Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nomination for deletion of Template:Syracuse basketball

Template:Syracuse basketball has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for Discussion

See the following unclosed and non-commented on CfD regarding college basketball seasons:

• Category:AP poll college men's basketball number one ranking
• Category:1954–55 NCAA University Division men's basketball season
• Category:1898–99 NCAA University Division men's basketball season
• NCAA men's basketball seasons
• Category:1941–42 NCAA Division I men's basketball season
• Category:IAAUS seasons
• Category:1906–07 NCAA men's basketball season

Jrcla2 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NavBoxes vs. Succession Boxes, discussion #2 - Inclusion of Additional Awards/Stat Leaders

The issue on the table is part of the larger conversation above. The question is which awards/stat leaders should appear in succession boxes or templates. My vote is to eliminate succession boxes altogether and to have templates for the following:

• Major National Player of the Year Awards (Wooden, AP, USBWA, NABC, Helms (historical), UPI (historical), Rupp, Naismith, TSN)
• Major National Coach of the Year (AP, UPI, Naismith, NABC, USBWA, Rupp)
• All-American teams
• Other major National Awards - I recommend we use those in the NCAA Record book to set a standard (Frances Pomeroy Naismith, Cousy, Pete Newell Big Man, NABC Defensive POY, Lowe's Senior CLASS)
• Conference Player of the Year
• Yearly National Stat leaders

We should NOT use templates or succession boxes for:

• Collegeinsider Awards (sorry, Jrcla2, I disagree on these)
• Conference awards other than POY
• Conference stat leaders (sorry - not that notable - and this coming from a diehard ACC guy)
• Anything else. This stuff should be in the article or info box

I intentionally did not address the Haggerty and Geasey - which I like but think should be debated. I like them because I am a history guy - they are 2 of the oldest continuously-named POY awards around and have historical value. The other are college coach of the year awards. I like having templates on these, but can be comfortable losing them in the name of consensus. They probably get less relevant as you go to minor conferences. Please read the discussion above for more color on the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely on the removal of succession boxes. I've long thought they were redundant and unattractive to look at, especially when there are a lot of them. Definitely support navboxes for all the suggestions here, although I could probably be persuaded either way on the collegeinsider awards. Don't really see any harm in a navbox for it i guess. Navboxes for stats leaders are definitely unnecessary clutter. If there is a real strong desire by someone to have this kind of info on wiki, then I would suggest a table on a sub-article of the main basketball article rather than spanning it across player articles. I'm not even sure if national stat leaders are worthy of a navbox instead of just a table in an article, but am not against it i guess. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Championship teams' templates' standardization needed

As I fixed all of the hyphens into en dashes tonight, I realized that there are a handful of men's basketball championship teams' templates which list the assistant coaches (see Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templates for the collection of all of them). It is my opinion that we remove all assistant coaches from these navboxes for the same reason that we don't list non-rotation players — they take up space and are non-essential figures. I think a standardization is needed for pre-existing and future championship templates. I propose that the following be included:

1. Rotation players w/their uniform numbers if possible (i.e. those who log significant minutes throughout a season and actually contribute quality minutes for the team)
2. Head coach only (remove all assistants for the reasons I mentioned above)

Before I go removing all assistant coaches I wanted to gain consensus first. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm generally good with these guidelines. I know from experience though that there are fans of one team (say, UNC or Syracuse) who will continue to tweak the templates of "their" team. Also, we need a call on logos - include them or not? If so, does the logo need to be historically accurate or can we use current logos?
  • On players, I usually go by 10-15 minutes per game. I also think we should list players who were NOT rotation players IF they later became legitimately notable (examples: Bobby Knight, Dean Smith or Ford Mullen). The big thing in my mind is not to redlink, and therefore encourage article creation, of non-notable players.
  • On Assistant coaches, I can go along with deleting, though it will be tough to police. Many assistants are notable, and their fans like to put the championship templates on their pages (examples include Roy Williams and Jay Bilas). If they aren't on the template, the uninformed reader wonders why the template is there. But if some but not all assistants are notable it doesn't make sense to just include one. Again, on board but imagining this might get sticky. Rikster2 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• I think logos are a no-go on templates. I seem to remember that from the past. As far as non-contributing players, I think it's original research to come up with the criteria as to which players to include in the template. Therefore, I think you have to put all the players on the roster for that season in the navbox. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with X86lee15 above that it would be original research to separate which players should and should not appear in the template. Perhaps the non-notable players could simply not be linked? I agree with including only the head coach; the assistants will still be mentioned in the season article. One inconsistency I noted: the UConn championship templates are all named "men's basketball", while the others are all just "basketball". Personally I'd prefer to rename all of the templates "men's basketball", but at the very least the UConn templates need to stay at men's basketball because of the notability of the Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team. This is especially true for 2004, where both the men's and women's teams won the national championship in the same year; {{2004 Connecticut basketball}} is intentionally a redlink since we don't have disambiguation pages for templates. –Grondemar 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Is it really original research if we as a project set an objective standard (say, 10 minutes a game) for inclusion, plus other individuals on the team who became notable for other reasons (guys who later became great players, became coaches, achieved notability in another sport, etc)? I just re-read the WP:OR standard and I don't think it necessarily would be. Unlike the NBA or Olympics, all players arenn't inherently notable so it's tough to say all are included. College football does not include all players on a championship template (nor could they with 100+ scholarship players). I really don't like the idea of having names that aren't linked on templates - their purpose is to move you across articles. Each champion (except 1947 Holy Cross) has a season page, it seems like the full roster should reside there. Minutes info exists from 1976 on, it seems like we could use a minutes standard, and just list starters and other notables pre-1975. Thoughts? I do like Grondemar's point about the navboxes specifying "men's." There are a couple of other programs (like Duke and UNC) who could win both the same year. I would also specify in our policy that redshirt players and players sitting out a transfer year (i.e. - not in uniform) are NOT on the template. If I had a dime for every time I removed Seth Curry or Serge Zwikker ... Rikster2 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also, the templates should link to the season pages for each champion - maybe replace the link to the school's general basketball page. Rikster2 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• It seems this discussion has concluded, but I would have said that assistant coaches should be added if they are notable enough to have their own page (like Tommy Amaker).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah but including asst coaches gets tricky, as mentioned above. The problem with including asst coaches if they're notable enough to have their own page is that it creates incredible inconsistency among championship templates. Most asst coaches are never notable enough to warrant their own article, and rarely is it ever the case where multiple asst coaches are notable. You shouldn't have nearly all of the templates without asst coaches, then a small percentage with one asst coach, and then an even smaller percentage with multiple asst coaches. Head coaches of D1 programs are clearly notable and need to be included, but other coaches are not. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well most sports have all assistant coaches on their championship boxes. We should too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And I disagree with them, too. Adding something like 15 assistant coaches to an NFL champion navbox is asinine. If other WikiProjects decided to uniformly take down Wikipedia and vandalize it, should we? No. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree w/Tony the Tiger here. We are discussing college basketball, and there is no reason not to conform to what most sports do in this regard. There will not be 15 coaches in college basketball.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly, I'm not hard over on assistant coaches. To me it comes down to two issues: 1) Templates are for navigation across articles. People on it should be notable and so either have an article already, or an article should be encouraged via a redlink. So, are assistant coaches for national champion college basketball teams by definition notable? Not if you go by the current basketball notability guidelines. 2) Is it important that we include all assistants on a template or just those who are notable for other reasons (people who were star players, later became head coaches, etc.)? To me, it seems a little weird not to include the whole staff - it's especially weird if the third assistant is the one who is notable while the top assistant isn't. I think you have to be careful about parallells with pro sports. There is a much lower standard for notability for pro leagues than college (mainly becase there is a higher volume of worldwide media coverage), so most if not all assistants are notable. For college football, I think the standard is to include those assitants who are notable, but not all the staff. The difference there is that those staffs are 10+ assistants, while basketball staffs are usually three or less. My two cents. I can go with the majority on this one. But for god's sake let's just come up with a standard and stick to it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, the more I think about it the more I think we should just go starters and any other people who become notable outside of the championship year across the board. The minute stuff makes it too complex. Rikster2 (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Playing devil's advocate, how do you define starters? Many teams will have changed their starting lineups during the season, sometimes even game-to-game. Is it who started the majority of the games, or anyone who started any of the games? Do we need citations to show who started? –Grondemar 03:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Started half or more of the team's games. Doubtful this would create an issue with most of the 71 NCAA champions, if at all. If people insist on citing the starters it can be done on the talk page. This info is more readily available than people think. Games started are tracked from 1997, and many schools like UCLA, Duke, Ohio State, etc. have starting lineups clearly marked in their media guides. Rikster2 (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, i'm all for including all team members and assistant coaches. It seems a little arbitrary for some editors to decide that you had to have played 10 minutes a game to be put down as a team member. It's true that most of the time these guys won't have articles, but that's not always true and heck, even the starters don't have articles on a lot of older teams. I'm not going to fight it though if everyone else votes that those players don't belong on there, i just don't see the harm in listing the full team. I do feel pretty strongly that it should be ok to include assistant coaches, most of these guys have articles and assistant coaches play a pretty big role with the teams. Using my same example link (1988 KU), the assistants were R. C. Buford now GM for the Spurs, Alvin Gentry head coach of the Suns, and Ed Manning former Spurs assistant. They seem notable enough to be included on the championship template to me and obviously it was a big part of their careers as they all moved to the NBA after winning. Ryan2845 (talk)

• • But nobody would be deciding who is a team member, we'd just be setting a standard about who appears on the template. All team members - including walkons - can and should appear in the roster section of the season article. Look, people want to look to other sports projects for guidance - there really isn't a good model to follow though. Pro athletes are basically all notable per WP, so they can ALL appear on championship templates without issue. College football currently lists all players on a championship team who are notable/have articles - but keep in mind the vast number of roster spots in the NFL vs. the NBA - there are more roster spots in half the AFC than in the entire NBA in a given year. The result is that a LOT more players from the top teams become notable in college football than college basketball.

In my opinion, it is NOT an option to include all players. Infoboxes are to navigate pages, not to document all the players on a team. Guys who are not notable and never will be should not be included on championship templates. Here are what I see our options are if we want to continue having championship templates (which I think we do):

1) Set some consistent standard - such as starters and other WP notable players - to include and clearly communicate this on template talk pages.

2) Follow the college football example and include those players who pass WP:Athlete notability. The issue here is that more recent teams have more articles about their players - and many don't pass WP:Athlete. For example, from last year's Duke team, only two players (Scheyer and Singler) actually pass WP:Athlete - but there are articles about nine players from the roster. I don't tag these for deletion because I think the notability standard for college basketball is still too conservative (though it is light years better than when I joined - thanks WP:CFB), but when you go to create articles for a sixth man in the 50s it gets tricky.

As for assistant coaches, it seems like consensus is turning to include them vs. exclude. Rikster2 (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Three categories for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 28#Specialized NCAA men's basketball championship template subcategories – please comment. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Outstanding Player indicator on championship templates

Today I noticed User:Jrcla2 modified several if not all of the men's basketball championship templates to include a marking indicating which player was named the Most Outstanding Player of that year's NCAA Tournament. I'm going to use {{2004 Connecticut men's basketball}} as my example to show what the modified template looked like:

When I first saw the change pop up on my watchlist, I was confused what "MOP" in the edit summary meant. (Did he mean he was cleaning up the template?) Only after reviewing the template closely did I realize that (MOP) was a reference to which player on the championship team was named the Most Outstanding Player of that year's NCAA Basketball Tournament. I was concerned about a couple of issues regarding this change:

1. The term "Most outstanding player" isn't commonly used outside the NCAA Tournament, and even among fans I'm not convinced that the acronym "MOP" is that recognizable. "MVP" or "Most valuable player" is much more common in North American sports, although I know that's not what the NCAA uses. I am concerned that a casual reader of an article will have no idea what (MOP) means when they see it in the template, and perhaps think it is part of the person's name or something else unintended.
2. Even if a reader figures out what "MOP" means, they might confuse it with another MVP-type award like the Naismith award. To a casual reader, is this person the "MOP" of the season? The tournament? The team?

In order to clarify what the acronym "MOP" meant (generally we should spell out acronyms at first usage, which in this template would be the only usage), I tried reformatting the template with a footnote and what I felt was a more-clear explanation:

The template has since been reverted to the prior format.

I'd like to discuss and reach consensus on which format of the template is preferable, and perhaps even whether the MOP should be included in the templates at all. –Grondemar 23:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of a footnote - it adds a whole other line to the templates that takes away from the streamlined, unobtrusive item that a navbox is supposed to be. I'd be much more in favor of either not noting it (unlike other sports, the MOP doesn't always come from the winning team) or spelling it out than a footnote. However, I am also OK with including it just as a linked "MOP" designation like was originally done. if somebody doesn't know what it means they can always click the link or just mouse over it to see where the link goes. We are going to need the line that the footnote takes up to re-add the assistant coaches anyway ;-) Rikster2 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• People already know my opinion on the matter since I'm the one who added the MOPs. Several things to note:

1. As Rikster2 stated, if anyone wants to know what MOP means, they can click it (the beauty of wikilinks).
2. In templates, there is an exception when it comes to having to spell out abbreviations before using them for the sake of space and aesthetic considerations.
3. The argument was made that nobody really knows what MOP means, but everyone is familiar with MVP. Yeah, that's true, but that's not what the award is. Just because it's less immediately apparent than "MVP" doesn't make it any less notable or worthy to be on the templates.
4. The argument was made that it would be inconsistent to not have MOP on every template since the MOP doesn't necessarily come from the championship team. The same can be applied to all of the NBA's championship templates (see {{Los Angeles Lakers 2009–10 NBA champions}} as an example). The Finals MVP is on almost every single one of them, but not every NBA championship team had the MVP on it. So, there is precedent, especially in a very similar WikiProject. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I've reconsidered based on your response and I've decided including the (MOP) is acceptable. I am going to modify the template to add non-breaking spaces between the number and the player name; right now it looks rather bad when the number and player name are on different lines. –Grondemar 22:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college coach

I've proposed a reworking of Template:Infobox college coach on the college football project talk page and wanted to loop in everyone here. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Template:Infobox college coach. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Magnum Rolle peer review

Would you all mind reviewing Magnum Rolle at Wikipedia:Peer review/Magnum Rolle/archive1? I have worked hard on this article and want to bring it to featured status! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's now at FAC, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magnum Rolle/archive1. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Parade High School All-Americans (basketball)

Category:Parade High School All-Americans (basketball), which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Not a college basketball category, but related - and looking for input to resolve what I think is a pretty non-controversial proposal. Rikster2 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Marquette Golden Eagles current roster

Template:Marquette Golden Eagles current roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches wins list for deletion

Please weight in on the AfD. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 31#Category:Pacific-10 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons and please comment. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article attempt

I am working on getting Monk McDonald, a star college athelete and former head coach of North Carolina basketball, up to a GA. Based on the GA review, it definately looks like it is possible. If anyone wants to help in this process, please check out the article. Thanks. Remember (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

College basketball articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the College basketball articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Key (basketball)/archive2

Everybody is encouraged to help. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Stat leaders

Last season, at 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team#Schedule, I was one of the few editors to include the statistical leader fields. Can we set a policy to encourage use of the field.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like it. I think it looks a bit cluttered. But, if we had to perhaps we could have the option to only include the points leader? ~ Richmond96 t • c 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is being adopted from NBA templates that use them. You can just use points if you like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm using it on 2010–11 Butler Bulldogs men's basketball team. That said, am I supposed to use the points leader of the game regardless of team, or just for the team whose page I'm editing? City boy77 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be to use the stat leaders from the team the page is devoted to. If I were a user browsing these pages, that's what I would be looking for. Rikster2 (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that the template has an option to only include the points leader. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• See 2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team for my spin on the NBA template. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

CBB Standings - Colors?

The CBB Roster template allows for the option to use individual teams' colors. Could we do this with individual conferences' colors for the conference standings template? For instance, the Big 10 is blue and white, the Big East is red and blue , the Big 12 is silver and red, the SEC is blue and gold, the ACC is blue and cream, the A-10 is red and blue, the Horizon is black and gold, etc. etc. etc. City boy77 (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with this as long as the colors are consistent with other templates for the conference (in other words, same shade of blue, red, etc) Rikster2 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with new template

I am trying to make an template that would state all of the preseason, conference, and postseason men's basketball tournaments. It can be found at Template:Men's College Basketball Tournaments. Here is what it looks like right now:

Please help make it better if you can. Thanks. Remember (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to write short summaries of each game in a season article, citing reliable sources and incl box scores?

Hello, I am new to working on College Basketball articles. There are several articles I intend to maintain and expand significantly, including 2010–11 Detroit Titans men's basketball team, 2010-11 Northern Iowa Panthers men's basketball team, 2010–11 Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team, and several others, mostly from the Missouri Valley Conference, Horizon League, and the Atlantic 10. I have noticed that some season articles include little game-bytes that quickly describe what happened in each game, including a box score to the right. Is it all-right if I do this in the season articles as well? They will all cite reliable sources, and I think it would be a much more thorough documentation of a team's season when we have a section that tells the reader what happened in each game instead of just having a section that says, "W 77-75" in green. When someone reads the article in the year 2030 or 2230, I want them to be able to read a definitive article of that team's season.

I know several team season articles are already doing this, such as 2010–11 Butler Bulldogs men's basketball team. Short and sweet game summary with proper references cited and a box score to the right. I love it. All season articles should have this. An example of an article with extensive game by game notes is 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Game notes. I only want to write a maximum of one paragraph, citing the appropriate sources. I usually write articles about baseball players from the 1950s and 1960s, but I think I want to devote time to create definitive season articles on teams. At the very least, I will be doing game by game notes for the Detroit Titans. I also want to go back and add game by game notes to the 2010 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Basketball Tournament, 2010 Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament and the amazing 2010 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament.

One step at a time, though. I'm surprised the Northern Iowa article hasn't been created yet even though they're the team that took out the almighty overall #1 seed Kansas. I don't want to just see a list of results. I want hard facts that show me how each game ended with that result, and I want Wikipedia to be my go-to site for this info instead of a Google News Archives search that sometimes results in lists to articles you have to pay $3.95 to read. Trying to write game blurbs about every game in a team's season can get dicey pretty quick if it's 1988 or even 2000 because of crap like that, so it's best to write it now while there's tons of reliable, free sources. I had a nightmare of a time writing an article on 1950s player Hobie Landrith not because of a lack of sources, but a lack of free sources.

Oh well, time to join this here project thingy. I'm just asking the question here so that I can make sure the game blurbs I'm adding aren't going to get deleted by a minimalist or deletionist 18 months down the road. I have been very hesitant to write articles on Wikipedia because of them.

I know the work of writing game-by-game blurbs with citations may be tedious, but I'm willing to fight through the tedium for these teams and the kids that play hard all season long. If you're currently maintaining a season article, I recommend you to please do the same if you have the time.

Thanks! Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, game by game notes is excessive like the Butler article. It's okay in college football, as there are fewer games. Instead, I would suggest having three subsections under the "Season" section: "Preconference season", "Conference season", and "Postseason". For some minor games, you might briefly mention, but for some big games (such as Final Four games) you might need more than one paragraph. As for box scores, consider 2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team#Schedule. I borrowed the NBA template and adjusted it so that it tells you the points, rebounds, and assists leaders for each game.

As for the Northern Iowa article, go create it yourself! There are plenty of college basketball articles in the current season that need to be created. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this. A few sentences to one paragraph about each game should be allowed, especially when football articles have much longer game summaries. Basketball may have more games, but the summaries written are hardly 1/4th or even 1/6th that of a football game summary, which I feel is fair and not excessive in the least. I already said I'd be likely taking care of the Northern Iowa season article. I have added game summaries to 2010–11 Detroit Titans men's basketball team, and I intend to keep doing so. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just my opinion - you don't have to agree with me. I'm just saying, if you want to take these articles to GAN, reviewers will probably favor three long sections as opposed to 30 short ones. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the season articles I contribute to never receive a little green plus mark in favor of them being complete, so be it. I'd rather have a finished B or C-Class article over an incomplete Good Article in this instance. I have no desire to bring articles I expand to WP:GAN unless another editor asks. Thank you for your responses, but I will stick to a brief game by game capsule for now. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You could check out 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season and 2008–09 York City F.C. season to see how other articles on sports teams with lots of regular season games wrote about their season. Remember (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a basketball example at 2009–10 Duquesne Dukes men's basketball team. Even though it is GA status, I still feel college basketball season articles should be allowed to have game by game synopses ranging from 3 sentences to 2 paragraphs, depending on how important the game is. I know this apparently goes against the grain at WP:GAN, and I also know that I am far from the only one that has my mindset on this. The Duquesne season article was promoted to Good Article status, but I don't agree with several game summaries from the article. "The next day the team improved to 4–0 with an overtime 75–72 victory against Division II Arkansas-Monticello," for example. In my opinion, something more definitive and complete is needed to explain why and how an Atlantic 10 school needed overtime to defeat a Division II school by 3 points. College basketball teams play on average about 30 games in a season. As long as the summaries are relatively short and referenced, I see no reason why a game-by-game summary shouldn't be on Wikipedia for this sport. As far as baseball goes, for all I know maybe there can be a game by game summary someday, with collapsible months. The way I see it, most college basketball (or ANY sport, for that matter) season articles don't have game summaries at all because it's more tedious and takes more time than simply amending the CBB Schedule template and the win-loss record. I'm willing to go through that few moments of tedium after each game for the sake of having a complete article by season's end that can be used as a quick and reliable reference many years down the road rather than having a college basketball enthusiast have to dig through Google News archives for the one free article that shows how in 2006 Wichita State beat #6 LSU 57-53 and #14 Syracuse 64-61 instead of just showing that they did. I'll just keep on keepin' on, not worrying about what reviewers think about it. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a big proponent of using short snippets to describe what happened in minor games and even a paragraph or two to describe major games. These are not articles that a vast majority of wikipedia readers are going to stumble upon; aside from general record, player, and coach inquiries, the people reading these articles are looking for insights into the specific team and how it played that year. When Syracuse gets upset by Cleveland State, I want to be able to read what happened to Syracuse or why Cleveland had such a great game. These short snippets provide at least some insight and their proper documentation give direction to where I can find more information that delves deeper than what wikipedia should offer. City boy77 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to get a clear consensus and standardization for infobox tournament achievements

Hi all,

Despite previous discussion (see here, here and here) it seems to me there is still quite a bit of inconsistency in how teams are listing their NCAA tournament achievements (e.g. 2nd round, Sweet 16, Elite 8, etc) as well as an inconsistency in notations. Some older Sweet 16 or Elite 8 are now being marked with an asterisk (*) as a opening round game, but the asterisk has previously been employed to denote forfeited or vacated NCAA results in the NCAA Official Records Book as well as in Wikipedia infoboxes, and thus has an established negative connotation (both in the infoboxes and in sports popular culture). There are also inconsistency in how achievements are listed in the Official NCAA Records Book and by individual schools. Further, with the expansion of the tournament, there is bound to be confusion in some designations like "Second Round". I would like to build some sort of consensus so these can be uniformly listed across the schools, preferably so template changes and/or documentation can be updated for Template:Infobox CBB Team. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sweet 16s, as has been mentioned before, the Official NCAA Records Book does not acknowledge Sweet 16s prior to 1975 (see here page 43). However, the Records Book does list "Regional Semifinals", "Regional Finals"...but those don't necessarily correspond to the numbers you'd expect. For instance, "Regional Semifinal" in 1945 correspond to an opening round of 8, and "Regional Final" corresponds the final four, compared to the modern day understanding of the "Sweet 16" and "Elite 8", respectively, as the Final Four is not categorized as a "National Semifinal" in the Records Book until 1952. see (here). Thus solving any issue of inconsistency with NCAA records by renaming the infobox category of "Sweet 16" to "Regional Semifinal" may not be a clear solution. Perhaps "Round of Eight" or "Round of 16" could be supplemented to retain accuracy and avoid contradicting the record book. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that if there were sixteen teams remaining in contention for the national championship, they are the sweet sixteen whether it's 2002 or 1962. As far as whether the NCAA calls it the Sweet Sixteen before 1975, I don't think it matters. Same with elite eight and final four. I think the outer rounds should be referred to as "Round of 32" and "Round of 64." That said, I also think you should only list a year in a specific category if you had to win a game to get to that round. If Sam Houston State plays in the first four this year and wins, they should be able to list "2011" under "Round of 64." If Duke earns a #1 seed and starts in the round of 64, they shouldn't list "2011" until "Round of 32." You shouldn't list "1939" under "Elite Eight" because there were only eight teams in 1939. The first "Elite Eight" listing should be 1951 (the year the tournament expanded from eight to sixteen). City boy77 (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue with "Final Four". The NCAA uses that term to refer to last four teams standing, regardless if listed as a regional or national semifinal, from 1939 to present, in its records. I think this can be agreed upon by everyone and every source. Likewise, "NCAA Tournament Appearances" is pretty clear, with the possible exception of the couple of "play-in" games in the early 90s, but they aren't officially denoted as tournament appearances by the NCAA and never were considered as such. So there is a starting point. However, the issue of everything in between "appearances" and "Final Four".

As far as it not mattering what the NCAA calls them, I believe that is necessarily true. It is the NCAA Tournament, and the NCAA is the official keeper of the official records of their tournament, and therefore it seems that their record book is the definitive source on the matter. Otherwise, there is the danger that it may tread on WP:OR. Certainly, I think it likely hinders any attempt to standardize presenting the information if you ignore the official record keeping.

The other point you raise is "Round of 32" or "Round of 64". I would assume you advocate adding a "Round of 64" category in addition to the pre-existing "NCAA Tournament Appearances" category? That seems rather duplicative to me. Personally, I think the "Second Round" or "Round of 32" is overkill for the infobox, but I'm not entirely opposed to it.

I would also like to see everyone's thoughts on having official policy for all vacated appearances and places denoted with an asterisk (*), with it noted right in the CBB infobox template, preferably with a field added to display that notation right in the template if applicable (e.g. vacated=yes would display "*vacated by the NCAA" either at the bottom of the NCAA appearances section or the bottom of the template). This is already how it is done in most infoboxes, albeit manually, but adding it to the template would formalize it. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a few issues above. First, I'm OK with standardizing vacated appearances with an asterisk -- although I do think italicizing the year is an even better, more obvious way of marking vacated appearances. Second, I think it is not OR to call the round of 8 the "Elite 8" prior to 1951, but I'm fine with changing the nomenclature in the infobox to "Round of 16" and "Round of 8" to address this issue. (The same nomenclature should also be adopted here: NCAA Men's Division I Tournament bids by school and conference, which lists "Sweet 16s" prior to 1975.) On a related note, I began adding asterisks for the Round of 8 and Round of 16 appearances in the infobox to note when these were the first rounds of the tournament (1939 to 1952). I used an asterisk to do so, but I'd happily switch to a carrot (^) if the asterisk is to be reserved for vacated appearances. Or perhaps this information isn't necessary at all in the infobox (another option to consider).

I am leery of having too many notations creep into the infobox. That said, I think it is absolutely necessary to denote vacated spots. I generally favor the asterisk, because of the connotation of the "asterisk" outside of wikipedia, and use by the NCAA itself. Italicized years could also add emphasis to the asterisk, but might be overkill. Perhaps italicized years in the "appearances" field could denote years were a team won a game (addressing the issue with the second round field, but that is perhaps overkill).

Regarding the "first round" carrot, I do think it should at least be switched to a carrot because of the vacated games issue. However, my personal feeling is this may be starting to add too much historical information out of context with a listing of achievements. For instance, a notation essentially, if indirectly, adds the size of the tournament field to each appearance in any round. This may actually suggest a POV. For example, say there is hypothetical Sweet 16 appearance listed, but only 16 teams in the field, a notation indicating this could be perceived as suggesting this is not as noteworthy as an accomplishment as when two games must be won. However, the counter argument is that less teams were selected, and although you didn't have to win games, it still denotes that a team was among the top 16 in the country and it is unfair to downplay that achievement by singling it out by a notation. After all, it's not the fault of the team that the tournament was smaller. Because of that, I think I would lean toward as system that would introduce code to the infobox that would automatically wikilink the specific Year NCAA Tournament article for each NCAA appearance that is listed, as then each year could be clicked on and the reader could see for themselves the format and outcome of tournament play. Then the reader can make any judgements for his/herself. It would look something like this:

2003, 2004, 2005, etc...

This however, does not speak to any OR issues, such as the NCAA's use of Sweet 16 vs retroactive labeling. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I think the "Second Round" option in the infobox should be removed entirely. It's too confusing since there have been so many iterations of the tournament -- with various numbers of teams, byes granted to teams for several years, and today's "play-in" games. It's not clear what information is conveyed by "Second Round." -Kgwo1972 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree about the second round, but I think it will set off a firestorm from the teams that include it if it is suddenly deleted. Winning one game is a big achievement for some teams. Personally, I'd rather see an NIT category than a second round one, because for sure in 1938, and arguably for a few years after that, the NIT bid was no less than equal to the NCAA in status as the highest level of tournament. That said, by the 50s, it was not nearly as prominent as has been romanticized to be by some. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's no more feedback here after a few more days, I'm inclined to "be bold" and change the nomenclature on the relevant pages to "Round of 8" and "Round of 16." This will actually also moot the issue that was intended to be addressed by noting in the infobox when those were the first rounds of the tournament, so I'll remove those notes I've added on the various team pages. I'm also inclined to remove "Second Round" from the infobox template, since its addition to the template was not discussed and we seem to agree here that it is confusing/overkill. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We might want to get an RfC to get more comments. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, but I don't know how to do an RfC! I'm going to change the nomenclature and remove all of my notes, as a first step. I'll leave the Second Round pending further comments. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think your changes make no sense. "Elite Eight" and "Sweet Sixteen" are official terms, I believe (at least Elite Eight is) and more importantly, everyone call them this. This applies whether there are eight or sixteen or 64 or 68 team in the tournament. As for "second round" vs. "round of 32", the issue is far more confusing. I'd prefer "round of 32", as the winners of play-in games are technically playing in the second round. I'm going to be bold myself and change the template like so. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not something I care deeply about, but your response does not address any of the points raised by Crazypaco above. And if we're going to decide here that Wikipedia doesn't care about the standards set forth in the NCAA media guide metioned above (which is within our power), then we need to edit this page, too: NCAA Men's Division I Tournament bids by school and conference. (Well, that page needs to be edited in any event, since it tries to have it both ways.) As I say, I don't care deeply, but I DO think the argument set out by Crazypaco should be addressed before we revert back to "Elite Eight" and "Sweet Sixteen." -Kgwo1972 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I approve of the change you have made, especially with the NCAA Tournament set to expand each year. The "Round of 64" next year will actually be referred to officially as the second round, so it's definitely a necessary change. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 06:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Wright (basketball) – dab page???

User:Editorofthewiki moved Chris Wright (basketball) to Chris Wright (basketball, born 1989) with the explanation "dayton's chris wright" ([1]). When I went to Chris Wright (basketball) to see about the Dayton player in question, I found that this "disambiguation" page only has two entries, and one of them is a redlink to a non-notable player.

We've been down this road before (Talk:Sean Williams (basketball, born 1986)#Move? anyone?) and it's clear that there shouldn't be a disambiguation page when only one player is notable enough to warrant an article. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Think again. Dayton's Chris Wright was named to the Preseason All-Atlantic 10 First Team. He is widely known in the college basketball community for his athleticism and his dunking abilities. Two years ago he was considered a likely lottery pick, but he decided to stay in school and is now a likely second-round draft pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why are there no clarifications on the dab page, especially for two players who nobody would know simply by looking at their article title. He may be widely known in the Ohio Valley Conference for his dunking abilities, but he is far from a household name outside of that region. I don't care if it stays as a dab page, but there needs to be one-sentence clarifications next to each player, otherwise it literally is pointless (seeing as to how one of the only two on there is redlinked, it doesn't do anyone any good trying to guess who Chris Wright (basketball, born 1988) is). Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added a clarification to each player. By the way, Wright's Dayton is not a team to mess with. Two years ago they upset West Virginia to advance to the second round of the NCAA tournament. Last year they won the NIT. Both times Wright was the best player on the team. NBADraft.net says he is a possible first round pick next year. http://www.nbadraft.net/players/chris-wright-0 ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while the Georgetown Chris Wright plays for the better team, Dayton's Chris Wright is the one who is on the Wooden Award preseason list for the second year in a row. You could make a great argument he's the more notable of the two as an individual apart from his team. Rikster2 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing style discussion about Miami University and the University of Miami

WikiProject College football has a style discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Style preference: Miami University and University of Miami and since the same issue (disambiguating the schools using the state postal codes) comes up in college basketball, I wanted to invite the participants of this WikiProject to comment at that page. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Flagging conference games for Template:CBB schedule entry.

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football we are having a discussion about putting an asterisk next to conference games instead of non-conference games on the schedule template. At least a couple of us are in favor of making the change since that is the way most media guides mark it. User: Jweiss11 pointed out that making the change would likely mean a change in Template:CBB schedule entry as well. I invite others to take a look at the conversation. —Ute in DC (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes for head coaches

Gentlemen, I wanted to share a little update regarding the ongoing upgrade of head coach navboxes. At present, almost half of the 122 Division I football coach navboxes have been upgraded to include first names and dates of service. To date, this includes all of the ACC and SEC football coach navboxes, half of the Big Ten and Big XII, and a smattering of everything else. Here's an example:

Approximately, another dozen Division I basketball coach navboxes have been so upgraded:

The previous WP:CBB discussion on point was that the succession boxes should be deleted from coaches' article pages as the navboxes were upgraded to incorporate the information included within the succession boxes (i.e. first names and dates of service). I invite other CFB and CBB editors to assist with these navbox upgrades so we can delete the remaining succession boxes as quickly as possible, and without any loss of convenient reader references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you want to see an example of a coach's article page with multiple navboxes from several sports, you may want to look at the William G. Kline and Josh Cody pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully support this change. Let's start doing them (and deleting the succession boxes) Rikster2 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rikster, we have now upgraded all of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, SEC, MAC and MWC football coach navboxes, and some random others, totaling 107 of 122 Division I FBS football navboxes. Jweiss11 has already purged the football coach succession boxes from the coach pages of those conferences. About 17 football coach navboxes of the WAC and Sun Belt remain to be upgraded, but we've obviously made a serious dent. I've also upgraded the Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Clemson, Nebraska and Temple basketball coach navboxes with first names and service dates, and I've committed to personally doing the same for the basketball coach navboxes for Army, Illinois, Kansas State, Marshall, Miami (OH), NC State, UNLV (those whose coaching succession overlaps with the Gators) as well as the nine other SEC schools. If we could split this up among the active WP:CBB editors, we might be able to complete the navbox upgrades and succession box purge for the Division I basketball programs by the end of January. This would bring a remarkable degree of uniformity in formatting to the CBB and CFB projects and allow greater consistency among coaches from the same school. As I've mentioned before, it will also help with formatting conflicts among early 20th Century college coaches who often coached two or more major men's sports. For examples of multi-sport college coaches, take a look at John J. Tigert and Josh Cody, both of which have already had all of their football and basketball coach navboxes upgraded and the redundant succession boxes deleted.

One question for you: how do you feel about similarly upgrading the NBA coach navboxes, too? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lavoy Allen

I am writing a draft of Lavoy Allen in userspace at User:Editorofthewiki/Lavoy Allen. One problem I have encountered is the lack of a birtdate. None of the nba draft sites will tell me, which is surprising considering he is a probable second round pick. Can anyone tell me? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 2000–2009 for deletion

The article Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 2000–2009 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 2000–2009 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 1990–1999 for deletion

The article Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 1990–1999 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 1990–1999 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

A discussion has been started by another editor regarding some criteria that would make an NCAA Division I college basketball player inherently notable. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Basketball additions and I encourage people to express their thoughts. Full disclosure: I was the one who added that criteria to WP:NBASKETBALL before it was removed and brought up for discussion, so I'm going to stay out of the conversation, if possible. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Coaching tenures for navboxes

Before we jump fully into converting college basketball coaches' navboxes to include full names and years of coaching tenures, I think we should agree on how the years will be represented. User:Dirtlawyer1 is making the years appear such that only the final calendar year of a season is shown (e.g., on {{KentuckyBasketballCoach}}, John Calipari is shown as "(2010–)"). However, User:Rikster2 has been making years overlap (see {{Arkansas Razorbacks basketball coach navbox}}).

I don't particularly care either way, but it needs to be consistent before too many of them get made. Thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that I was doing anything differently, but I think we need to use the overlapping years for basketball, since seasons span two calendar years. For example, Kirk Speraw coached UCF until the close of the 2009-10 season (about March, 2010), then Donnie Jones took over and coached his first game at UCF in November, 2010. This is one area where basketball differs from football - where seasons basically are contained in one calendar year (except some bowls). Rikster2 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should go with Rikster's overlapping years. The standard naming conventions define college basketball seasons by start and end year. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds like a consensus to me. FYI, for the record, some of those early Kentucky seasons were apparently played entirely within a single calendar year. Only six to twelve games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It should reflect calendar years in which the person coached at least a game. So for modern coaches, it would be overlapping years (unless the coach was fired or quit mid-season) but for older coaches it might just be the single year, depending on the length of the season. cmadler (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think cmadler has the right process, but I will say this - as I have been updating these I have been using mostly media guides as sources and many of those don't denote dates of specific games and use the split year format to describe the season as a whole. This can make it tough to determine if a program played all their games in one calendar year or over two. If I am going to do a volume of these (and it seems like I will be), then that's the extent of the research I'm going to do on any particular program. If some of you have programs of interest that you'd like to check behind the work, that's fine, but I am not signing up to do 150+ updates beyond a single (should be definitive) source. Rikster2 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for giggles, Rikster, be aware that Kentucky is one of those programs whose media guide only provides the year of the spring semester and does not provide year-by-year season summaries with games dates. I agree with you: if we use the overlapping years format, as I believe we should based on the best on-line sources, then it's going to be up to editors who are fans of particular programs to "look behind" the major references and see if any particular coach's tenure fell entirely within a single calendar year. The most likely candidates in the modern era will probably be interim coaches. (I've already updated the Kentuck navbox.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on naming convention - Why would we not name ALL men's coaching navboxes with "men's" in the title - even if a women's box does not exist? Seems like this way we do create one naming convention (as opposed to one for schools who have both men's and women's templates and one for those who don't) and we reduce future maintenence as women's templates are created. Just trying to think ahead. This is another consideration that football doesn't have to worry about. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rikster, it's a judgment call. The template names are getting rather long, especially for those that have multiple words for the school names ("Georgia Tech") and multiple words for the mascot ("Yellow Jackets"). My thought process, and it's certainly nothing set in stone, is that we can forego the "men's" for the men's templates and simply insert "women's" in the women's templates. If you and the other guys think otherwise, I'm happy to go along. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care that much. I might just stick to updating names and tenures and leave the renaming to somebody else or another day to be honest. I'm mostly just afraid I'll screw it up. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review discussion over the use if statsheet.com as an external link for college basketall stats

Over on the external links notice board, there is a discussion of interest to WP:CBB, debating the use of statsheet.com as a link for statistics. Please take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#StatSheet Network Websites. Rikster2 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

African American category

There is debate about the need to verify African American ethnicity for a BLP. Can people comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article: Michigan Coach Elmer Mitchell

The article of Michigan coach Elmer Mitchell could use some enhancements on the basketball information. As a college football propeller-head, I don't have a lot of basketball resources--if someone can pitch in and add some more information, that would be helpful!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm adding some information relative to his time as Michigan State Normal men's basketball coach, but I don't have info on UMich. cmadler (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, found some UMich info also. cmadler (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks great!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

CfD, please weigh in

Please go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 27#College basketball categories and weigh in on the proposal. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new WikiProject University of Connecticut

You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope: The University itself, including the campuses, notable buildings, notable academic programs, and notable professors; The Connecticut Huskies athletic teams, including the men's basketball, women's basketball, and football teams, their coaches, players, facilities, and history; Notable alumni, including both athletes and non-athletes. Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content: WikiProject Universities covers only the academic-side of the university; WikiProject College basketball and WikiProject College football cover only articles from their respective sports; WikiProject Connecticut does not cover articles related to UConn that are about places or people outside Connecticut (for example: bowl games such as the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl and alumni such as Svetlana Abrosimova). WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles. To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! –Grondemar

–Grondemar 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please weigh in

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Infobox about how much college awards/honors should be include on {{Infobox NBA Player}}. Please weigh in, thanks.—Chris!_c/t 08:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NEIU Physical Education Complex

The article NEIU Physical Education Complex has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found a few promotional web hits and no published (gbook) WP:RS, fails WP:V and WP:N, Does it exist; yes, are there reliable sources for any of the article content; No

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Another CfR

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 7#College basketball to weigh in. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NAIA to create a related WikiProject. Please consider reading the proposal and commenting at that page. Alternatives include joining an existing related project (such as this one) or creating a WP:TASKFORCE under a related project with a larger scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject title is bad grammar

A few years back, there were two different college basketball WikiProjects. One was titled "WikiProject College basketball" and one was "WikiProject College Basketball"-- I decided to merge the two together into the more active, the latter, and unfortunately this has made the WikiProject's title have bad grammar as "basketball" shouldn't be in caps. If we moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball, would there be any problems that would arise from it? I guess we'd have to move the double re-directs away from this page but that's about all I can think of... thoughts? Nomader ^(Talk) 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was actually just thinking about this this other day! Why should "college" be capitalized? Shouldn't it be Wikipedia:WikiProject college basketball? cmadler (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen with other projects, you should just imagine that the "WikiProject" part isn't there. So "College football" becomes Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, and "Video games" becomes Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Our project's name has really been bugging me for actually almost a year now, but I haven't brought it up before now because I realize the hassle it would cause to remake the pages... can it be changed easily? Nomader ^(Talk) 19:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Adopt a conference

Now is the time to adopt a conference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I just took the Ivy League.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD – Please chime in! Possible future WP:CBB standards at stake

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big East Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year and weigh your opinion. The outcome of this AfD will probably have implications for future WP:CBBALL standards of notability for these types of awards. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK schedule

At DYK, I requested an opinion on whether the following hook should go on the main page before the March 12 One-game playoff and got no responses so far. Please respond at the 2010–11 Harvard Crimson men's basketball team, 2010–11 Ivy League men's basketball season hook which this link takes you to:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Final plea

• • The following conferences have more four or more post season participants and no conference season article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Big Sky (1 NCAA, 2 CBI, 1CI)

Colonial (3 NCAA, 2CBI)

Conference USA (2 NCAA, 1 NIT, 1CBI, 3 CI)

MAC (1 NCAA, 1 NIT, 1CBI, 3 CI)

MVC (1 NCAA, 2 NIT, 2CBI, 1 CI)

OVC (1 NCAA, 1 NIT, 1CBI, 1 CI) Also one of the 20 Wooden Award finalists

Southern (1 NCAA, 1 NIT, 1CBI, 1 CI)

WAC (1 NCAA, 1 NIT, 2CBI, 2 CI)

West Coast (1 NCAA, 3 CI)

Coaches' Poll

Why doesn't ESPN have this week's Coaches' Poll at its website when CBS has it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war at 2011 NIT

I am currently engaged in a bit of a disagreement with a new editor over at 2011 National Invitation Tournament about the inclusion of various computer rankings on the page and how they are presented. You can see more information on the page or at Talk:2011 National Invitation Tournament, but I wanted to solicit input from more editors on the issues. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

NAIA Project Update

Here's an update on the NAIA Basketball pages. Since this posting we have including Women's and DII championships.

• Finish NAIA Men's DI years 1982 - 1999
• Finish NAIA Men's DII years 1992 - 2005
• Finish NAIA Women's DI years 1981 - 2011
• Finish NAIA Women's DII years 1992 - 2011
• NAIA Men's DI - Bracket for years 1966-1980 need schools link to school or athletic's page.
• Naming convention question: It was brought to my attention that the NAIA uses this pattern: NAIA Division I Men's, right now I am using NAIA Men's Division I. Is this a big deal or not (I was thinking it was like 2004 Summer Olympics is to Athens 2004... but someone suggested being consistent with the NAIA. Thoughts? I'm cool with either, I just thought it would be a lot of work to re-name them. I am changing my stance.
  • Unfortunately, we at WP:CBB try to follow established naming conventions based upon what the team/tournament/organization refers to it. The one exception might be based on the discussion above, where so far "Second Round" (etc) is ambiguous. It might be a pain to do, but the titles should reflect what's already established, i.e., to make them "NAIA Division I Men's". Jrcla2 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The 1944 tournament was not held due to World War II, it was nominated for deletion, but no action was taken. A user made a strikethrough in a NAIA navbox, which I feel works just fine. But if the page is deleted, can we get the 1943 & 1945 infobox's to link correctly instead of dead linking to the 1944 page?
  • The page won't be deleted since the AfD came to no consensus. If someone re-nominates it in the future, and it does get deleted, we'll ask User:LOL to fix it so that 1944 doesn't get linked. As it stands right now nothing needs to be done. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Moonraker0022 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Watts for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What to call the first full round of games

So now that CBS/Turner has made it apparent that they are going to call the round of 64 the "second round", do we follow suit? I was updating the coaching record table for Mike Anderson and wasn't sure if I should put 2nd or 1st round. 2nd round looks a little confusing as it makes it seem like the team got just as far as the year prior, but they didn't. But I guess if that's what the ncaa is calling it from now on, we should follow suit? Opinions anyone? Maybe we should just start using "Round of 64" and "Round of 32" instead and update previous season to that standard too? Ryan2845 (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all well and good for CBS to call it the "second round" for this year, but when we're dealing with it in a historical context that gets confusing fast. Plus, it's clear to me that, at least for the time being, most people are not really accepting the "First Four" games as the "First round" (as evidence, see every bracket pool/contest, which continue to universally ignore those games). "Round of 64" and "Round of 32" seem best to me, unless someone else has a better suggestion. cmadler (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. It's the NCAA's event, and this is what they call those games. We may put a different value on what a 1st or 2nd round finish means, but it's not for us to editorialize what an organization calls its event. In the NCAA record books, they will call the "First Four" first round games. For example, when the NCAA Tournament only had eight teams, the four teams that won one game in that tournament are still credited with a Final Four appearance. Same concept on the other end of the spectrum. Also, I feel changing the name of the rounds, contrary to the NCAA's naming, mean we are not approaching the situationw with a neutral point of view. Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe you're taking the proposal the wrong way. We aren't suggesting we belittle anyone's accomplishments or second guess the ncaa, the goal here is to simply make it clear to readers what is meant by "1st round" and "2nd round". Using the example of the Mike Anderson article, if we follow the naming scheme of the ncaa, then it will say 2010 - 2nd round, 2011 - 2nd round, even though in 2010 they made it to the round of 32 and 2011 only the round of 64. Someone reading the article 10 years from now might not remember the exact year that the change was made to call the round of 64 the 2nd round and it's not immediately obvious when looking at just that one page. So the might think they only made it to the round of 64 in 2010. This is just an attempt to make the pages less confusing going forward, not change history. Personally I don't think the final 4 example makes sense with this situation. The final 4 was still the final 4 when they added 8 more teams. To make it analogous to this situation it would be like renaming the "final four" the "national championship" all of a sudden. Ryan2845 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Masonpatriot's comment misses the point, which is that saying "Second round", depending on the year, could mean the round of 64 (not even having to win a game to get there!), the round of 32, the round of 16, the round of 8, or the final 4. Naming based on the number of teams in the round is more neutral when you're looking at it on a historical basis. cmadler (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but how do you label USC or UAB this year? The Round of 68? That's not a phrase that has been used commonly. Of course, if the NCAA just kept calling it the "Opening Round" we wouldn't have this problem. Sweet Sixteen, Elite 8, etc., are all trademarked phrases commonly used by the NCAA. That doesn't really apply here, and we're just making it up. I'm not taking anything the wrong way, and I see the issue, but I just think you call something what it's called, no matter our opinion of it. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You label USC and UAB "First Four". There is no confusion about First Four. I don't think we're really taking opinions on the name changes at all. Just trying to make the articles clear as to what they are actually talking about. Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4 are all names that explicitly state how many teams make up the round. The "First Round", "Second Round", "Third Round" are all ambiguous as to how many teams are involved. I suppose a compromise would be to state "Second Round (32 teams)", and "Second Round (64-teams)" everywhere that second round is used. But it seems a whole lot simpler just to say "Round of 32" etc. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have opinions on this? Think we need to get a consensus made now that the first weekend is over and all the articles are being updated for the losing teams/coaches. Ryan2845 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I like "First Four," "Round of 64," "Round of 32." Too confusing when compared with other years to pick up the new "second round" convention IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan, cmadler and Rikster on this. Use "Round of 32" etc, not "Third Round". Count me in as one of the people who think the NCAA unnecessarily f'd up a perfectly good system. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the possibility the NCAA adds more play in games, "first four" is sufficient for now, but excludes the orignal play-in game which this "first four" is just an expansion of. When the original play-in game was added back in 2001, it was called the "opening round game." In keeping with the historical context of "Round of 32" and "Round of 64," "Opening Round" is inclusive of both the original play-in game from 2001-2010 and the current "First Four" format started in 2011. This being said, I push for both the original play-in game from 2001-2010, the "First Four" started in 2011, and any additional play-in games not consisting of a full round to be simply called the "opening round" or "play-in game" with later full rounds using the names "Round of 64" and "Round of 32." NorthTechsan (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the added value of WP tournament articles: "bubble controversies" and consensus rankings

Recently there has been a spirited debate on the discussion area of the 2011 NIT article, about strategies to increase the "added value" of this and similar tournament's articles. Presently, this article contains almost a carbon copy of the material that the reader can easily find in the official NCAA site. This raises the obvious question: why to offer an article that essentially limits itself to duplicating the content of the official site? If that is just about all we are going to provide, we might as well replace the article with a link to the official site, and devote our resources to something else.

• Following a suggestion by Cmadler, we propose to add to any such article (NIT and WNIT 2011, NCAA 2011 (M &W), etc) a section dedicated to "bubble"/seeding issues: that is, controversies and arguments on the selection of the specific teams to play in the specific tournament, and their seeding.

Because any such discussion ultimately boils down to which team is better than which, we should provide the reader some sort of credible, objective performance indicator that is directly comparable for all the teams involved (W/L records are useless for this purpose because of strength-of-schedule issues). The best such indicator of which we are aware is the "median" of about fifty reputable rankings that is calculated by Carson-Newman's Mathematics Prof. Kenneth Massey and published here. The fifty rankings considered by Prof. Massey include the major polls (when available), RPI-based rankings, and well established computerized rankings such as Sagarin's, Ken Pomeroy's, Colley's, and many others... Prof. Massey simply computes simple statistics for the fifty rankings for each team, treating all qualifying rankings the same.

• Thus, we also propose to add one single column to the table that lists the tournament teams by regions to include the Massey-computed "average" ranking (for example see this).

(Notice that Prof. Massey has his own reputable ranking, but we do NOT propose to use Prof. Massey's personal ranking, but rather the "average" of the 50 rankings that he provides).

• If you have some concern, please consider looking at the discussion at the 2011 NIT article, in case your concern has already been addressed to your satisfaction.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.--Virgrod (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think it would be a fine idea to have a section on bubble controversies in the post-season articles. However, I'd want to be sure that the article were sourced appropriately and that it accurately reflected the discussion around these teams that actually occurred in the media and across the country. However, I think the point of that section would be to report the discussion that actually happened, not necessarily to spur further debate about the teams excluded. The fact is, RPI is the statistical measure that dominated these discussions. I don't think RPI is particularly useful, but it is what every news outlet is referring to when they say things like "# of top 50 wins," etc. as a part of selection criteria. I would not question the validity of Massey's ranking summary - I am sure it is more reliable than RPI - but it wasn't a part of the discussion leading up to post-season tournament selection. Last, I'd want to be really careful about making the bubble controversey section dominate the actual results and storyline of the respective tournaments - either in length or placement - which is the essence of what the articles are about. "Who's in, who's out" is part of the story, but really only until the games start. The discussion on the 2011 NIT talk page really got ridiculous and I should hope that we could avoid a repeat of that. My two cents. Rikster2 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NBA biography

Hi, I just want to inform everyone that there is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox NBA biography on how to present info on the infobox. One particular topic that may interest this project is the presentation of college awards. I hope that you all can participate and share your thoughts. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Hill (basketball)

I have never seen this confusing of a biography. There are two Chris Hills who matriculated to college in 2001 melded into one article. Please see the talk page if you can help straighten this out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone give me some feedback here. My desperation plan is to turn the page into a complicated dab page with full paragraph bios of the two people who I think are being confused.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest two pages, each with a dab header (or whatever it is called). There must be a simple way to distinguish them, such as the position they play or the college they attended, or year of birth if that differs, or the team they play for now or the city in which they were born. Normally, one would distinguish by position played I believe, but I see they are both guards.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that they merit two separate bios (although only one may pass a WP:N challenge). The question is which one has the professional experience?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Answer

• Tony, I have the answer for you: the Chris Hill who you are looking for, aka the Academic All-American of the Year and current Euroleague player, is Chris Hill from Michigan State. Here are sources that verify it as well as provide general information about the player (in case you want to expand the article): [2][3][4][5][6]. Of most interest to you are the first two links – the first one is Hill's euroleague.net official blog, and it shows he's on Spirou Charleroi. The second is an official MSU press release confirming him as the AAA of the Year. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Is there any reason to believe the other Chris Hill is WP:N?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I apologize, but how do you connect the first link to the AAAotY Chris Hill and not the other one? How do we know both are not playing in Europe?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Additionally, the ESPN stat page does not match up with the Big Ten Media guide. According to the guide, 262 three point shots made would be top 10 in Big Ten history. According to the ESPN stat page Hill has 305. Yet, Hill is not listed among the top 10.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oddly, the guide lists him as the Big Ten single-game 3 point shot record holder (a record tied by Jon Diebler) but does not show him in the career list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Quite honestly, Tony, in the years I've concentrated almost exclusively on college basketball articles, I've had a number of email correspondences with schools' Sports Information Directors and conferences' basketball liaisons. What I've found, unfortunately, is that a conference's media guide is mostly reliable, but they, too, are surprisingly susceptible to overlooked facts and human error. Actually, even the official 2010–11 NCAA Men's Basketball Media Guide contains some glaring errors (well...glaring to someone like me who researches this stuff for WP), and I've already been in touch with their men's basketball contact. He appreciated the corrections and let me know that they strive for 100% accuracy but "work with what they've got." My long-winded point is this: I wouldn't get so hung up on what the Big Ten media guide doesn't list, but rather focus on the verifiable information that you know does exist for Chris Hill of Michigan State. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Additional side comment: I agree that this is one of the worst/most confusing disambiguation problems I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I'd have thought a "Joe Smith" would cause more problems... Jrcla2 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I think it is because they have the same name and finished high school in the same year. Articles are now at Chris Hill (basketball) and Chris Hill (point guard).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The NCAA stats database shows 306, and is generally more reliable than ESPN. Not sure why he is left out of the big 10 books, this reference has him 5th. I've also found numerous mistakes in various media guides. They shouldn't always be assumed 100% correct. Ryan2845 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• CS Otopeni and BC Techasas must be teams for the Milwaukee Hill because they do not match up with the Michigan State guy's career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

free admission to div 1 women's basketball games

A major div 1 women's college basketball program started its fan base by allowing free admission to all of its games. I cannot find out the name of this college and would like help in finding it. james2q 3/28/11 James2q (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ralf Woods vs. Ralph Woods?

Can anyone verify whether the Denver Pioneers basketball coach from 1921–23 (Ralph Woods [7]) is the same person as Ralf Woods, who was a star player at Illinois in the 1910s with his brother Ray? It seems to be that these would be likely candidates to be the same exact person. Since "Ralf" is a more uncommon way of spelling the name, I think Denver might have gotten their records wrong? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Horizon League

Resolved

 – Another editor assisted on the issue and removed the italics, which were transcluded in an infobox. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Horizon League should not have its article title italicized. Template:Italic title appears to be transcluded onto the article, but I can't find it in the text to remove it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to figure it out too but couldn't, so I dropped a note at Wikipedia:Help desk#Horizon League. Hope you don't mind I plagiarized you (it seemed easiest and most succinct way of getting the point across). Jrcla2 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I missed that field in second infobox for the TV network. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jermaine Blackburn AfD

Resolved

 – The original AfD nominator now supports the article's existence due to ref/content expansion. Considering this resolved per wp:snow. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Former Boise State Broncos player Jermaine Blackburn is up for deletion. Fun fact: he recorded the first quadruple-double in CBA history. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Three related TFDs

Resolved

 – All !voted to be kept. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15 there are three separate TFDs that you might be interested in {{Big Ten Conference Athlete of the Year navbox}}, {{Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year navbox}} and {{Chicago Tribune Silver Football navbox}} also in separate TFDs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lists up for deletion

Resolved

 – Both deleted per consensus. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated two lists for deletion: List of Sun Belt Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues and List of Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament venues. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dukebox

Resolved

 – Single-use navbox deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated Template:Dukebox for deletion. Please comment. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

College basketball program navboxes - standards

Through working on a number of articles across programs, it's clear there is no consistency around how these navboxes are used. Here are two examples of program templates that are pretty different: Template:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball and Template:Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball. The result is that in some cases there are second templates that cover the same info, relatively insignificant info on them, etc. Let me propose a few guidelines about how we might be able to get these to a standard format to decrease clutter:

1. Take coaches off. The newer coach navboxes have this info and are more clear about what is found there. Besides, should minor coaching names include a template for a basketball program they may not be closely associated with? This would be a difference from the way the NBA does it - but I frankly think the NBA way is a little confusing
2. Keep seasons, but only the ones that have existing articles. New seasons can be added as the articles are created. Reduces redlinks. With this move, get rid of the redundant "University of X men's basketball seasons" navboxes. These double hit and don't typically provide any additional info.
3. Restrict players appearing on the template to retired/honored numbers. No All-Americans, no NPOYs, no conference POYs. This would enable us to delete the handful of "Retired numbers from X University basketball" templates that are out there. It also reduces the number of players who get a general school navbox on their pages to the select few most associated with the program.
4. Keep info on national & conference championships, arenas, rivalries. Keep a space for "related articles" - some unique aspects of some major programs have their own articles (such as Cameron Crazies). This would be similar to the "lore" section of the NBA navboxes.

Just spitballing here, what do you all think? I like these navboxes, but they are all created to meet individual whims and aren't consistent. I get irritated seeing articles that have 2 navboxes when one would suffice as well. People start to get the idea they should apply the template to every player who went there, whether on the template or not. Rikster2 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I care if there's a 100% standardized way to present these types of navboxes (after all, WP:CFB doesn't even have a standard for theirs and they have much more manpower and collaborating abilities than us), but I do agree that the existing ones need re-tooling. I agree on points 1, 3 and 4; coaches are redundant and are better served by coach-specific navboxes, retired/honored numbers keep it to the most relevant players to the program, and conference/national championships and miscellany pertinent to that program are all good. However, on point 2, I think all seasons in the program's history should be included, even as red links. Many times an editor will create a team's random season and won't think to add that newly created article to the existing navbox. Including them all will not only show the user how far back that program goes specifically, but also encourages users to fill in the missing seasons as they see fit. I just don't really envision any but the quasi-competent editors remembering to add the new seasons into the navbox, but if they're already there then that makes them automatically visible (blue links).
In order to hide said red links, the format of the navbox could be laid out akin to the Seasons part on Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all seasons with article should be on the template. Look at {{Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season navbox}}. Michigan has articles for every season back to 1969. Many schools are like this (not necessarily all seasons, but more than belong on the main navbox). They don't all belong on {{Michigan Wolverines men's basketball navbox}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think seasons belong on the program navbox, but coaches do not. The seasons represent the program itself, while many coaches have a more tenuous connection to the individual programs they have coached, and there are separate navboxes for the coaches. I favor retaining redlinks for seasons, because I think they do actually encourage creation of the articles. Strikehold (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rikster, thanks for bringing this up. I recently brought up this topic, more or less, at the college football talkpage (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Team season navboxes). Standardization of this sort is needed for college football programs as well, and I propose that we consider this discussion with regard to both football and basketball and with an eye toward setting standards for other sports. As for the points discussed above, I agree with removing coaches, since they already have dedicated navboxes. I do, however, think that a link to the list of program coaches should be included, if that list exists. I also think players should be pared to down retired/honored numbers, if not removed entirely. As for form, I support the grouped navbox structure with logo colors, a la Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the main person who worked on the Gonzaga template. I'm not wedded to it—I'm fine with whatever the consensus is. (BTW, my main team is Kentucky.) That being said, here's my take on the proposals:

1. Strong support. Since coaches now have their own templates, go with those. I agree with Jweiss that if a list of a program's coaches exists, it can be linked from the program template.
2. Lean slightly toward including all seasons, even if they're red links. I believe Jrcla and Strikehold make very good points on that issue.
3. I'm somewhat neutral on having retired/honored numbers in the template, but mildly disagree with omitting All-Americans, NPOYs, or CPOYs. School policies on jersey/number retirement vary widely. I'll use Gonzaga as an example. The only numbers Gonzaga has retired are those of Frank Burgess and John Stockton. I don't know if the Zags have retired jerseys, but if they haven't, some of the most significant figures in the program's history wouldn't make the cut for the template, most notably Adam Morrison (even though he's proven to be an NBA bust). Morrison's Gonzaga number of 3 is being used in the upcoming season. Using Kentucky as another example, that program has honored so many players that including all of them in the template is pure cruft. IMHO, the best solution would be to listify players in all of these categories and just have links in the template.
4. Strong support. I can't improve on the rationale given.

Guess we'll see what happens...  :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this project, but here's my input:

1. Couldn't agree more, they belong to coaches navbox. Perhaps the current coach could still be listed in the program navbox somehow.
2. Create a navboxes for seasonal articles and include every season there, even if the articles don't exist. A link to List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons should be enough in the program navbox. However, I don't mind if the 10/5 recent seasons are linked from the navbox.
3. Restriction is a must, to limit the template from becoming too large. I'm not sure what restriction we should have, but seeing Tar Heels navbox, it's just too many players listed.
4. Keep national championships, arenas and rivalries.

I personally think that Tar Heels template has too many information which are not appropriate for a navbox. There is no need for conference tournament and conference regular seasons champions and years, they are less significant than national championships and can be easily found on North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball. This is to avoid the navbox becoming too large. Quoting from WP:NAV: They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. Or perhaps there could be another navbox listing Tar Heels seasonal achievements, which includes their conference wins. — MT (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

On players included in program navboxes - My thought on retired jerseys/numbers was trying to limit the numbers with some objective standard, but maybe it doesn't hit the mark. It also provides a way to get rid of a whole set of navboxes around basketball program retired jerseys without losing anything. My thoughts on other inclusion criteria for players: Very opposed to conference POYs on these - there is already a CPOY navbox for every one of them and this just creates a second navbox on a players' page with no new information. Plus, this honor just isn't big enough to be on the overall program navbox. With All-Americans, this number gets pretty big for programs like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc. I suppose we could restrict to consensus first team AA's - but again this creates at least one additional navbox to a players' page as there are consensus AA navboxes for each year. National Players of the Year are too squishy - which ones "count?" Also, these navboxes exist as well. Another option would be to look at Naismith HOFers. Or take JWeiss' suggestion and not have players on it at all.

Other thoughts - I am not at all wed to cutting redlinked seasons. I just thought it was a way to get rid of a bunch of redlinks to articles that will probably be a LONG time in coming, if they come at all. I do like the idea of cutting the "Seasons" navboxes altogether and including this information in the program template. One last thought - since this is basketball it may make sense to include Final Four appearances in the navbox since many of these seasons do have articles and it is a metric quoted by the press to show historical program strength. Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, per issue:

1. "Take coaches off." Undecided. I guess I don't understand why we would take coaches off but leave the seasons. Whatever we do with one, I think we should do with the other because they both have their own navboxes.
2. "Keep seasons, but only the ones that have existing articles." Disagree. I think the redlinks serve two valuable purposes, both of which have already been discussed so I won't add to an already long discussion other than to say that I agree with the historic argument and the encouragement argument. I would keep the redlinks.
3. "Restrict players appearing on the template to retired/honored numbers." Disagree. I'm likely in the minority but I think if a person is notable enough to have an article, they're notable enough to be on the template. Butler does not retire numbers, yet they have had some prominent players who stand out enough to be mentioned, which is why they have wikipedia articles.
4. "Keep info on national & conference championships, arenas, rivalries." Agree. I definitely agree that these should be kept.

I've never really understood the purpose of these mega-navboxes. Either have a mega-navbox with all of the articles that would appear in any navbox related to the team or split them up into separate navboxes. Doing both doesn't make sense to me, hence why I tried to make a giant Horizon League navbox a while ago. City boy77 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

City boy, the problem with including all players is that for some programs this would make the navbox incredibly unweildy. For example, there are well over 600 Michigan Wolverines football players with articles. I've made a mockup of a new navbox for the Michigan football program here: User:Jweiss11/Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. One possible solution is to include either only the most recent ten (arbitrary number) players or only former players who are are still active in their sport as a player, coach, or commentator, and also include a link to a list of all notable players. City boy77 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't most of the sports pages list their notable players? Perhaps this isn't common practice for football but I know several articles that do this for basketball. I don't think this needs repeated in the navbox. City boy77 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

When sports pages list their notable players, there is supposed to be criteria for why those player are listed apart from any others who have articles. To just arbitrarily list a bunch of players who happen to have articles is original research, because who decides who's notable enough to be called out? That's why designations such as "Consensus All-Americans" or "National Players of the Year" are used. I do think that, at most, only honored/retired jerseys should be on team templates. Otherwise it will become a good-intentioned but off-the-mark attempt at really determining who belongs on it. If a program doesn't honor or retire jerseys, then they just won't have individual players featured. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to reiterate - one advantage to including retired/honored numbers is that it eliminates a whole class of templates like this one (provided we create the corresponding women's basketball navboxes where needed). Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sample template reaction

→(Initial reaction to User:Jweiss11/Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox)
College basketball has a dearth of articles on team-to-team rivalry and game-specific articles (Duke/UNC has one, but not much else exists in those areas). Rather than a whole subsection dedicated to these aspects, I think any applicable rivalries and games should just fall under Miscellany.
For seasons, I still think the Notre Dame template is the way to go. Football seasons have the luxury of taking place in one calendar year (other than bowl games, which don't really count), and so it's always a lot cleaner and nicer looking to just have "2005" rather than "2005–06". The addition of the "–xx" lengthens the season subsection substantially, and it will look unwieldy (to use Jweiss' term) to have the seasons automatically shown. If consensus thinks otherwise that's fine, but I don't think it should be like the example above.
Other subsections worth consideration:

• Final Four appearances (as mentioned above, it's an oft-used barometer of a team's historic success and many season-specific articles exist for those teams already)
• Championships – This would include the two premier national postseason tournaments (NCAA, NIT) as well as conference regular season crowns only.

Anything else would be extraneous and beyond the scope of a quick-hitting overview of the program. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, if one were choosing one conference championship to show, wouldn't it make sense to make it the official champion who receives that league's automatic NCAA tourney bid? I think regular season is a better demonstration of who the strongest team was and know that conference tourneys for leagues like the Big 10 don't go back that far, but I also know leagues like the ACC have always crowned their tourney champ as the "ACC champ." Agree with other suggestions (and don't necessarily disagree with this one). Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is where it gets tricky for college basketball as opposed to college football, and is another example of why these two WikiProjects cannot be uniformly standardized (naming conventions, women also playing basketball, conference regular season vs. conference tournament championships, etc., make this an apples-to-oranges comparison for a lot of this stuff). Maybe it'd be best to list both the regular season and tournament championships? Coherent arguments can be made for both, and the media reports on both championships equally, so it might be worth considering. At the end of the day I'll accept whatever the majority think on this issue. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jrcla2, I realize there are some differences between college football and college basketball, but the organization of the two sports and the types of articles we have for each are largely analogous. Looking at the Michigan football navbox I mocked up, a basketball team also has venues, rivalries, pagentry, coaches, players, and seasons, right? As for championships, I really don't think those should be listed explicitly in the navboxes. Navboxes are there to provide navigation to relevant articles. Take a look at Template:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball. That navbox contains links to all of UNC's seasons, but then there's also links for national and conference championships and it's not always clear where those are supposed to be linking. Some of these link, redundantly, to a UNC season article. Others link to NCAA and ACC tourney articles. There are links to the five NCAA tourney that UNC has won. But, of course, those are not the only NCAA tourneys that UNC has played in. Aren't those relevant too? Including the championships strikes me homerism and banner-hanging. The articles, not the navboxes, for a given team should make it clear what championships the team won and when. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just curious----what exactly is "pageanty?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

When a coed wears her school colors intimately? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

College basketball program articles

Is anyone else concerned that we don't have articles on a ton of Division I basketball programs, even some fairly sucessful ones like Arizona State, California, Hofstra, and Morehead State? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it certainly is an issue worth addressing. For me personally, I'm more concerned with CPOYs and various national awards' recipients, then secondarily season articles. Eddy, I appreciate your creation of some of these articles recently. I do have a favor to ask though – when you create an actual team page, can you do two things:

1. Update its talk page from Needed-class to either start or stub class since it's no longer a redirect
2. Update the CBBALL Master Table so that the article is no longer shaded green

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see too it. I'm just mentioning that we should have articles on all Division I programs, when we only have artiles on about 2/3 of them. I'll try to start some of the more notable ones like I listed above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to watch main WP:CBB page

Resolved

 – Article restored, then expanded/referenced by Rikster. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All- The article for Harold Jensen was just deleted due to an expired PROD placed on 10/5. I know I never saw it and am trying to get the article un-deleted so I can document his notability more effectively. I had always assumed that deletion notices would be placed on this Talk page, but obviously they sometimes crop up there - so please be aware. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All - the editor who deleted Jensen has restored it. I plan to improve the article to establish Jensen's notability (he got significant media coverage as an active player due to his NCAA performance and 2nd team All-Big East as a senior standout for Villanova - and was a 2x Academic All-American). He also has gotten coverage since as one of the famous figures in NCAA tourney history. If any of you want to chip in I would appreaciate it. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Italicization on NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by school

Resolved

 – Articles in italics are no longer Division I. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by school, why is NYU italicized? I would change it but I figure there is likely a reason. City boy77 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

CCNY is italicized as well. Could be teams that no longer compete at the Division I level? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's got to be it, because Oklahoma City is italicized as well.

I just edited the article and explicitly stated that schools in italics are no longer in D-I. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Large bold formatting needed for F4 appareance & championships

Resolved

 – General consensus is against large, bold text. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

An NCAA Final four appearance is the 2nd most notable possible accomplishment of any team/coach's season, and a championship is the most notable, by far. Yet there are many articles where they are not format emphasized in tables.

For example, Duke has been to the F4 twice without winning either its conference championship or conference tournament title, and the fact that if still made the F4 was given no formatting emphasis.

Similarly, NCAA champsionship years were not in any way identified in the article listing F4 appearances by coach.

Large bold fonting would be appropriate emphasis in any table depicting F4 and Championship accomplishment. NCDane (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks absurd. No, it doesn't need emphasis and it would not be appropriate. This isn't an encyclopedia for the visually challenged. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY TO Jrcla: Reason for formatting change is not to aid the nearsighted, it is either (1) for emphasis as in the case of the Coach K article, or (2) to convey additional notable information as in the article on coaches who have made the F4. Also, I do not see anything "absurd" about bold large lettering format, but if someone wants to suggest another format that would be fine. NCDane (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There doesn't need to be "another format." The way it is, linking to that season's NCAA Tournament with the words "NCAA Final Four" or "NCAA Runners-up" suffices. You may not think it's absurd, but I can assure you that you are the only one who thinks that. We could take a straw poll of 50 editors, and 50 of them would think it's ridiculous. It's unencyclopedic and draws too much attention to those specific seasons. Anyone perusing his yearly records column will easily see that he's been to said Final Fours ("F4" is not used in any vernacular I've seen) or national championship games. Related question: why did you bold your responses to Jweiss and myself? You have a penchant for thickening letters (ha). Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jrcla:

I notice you are fond of using such incivilities as “absurd” and “laughable”. I can play that game as well as anyone, but for the time being I will only ask that you make more of an effort to restrain yourself.

I believe more formating IS needed for the sound reason I have already given that it conveys important information. Furthermore, it does so economically, adding only about 10 words to the article, and without obliging the reader to search links.

I would be interested in seeing any public poll results (no secret ballot)

F4 is shorthand I am using only for discussion purposes, and so is CK below. The Wiki discussion format makes it unnecessarily difficult to distinguish different commentators, and that it another thing I would like to see changed. For the time being I wish to bold my comments to help distinguish who is talking to who. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, increasing the font size is not a good idea. It's inconsistent with general practice on Wikipedia and does not look academic or neutral. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY TO Jweiss: (1) General practice objection is irrelevant to suggestion general practice should be changed. (2) Wiki has dozens if not hundreds of different formatting templates. What exactly is an "academic" formatting "look" and what is not? (3) "Neutral"? what does that objection mean, exactly? All that my suggestion entails is the addition of completely objective and notable information via formatting. There is nothing un"neutral" about it. NCDane (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

—Your response was to Jweiss but I'm still giving my two cents. General practice can be changed, correct, but it takes painstaking measures and input from an extremely large variety of editors at a place more public than WikiProject College Basketball. If you feel so strongly that enormous, bold and distracting font should be used for championship and Final Four seasons, this will need to be brought up at the village pump or some other similar discussion place. Making this sweeping change would require overwhelming consensus and would take (dare I even suggest) an unquantifiable number of manual human edits to go back and change all of the articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jrcla (continued) How do I get to this village pump place?

The change I am suggesting to the article on all F4 coaches would affect only that article.

The change I am suggesting to the Coach K article would take a few hours if applied to articles on all coaches who have made the F4.

BTW bold font is used in college football coach bios to highlight in bold the letters “W” and “L” for bowl appearances, as in "W Rose Bowl" so there is a Wiki precedent for my suggestion that important results receive additional emphasis through bold fonting. I think a larger size combined with bolding would be better due to the transcendent importance of the events. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

—Academic vs. non-academic: Times New Roman vs. Comic sans; uniformity vs. slapdash; standard size and width vs. laughably large bold font
—You're not "adding" any information at all. All you're trying to do is take existing information and make it stand out so much that it drowns out all other information around. That's not neutral. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jrcla (continued)

There are dozens of typrfaces as tasteful as Times NR, if that is what you are getting at, but I am not proposing atypeface change, because I do agree with the need for TF uniformity.

I certainly AM adding information to the coaches article since the article makes no mention of who won any of the 60+ torunaments. I disagree that there is any “drowning out” effect, and your contention that any F4 appearance be viewed on equal terms as an appearance resulting in a championship baffles me.

As for the CK article there is no pretense of “neutrality” with all those different color-coded results, so the position you have taken above is contradictory, on the neutrality point and on the drownout point as well NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NCDane, I agree with Jrcla2's comments, and have some suggestions as well. On the Mike Krzyzewski article, there is absolutely no need for bolding or larger text to denote Final Four appearances in the head coaching record table. The simple text makes it crystal clear how far the team advanced in the postseason. However, we do have a color scheme in the table to denote conference and national championships. Perhaps Final Four appearances deserve a color designation as well for reinforcement. I'm not sure I'd support that given that we already have five color designations in the table, but it seems like a reasonable area of exploration. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jweiss: Only national champ years are color-coded, and other F4 appearances receive no additional fonting emphasis. That is inconsistent since an F4 appearance is at least as important as a conference season or tournament championship, and CK was in two F4 without having won either season or tournament. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Tennis has a color-coded scheme for tournament performance that I find pretty handy; e.g. see Roger Federer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline. On NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by coaches, I think it's definitely worth noting tournament titles in some way, but increased font size is not the way to go. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jweiss (continued): I simply do not understand your object to the large bold font in either case, especially since the multi-coloring is no problem for you. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this list ought to be arrayed with or perhaps integrated with the table at List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins#Most NCAA championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jweiss (continued): I do not understand what you mean by this. I think the coaches article should remain independent rather than be integrated with another. the change I suggest is the simplest way to convey information since it adds no text other than a one-line explanation at the start of the article. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I realize what I wrote about this may have been confusing. What I have now done is moved the table of coaches with multiple NCAA DI titles from List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins to NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by coaches. That's a much better place for it. Now we can consider integrating the table of Final Four appearances with the table of NCAA Championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style on bold text and fontsize. Here's the summary:

• WP:MOSBOLD: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph). Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases. Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text.
• WP:FONTSIZE: Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates.

Based on these MoS, if you want to emphasize Final Four appearances, you should use another method rather than using large bold text which is not consistent with the rest of the table and also the rest of the article. More information about tables can be found on WP:TABLE. — MT (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am done commenting on the issue. It will take a parting of the seas for this proposition (large, bold text) to come to consensus in support of it. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NCDane, as MT suggests, please refer to the Manual of Style. Also, take a look around Wikipedia and see if you can find other examples of text size enlarged in way you are advocating. I think you will be hard-pressed to find such examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Vote? Okay, let's vote right now. I vote No. Nyet. Nein. Non. No all-caps bolded type for Final Four Appearances in college coach infoboxes, or, for that matter, anywhere elsewhere. Why? First and foremost, it looks like a typesetter's abortion from the standpoint of layout, design and typography. Second, there's that pesky WP:MOS thingy----such formatting is completely inconsistent with not only established practice within WP:CBB and WP:CFB, but pretty much all of Wikipedia. Third, it's completely unnecessary----the all-capped, bolded text adds no additional information, and immediately draws attention to itself from the surrounding championships and career awards and honors. If we all-cap and bold Final Four appearances, will we do the same for NCAA basketball tournament championships? College Basketball Hall of Fame members? First-team All-American players? NCAA lacrosse tournament championships? NCAA lacrosse final four appearances? To summarize, it's hideous, it's inconsistent, it's unnecessary, and there are actually more important championships, awards and honors that, in fairness, are entitled to similar treatment, leading a complete mess of an infobox, all-capped and all bolded.

If we should be doing anything, we should be judiciously paring the secondary awards and honors in these infoboxes to only the most significant in the particular coach's career. If hypothetical coach Bob Jones received the West Bumdiddle Herald's Conference Coach of the Year award, and it's among the five most significant honors and awards coach Jones ever received, then by all means include it in the infobox for coach Jones. But if the coach's name happens to be Mike Krzyzewski, and he's won four NCAA championships and 13 ACC championships, and has been honored five times as the national coach of the year, we don't need to include the West Bumdiddle Herald's COY award in hi infobox----you can mention it in the body text, or include it in an article text section that lists all known awards. But it doesn't need to be included in the infobox any more than it needs to be included in the lede.

Bottom line: If we're not going to all-cap and bold the text for all NCAA championships and final four appearances for all coaches in all sports (and we're not), then we're not going to do it here, either, for all of the reasons I've listed above. Next topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League

Is the Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League actually a defunct conference or is it the previous name of the Ivy League - much like the Horizon League used to be the Midwestern City Conference? I ask because the NCAA record book lists a continuous history for the two when listing its all-time conference winners, but is clear to list separate entries for relationships like the Big Eight/Big 12. I looked at the reference in the article but am not convinced it is evidence there should be a separate article. Rikster2 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Big 12 is a new conference in terms of conference records and such. I am not sure about the Ivy League. I was the EIBL page creator, but don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just taking a look at the historical info on the Ivy League site (found here), it DOES appear that the league claims its founding in 1954 (separate from the Eastern League). Good to know. Rikster2 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

**NBA head coaching navboxes discussion finally started

Resolved

 – Consensus in favor of NBA head coach-specific navboxes, including how they should be formatted and that they should replace team-wide templates when applicable. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi all – The next phase in head coaching navbox standardization has come to fruition. Please visit this discussion at WT:NBA if you have any opinions on the issue. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistant Coaches on championship navboxes

Resolved

 – Assistant coaches, as long as they have articles themselves, are to be included on national championship navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

With the 2011 World Series concluding today, I was looking at the Championship navbox and was reminded that all the other major sports navboxes include assistants (College and Pro Football, Pro basketball and Pro baseball). I would like to raise the issue of why college basketball is not consistent with the WP custom in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but they weren't included mainly because the thought was that many assistants aren't notable. Something that didn't come up but could be an issue is that it potentially becomes more "template clutter" for something the coach played a (relatively) minor role. I'd be OK with adding them personally, but they'd have to meet the same standard as players on these things - they have to be notable - or they shouldn't be on at all. Rikster2 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The only articles that I am extensively involved in where this is a matter are Tommy Amaker, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and 1988–89 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. In the Amaker case, his co-assistants were Jay Bilas and Mike Brey on both national champions were he was an assistant. I don't know who the assistants were on the 1989 Michigan team. I don't know how to extrapolate this small sample from the 1989, 1991 and 1992 champions in terms of notability. At least two of the three teams that are relevant to me have a full slate of notable assistants. I think we should go along with the other sports and readd them. Does anyone recall the discussion where we decided to remove them (maybe about 2 years ago)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be in the archives. Yes, in the cases of Amaker, Brey and Bilas all three of those guys are clearly notable (although none specifically for their role as an assistant coach). If we add Assistants they are no-brainers - as would be guys like Roy Williams (1982 UNC), Chris Collins and Wojo (2010, 2001 Duke), etc. My point is that being an assistant on a championship team doesn't automatically make one notable and if the person isn't notable they shouldn't be on the template. This is how we and college football handle players since they don't have the automatic notability that the pros have. Assistants would need to follow the same rule IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying assistants necessarily shouldn't be on these - just that only the notable ones should be if we go that direction. In other words, if 2 of 3 are notable, only the 2 who are notable appear on it and the third is left off altogether. Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose once again. Adding assistant coaches will be template clutter, and it will also open the door for users to add assistant coaches who aren't notable. I foresee people throwing in the slate of these coaches just to make the templates complete, and that goes against what the point of a navbox is. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more clutter here than in the other sports, if we only add the names of people with WP bios? How would it be any more clutter to a Tommy Amaker than it is to assistants in these other sports?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it, let's just re-argue every single point that's already been discussed. Add assistant coaches, I don't care anymore. Actually, add the athletic trainers, too. We wouldn't want to leave anybody out now would we? Jrcla2 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying, is let's do what other sports do. I don't see why college hoop is any different than college football or the other sports I mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing for automatic notability for assistant coaches. Tony is just saying that if there is an article for a given assistant coach on a championship team, he should be listed in the navbox for that championship team. I agree with that. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We never came to consensus on this before - we had a lot of debate about many aspects of these templates but this particular issue was not one of those resolved. As I said, I could go either way. Rikster2 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In terms of templating, usually CBB agrees with CFB and NBA. I don't see why we are different on this issue. There does not seem to be a compelling reason. As long as we don't include assistants without articles (which I think is consistent with CFB), we should be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Summary of opinions
• User:TonyTheTiger - Proponent of adding only notable Assistants.
• User:Jweiss11 - Clear affirmative support (See "I agree with that." at 01:19, 30 October 2011)
• User:Rikster2 - Support but less firm "I'd be OK with adding them personally" at 11:43, 29 October 2011 "only the notable ones should be if we go that direction" 14:07, 29 October 2011, but later softpedaled to "I could go either way" 11:04, 30 October 2011
• User:Jrcla2 - Oppose ("template clutter" 14:14, 29 October 2011)
• If we are only talking about notable assistants, we are close to overturning, but I am not sure how to interpret Rikster. Is it mild support or neutral?
• When I reread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_2#Championship_teams.27_templates.27_standardization_needed, it seems that there was no consensus to remove assistants. I don't understand why we did.
  • User:Jrcla2 - remove as proponent 01:14, 3 September 2010
  • User:Rikster2 - weakly remove 01:42, 3 September 2010
  • User:X96lee15 - no opinion 03:21, 3 September 2010
  • User:Grondemar - remove 05:21, 3 September 2010
  • User:TonyTheTiger - keep 17:39, 5 September 2010
  • User:Epeefleche - keep 04:33, 17 September 2010
  • User:Ryan2845 - keep ??
  • I think this was a clear no consensus to remove previously. They were mistakenly removed and and I believe there is mild support to readd them if we only include those with articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is best characterized as "abstain." This is one issue I really don't give a flip over and never have. Rikster2 (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should be readded because there was never consensus to remove them. The proponent just started removing these the same day he proposed the topic and before people had a chance to consider the issue. If he had waited for responses we would have WP:PRESERVEd the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry PRESERVE is for prose. However, I think previous opinion would have been not to remove the templates from assistant pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of uniformity in how we handle such information across sports -- unless there is a clear reason to diverge. Not that everyone agrees with me -- see by analogy the ongoing less than clear discussion w/regard to whether we should reflect height and weight in baseball infoboxes, as they are reflected in infoboxes of others sports, here. That said, I would agree w/following the convention of other sports, and reflecting assistant coaches here.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I don't see any reason not to include assistant coaches, especially if they have articles. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Notification All right folks. Almost everybody who is likely to respond has. Even if Grondemar responds against, as he did before, I still think there is a majority to revert including assistants.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New article - Carrier Classic - could be DYK if anyone wants to work on it

Resolved

 – Article created, but "newly created" article limit of 5 days has passed. Any further DYK consideration must result from a 5× content expansion. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I created the article Carrier Classic. If anyone wants to get this up to a DYK for the main page, let me know. Remember (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

National Championship navbox title links

Resolved

 – Championship navbox title links will only go to that team's season article, nothing else. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is currently very difficult to get from the national championship team template to the team's season article on almost all national championship navboxes. I think we should establish a policy where the team's season article is linked at the top of the template. comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is non-controversial and it had even been mentioned a long time ago to do just that; I say go ahead and make those updates. I'm closing this as resolved right away because I can't see anyone objecting or caring so much that they'll raise a fuss over it. If they do I will remove the resolved tag and we can discuss this further. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the title be split between the team's season and the seasons NCAA tournament article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is yes, but that's just me. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be a minor point, but I think we are making a mistake by splitting navbox titles into two or more links. We are asking a single phrase to do more than it should, and more than a typical WP reader will ever discern. Rather than complicating the title of navboxes with multiple piped links, I suggest we make sure that the team's main article and the NCAA tournament article for the given season are both prominently linked in the lede of the team's championship season article. Problem solved—without junking up the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Let's do that - only link the team's season article. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that in a title such as "Michigan Wolverines Men's Basketball 1988–89 NCAA Champions", we could reformat it to handle two links in a couple of ways:

1. 1988–89 Michigan Wolverines Men's Basketball team (1989 NCAA Champions) - different links inside and outside the parens
2. Michigan Wolverines Men's Basketball 1988–89 NCAA Champions - link split between basketball and year.

I don't understand why this is such a problem?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is being way overthought. DL made an excellent point that within the season article is a link to that year's NCAA championship either in the lede and/or the infobox. It's redundant layering. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, just link the season article. The other links will be on that page should the user want to go there. Rikster2 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party here, but yes, a navbox title should have one link that it is a specific as it can be. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List NCAA Division I Basketball Coaches Who Coached Their Alma Mater to a National Championship

Resolved

 – Result was delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI. I'm sure there's something that could be done with this information, but it doesn't seem to fit as an article. A category, perhaps? In any event, input is welcome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the AFD opened on Nov 1, and is scheduled to close tomorrow November 9. I've asked for an extra day, to permit comment from this project, if any. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

McAdoos

Resolved

 – Unrelated. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How is NFL athlete and Tar Heel Michael McAdoo related to NBA athlete and Tar Heel Bob McAdoo and/or his 2nd cousin once removed current Tar Heel James McAdoo?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I got an answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#McAdoos.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins

List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins needs some management here. I sit on and protect the analogous football lists (List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage, List of college football coaches with 200 wins). What tends to happen with the football lists is that IPs and newbies will come along and make fragmented updates that ignore lower profile coaches and put the list all out of wack. The same thing seems to be happening with this basketball list. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You make an excellent suggestion. I think that once this season is 100% over, I will go over the list to and update everyone. For now, unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to fact-checking it. I'll let anons run it amok and then go in and do damage control retroactively. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Basketball rivalries

Resolved

 – Enough independent sources exist on both rivalries to warrant articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Q&D rivalry assessment

	Both Ranked	Both Top 10	Both Top 5
Illinois	13	4	0
Indiana	22	4	1
Iowa	12	1	0
Michigan State	6	0	0
Minnesota	13	3	0
Nebraska	1	0	0
Northwestern	0	0	0
Ohio State	5	0	0
Penn State	1	0	0
Purdue	14	5	0
Wisconsin	2	0	0
Duke	10	7	5

After starting Penn–Princeton basketball rivalry, I am wondering if there should be Michigan–Michigan State basketball rivalry and/or Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry articles. Should these exist? Where can I find information on the overall head to head records?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Michigan-Michigan State is probably worthwhile, Duke-Michigan probably isn't. IMO of course. This stuff is typically in the progam media guides. Rikster2 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as M-MS goes, I am wondering if I should just do a general rivalry article. The Paul Bunyan Trophy game and the ice hockey game might actually both be larger rivalries. Also since it is so common for University of X and X State University to be rivals (Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Iowa and maybe a few others), I am wondering if there should be an instate rivalry article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Not sure if this holds for Pennsylvania (public vs. private), Montana (not sure of both DI), and Idaho (not sure of both DI).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late jumping in here, but there is no Duke–Michigan rivalry. It was a flash-in-the-pan rivalry during the Fab Five's era, only recently highlighted because of the 30 for 30 documentary where Jalen Rose called black Duke students "Uncle Toms." There isn't enough coverage about this specific match-up to call it an established rivalry. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, Michigan has played more games against Duke when both teams were ranked than against conference rival Michigan State (see [8]). I count 10 vs. 6. In addition, in 2008–09, Duke was part of the first time Michigan beat top 5 teams in back to back games. There may be more to it than you think. They have played 7 times with both teams in the top 10. Michigan and Michigan State have never played while both ranked in the top 10.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is not a Duke/Michigan rivalry - at least not one worthy of an article. Duke has played Virginia a jillion times but there is no rivalry there either. Duke really doesn't have an out of conference rival. UNC and probably Maryland are about it. Rikster2 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree (duh) – just because they happen to have played Duke under circumstances where they were both ranked does not constitute a rivalry; that's a non-existent criterion for rivalries. How many rivalries do you think Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky would each have if you counted the number of times they've played a team that was ranked? As for the 2008-09 mention, that's also just circumstantial. One event of them beating a top 5 back-to-back times isn't enough for a whole article on their "rivalry". Tony, you do a lot of a great work, no one is questioning that, but I think the whole Duke–Michigan rivalry mention is the Michigan fanboy in you coming out (and I mean that in the nicest way possible, for the record). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While you guys were replying I was crunching numbers. See the chart to the side.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that a part of the rivalry is the competition for recruits. Michigan just landed Mitch McGary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And before McGary who was the last top recruit Duke and Michigan went after? Tony, you are reaching. At least go find some sources that refer to such a rivalry. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember that according to the rivalry Duke generally goes after the Uncle Toms and Michigan takes the street hoods. I think this is a Catholics vs. Convicts type of thing. Look at the numbers Michigan and Duke have faced each other more as top 10 teams than any other Michigan rival. This number is probably even large for Duke. I doubt more than 3 of their ACC foes have faced them more than 7 times as Top 10 foes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony - why do you ask this stuff if you are just going to do what you're going to do? And YOU brought up the competition for recruits, not me. Look, there is a top teir of rivalries like UNC/Duke, Ohio State/Michigan and Auburn/Alabama that books are written about and documentaries are made. There is a whole second set that have official names ("The Border War," etc) or trophies associated with them. I don't think there is a real rivalry here, other than a long series (which was probably extended once UM was no longer relevant because a K disciple was their coach). If you can find multiple sources that document this rivalry, then go for it. I'm not sure you can though. Just playing each other a bunch of times doesn't make it a rivalry. UNC and Michigan State have hooked up a ton - several times in the Final Four - and that isn't a rivalry. Rikster2 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Duke and Michigan might be playing again next Tuesday. For some reason, they accept invitations to the same tournaments fairly often. That aside, why don't all the articles last spring count as rivalry articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What does "why don't all the articles last spring count as rivalry articles?" mean? Not being facetious, I just am unsure what you're referring to. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a controversy regarding The Fab Five (film). Jalen Rose and Grant Hill were going at it in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. P.S. not expanded and revised counts in the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to see how this is a rivalry. Statistics can be manipulated, bent, twisted and distorted to be used in many ways. I can be convinced of this rivalry if there is independent coverage of it as a rivalry. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the following sources provide sufficient support for a rivalry:

1. New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21duke.html
2. Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ncaa-tournament-duke-michigan-focused-on-their-on-court-rivalry/2011/03/19/ABDR9Hx_story.html
3. Detroit News - http://detnews.com/article/20110319/OPINION03/103190403/Michigan-gets-chance-to-rekindle-Duke-rivalry
4. Michigan - http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/120999aac.html

Amaker era stories don't have rivalry in the headline, but do in the articles such as

1. Michigan Daily - http://www.michigandaily.com/content/players-pleased-martins-decision
2. Michigan Daily - http://www.michigandaily.com/content/amaker-treading-unfamiliar-territory

Earlier

1. Duke Chronicle - http://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-michigan-do-battle-round-nine-fierce-rivalry

Bottom line. Look forward to a new article in the coming days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. being a Los Angeles Dodgers fan, this rivalry has the look and feel of a Yankees-Dodgers rivalry, which may go on hiatus for long periods but still be considered valid. In my youth they played in the World series 3 times in 5 years and that was a rekindling of an earlier rivalry that had gone dormant. This article will be pretty good and easier to do than the other three rivalry articles I have written because there are only 27 games (plus about a 40-50% chance of another one on Tuesday). Looking forward to writing this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad you were able to find sources to substantiate it Tony. Rikster2 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeat Male Athlete of the Year

Resolved

 – As weird as it may be, being the men's basketball POY does not necessarily coincide with being the ACC Athlete of the Year. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Three (2.5) ACC basketball players repeated as ACC Athlete of the Year according to the unsourced article. However, that means that Christian Laettner and Phil Ford were overall ACC AOY more than they were the Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year. That does not make sense. Charlie Ward is the third guy. I'd appreciate assistance from anyone that knows a source for this award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't confirm the ACC Athlete of the Year names, but the men's basketball POYs are correct. This stuff doesn't always make sense, particularly when you have different voting bodies. Heck, in 1966 Steve Vacendak of Duke was ACC POY but was second team All-Conference. How does THAT work? Rikster2 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

TfD October 28, 2011

Resolved

 – Result of the TfD was keep the Like and Dislike icons. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is another TfD nomination that may be of interest to some members of the CBB project: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28#Template:Dislike and Template:Like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Brad Redford for deletion

Resolved

 – Deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for renaming discussion

Resolved

 – Renamed to NJIT per wp:commonname. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please visit this CfR discussion for renaming NJIT's athletics categories. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Navbox categories for discussion

Resolved

 – Renamed. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated three navbox categories for renaming. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 17#American college basketball championship team navigational boxes. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team

Resolved

 – The article needs to use the endash and Wicka wicka has been warned about his incivility. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This article, originally 2011–12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team (using an endash) was moved to 2011-12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team (using a regular figure dash), and is now located at 2011—12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team (using an emdash). I believe the endash is the accepted style but since the article has been moved twice in the span of a week, there seems to be some confusion. Since I wasn't around for any previous discussion, if there was any, I don't know if the use of the endash came about through consensus or otherwise, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Also, if someone could contact the two editors who recently moved the article (Wicka wicka and TheHoosierState89), I would appreciate it since I don't know the template to use on their talk pages. Thanks! City boy77 (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The endash is the proper punctuation for number ranges; see Wikipedia:DASH. I've put in a request the article moved back to original location. If you want to get in touch with those editors to let them know what's up, you might just want to drop them a friendly note in plain English. No need for a template. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire life, it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to search for this page with the endash or whatever the fuck. I have several accounts and will be changing the article back to it's proper, logical location. Good luck dipshits. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make it easier to search for, then make a redirect. For instance, see 2011-12 Florida Gators men's basketball team, which uses the wrong, but easier to type dash. It redirects to the right page with the right dash.. ~ Richmond96 t • c 14:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been moved back to 2011–12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team. 2011-12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team still exists as a redirect, so searching is possible. — MT (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jabari Parker medal records

Resolved

 – Uncontroversial placement of medals table, which has no firm guidelines on placement to begin with. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what is proper. I moved the medal record box in the Jabari Parker article. Any opinions on where it belongs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's really more of a question for WP:BBALL, but I don't see why the medal table shouldn't be placed in the international career section. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

New format for All-America team navboxes

Resolved

 – With nobody feeling very strongly about the changes one way or another, this doesn't appear to be controversial and the AA navboxes will stay as is. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing a little editing today, I noticed that a new format has been applied to the Consensus All-America navboxes (example here). I don't think it ever went through consensus and I didn't read anything in the guideline linked in the edit summary that says they HAVE to be done this way. To me, something looks a little off (I kind of like centering in this case vs. left adjust), but felt like there should be a little discussion. In the end, it's not terrible, just not discussed. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that a few days ago myself and agree that it looks a little off, but I think it's because we're not used to looking at them that way. I don't care too strongly one way or the other. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can live with it, I just think that format looks better for the football AA teams as they go by position. Rikster2 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like what happened here is part of a more general clean-up to bring all navboxes in line with a new coding standard. The wrap functions have all been deprecated in favor of simpler coding using "listclass = hlist". I don't think there's any prejudice here against centering or other alignments. That said, I think I prefer the new format with groups instead of floating headers. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either is that much better than the other. The new way is just different. I agree it is probably related to the hlist overhaul. Iam fine with it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Conference Players of the Year – articles needed

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We're still a couple months away from the tip-off of the 2011–12 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. That being said, right now might be a good time to try and knock out a handful of much needed "conference players of the year" articles. I'm not sure how many editors even watch this page during the season, let alone the off season, so this might be falling on deaf ears. If nothing else it will serve as a good guide for what is needed. My criterion for this list is simple: these are the players who were their respective Division I conference player of the year two times (all of those who were CPOYs three or four times have already been made). By creating these articles first, we are able to more efficiently add blue links in the player of the year navboxes.

If any of these players are also linked by any other navboxes, those will be noted on the side of the player in parentheses. Consider this list an official "sign-up sheet" for us. Editors who want to claim an article to create, put your name by it. What does everyone think? Jrcla2 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

America East

• Jamar Wilson

Atlantic 10

• Earl Belcher
• Greg Jones (basketball)

Big Sky Conference

• Orlando Lightfoot → Jrcla2

Big South

• Torrey Butler
• Josh Pittman

Big West

• Richie Adams
• Jerry Green (basketball player)

Horizon League

• Rashad Phillips (Pomeroy Award) → Jrcla2

Ivy League

• Kit Mueller (I'll get to this)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ugonna Onyekwe

MEAC

• Jahsha Bluntt
• James Ratiff
• Stephen Stewart (basketball)
• Damian Woolfolk

Missouri Valley

• Darren Brooks

OVC

• Jerry Beck (basketball)
• Les Taylor (basketball)

Patriot League

• Brian Ehlers

Southern

• Gay Elmore
• John Taft (basketball)
• Regan Truesdale - I'll do this one Billcasey905 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Southland

• Larry Jeffries
• Ryan Stuart

SWAC

• Randy Bolden
• Adarrial Smylie

Summit League

• Jon Collins

Sun Belt

• Chico Fletcher

West Coast

• Steve Gray (basketball)
• Ollie Johnson (USF basketball) (1965 NBA Draft, 1965 AAU AA)
• Keith Swagerty

• Shouldn't we start with newest first? And yes, I do watch this page. :) ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to create some of the newer ones, I encourage that too. I'm just mentioning the ones that, in my opinion, might help bypass future TfD nominations based on the fact that many of the articles in most of the CPOY navboxes are red links. There have been numerous TfD nominations on college sports-related navboxes because there are "too many" red links. If we all somehow (unrealistically in the short term, probably) created all 29 of those articles mentioned, that'd be 58 total blue links that used to be red links. The most recent POY articles would still be fine; this is a strongly encouraged starting point. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this is a good idea. I've been working on national champion templates for the last month or so - I'd reckon I've created about 20-25 articles to fill these in. The fact is, there are a ton of redlinks out there on CBB templates and I think it is good to focus on them. While I disagree with the rationale that "incomplete" templates should be deleted, it is probably a fair point that these ought to be finished through some coordinated effort. Conference POY, national champ and Coach navboxes have the bulk of the missing articles. If project members have a particular interest (a particular school or conference) I think it's great if they want to focus there (e.g. "their school's" coach navbox). There are still a number of redlinked CPOYs and Coaches who played in the NBA - meaning that info on the subjects is readily available. Rikster2 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • On that final point: It also means they're inherently notable and deserve article creation. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • OK, I think I will go around creating stubs for last season's POYs. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • There is one player you may want to consider giving slightly more attention to: Aaron Johnson (basketball), who was the Conference USA POY. He led the country in assists last season and is also on {{NCAA Division I men's basketball assists champion}}. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to Rikster's suggestion about "adopting" a conference or school of personal preference, I will sign myself up to finish the remaining CAA POYs as well as Tom Jasper, a SoCon co-POY who played for William & Mary. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'll take the West Coast Conference. I'll intermix it with championship template work. If anyone is dying to create an article on any of those guys it's fine. I have no pride of ownership, I just want to see this stuff get done. Rikster2 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I know it's a little bit early to mention this, but I think once we pile through a ton of the CPOYs (meaning: every single one listed above, plus a healthy dose of one-timers who meet professional basketball standards), our next core focus should be on season articles. When the time comes, I would have no particular preference for which ones get created (Rikster, I feel like you may have a preference), but perhaps working backwards would be the best way to go. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Definitely another need. I don't care what order so long as people follow the format that has already been established. I have some seasons that I have more passion around than others (I created the 1981-82 and 1956-57 articles if that gives any clue), but will work on any. Backwards makes sense, but I have also tried to fill in gaps where possible (seasons 1952-53 through 1954-55 would mean most of the fifties were done for example). I think the CPOY stuff will take awhile, though. By then we'll be well into the season and new players, teams, coaches and conferences will emerge who demand articles. Rikster2 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that as the season progresses, the need for more articles will arise. It's one of my personal tenets, however, that creating articles on historically significant players should take precedence over newly-emerged ones. The information on new players changes much more rapidly and is harder to maintain, plus their careers are so new that there isn't as much to even write about. Orlando Lightfoot, for example, retired from professional basketball in 2007, making his article a comprehensive one. Also, the probability of a random editor creating a newly-popular player's article is astronomical compared to someone taking the time to think of, research and create Richie Adams, for example. As the college basketball old guarde, I think we have a bigger responsibility to give due diligence to the under-appreciated players than the flavor-of-the-months. That's how I see it, anyway. Back to the seasons: Knocking out the 50s could be our first priority, since they're about halfway finished anyway. We'll determine which to work on by an as-needed basis, I think. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

One other thing about CPOYs - there are four articles that would complete four different CPOY navboxes - Tank Collins (American South), Tom Kleinschmidt (Great Midwest Conference), Andre Smith (basketball) (Big Eight) and Isiah Williams (basketball) (Great West). These are worth prioritizing as well. there are a few other conferences with 2 or 3 redlinks (including the SEC believe it or not), but these guys would allow us to mark their respective templates complete. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just finished the CAA last night. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

National Champion assistant coaches

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I am adding notable assistant coaches to the National Championship navboxes. The following teams do not have assistants in the infobox, so I did not include them in the navboxes:

2001–02 Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team

1996–97 Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team

1989–90 UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball team <done> (Note that non-notables belong in the infobox. This is the only infobox with 2 instead of 3 ACs. One must be missing.) yeah, I know - took me a little while to fiund the third but it's there now.

1988–89 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

1983–84 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team

1982–83 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team

1979–80 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team

1961–62 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team

1960–61 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team

1959–60 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team

1958–59 California Golden Bears men's basketball team

1953–54 La Salle Explorers men's basketball team

1951–52 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team

1946–47 Holy Cross Crusaders men's basketball team

1945–46 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball team

1944–45 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball team

1943–44 Utah Utes men's basketball team

1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team

1941–42 Stanford Indians men's basketball team

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team

I will add to the list above as I work my way backwards through the years. Put a check mark next to any infoboxes that you fill in and I will try to take care of the navbox and add it to the proper bio articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The following infoboxes do not have a full slate of three assistants, which may mean that some are missing:

1976–77 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team (actually this team does not have an article and is just a section of the Marquette Warriors men's basketball page).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on link mouseovers, this is the only NCAA DI hoop national championship team without its own article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That pisses me off because it used to have its own page. Someone had suggested merging it with the overall hoops article and despite at least two objections the merge was done anyway and the project never notified. I am going to break it out and recreate the article as it was Rikster2 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1974–75 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1972–73 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1971–72 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1970–71 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1969–70 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1968–69 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1967–68 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1966–67 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1965–66 Texas Western Miners basketball team

1964–65 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1963–64 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1962–63 Loyola Ramblers men's basketball team

1957–58 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1956–57 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team

1955–56 San Francisco Dons men's basketball team

1954–55 San Francisco Dons men's basketball team

1952–53 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team

1950–51 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1949–50 CCNY Beavers men's basketball team

1948–49 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1947–48 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1940–41 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team

1939–40 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team

Also note that the following assistants who appear on some of the championship team infoboxes appear to meet the automatic notability standards:

Andre LaFleur (2010–11 and 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team) - Award winning international pro player (also listed at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career assists leaders, which suggests he formerly held the NCAA DI career assists record until Sherman Douglas surpassed him)

Shawn Finney (1997–98 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Tulane

Delray Brooks (1995–96 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) HC at Texas–Pan American (Other WP articles mentioning him include Indiana Mr. Basketball, USA Today All-USA high school basketball team#Boys' Basketball Players and Coaches of the Year, Mr. Basketball USA, {{USA Today National Basketball Player of the Year}})

Jene Davis (1980–81 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team) - HC at Furman

Joe Dean, Jr. (1977–78 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at UCF

Jerry Lyne (1962–63 Loyola Ramblers men's basketball team) - HC at Loyola

I will also add to this list as I see search results indicating their name would be a valuable link in other WP articles. (Not showing assistants who went on to be assistants in the NBA).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The above list is not necessarily complete. It is derived from search result pages that show where this bio would be useful to an existing page. Other assistants may have gone on to be head coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you can add Nate James from 2010 Duke as well - he was also a key player on their 2001 championship team. Certainly anyone who later became a head coach. Rikster2 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Key player is likely to pass WP:GNG, but key player is not automatic notability, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

He'd pass GNG and received ample news coverage during his time as a player at Duke (which would pass notability for college players). He's redlinked on the 2001 template and I have him on my list to create the article so we might as well add him. Rikster2 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You can note him here. He is not going on the template until he has an article. It would set a bad precedent otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that he's already on the 2001 template but whatever, it's not a federal issue. Rikster2 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the {{2010 Duke basketball}}. He does not belong in the assistant coach area until he has an article. I am not dealing with redlinked players on these templates. Several templates have a few. That is not an issue addressed above and is probably being impacted by WP:CRUFT-based decisions of individual editors less involved in the project as a whole.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did probably 90% of the determining who is on those templates guided mostly by automatic notability then trying to make a call on GNG based on what I know prior to doing the actual research (so some could still come off). Rikster2 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

O.K. Well a lot of redlinks exist that have not been created yet. Since most championship teams go 8 or 9 men deep these are probably mostly 3rd guy off the bench types who definitely had a hand in the championships but did not go pro or become an HC, IMO. These guys should pass GNG with some work. It is just that the pre-internet era ones will take a lot of effort. I have done articles for these types of guys (e.g., Rob Pelinka). They take some work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I have been working on these and have probably created over 25 articles to fill these in over the last few months. One guy can only do so much. Rikster2 (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you're doing yeoman's work on this, but I have to suggest that for any coach who has won a championship as a head coach and as an assistant (examples, Roy Williams & Denny Crum), their head coaching championship templates should come first as opposed to just showing them in chronological order. The magnitude of the former is just much, much higher than of the latter. Rikster2 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, many of the pages you have listed with one assistant are complete (like 1953 Indiana and 1957 UNC). Staffs didn't include 2-3 assistants until much later (late 60s/early 70s maybe). Rikster2 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I only said may be incomplete because I am aware that not all teams throughout history had 3 assistants. Strike all sub-3 lists that you know to be complete.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know which year 3 assistants came in vogue, but when Jerry Lyne took over in 1975, he used the singular to refer to his assistant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Others likely to meet notability include (This is just a partial list):

Dave Hanners (1992–93 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team)-NBA assistant

Troy Weaver (2002–03 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team))-NBA assistant

I have completed my run through for the most part

Coloration for award navboxes

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I think it's time we discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the array of colors currently used for the men's and women's college basketball award navboxes. See Category:American college basketball award navigational boxes for the full collection. Please note that I'm not talking about the conference players and coaches of the year because those have very specific rationales for their coloration – they match the conferences' official color schemes.

I mean templates such as {{Associated Press College Basketball Player of the Year}}, {{Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award}} etc. There's little reason they should be purple and dark green, respectively. According to its talk page, the reason {{Maggie Dixon Award}} is black and gold is because the creator chose its colors based on the school (Army) where Maggie Dixon coached. While this does show some forethought, it's my opinion that choosing the colors based on the school is more of a tenuous connection than it is directly related to the award itself.

I'm still on the fence about this issue, personally, but part of me wouldn't mind seeing all of these awards get set to default blue. After all, the award articles themselves are all part {{College Basketball Awards}} or {{Women's College Basketball Awards}}, and aren't we striving for consistency? Plus, one of the knocks on college sports' award navboxes by outsiders is the ridiculous number of colors they present at the bottom of players' articles as well as their seemingly arbitrary coloration (which I tend to agree with). I am hoping we can come to some sort of consensus on this one way or another, if for no other reason than to point back to this conversation in the future as precedent for our decision. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No official colors? Default blue. Next? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Go with the default colors. Even if the Wooden Award or USBWA has "official colors" I don't think they are prominent enough to color the infobox a certain way. Garish combinations of colors on these things is a consistent complaint about our project. Rikster2 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a related question as it does pertain to award navbox coloration, but shouldn't WP:CFB be doing the same as us when it comes to default blue? Actually, I'll notify them about this thread now. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that this project sort of extends to elite high school basketball awards. {{McDonald's All-American Game Boys MVP}}, {{Gatorade National Basketball Player of the Year}} and {{USA Today National Basketball Player of the Year}} are all presented in sponsor official colors. Should navboxes with very official corporate color affiliations be changed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think those three navboxes you mentioned should keep their colors due to name brand recognition and sponsorship of the award. The colors are not, therefore, arbitrary. In fact they're very easily identifiable. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think conference POYs should retain their conference colors too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved? Is there any reason to promote corporate colors—McDonald's firetruck red and yellow, or Gatorade's orange and green? Does including these colors really impart any additional information to the reader? Would it not be better if all award navboxes were in default blue, so that the awards would all be consistently formatted and easily discernible from the team award and succession navboxes? As for conference colors, quick—tell me what the ACC's colors are? Big XII? Big East? I'm not sure conference colors add much, either, other than contributing to the "M&M Effect" for which WP:CBB, WP:NBA, WP:CFB and WP:NFL have been criticized. I'll fight for team colors; corporate and conference colors, well, not so much. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for jumping the gun on the resolved tag. Now that I've heard your rationale for the McDonald's, Gatorade and USA Today navboxes, I may agree that neutral blue would be a good way to go. I'm on the fence about it, so one way or another I won't care. I will, however, argue to the bitter end that conference navboxes need conference colors. It's not arbitrary at all and it doesn't "promote" anything either. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How is an award given by a conference more emblematic with the conference than one sponsored by a company?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it makes no sense have one or two conference-specific navboxes be neutral blue, when dozens more within that conference use the conference's colors. Think of all the Big Ten templates there are that use the Big Ten colors (answer: many). Now how many McDonald's sports templates are there? One. Whereas a company-specific award can be neutral blue since it doesn't break the chain with a slew of other templates, removing the colors from the ACC Basketball Player of the Year will be, frankly speaking, stupid, if you consider all of the other ACC templates out there. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

For the reader who is a regular reader of a subject, it is easier to search for a specific navbox by color for the many athletes who have dozens of them. Suppose I go to the bottom of the Kobe Bryant looking for his Gatorade NPOY template. It is easier to find if it is green than default blue. Same if I go to LeBron James looking for McD MVP or USAT NPOY. I prefer variation in colors because I use navboxes to navigate. This is especially true for football where many top players have 2 or 3 dozen templates. The more the variation is reduced in template colors the less useful the navboxes are because it takes you longer to find the one you want to use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone look for the Gatorade POY on Kobe Bryant's page more often than the NBA Finals MVP or NBA MVP awards - all of which use the default colors? I think there needs to be a good reason to go away from defaults. My other question might be why so many HS awards suddenly rate templates in the first place, but that's a question for another day. Rikster2 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by more than these other templates? What I am saying is that when I use certain templates I find them looking for colors. Gatorade is one of them. Am I the only person who feels the when about 20 templates are there it is easiest to look for the green one than read all the titles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is official color branding for an entity, then we should reflect that color in the navbox. The McDonald's All-American Game has official logos and branding. That these colors are identical or affine to McDonald's own corporate colors, so be it. Those are also the colors of the game. The "M&M" criticisms notwithstanding, the colors provide context and allow a user to make quick reads to sort through a stack of navboxes. There is utility in that. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In that example, McDonald's may have a branded color but Gatorade and USA Today don't. There are things we get criticized that are worth fighting for and there are some that aren't. The colors fall in the latter bucket to me. Rikster2 (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the key is whether the colors extend to the collateral for the award or game itself. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Team season articles

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see we have all the NCAA champion team season articles up. I am frequently disappointed looking for final four team info. I think we should have team season articles for all final four team season. Today, I was trying to look up the Billy Donovan-led 1986-87 Providence Friars men's basketball team that included Delray Brooks who had transferred from Indiana by that point. They have no information. The Friars have only been to two final fours. Those teams should have articles. Should we do a checkup on where we stand in this regard. Also, all NIT champs should have team season articles, IMO. Thoughts. I could make a list at some point if people agree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there are too many initiatives for the project going on and limited resources that are willing to work on them. Just on this page we have suggestions for completing conference POY articles, Championship assistant coach articles, NCAA season articles, etc. I am also trying to complete articles for all notable championship team members. I think we need to drive some of this stuff to the ground instead of adding new priorities. Focused work on a couple of these means we might actually complete something. Personally, I feel a push to finish articles for those who appear on templates as that kills 2 birds with 1 stone. I am not willing to work on Final Four teams at this point in time. Rikster2 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rikster. We don't have the manpower that the college football project has to take on this many initiatives. My personal opinion is that, while Final Four team season articles are notable/needed, they're so low on the priority list that notable players and coaches (especially ones who fall on 2+ templates) are much more important to make for this WikiProject right now. To wit, I haven't gotten to making it yet, but Rashad Phillips is a two-time Horizon League POY as well as the 2001 Pomeroy Award winner. His article creation trumps the 1986–87 Providence team season. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this wouldn't be a worthwhile thing to undertake. I just think if you start 100 initiatives none of them get done. The truth is that there are tons of notable college basketball subjects that don't have articles. We could be busy for the next 20 years doing this stuff. Rikster2 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you may have already seen this, but Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Final Four seasons has all of the Final Four articles currently created. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That category gives me a good perspective of things. Assuming that the category is included in all the articles that it should be, We are only set going back to 2007. Before that just about every season is missing some teams.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to be honest. For me, it's hard to see why Final Four team articles are a high priotity when half the national champion pages are bare bones affairs with little info/prose on them. If anything the priority should be on improving those first. Rikster2 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:United States men's national basketball team members

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Does a FIBA U-19 player belong in the Category:United States men's national basketball team members?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Further query What does that say about Goodwill Games, Pan American Games and other international non-age divisioned competition?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought - Generally, USA Basketball considers the Olympics and the World Championships - as well as the qualifying tournaments for each - to be our "National team" (see this link). I think the category should reflect that. In other words, no PanAm team members. Rikster2 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the prose in an article about an age-divisioned representative or a Pan Am game team member. Do we say they were on Team USA for FIBA U-19 or on the national team or what? I.E., even if the category is limited to the definition you mention, how do we describe their service in terms of prose. Since we use medal boxes more liberally (E.G., Christian Laettner or Grant Hill) than the categorical definition, what is proper for prose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, its only my opinion that this is what the category should include. If others agree (and frankly this is probably more for WP:Basketball than for here) the prose should say it's for US senior national team members - defined by USA Basketball as the Olympics, FIBA WCs andtheir qualifying tournaments. I don't think that has to marry up with the medal boxes - those are legitimate tournament results - though deciding where to draw the line on those probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Rikster2 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging and updating all current editorial calls

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Two-time POYS

America East

• Jamar Wilson

Atlantic 10

• Earl Belcher
• Greg Jones (basketball)

Big West

• Richie Adams
• Jerry Green (basketball player)

Horizon League

• Rashad Phillips (Pomeroy Award) → Jrcla2

Ivy League

• Ugonna Onyekwe

MEAC

• James Ratiff
• Stephen Stewart (basketball)

Patriot League

• Brian Ehlers

Southern

• John Taft (basketball)
• Regan Truesdale

Southland

• Larry Jeffries
• Ryan Stuart

SWAC

• Randy Bolden
• Adarrial Smylie

National champion assistant coaches

To head coach

Shawn Finney (1997–98 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Tulane

Delray Brooks (1995–96 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) HC at Texas–Pan American (Other WP articles mentioning him include Indiana Mr. Basketball, USA Today All-USA high school basketball team#Boys' Basketball Players and Coaches of the Year, Mr. Basketball USA, Providence Friars men's basketball, A Season on the Brink (film), 1993–94 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, 1994–95 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, 1996–97 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, Coaching legacy of Bob Knight, Steve Alford, Al Thompson (actor), {{USA Today National Basketball Player of the Year}})

Jene Davis (1980–81 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team) - HC at Furman

Joe Dean, Jr. (1977–78 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at UCF

Tay Baker (1960–61& 1961–62 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team ) - HC at Cincinnati & Xavier

Tom Abatemarco (1982–83 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team) - HC at Drake, Lamar and Sacramento St

James "Buck" Freeman (1956–57 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team) - HC at St. John's

Marty Marbach (1984–85 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Canisius

Nolan Richardson III (1993–94 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team) - HC at Tennessee State

Other

Andre LaFleur (2010–11 and 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team) - Award winning international pro player (also listed at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career assists leaders, which suggests he formerly held the NCAA DI career assists record until Sherman Douglas surpassed him)

Dave Hanners (1992–93 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team)-NBA assistant

Troy Weaver (2002–03 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team))-NBA assistant

National champions infobox assistant coach research

None listed

1983–84 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team

1958–59 California Golden Bears men's basketball team

1953–54 La Salle Explorers men's basketball team

1943–44 Utah Utes men's basketball team

1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team

1941–42 Stanford Indians men's basketball team

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team

Less than 3 listed and unconfirmed as complete

1976–77 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team

European basketball research

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not skilled at researching the European careers of American players. Can anyone help me find out what team(s) Kit Mueller played for in Europe?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony- it isn't all in one place. If the player doesn't have a profile on eurobasket.com (or the sister sites like asiabasket or latinbasket), this one sometimes has good info: http://en.basketball.doudiz.com/ . Some leagues like Australia and Spain host their media guides on-line while Italy and Germany have player databases hosted on their sites. Language is often an issue. Also, euroleague.com has good info and the Turkish league has a good fan site. My advice is put what you know in and just let other wikipedians fill in the gaps. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Team season navboxes

Resolved

 – Merge season navboxes into team navboxes to reduce template clutter. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Should {{Princeton Tigers basketball}} and/or {{Princeton Tigers men's basketball teams}} be on individual season articles? Should both exist?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For now I would just put the season navbox on the individual season articles. I'm in favor merging these navboxes. You can see what I recently did with Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox to merged what was once two navboxes. I intend to offer this up for more discussion and then hopefully get buy-in to roll something like this out across college football and basketball. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of merging the navboxes and standardizing them as we had discussed on this talk page earlier. Also getting rid of the retired number navboxes as a part of the effort. Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

High school template categories

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Since a lot of the high school basketball editorial manpower comes from this project, I thought you might want to be aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#High_school_template_categories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports rivalry navbox discussion notice

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised of college sports rivalry navbox discussions going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Rivalry_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports rivalry infobox discussion notice

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Be advised of discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#New_infobox_template_for_rivalries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Final Scores on Team Season Pages

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I did not find any relevant information on this topic. Is there a convention on which score to list first in the results section of team season pages? I've always thought that the high score comes first in all contexts, as that is the proper way to say it speech-wise. I see that more and more pages are listing the team's score first, regardless of a win or loss, and some pages list it both ways when more than one person updates scores. Thanks. Andzroid64 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A third possible convention is to list the home team last, especially in box score format. I prefer high score first myself, but do not know convention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion the higher score goes first, since as you say, that's how you'd say it speaking. There is no "rule" to do it either way though. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of this format; this is taken directly from the examples page of the CBB Schdule Entry template:

Date time, TV	Opponent	Result	Record	Site city, state
11/12/2007* no, no	Grace South Padre Island Invitational	W 90-59	1-0	Athletics-Recreation Center  Valparaiso, IN
11/15/2007* no, no	IPFW	W 74-64	1-1 (0-1)	Allen County War Memorial Coliseum  Fort Wayne, IN
*Non-conference game. (#) Tournament seedings in parentheses. All times are in Central Time.

Some editors are getting adamant about listing losses as 64–74 as opposed to 74–64 and are changing pages that do not follow that convention. Andzroid64 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll change the one I've been doing if I have to, but I was only following what everyone else did, and also per the team's website, many of which follow this same layout. Seems like very small potatoes. Feel free to fix all the pages if there's consensus. I'll only fix the page I'm working on, and that's it. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually prefer higher score first, but I've been putting the team's score first because it seemed more and more the common way to do it. ~ Richmond96 t • c 18:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This topic was recently discussed at WP:College football; see here. Jweiss11 (talk)

Define neutral game?

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for a consistent way to mark neutral games on the team schedule templates. For example, Kentucky vs. Kansas in New York is definitely a neutral-site game, but what about when a team plays one game in a nearby city, such as Alabama playing in Birmingham, Kansas State playing in Kansas City? Then there are instances such as Georgia Tech playing in Phillips Arena and DePaul playing in the United Center. Should any of these be marked home games? ~ Richmond96 t • c 20:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see all of the above examples considered "neutral site" games, because it points out that the game is not being played in the normal home arena. ~ Richmond96 t • c 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the defining characteristic is how tickets are sold. If tickets are split between the schools and/or primarily distributed through/by third parties (as in tournaments and bowl games) it is neutral. If tickets are sold by one school, with the other school distributing something like a normal visitor's allotment, that's not a neutral game, regardless of where it is played. cmadler (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

High School Basketball

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

After working on Jabari Parker (which is likely to become the first high school basketball WP:GA to my knowledge) and Mitch McGary, I was wondering if there should be a WikiProject for either high school sports or specifically for high school basketball. There are a lot of athletes at this level who pass WP:GNG. In order to keep the conversation in one place, comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#High_School_Basketball.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Socoby for deletion

Resolved

 – Deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

ESPN college stats disappeared

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am noticing that ESPN has now redirected college stat pages to pro stat pages. E.g., see the external links section for Evan Turner, where http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=36135 and http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=4239 both point to his pro stats now. Is there a way to point to the college stats anymore?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

They combined both NBA and college stats now, you can go into Stats tab, and then choose College button under the tabs. The new url for Evan Turner's college stats is: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/4239/type/college/evan-turner. — MT (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of obtuse. The conversion for the NFL athletes was much more seemless. See Brandon Graham's els such as http://espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=191442, which still points to his college stats even though they are better integrated with his pro profile.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

High school boy's basketball All-American article discussion

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#High_school_boy.27s_basketball_All-American if you would like to participate in this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

American boys high school basketball underclass POY templates

FYI

 – —Jrcla2 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Join discussion on this subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#High_School_basketball_underclass_POY_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delray Brooks

I am going to need some help filling in the infobox for Delray Brooks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

need basketball season infobox

Could someone please create a template for an infobox for college basketball season that can be used on the conference season pages? There is one for college football currently, but not for college basketball. My thoughts are that it should include the standard conference name, logo, number of teams, divisions (if applicable), length of season, and links to the previous and next season. I believe it should also include the regular season champion, conference tournament champion (if applicable), conference player of the year, and number of teams who made it to the NCAA tournament. Any thoughts? I've never created a template and don't know that I want to acquire that skill just yet. Right now, a conference season has to use just a generic sports season infobox (see 2011–12 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnbailey09 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think the infobox should contain all of what you said as well, minus the number of teams who made it to the NCAA Tournament (although I'm not married to the idea either way, so if consensus thought it should then I'm not going to care too much). Problem is, I don't think any WP:CBBALL regulars know how to code, and all of our infoboxes have come from other helpers. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conference player of the year template completion update

Project team: We've done some nice work on completing these since the call went out, so I wanted to update progress. Here is the updated list of missing two-time conference Players of the Year:

America East

• Jamar Wilson

Atlantic 10

• Earl Belcher
• Greg Jones (basketball)

Big West

• Richie Adams
• Jerry Green (basketball player)

Ivy League

• Ugonna Onyekwe

MEAC

• James Ratiff
• Stephen Stewart (basketball)

Patriot League

• Brian Ehlers

Southern

• Regan Truesdale <-- User:Billcasey905 will do

Southland

• Larry Jeffries
• Ryan Stuart

SWAC

• Randy Bolden
• Adarrial Smylie

Another way to look at these is to look at how complete individual templates are. The following conference POY templates are complete: American South, ACC, Atlantic 10, Big 12, Big East, Big Eight, Big Ten, CAA, Conference USA, Great Midwest, Great West, PAC-12, and SEC.

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

• Mountain West - 2
• West Coast Conference - 2
• Metro Conference - 2
• WAC - 3
• Horizon League - 9
• Summit League - 9
• Missouri Valley Conference - 10
• America East - 10

• East Coast Conference - 12
• MAAC - 12
• Patriot League - 12
• Sun Belt - 13
• Big South - 14
• SWAC - 14
• Ohio Valley - 15
• Big West - 17

• Mid-American - 17
• Atlantic Sun - 18
• Big Sky - 18
• Northeast - 19
• Ivy League - 21
• MEAC - 21
• Southern Conference - 27
• Southland - 29

Please take a look and create any that interest you. Many of these folks also link to NBA Draft templates, Season Leader templates, season articles and All-American articles. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this list together. I will see if I can knock out one or two 2-timers this weekend. I didn't realize that the Southland Conference POY navbox was so drastically underpopulated with blue link articles, although it does make sense since it's a pretty bad conference overall. The Southern Conference is so old that it's no surprise many of these players don't have articles yet. I wish that I had the ability to knock out 5 articles a day and cruise through these navboxes - oh well, I'll see what I can do anyway. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Atlantic 10 completed. I have updated the conference counts (at least I think I'm right). Keep up the good work! Rikster2 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

NCAA champion Assitant coaches

A few months ago, I asked for help researching some notable assistants. Here is an update on articles needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

National champion assistant coaches

To head coach

Shawn Finney (1997–98 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Tulane

Jene Davis (1980–81 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team) - HC at Furman

Joe Dean, Jr. (1977–78 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at UCF

Tay Baker (1960–61& 1961–62 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team ) - HC at Cincinnati & Xavier

Tom Abatemarco (1982–83 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team) - HC at Drake, Lamar and Sacramento St

James "Buck" Freeman (1956–57 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team) - HC at St. John's

Marty Marbach (1984–85 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Canisius

Nolan Richardson III (1993–94 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team) - HC at Tennessee State

Other

Andre LaFleur (2010–11 and 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team) - Award winning international pro player (also listed at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career assists leaders, which suggests he formerly held the NCAA DI career assists record until Sherman Douglas surpassed him). Note: FWIW, some sources suggest that he was not the third assistant in 03-04, including a couple of his own university bios at UConn and Providence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dave Hanners (1992–93 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team)-NBA assistant

Troy Weaver (2002–03 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team))-NBA assistant

Harry Lancaster (1948, 1949, 1951 and 1958 Kentucky) - baseball HC at Kentucky

National champions infobox assistant coach research

None listed

1958–59 California Golden Bears men's basketball team

1953–54 La Salle Explorers men's basketball team

1943–44 Utah Utes men's basketball team

1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team

1941–42 Stanford Indians men's basketball team

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team

Less than 3 listed and unconfirmed as complete

1976–77 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team

Convention for vacated wins

An editor has removed vacated wins from UCLA Bruins men's basketball. I found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_3#Calipari_and_Vacated_Wins which refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories. While it is clear the vacated wins should be mentioned somehow, is there a convention on

1. Do vacated NCAA tournament wins show up in the infobox with a footnote or not shown at all?
2. Do the vacated wins get noted in the body of the article by a footnote that the totals exclude X vacated wins, or including the win but noting they were vacated?

The edit above has removed mention in both the infobox and the body.—Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the vacated wins should be included in the year-by-year results with a footnote reference next to it. For an example of what I mean, check out the 2011–12 season at Jim Calhoun#Head coaching record. It shows all of the wins but then has a footnote, with reference as to what the adjusted record is. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Any thoughts on the infobox at the beginning of UCLA Bruins men's basketball, which lists the teams NCAA tourney appearances? Show with footnote that it was vacated, or dont list the appearance at all?—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think, for consistency's sake, it would be preferable to list it with a footnote. Technically they earned their win into it, but due to retroactive sanctions it was a vacated appearance. It's kind of like Reggie Bush being stripped of the Heisman Trophy - accepting money or a car did nothing to help him perform on the football field, so he truly earned that award. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable convention, and is consistent with the presentation in UCLA Bruins men's basketball before the recent edits. Just to be clear, the infobox would show something like:

NCAA Tournament appearances: 1999, 2000*

*vacated by NCAA

I'll wait a few more days for further input, and will also put a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories. We can make this more explicit in the essay to avoid future questions.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this convention. We need to provide the information to the readers that 1) the game was won, and 2) that the game was vacated by the NCAA. Simply removing the win from the article does neither. Having the win with the asterisk is the way to go. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you leave the year in the infobox with an asterisk, as is shown. This is likely how it is listed in the NCAA Records Book. Someone might want to check that. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)