Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association

Conference finals mvp

Why can’t we just include conference finals MVP’s for Jokic, Curry, Tatum and Butler and players moving forward? I get it’s new but so it’s clutch player of the year and that’s on the wiki resumes. I feel conference finals MVPs is a significant award, especially being named after Magic and Bird, and more than likely the greats will win (like finals mvp) so it’s a relevant award I feel, plus it shows as well who won that conference if they didn’t win the finals but won conference finals mvp. 73.176.156.52 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's never been a consensus to include the clutch award.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct; if any particular NBA-related award doesn't appear at WP:NBASTYLE#NBA highlights, then there is no consensus for its inclusion in infoboxes, and thus by default stays out of infoboxes unless and until a contrary consensus is reached per the WP:ONUS policy clause which stipulates The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Left guide (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does Luka have western Conference Finals MVP in his box resume but others like Jokic, Tatum, Steph, etc... don't? Again, it seems these resumes are very biased when it comes to who gets what included. Luka got like 30 and a lot aren't even necessary from his overseas days. Just saying, if we don't include for Jokic, Tatum, Steph, etc... keep it consistent and don't include for Luka. 2603:300A:1618:EC00:A0BE:6850:7D71:20C7 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

All players who have won Conference Finals MVP award should have their award mentioned on their resume in my opinion. Luka, Steph, Jokic, Tatum, Jimmy and Jaylen Brown. All. It's literally an award and it got mentioned many other basketball websites such as basketballreference.com. Conference Finals MVP players have their award in their resume. It should be on Wikipedia too. Mypthegoat (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And Luka's other awards or achievenmets are all legal and must be mentioned. It's players whole career resume for a reason. If you are an editor of another player you should have a right to edit that part. Mypthegoat (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I strongly Support Conference finals MVP awards for all prominent displays such as infoboxes and templates (both template for the award and link in championship team template). I.e., the way baseball includes LCSMVP in templates like {{2023 Texas Rangers}}, we should include conference finals MVP in templates like {{Denver Nuggets 2022–23 NBA champions}}-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose adding conference finals MVP. It is not a terminal MVP award and we have not included them for this reason. It is one of many ways to manage the volume of bullets in the infobox, especially for highly accomplished players like Jokic, Curry, Tatum etc. The highlights list is not supposed to be every single accomplishment for a player. I have no objection of people want to add the designation to the NBA champion template, though you could see a lot of the same player winning both, which is a little different than baseball. Rikster2 (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment A related guideline is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

  When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

  —Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand why we don’t include it, but another good reason on why we could include it is because it also highlights for readers that this player reached the Finals and lost, but his performance in the playoffs was elite enough to warrant a conference finals mvp. For the most part only the greats will get this award besides the every now and then. 2601:249:1B81:1170:19CA:F072:B3CA:41 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Making the Finals and losing has never been something acknowledged in the infobox, that’s about winning championships. Rightfully making the finals would be in the prose and in cases where the player article has a comprehensive list of accomplishments as a section of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

    I strongly support the inclusion as well. The perception of the award as a relevant accolade has reached a point where even foreign media report separately on it: [1]. To say the award would have „equal validity“, as some said, is just false. Nobody discusses the inclusion of the nomination into the all-defensive second team, and yet when it comes to rewarding the Conference Finals MVP, there seems to be a problem. I support the inclusion of the award under the NBA All-x team selections. SdHb (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, mainly because bloating the infobox with new low-level awards dilutes the value of real historically-significant awards. It blatantly violates WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE and other policy clauses. It's better for a player like LeBron or Curry to have 10 well-respected awards in the infobox, rather than 20 of which half are relatively meaningless. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Put another way, adding Conference Finals MVP and Clutch Award to the infobox artificially elevates them to a status of equal validity as regular season MVP, All-Star appearances, All-NBA team selections, DPOY, and the like not seen in the real world, which is a clear case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Left guide (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ay, just saying, look at Twitter and the reactions from Brown winning over Tatum. Seeing a whole lot “Tatum led series in pts Rebs and assists for Celtics but brown won” tweets. People care and pay attention to this award. It’s given right after the series win on the podium in front of the crowd and national television 2601:249:1B81:1170:875:9247:423D:562A (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

People on Twitter got upset about a girl that dunked Pop Tarts in ranch dressing, that doesn't make it notable.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, it does make it notable. Notability is determined by society, not you. 12.178.161.66 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

stuff being on Twitter doesn’t make anything inherently notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. Rikster2 (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments are ludicrous. Two awards being in the same info-box does not in any way imply that they are of equal validity or equal esteem. And the conference finals MVP is not a "lower-level" award anyway. A player is rewarded for being the best player in the second biggest series of the year and leading their team to the finals. It also notifies people that the player has a finals appearance, which is no small feat. The award is a direct and objective measure of playoff success. Bagumba's argument-- "The less information in an info box, the better" is ridiculous too. Have you seen LeBron's infobox? Do you think his First Team Parade All-American selections or his McDonald's All-American MVP awards are more significant achievements than if he were to get a conference finals MVP? If the goal truly is to convey the most important information to the reader, direct indicators of playoff success should arguably be placed higher than All-Star selections and/or All-NBA selections. The conference finals award ought to be included in info-boxes, and it should go above or below MVP. The only sound argument against it is the fact that the award's title is so long, and therefore makes things a bit less clean and concise. 12.178.161.66 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that it is not a "lower-level" award is baseless. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you, and your various IPs.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Honors at various levels are not compared. Professional honors are considered as a set, college honors are considered as a set and high school honors are considered as a set. There are only about 5 high school highlights that go in the infobox list, a much higher percentage of NBA highlights do. In no case is every single honor included, otherwise for a player like LeBron you’d have an absurdly long infobox. The point of the infobox is not meant to include everythingRikster2 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I gave a thorough argument why it should be considered among the highest level of awards. I understand by "baseless" you mean I need a concrete citation supporting it. The NBA's official award history page lists the awards under "latest". They also have a page dedicated to the award here. These two pages are so available, obvious, and impossible to miss that I'm sure you have seen them already. As others have said, the NBA also officially acknowledges these awards at the end of the close-out games during the celebration. They are literally named in honor of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. It is as close to objectively being held in high-esteem as any award. Where must the awards be listed such that they can be regarded in high enough esteem to be listed in info-boxes? Does it need to be listed on the history page under the more "official" bullet points, rather than merely under "latest"? If that's the case, where is KAT's social justice award in his info-box? Why can't I find any Twyman-Stokes Teammate of the year awards in info-boxes? Where is the Hustle award? Where is the Clutch player award? I understand that I may be straw-manning you; I'm only searching for consistency.

If I'm not understanding something, let me know. I only learned about these "talk pages" last night, and you can see I don't even have a Wikipedia account. I am just an NBA fan who wants to see players rewarded for their feats and achievements, and Conference Finals MVP awards are greater feats than 80% of the stuff typically listed in info-boxes, as well as being more telling of the player's identity because it concretely indicates playoff success. One of the first things a page visitor ought to see is that the player led his team to the finals. Put it in the info-box or no, I don't care that much. But know that these citations that you seek are a bit more arbitrary than you seem to think. 12.178.161.66 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean if we're being completely honest, is "Mr. Show-Me Basketball 2016" more applicable to an NBA's player career resume over Conference Finals MVP? If so, then so be it. "Mr. Georgia Basketball 2016" has more reason to be on here over Conference Finals MVP in the NBA? I don't know, y'all keep telling me there's a criteria this and criteria that but having stuff like Mr. Show-Me Basketball, Mr. Georgia, Serbian Player of the Year, etc... seems like that criteria is convenient based for sure.2603:300A:1618:EC00:159B:96F9:49AE:6EC8 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, there are about 5 high school achievements that qualify for the infobox, state Mr basketball is one of them. There is already a significantly lower bar for NBA achievements, a reflection that the pro level achievements are more important. But the other thing that has always been the case for the basketball infobox is that “runner up” finishes and accomplishments intentionally weren’t added to the infobox. All that stuff is great for the prose, nobody is saying it’s useless. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I respect the reasoning for sure. I also agree that not every award or feat should be listed just because it’s relevant. However, in terms of conference finals MVP, I feel it adds more value and credibility to that specific resume or player over certain other awards or feats, just my opinion. It tells a greater story in a short and concise phrase “Conference Finals MVP” - best player in the that playoff conference essentially (not always but usually). I’ll stop with this one, I respect all the choices! 2600:1008:B0C9:A678:712B:CF7:B9CF:3C0A (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba's argument-- "The less information in an info box, the better" is ridiculous too.: It was not an "argument". It was marked "comment", and is merely a quote from a Wikipedia guideline. —Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. 2A02:3030:619:5347:61F9:1EE6:DF54:6EF8 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the Conference Finals are significant and important series, with the NBA awarding trophies for them. The NBA recognizes these as major and important awards – there is even an award presentation at the end of the series – and Wikipedia should reflect that. H-Hurry (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support Thinking pragmatically, I just don't think it is productive to keep pushing back on this. It's an official award that is getting a lot of attention, and I don't feel that it's fundamentally less important than the All-Star Game MVPs or something like All-Rookie Second Team. Zagalejo (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per reasons given above. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, they do the same thing with MLB when they give the MVP of the conference championship. Just because it’s a recently added award doesn’t mean you can’t added since it really has value just like with the In Season tournament championship. Agararol81 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support like I said above it's a legimate award and it's getting mentioned everywhere, it has a significance important too. Many basketball websites includes them so why not Wikipedia too. It should be mentioned for all 6 players in their resume so far. Mypthegoat (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments above. In addition, all of the awards should be completely removed from infobox. – sbaio 11:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Suport per arguments stated above. It's a legimate award that the NBA recognizes as a major award to declare the best player of the each Conference series. Just because it’s an award that was introduced in 2022 it doesn’t mean it has no value so I agree it should be included for every winner moving forward. Agararol81 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is a legit take. The soccer and ice hockey player infoboxes do not have a separate parameters for awards and achievements, while basketball, American football and baseball have these, and these ultimately turn into a discussion such as this on which award or milestone to add on the infobox. Cristiano Ronaldo's infobox is so much shorter than Lebron' s, for example. Unless the specific award was discussed in depth in the article, I don't think it should be listed in the infobox. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's a certain segment of editors that dont read prose, and just concentrate on ibxs and tables. These awards are missing in most leads, but debate rarely happens on prose. Ideally, the ibx should mostly reflect what's already in the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  So in theory, only the awards and achievements found in leads should be in the infobox. Is this where you are getting at? Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly that's not a bad idea, and could make for a good simple rule-of-thumb that more or less aligns with WP:DUE. Left guide (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd somewhat agree, but again we'd have another discussion like this everywhere. I don't think all of Lebron's awards are discussed on the lead or even at the article in depth at all. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW at WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS: A good rule of thumb is to only list awards that would be expected to be mentioned in the lead if it were a featured article. Other awards less notable to the biography should instead be mentioned in the body of the article. —Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with this is that kind of definition is different for everyone. What kind of award is suitable for an FA lead? Leads - and infoboxes - are sumamaries of the prose. I haven't read Lebron's article; is it mentioned that he has a 4-6 Finals record? That's a major argument starter in popular media when someone brings up if he's the GOAT.

  For example, just in this discussion, WP:NBA regulars are near uninamous in excluding this award, but "outsiders" are atthe very least open to the idea. Then someone brings up an all-encompassing Luka cabal LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just now realized there's a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/What merits inclusion in an infobox that offers project-level advice for this exact scenario. Left guide (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  "[U]se your judgment and give appropriate weight to all factors" is very helpful in avoiding discussions such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly can't say I remember editing this. FWIW, it's not oft-cited. —Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Let’s just include Conference Finals MVP for every one who’s won it. It’s on basketball reference and it’s a pretty significant award considering it’s announced right after the game in front of the national televised audience. And for the most part only the top tier players will win it as we’ve seen so far, so it’s gonna be relevant. It shows just how elite that player was in that playoff run/series. 2601:249:1B81:1170:F4C3:F71E:DADB:2B2C (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

+1. Very good summary, let‘s do it. 2A02:3030:617:53C9:19A:29F:B893:E1D4 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"Gonna be relevant" is textbook WP:CRYSTAL.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose secondary award, may be appropriate in prose. Also, majority !votes don't always win.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Look at Luka's award box and tell me whether Trofeo Costa De Sol champion is worth more or more relevant than a conference finals NBA MVP. Like let's be honest here, this wiki is hugely bias towards Luka, as you guys even included Conference Finals MVP for him before someone pointed it out and eventually it was taken out. Like who are we kidding here, EB Next Generation Tournament champion qualifies to be in a players basketball resume but not NBA Conference Finals MVP, HA. I needed a good chuckle, Trofeo Costa De Sol, EB Next Generation, etc.. Luka Stans getting wild. 2603:300A:1618:EC00:43:DA4A:D41D:10DF (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Yes, the awards are new(ish), so we don't have a lot of precedence to rely upon, but third-party coverage of these awards has pretty strong since their introduction and has increased in the ensuing couple of years. So, by Wikipedia standards, their notability has been demonstrated. And since these are significant awards, a player winning them is a significant career achievement, and should be in their infobox. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support inclusion third-party coverage of the award is significant. It is treated as a major award by the media. Judging by the comments of players themselves like Jaylen Brown, the players treat it as such as well. See, for example Why Jaylen Brown was surprised to win series MVP after leading Celtics to NBA Finals: ‘I don’t ever win s—‘ New York Times]--User:Namiba 16:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. How does consensus work? There are significantly more people in favor of the award's inclusion than against at this point. Time to put the award in the info-box. Are you going to keep reverting edits until the end of time? Sullenwolf (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  It hurts their Luka agenda, they need to include as much as they can for Luka but not the other players. It’s actually evident and noticeable how bias Wiki towards Luka 2600:1008:B211:C506:297A:F96A:A45A:7A81 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in favor of including the award, but this argument doesn't help anything. There is no grand conspiracy to elevate Luka. Different people work on different articles, and edits aren't monitored in a consistent manner. That's just the nature of Wikipedia. Zagalejo (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  The more likely situation is that whatever is listed for the NBA seems to mistakenly give carte blanche for similar treatment for other leagues. And few are knowledgable enough on global basketball to perhaps remove some, which anyways might start accusations of NBA or even U.S. bias. —Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  How does consensus work?: See Wikipedia:Consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Game 1 or game 1edit]

I've seen it both ways (including inconsistencies within individual articles) and didn't see anything in the style guidelines. When referring to a specific playoff game in a series, should it be referred to as "Game X" or "game X", where X represents the game number? Useight (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, MOS:CAPS begins: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22 § Capitalization of "Week" in "Week #" in Articles, they seem to have went with lowercase. —Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I can get to lower-casing the upper-cased ones that I find, even though I find the upper-cased version to be more aesthetically pleasing. Useight (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

New stats pagesedit]

Just created three new NBA career stats pages:

• List of NBA career personal fouls leaders
• List of NBA career technical fouls leaders
• List of NBA career ejections leaders

I started with a simple list of rankings, names, and units but I was wondering if it's possible to get a fuller table with more complete player info like the other pages in {{NBA statistical leaders}}. I tagged them with {{List to table}} accordingly. I lack the energy and inclination to work through all of the wikitable source coding since it's not something I'm super efficient at, but if anyone else is willing to take it on, it would be extremely welcomed and appreciated.

p.s. the technical fouls page can also benefit from updates since the full 20-player overview-level master list I cited is from June 2021 and some of the players on the list have been active since then, so more recent citations for them on an individual basis would be helpful. Left guide (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

NBA win–loss record page needs assistanceedit]

An IP editor has been making edits, that while I am assuming are done with well-meaning intent, have been largely unconstructive. Please see the message I left on the article's talk page for further context, but the main gist of it is these edits have made the article bloated and less presentable.

Here is a comparison between:

• The April 26, 2024 version, prior to the bulk of these IP edits.
• The current version of the page (at least as of me leaving this message)
• The June 25, 2024 version prior to this IP editor reverting my restoration of my attempt to incorporate some of the info they've added, while also gutting the bloated-ness and undue weight added to topics such as the NBA Cup over on that page.

It is worth noting this editor has not made any edit summaries save for "dead url" on the most recent one, which I assume means they've read my edit summaries asking them to go to the talk page discussion and ignored that.

Also pinging @Wiiformii: as you reverted their edits, but then undid this stating the reversion was accidental. I do mostly agree with your initial assessment of the edits being unconstructive. Aside from the issue I mentioned in my post on the talk page discussion, the IP editor(s) have also added a slew of overlinking. Soulbust (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note the third version I linked above is the version I believe would be best to work on going forward. Soulbust (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice! Thank you for letting me know because I saw 7 revisions and assumed good faith in the edits, I did not notice the removal of dead links and manual of style issues, but I also think that revision is the most appropriate, I just think the IP needs to possibly read the manual of style for articles. Wiiformii (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There are definitely some things I think are constructive, such as the various notes about teams' histories regarding their ABA records. However, a good chunk of their edits are not all too helpful imo, particularly the undue weight placed on the NBA Cup information and the over-linking of pages throughout the article, especially in the see also section. Soulbust (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Portland Trail Blazers

Portland Trail Blazers has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)