Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball:
Basketball Clipart.svg WikiProject
College Basketball
Main page talk
Information
Portal talk
Master Table talk
Yearly team pages format talk
Participants
Departments
Assessment talk
  •Worklist
  •Log
Tools
Project banner talk
Templates talk
Project category talk
Research sources talk
Yearbook references talk
Important Articles
2017–18 NCAA DI Season talk
2017–18 Rankings talk
2018 DI Tournament talk
Templates
Project Userbox talk
CBB Welcome Template talk
viewtalkeditchanges


NR in rankings tables[edit]

I get sick of people filling up rankings tables with NR in empty cells, this makes it impossible to see the relevant encyclopedic information. Is there an official policy in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe black out the cell? Don't leave it empty though, as a reader wouldn't know if that means they weren't ranked or data is missing or deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we should leave the cells blank if they were not ranked.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Lincolning (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe people add it because the key in the automated rankings template Template:Ranking movements, lists NR. I do not have a problem removing it and leaving it blank, but other sports use the same template so it may be hard to change. Maybe there should be a new template made for only CBB use, because there are other issues with that template such as there are no week 1 rankings in CBB and no way to delete it from the template so the weeks are all off by 1. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the NR is as annoying in Football as it is in basketball. What type of consensus is necessary to get it removed from the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we just change the code in the template so that "NR" makes a blank space appear rather than the letters? That way the cell highlighting will still work correctly in the automated versions. Billcasey905 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba, Lincolning, Mjs32193, and Billcasey905:, can someone take action on this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how to do it. Lincolning (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know either, maybe ask someone who has previously changed it.Mjs32193 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Conference Tournament bracket Times[edit]

User:Manster89, who I assume is the same as User:Manster1 who I have had conflict before in the past, keeps adding times within the bracket on conference tournament pages such as 2018 Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament. However, if you look at other ASUN tournament pages the times are not included on any other them. And it's not just the ASUN, it's pretty much, if not all, like that on every other tournament. Including the times makes it look entirely too cluttered and the times are already included in the schedule table. I would assume since there are so many pages that they are not on that that would be the consensus way of how to list it, but when I try to remove the times Manster89 with edit summeries of " times are already on the schedule, they dont need to be in the bracket as well" they respond back with summaries like "ignoring other users edits for no reason and making up your own new policy’s just because you want too", and "there’s not written policy that says they can’t be in the brackets as well, it’s wrong to ignore other users edits especially when they did not do anything wrong according to any policy’s". I have not clue how to even respond to that, they don't seem to understand that we work on an consensus and is pretty much going to do it how they want. Again, I don't want to start an edit war but it clearly seems like the times probably shouldn't be listed that way. Thoughts? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No you have the wrong person. I’m not manster1. I have no idea who that is. I’m not starting any war nor am I breaking in policy rules. I have never ever ignored anyone’s edits period. If you look at the conferences websites you can see how they do there brackets and the way the brackets are suppose to look exactly like it. That’s all I’m trying to say hear. 15:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manster89 (talkcontribs)

Brackets we have here do not have to "look exactly like" how conference list them on their websites. They should, however, look like how we have always listed them in past seasons and, although I obviously haven't looked at all the pages but have looked at a lot, can not find an example of times being listed on the bracket. Thus, seems to me that the consensus is that we haven't been listing them that way and shouldn't now. So no, there may not be a "policy", but there does seem to be a consensus. And I refuse to believe that there are two Manster users making edits on college basketball pages and using similar reasoning in edit summaries without it being the same person. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you like. You don’t know me at all. So you can’t say I’m someone else when in fact I’m not. 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manster89 (talkcontribs)

In a conversation on User talk:Manster89 you even said "I’ve dealt with you before" yet I've never dealt with Manster89 before on anything. So pretty obviously the same user. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Again your judging people you don’t even know. Your also ruining my day by making me feel bad for no reason especially when I did nothing wrong to you nor to anyone else. Stop harassing me and bullying me just because you can. You dont understand that I have aspergers which is a form of autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manster89 (talkcontribs) 15:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with you. I have never met you and never will. I know nothing about you. I simply try to edit the pages based on a consensus of how they have been done in the past and how we can agree they should look. I'm not harassing you in anyway.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bsuorangecrush that inclusion of the times in the brackets makes that portion of the articles cluttered, it is also information that is readily available in the schedule section of those articles so it seems to be superflous to add it to the brackets. Ncjon (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that times do not belong in the bracket headers. Header should contain round name ("First round", "Quarterfinals", etc), the date is almost always present as well. Some brackets (in 2017) have TV station, some don't - I'd be in favor of deleting the TV station. No bracket from 2017 has game time in it, the user is also changing the bracket layout. This has been discussed before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 6#Flow of tournament brackets. Tewapack (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Game time doesn't have any historical value and, in my opinion, shouldn't be there. WP isn't TV Guide. Rikster2 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I've remove TV networks from the bracket in 2018 Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament.—Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament article has game time and network in the bracket before the game, after the game is complete, this information is removed. See example 1 and example 2. Fbdave (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Video help[edit]

this tweet includes an ESPN video. Can anyone tell me how to find the original ESPN posting of this video? Otherwise, can someone help me source that Jordan Poole was 3-7 on threes in the 2017 Dicks National High School Championship game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There may not be a posting of the video. They may have just taped it off TV. Here's a source for the 3-7. [1] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone here a DYK reviewer[edit]

Is there anyone here who could do a review of 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament DYK nominations? I am hoping for another Michigan win and the chance to get Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Poole and Template:Did you know nominations/Zavier Simpson on the main page during the final four.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Campus site tournament games[edit]

Should campus site games against non-D1 teams, or any that aren't part of the tournament proper, be included on tournament pages? Just for example, on The Islands of the Bahamas Showcase or the 2017 section of the CBE Hall of Fame Classic, and lots of other pages, has the games listed in a bracket form which makes no sense since those games are not bracketed. I know most of the campus site games were added by User:Manster1, who we've had issues with before. I don't want to simply remove them if everyone thinks they should be included but they just seem out of place. I am going to remove the times that Manster1 added since we discussed that before and decided it made the brackets too cluttered, but did we decide to removed TV as well? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

ESPY Award navbox[edit]

There is a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Template:ESPY Best Male College Athlete for an ESPY Award frequently won by college basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Lute Olson Award notable?[edit]

Is the Lute Olson Award notable, the general press does not cover the award. Typically, the the Olson Award website posts a press release that is available for a year or less. Sometimes, the award winner's school will issue a press release. Otherwise, there is no other press coverage. Do we want to keep this award. I can't even find a ref for this year's award.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Poking around, it seems like there is a reasonable amount of coverage of players being named to the watch lists, etc. the issue with someone like this year’s winner Jalen Brunson is that he has won a lot of higher profile awards and won the NCAA title the same day it was handed out this year. So it gets lost in all of that. I would be in favor of leaving the award pages but deleting the navboxes of the set of collegeinsider.com awards (Lefty Driesell award, Lou Henson Award, etc) if you want to nominate them for TfD. We have a lot of template clutter and these feel lower profile than most Rikster2 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, lists have a lower threshold of coverage compared to articles, per WP:LISTN. I think it can be kept. Agree with the navboxes also. My rule of thumb is that if an FA wouldn't mention it in the lead of a bio, there shouldn't be a navbox for it.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this the complete list of templates at issue: {{Lefty Driesell Award}}, {{Hugh Durham Award}}, {{Clarence Gaines Award}}, {{Lou Henson Award}}, {{Ben Jobe Award}}, {{Lute Olson Award}}, {{Jim Phelan Award}}, {{Skip Prosser Award}}, and {{Kay Yow Award}}?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think about this, I feel that if we are going to keep the articles, I don't want to nominate the templates.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No obligation for you to nominate them. Just curious, do you have ideas on dealing with WP:TCREEP?—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • My concern was whether the subjects were notable enough to exist on WP. If the award is notable enough for an article, I have no problem with the template existing. I don't have a problem with TCREEP. I think templates are a good thing for navigation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

GAR for double (basketball)[edit]

Double (basketball), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Qualified Teams Templates in NCAA Tournament Articles[edit]

There's an inconsistency in the templates used to list the teams who qualified by seeding; in the men's tournament, 1994 and prior uses a template that includes each team's region (unnecessary given the table header) and finish in the tournament (extraneous as it serves the same exact purpose as the bracket), and 1995 to the present replaces that with their qualification method (AQ vs AL) and overall seed when applicable. The women's tournament has a similar issue. 2011 and prior use two separate tables, one for AQ and one for AL, listed alphabetically (which doesn't seem to make sense logically for what it's meant to do), and 2013 to the present uses the same template as the men's tournament currently does (although 2012 and 2014 are inexplicably missing these tables altogether). I personally think all tournaments should follow the template that the men's tournament currently uses but I just wanted to see if there was a consensus on this first before going ahead and doing that. 24.177.244.122 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What wasn't clear enough? I thought I articulated the issue pretty well. Did you look at the linked articles? 24.177.244.122 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
There are inconsistencies between the tables that list the teams in old articles vs new articles. I agree that they should follow a consistent format, the older articles are often much less detailed in other sections than the newer tournament pages tend to be, so we should make sure that removing this information from the tables does not take away valuable information from the articles. Mjs32193 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The information I'm proposing we remove is already reflected in the table header (in the case of which region each team was placed) and in the bracket (in the case of each team's finish including round, opponent and score). 24.181.239.166 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, if the consensus ends up that 1994 and prior is what needs to be fixed, I can do 1985-1994 myself because I'm sure it's just copy/pasting 1995's table and plugging in the correct information, but anything prior when it involves changing the size of the table, that I don't know how to do. 24.177.244.122 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball talkpage discussion[edit]

Can I get some other people to chime in on a discussion I am having on the Kansas talkpage. I'm in a discussion with an IP address and I've suggested a comprise with the IP and they have refused to accept it so I would like some help building a consensus.--Rockchalk717 22:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing and the IP address is not backing down despite me and 2 other editors saying the issue they are disputing is a consensus. So please anybody else interested please chime in on this debate.--Rockchalk717 19:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for consensus national college player of the year[edit]

There is a discussion on the criteria for consensus national player of the year at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Criteria_for_consensus_national_college_player_of_the_year. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Portal:College basketball[edit]

A proposal has been made to delete Portal:College basketball (and all other portals) at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. What are your views on the college basketball portal? Did you even know it exists? It doesn't appear to be maintained or updated on any regular basis. Is it useful? Even if the broader RfC fails, should the basketball portal be deleted? Alternatively, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Loyola Ramblers display name[edit]

All - We have historically used "Loyola (Illinois)" and "Loyola (Maryland)" for the two division I Loyolas (in addition to "Loyola Marymount" in the West). Given the consistent use of "Loyola–Chicago" in the press (which reached a new level during their Final Four run), I'd like to suggest we transition to this display name. What I don't have a handle on is if this should be a change to all of the athletic pages ("Loyola Ramblers" to "Loyola-Chicago Ramblers") - which would need to be vetted and determined on the Talk page of Loyola Ramblers - or if it would be a display name change only, which could be determined by the relevant college sports projects. Thoughts? A) should it be changed, and B) page moves or display names? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Loyola Ramblers men's basketball as a page name is completely fine. Just like Loyola Greyhounds men's basketball is just fine for Loyola (MD). They only need to be listed as Loyola–Chicago and Loyola (MD) when listed in schedule tables, this is how it is already done so nothing needs to change. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not true that Loyola is listed as Loyola–Chicago consistently. It is Loyola (IL) in most other places and in fact this was previous consensus - this is why I ask. I am not necessarily suggesting page moves, but worth noting that the Chicago school actually calls itself “Loyola University Chicago” (see here). Rikster2 (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)