Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

It seems there's a Triple Crown (women's basketball), so the name Triple Crown (basketball) is ambiguous. Also there's existing links to "Triple Crown (basketball)" at Template:Panathinaikos B.C. and Template:Olympiacos B.C., as there's European Basketball Triple Crown. —Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Yeah, I saw the women's and Euro ones. Problem is, those are of dubious notability and seem to be WP:OR. I did some cursory searching for sources on those; might be worthy of PROD or AfD at some point. This NBA/NCAA/Oly one is likely a primary topic in any case. If I'm wrong, Triple Crown (American basketball) is probably an appropriate fallback option. For now, feel free to add hatnotes as desired. Left guide (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I'll check and fix the template links after I finish the category run on the player articles, don't sweat it. Thanks for the heads-up though. Left guide (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to ponder: in the lower half of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 40 § Anthony Davis Grand Slam, there's discussion of Triple Crown, and yet even more definitions. —Bagumba (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Holy mackerel, I just read through that discussion and it seems like it was a very contentious matter, and I really don't have the mood or energy to get involved in contentious matters. I try not to get too attached to any one topic area, it saves my sanity. Left guide (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat remembered the topic, but then didnt recall that it got slightly drawn out. Haha. —Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS for Basketball Network? I only found MSN aggregating it's content.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Don't know, but the achievement seems to have been picked up in a non-English book which I haven't had the time to translate, and it's also discussed in KC Jones obituaries. With everything combined, I believe GNG is satisfied. Left guide (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jones is likely the WP:CITOGENESIS effect of people lifting info from WP. His bio had it before his death,[1] cited to a bloggy post on a since defunct site. —Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Well actually for Wikipedia's purposes, the reliability of a source isn't automatically negated by where they get their information from. If they have a trustworthy editorial staff that we deem suitable for RS purposes, then they likely verified the info against basketball-reference or similar databases. I sometimes see peer-reviewed academic journals regularly cite blogs and other sources deemed generally unreliable on Wikipedia. Many reliable sources engage in original research, and every piece of information had to start out as a primary source somewhere. Some reliable sources cite their sources, but it's not a requirement for our purposes. Left guide (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All true. But what I'm saying is that if most of the sources are just Jones obits, its highly likely they just pulled it from WP. So its "significance" is circular. For all the false information I see in press obits that is also in WP, the idea that "reliable sources" actually vet out WP is dubious, esp. w/ obits. AP often pulls. I don't think I've come across it with The NY Times, but they're a dying breed. —Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume its notable for now (haven't really looked much more), but I'm thinking it's such a niche term, that it doesn't belong in the bios' leads (MOS:LEADREL). I might get around to moving it to the body.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: When KC Jones died, the feat was mentioned in his obituaries, so clearly it's due in the lead for a "lesser" player like him as part of a summary of his life/biography. So I’d say keep it for them. For the all-time greats like Jordan, Russell, and Magic, if it's not worthy of being mentioned in their obituaries when they die, then it's probably not worthy for the lead. Did any of Russell's obituaries talk about it? Left guide (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your prod of the women's page. I thought it'd be the same concept as European Basketball Triple Crown, so possibly merge, except that's been tagged for years as unsourced too. Oh well, litterally out of my league haha.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: The Euro men's one is more complicated than the women's. It's been here on en.wiki for over a decade and I believe it survived an AfD, it has an article in 10 foreign language Wikipedias, one in which I found a Turkish secondary source that might establish notability, and aside from that the men's feat seems to get reported on in European foreign language media. The women's one I feel more confident is not notable, the article is only seven months old and the creator is autopatrolled, so I was probably the first "outsider" to notice it, nobody else edited it before, and it's only in one foreign language Wikipedia which is unsourced. More importantly, I searched and couldn't find any sources indicating it's even a real thing, which means it seems to be pure WP:OR, borderline hoax. Left guide (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages: Other sites don't necessarily have similar notability standards as en.WP, so that may or may not be signficant (WP:OTHERSTUFFish). I guess you could see if they have reliable sources that can be borrowed (though I always thought most English editors wouldn't know a reliable from a non-reliable non-English site). —Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Yeah, I know. And enforceability of notability standards isn't guaranteed either, but my main point is I'm hesitant to prod/AfD it without in-depth research (which I may not have time for) due to a longer more complicated article history combined with more sourcing plausibly available for the topic. Left guide (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Yeah, you have no obligation to pursue deletion (WP:VOLUNTARY). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bagumba: If you're still curious about the matter, I stumbled upon this blog post by a guy named Roy Tomizawa; I did more research on him and he might qualify as a reliable subject-matter expert, particularly for the Olympics. CBS News wrote about him, as did WBUR, which is Boston's NPR arm. He also wrote for The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. Interesting rabbit hole to say the least. Left guide (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Since you challenged the notability of Triple Crown (American basketball) by adding the tag, it seems reasonable and appropriate to discuss Tomizawa more in-depth with you. Upon further research, I discovered that his blog is cited in this book about American sports by Grand Central Publishing, and his blog is also cited and listed in "further reading" in this book by Bloomsbury Publishing in a section about American involvement in the Olympics. Tomizawa's book about the Olympics is cited in this book by Cornell University Press, as well as this book by Springer Nature. One of his blog posts about U.S. Olympic basketball is cited in this book about Olympic basketball by University of Nebraska Press. He, his book, and his blog seem to be getting good-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS from heavyweight sources in this topic area. Here is a listing of his credentials which include major media, interview, and writing opportunities, and here are reviews of his Olympics book. Based on everything discussed in this and the preceding comment, all signs point towards Tomizawa counting as a reliable subject-matter expert. Thoughts? Left guide (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word on him. I added a couple of other mainstream sources too.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removing unjustified tag ... not sure a proper WP:BEFORE search was done by tagger: Regarding your edit summary, there was only two sources at the time it was tagged, one of which was the above-mentioned Basketball Network. Also, WP:BEFORE C3 reads:

If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag...

BEFORE is more steps about to take prior to an AfD. If signficant sources were already cited, the tag wouldn't have been needed. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had tagged the "Player profile" section a while back.[2] Without looking at page history, I might have started that section, and definitely added most of the content there. I wouldn't have minded if others improved it, but it still remains tagged. If nothing else, it's got citations. Can you explain the "intricate detail" you think is excessive? As for "wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner", I think it should mostly (all?) be sourced, and perhaps I follow the WP:INTEXT guidance too liberally:

Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

Y The sun sets in the west each evening.

Perhaps you find the text too praising? But is there much negative written about him? He was generally beloved, and out of the harsh media scruitiny, being in "small-market" San Diego (and before analytics). Interested in your thoughts. —Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: The two main things I find excessive in the player profile section are the lengthy details about Gwynn's bat size and body shape. In my opinion, that material veers into WP:MTAU territory. Looking deeper, the issues may be caused by the section seeming to heavily rely on sources that are more likely to write for an audience of ardent baseball fans (i.e. MLB, ESPN, Baseball Prospectus), compared to sources like books from mainstream publishers and general-interest newspapers. I think the peacocking seems fine enough for now; you might be surprised at how differently the prose reads after simply removing a few adjectives and adverbs, which is often a very effective remedy for how "small" the edit is. I've been researching a lot about Gwynn lately, and plan to continue doing so; from my research, the article here as a whole seems to be lacking info on the impact of his death on tobacco usage in MLB (i.e. how his death led to the 2016 league-wide tobacco ban for new players). I've found a great deal of sources related to his death and tobacco usage that seems under-covered in the article, but for me writing out encyclopedic prose takes a lot of time. Do you want to help? Left guide (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Inherently, a "player profile" section is more like a scouting report, so it is going to get technical and rely more on domain-specific coverage, as opposed to high-level achievements like awards and rankings, which are more accessible and in general sources. However, the fact that it's isolated to a section means it can be easily skipped, as opposed to scaterring the material throughout.

The body shape I think is one of the few things he was criticized about, and he and a writer or two believe it affected his public image as not being "athletic". It also segues into his being oft-injured. I think you've been the only person who's edited the page much since my overhaul, so a fresh perspective is welcome. I'm not really the GA/FA type, so I never went out actively looking for a peer review, but certainly welcome the critique. I don't smoke, but can't say I have any added interest in the tobacco aspect. Either start adding content, or add the sources to the talk page, and I may or may not be inclined to contribute. It's a mood thing.

My personal style on tagging (and I don't think there's any guidelines, ones way or another) is to flag the egregious stuff, but leave the finer points untagged (e.g. C/B-class and above) to someone looking to improve to GA/FA). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Maybe some subheadings like "Batting style" and "Physical appearance" could be added to ease the length concerns? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: I think that's a very good edit, thank you! Also don't think I've had a talk page stalker before lol, so this is new for me; welcome. Left guide (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was mostly just stalking Bagumba though... hah ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I wouldn't have minded if others improved it. Actually, looking through the page history, the {{fancruft}} tag in the "player profile" section appears to have influenced other users to make these two edits. So it wasn't just me involved in that. For some reason, that article seems to attract newcomers pitching in to help out. Left guide (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Essentially, those two edits look like a form of WP:EDITCONSENSUS where other users use their editing behavior to express agreement with the validity of the fancruft tag for that section, so I'd say keep the tag there for another 2–3 months and see what happens (I believe it populates maintenance categories and newcomer task portals which is good for soliciting the attention of more uninvolved neutral editors); if nobody else touches that section in a meaningful manner over that timespan, it's probably fine to remove the tag. Left guide (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. The concerns are fine, but can you provide more details on the specific sentences or type of content that you believe should be addressed to remove the tag. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I really don't know how to be more granular, but the size and level of detail in that section is different from what I typically see. Part of the problem is I'm somewhat hesitant to remove much of it because it's well-researched good-faith work, and I enjoy reading it and find it personally interesting (so hence may have an editorial bias), but I have doubts as to whether that type of material serves the best interest of the general readership. WP:PR at some point might be ideal. Left guide (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Perhaps the WP:SOLVE essay expresses my sentiments more clearly than my own original ideas can. I believe there's a problem with that section, but not 100% sure how to fix it. From the essay's third paragraph:

Identifying problems is only the first step in resolving them, but it's a vital step, and even if an editor only takes that one step, it's a net positive. They are laying the groundwork for other editors—who may be more qualified to tackle the later steps—to come in and finish the job.

Left guide (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm interested in resolving the concerns you personally have so that the tag can be removed. I'm not expecting you to solve the problem, but I do need to understand what you see as the problem, so that I can help solve it. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, you might not have an actual problem, but are concerned that others might? —Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Ok, my main concern is that average readers who aren't baseball/Gwynn/Padres fans may have trouble finding parts of that section useful, and understanding them. What do you think of the WP:PR offer? I think that section (and to a lesser extent, the whole article) could really benefit from review from experienced Wikipedians who aren't necessarily sports editors. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]