for the Chicago Bulls are remote (as a newly signed free agent, he is subject to trade restrictions). So I've no problem listing him as a Bull, if NBA.com does; as an encyclopedia, we need to respect primary sources (otherwise we're venturing into original research territory). This isn't wild speculation after all; this is reporting on the widely expected. And, if he were to become disabled between now and November and not play a minute in a Bulls uniform; I hardly think that it would reflect poorly upon Wikipedia for (briefly) listing him as a Bull. --EngineerScotty 19:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said Scotty! And as to freak's question, my answer is simple. Ben Wallace's contract is signed and he is now officially a member of the Chicago Bulls, which is why he is listed on the team's official roster. Why would they list him otherwise?

Moreover, NBA transaction notes list a player joining a team when a particular transaction (free agent signing, trade, draft pick...) is made, NOT when that player actually playes his first game with that team. Case in point, Big Ben's transaction notes on his NBA bio says the Ben Wallace became a Piston on August 3rd, 2000. It never provides a date as to when he played his first game. Also, it also says that Ben sign with the Chicago Bulls on July 13th. Even if something happens, that note will always be there. Like I said before, if something happens, in September for example, we can make the necessary changes then. Dknights411 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dknights411, the players category clearly states "This is a list of people who have played with <so-and-so team>", not signed with, or once listed on NBA.com's roster. Besides, if #1 is correct, then may we classify Dikembe Mutombo as a Chicago Bulls player (he was once traded to the Bulls)? And Dominique Wilkins as a Utah Jazz player (he was drafted by Utah)?

I've seen someone recently classify J.R. Smith as a Chicago Bulls player. The fact of the matter is even though he was recently officially traded to the Bulls, he has not played for them, and now he may be traded to the Denver Nuggets. Very good reason for not classifying players ahead of time.

So, yes, you're correct: Wallace is officially a Bull, but no, he hasn't played in a Bulls uniform (at least yet).

That's my thought on the matter, cheers! --Downwards 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone actually wants to surf the archives, we could find out when Shaq was listed as a Miami Heat after he was traded by the Lakers back in 2004. In the case for J.R. Smith, I personally have no problem listing him as a Bull for the week or so he was with the Bulls. We could have dealt with this issue for him after he left Chicago in this case.

Back to the article in question, it still doesn't make sense to write the stipulation that he is "Under Contract" with the Bulls in the first paragraph. That sentance is a bit TOO anal for my tastes. Ok, how about this for a final compromise which btw was tried out at one point in this whole mess....

1. Refer to Ben Wallace as being "...a player with the Chicago Bull" in the proper article since he is officially a Chicago Bull.
2. List Ben Wallace in the Main Bulls Category for now to keep the article consistant. And once the season starts, we can THEN list Wallace in the Bulls' players category.
What do you guys think of this compromise? I think this should be the rule of thumb from now on to reduce the number of headaches this issue has created (aside from the whole preseason listing vs. regular season listing debate which I KNOW is coming). What do you guys think.

i think you guys waste too much time sparring over millionaire athletes that could care less what you call them on Wikipedia. but that's just my opinion. Naradasupreme 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

An anon user wants us to use "Knickerbockers" for the Knicks on the main team tables in the NBA article because "Knickerbockers" is the official nickname for the team. SHould we use "Knickerbockers" or should we just stick with useing "Knicks"? I say use Knicks because it is WAY more common than Knickerbockers, but what do you guys think? Dknights411 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Knicks. The only place we need to use Knickerbockers is on the first sentence of the New York Knicks article to indicate the official name. I can't think of any other source whatsoever that uses Knickerbockers. Even official NBA proceedings such as the NBA Draft use "Knicks." (e.g.- "With the first pick of the 2007 NBA Draft, the New York Knicks select Greg Oden.") EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted in the past, the team was commonly referred to as the "Knickerbockers"; nowadays the long form of the name is a historical relic. --EngineerScotty 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

One might argue that the name "Athletics" was a "historical relic," too (although as a professional historian, I don't share your distain for the past). Charlie Finley thought so. He believed the name was too-closely associated with Connie Mack. Thank goodness the Haas family later returned the full name to the Oakland jerseys (and even brought back Connie Mack's elephant). Again, if the team recognizes "Knickerbockers" as their official name, shouldn't we accept that, at least in the main title? Subsequent references could use the shorter (and more common) abbreviation, "Knicks." --MCB, 1/23/2006

Actually, the team still uses "Athletics" fairly regularly. Their website is even listed as OaklandAthletics.com, and "Athetics" is still used in the team's official logo. So "Athletics" isn't quite a historical relic at all. Dknights411 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's what MCB was arguing, that at one point in time "Athletics" may have been considered historic because it was never used. Now the owners have chosen to bring back the full name in the common press. Ergo, since it's possible they'll go back to the Knickerbockers, we should continue to use it until they officially change it (which, in my opinion out of respect for history, will never happen).

I think this basically boils down to a discussion of common names vs. official names. Wikipedia conventions specify that we should use common names, though this mostly refers to article titles, not uses within the article. (I don't think we're discussing whether to rename New York Knicks to New York Knickerbockers...are we?) I've already stated that I think the reference to it on the main Knicks page is enough, and that the listing on the NBA page should be the common name, rather than the official name. I feel that this is what you would typically find in a newspaper standings table, an NBA media guide, and any other source you can think of that isn't talking about the Knicks in a historic sense. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

EWS23, Your last post demonsrates you are nearly in the same place I am. I am not arguing for making any changes the team's entry. Both names are listed in the first sentence of the entry. Furthermore, if one types in "New York Knickerbockers" searching for the basketball team, but instead gets the antebellum baseball team, there is a link that easily directs the reader to the NBA team's entry. And, as I said, I don't mind if all subsequent references in either article refer to the team as the "Knicks." I am only stating that the main title in the NBA directory should reflect the team's true name.

As for the what you said about the Athletics, I think we are also nearly in agreement. For a long stretch, even Oakland team officials did not refer to the baseball team as the "Athletics." Neither did the media. (In fact, even today, much of the media still calls them the "Oakland A's.") During that period, the only place the team's full name appeared was in semi-scholarly chronicles of the game, such McMillan's Baseball Encyclopedia. How is this different from the current situation with the Knickerbockers? Shouldn't Wikipedia strive for the same credibility that the Baseball Encyclopedia attracted before the introduction of the internet. (By the way, in the late 1980s, the team began again to use the name "Athletics," yet, as I said, much of the media still refers to the team as the "Oakland A's." For proof, listen to Joe Morgan announce a ballgame.)

There are still media personnel in the Tri-State area who call the team the "Knickerbockers." And, the team officials, themselves, freely acknowledges that "New York Knickerbockers" is the team's true name. Why are you guys so against recognizing this fact? --MCB, 7/23/2006

It's not like "Knickerbockers" is going completly ignored. In fact, the first four words in the Knicks article are "The New York Knickerbockers...", thus giving a nod to their official name. The point here is that the usage of "Knicks" is MUCH more common than the usage of "Knickerbockers" among the masses and the media, so newcomers will be drawn into the familiar name, then learn the official name in the team's main article. Dknights411 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think a newcomer from another part of the country is going to open that link? Scholarly writing, like professional journalism, should be done in the invert pyramid style. --MCB, 7/23/2006

My opinion is basically the same as Dknights411. We acknowledge it in the first sentence of the main Knicks article, but what we should put on the NBA page is what you would typically see in a newspaper, media guide, etc. However, I think we should all relax a bit and give others a day or two to get into the conversation. Going 2 vs. 1 isn't going to get us anywhere, when we're arguing the same points over and over. Please, if anyone out there has bothered to read all this, we'd love some extra opinions to help us stop going in circles. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask another question... what should the title of the page on the musician Sting be? Sting, or Gordon Sumner? I see this as the same issue. Keep it the Knicks. Dletter 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DKnight is wrong. He said that the media, and he specifically included ESPN, never uses the term, "Knickerbockers." This morning, I pulled out the ESPN INFORMATION PLEASE SPORTS ALAMANAC, and I found on that, in the NBA directory, the ESPN alamanc lists the name of the team as the "New York Knickerbockers." All I am asking is that we conform to the same style guidelines for the directory in the Wikipedia NBA entry. ---MCB, 7/24/2006

No response on the fact that the ESPN Almanac calls the team the "Knickerbockers"? I suggest that we send this issue to Wikipedia arbitration. --MCB, 7/25/2006

(Re-indent) Not sure about DKnights, but I wasn't responding due to my idea that we should wait for more opinions. Unfortunately, they're thin for some reason. No need to send this to arbitration, that's the last step of the dispute resolution process, and even then, this isn't exactly a dispute, just a well-meaning debate. If we really wanted to, we could send it to requests for comment, but this should be a relatively simple problem to solve via consensus. Some comments from extra editors would be nice. Until then, I'm sure we all recognize that all of us respect and understand the opinions of each other, and that, while we would like this to be solved tomorrow, the addition or subtraction of 8 letters that doesn't change the meaning of the article isn't something that needs to be solved with the utmost speed. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the case for me as well. I've already taken my stand on this issue, and this debate won't go anywhere if we start arguing what the Oakland Athletics "official" name was during the 70s. Let's wait until we get a concensus here before we do anything. Getting the Wiki higher ups involved with this would only mess things up even further. Dknights411 17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dknights411 and EWS23. Knicks is the most common name and Knickerbockers is acknowledged in the article. --MC 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would getting Wikipedia higher=ups involved mess this up? Do you think they wouldn't like it that the team directory in the NBA entry does not have the same name for the New York franchise found in the team directory of the ESPN almanac? Do you think they wouldn't like it that the name in the team directory is not what the team claims to be it's official name? Would this get resolved easier if someone from the team's organization actually posted his opinion? ---MCB, 7/26/06

I didn't quite mean "mess up" in that sense. Bad choice of words on my part. I did mean it in the sense that Wikipedia has more pressing issues to deal with (vandalism, copyright issues, etc...) than to decide between "Knicks" and "Knickerbockers". Dknights411 20:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog#Arena_Football_external_links. According to this person, I should be removing most of the "external links" at the bottom of the NBA page. I want to throw this out to this "community" though, to see your viewpoints on this whole issue. If you don't think most or any of the links should be removed, please reason that out. Thanks. Dletter 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess now would be a good time to audit the external links sections across all NBA-related articles. I'll do that later today.Dknights411 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep the following links:

• NBA
• NBA players association (though perhaps this ought to be its own article)
• NBA referees association
• One or two stats sites, so we have coverage of both current and historical statistics. BasketballReference.com is a good one for historical stats
• The NBA salary cap FAQ; again, it might be better to write an article on NBA player relations and move this link there.

And delete all the rest. In particular, sites offering rumors and news, and the various blogs and such. NBA.com contains all notable NBA news (and limits itself to official news, not rumors and speculation). All team pages are reachable there.

--EngineerScotty 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: The list was getting out of control again, so I trimmed it back to the official ones I could verify (coincidently the three you listed above). I did whack the other stats sites as well; feel free to add BasketballReference.com back if you think that is the most valuable one. I concur that the rest of it is just noise at this point. Kuru ^talk 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

noticed there is a set of photos on flickr which are creative commons licenced of some NBA games, some of these could be uploaded here , have already added this --Astrokey44 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: is it Mamadou N'Diaye (with an apostrophe and capital D), Mamadou N'diaye (with an apostrophe and lowercase D), or Mamadou Ndiaye (no apostrophe)? I've seen each form used on the Internet, and I'm wondering of one version is the "correct" form. Thanks. Zagalejo 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The baseball section of Wikipedia has each league's All-Star teams put in year-by-year categories; for example go to Category:1997 National League All-Stars. (I probably screwed up the syntax of that sentence anyway). Anyone think it's a good idea to do the same for the NBA WikiProject? ekedolphin 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too hard to do, since all of that information is readily available. If someone wants to make some categories, I can start filling them in. Zagalejo 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The baseball project also has categories for the annual World Series winners. (e,g, Category:2003 Florida Marlins World Series Championship Team). We could do something like that, too. Zagalejo 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Few NBA blogs are notable enough for Wikipedia, this is IMHO one of them. (Cases can be made for Deadspin and FreeDarko; but I don't know enough about the latter blogs to write an article on them). --EngineerScotty 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to "[m]ake Basketball a descendent project of Sports and make NBA a descendent project of Basketball," as Gurulegend said on the talk page there? --MC 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was curious if we could merge them. Just H 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't entirely sold on that idea, but seeing how much of the disscusion over there is about NBA articles, then this might be a fantastic idea, if nothing else to streamline disscusions in one forum rather than two seperate forums. What does everyone else think? Dknights411 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose the move there is already Wikiproject for the NFL and college football and some people like myself have very little interest in international or college basketball. For those kind of people this project is great as it concentrates on what they love-the NBA. Quadzilla99 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just done my best to get rid of the POV and offensive unsubstantiated comments in the article about this player.

However, I know very little about the topic and would appreciate some help.

I'm particularly concerned about the nickname, which I've left in, but looks like a derogatory comment, rather than a nickname. --Dweller 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on a post and discussion at TrueHoop, there seems to be some interest in adding relationships between players and agents to a wiki somewhere. I think it is a great idea to add this to Wikipedia.

Very few basketball agents (or any sports agents, really) have Wikipedia articles (two examples I found were Arn Tellem and Leon Rose).

Could we create a category called NBA players represented by agents and then subcategories like Clients of Rob Pelinka, etc.? Not sure how this would work, but it would be great to be able to get a list of players represented by a specific agent. What do folks think of this idea? Rolando (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think at the very least there should be pages for major agents. Maybe Bill Duffy, David Falk, and so on. Then, go on that, and build from there.

And there were several links posted by one of the commenters in Truehoop, which I reproduce here.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

One of the most obvious problems, though, is that NBA players often change their agents, and the list would require constant maintenance, and since the news of firings/hirings are usually not widely published, then only a few knowledgeable fans would know about it. Hanuab 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All true. From what I've seen, players will change agents when a new contract is coming up, or in the fallout from a scandal (think Joe Smith). In any case, the creator of TrueHoop, Henry Abbott, has created a wiki to track this kind of data--relationships--whether between agents and players, agents and teams, sneaker companies and colleges, etc. Some of the items there (e.g., Rodney Carney's agent Chris Emens, who seems to have one client) are not notable in the context of Wikipedia, but others (e.g. Bill Duffy, Marc Cornstein) may well be. Check it out at truehoopwiki.com]. P.S. in the interest of disclosure, Henry made me an admin and I am mostly responsible for what's there now. Hopefully that will change after this gets formally announced next week. Rolando (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Henry told me about the wiki, but I didn't think it's up yet. I suppose it's OK then, to edit anything I can? Hanuab 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I started the NBA wikia. I could use some help I will also make a few people admins if they help out.--Team6and7 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did a little editing myself. Hopefully, more people will sign up and edit. Hanuab 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hanuab--Team6and7 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any info when the "forward" and "guard" positions became specialized into PG/SG and PF/SF? Is someone considered the "first" pure player of these categories? Would be helpful to know, thanks. Onomatopoeia 14:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the entry for each season links to the succesive draft, e.g. the 2005-2006 season links to the 2006 draft. However, it may make more sense to link to the previous draft (e.g. to the 2005 draft) as it is these players who enter the league for a certain season. Tikiwont 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to rename 1947, 1948 and 1949 NBA Playoffs to <year> BAA Playoffs, since the name "NBA" didn't exist until 1950? --Howard the Duck 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the NBA logo to the template to give it a little flavor. Quadzilla99 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad I'll remove it. Quadzilla99 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A photo of Kirk Hinrich of the Chicago Bulls is needed to replace the promo photo in the infobox. Are there any locals who could manage to do this for the wiki? Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I created a version of the invite template for the Wikiproject. Put this on the talk page of anyone you wish to invite the Wikiproject. Quadzilla99 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NBA invite

I also created this userpage template for members of the NBA Wikiproject. Quadzilla99 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing this out to give the project members a chance to update the image used in the templates -- please see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, specifically #9. You can't use fair use (copyrighted) images anywhere except the article namespace, and you can't use them in templates. // Laughing Man 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll remove them I didn't know the NFL logo in the NFL template was a created by an editor. Quadzilla99 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)