User talk:Bagumba/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bagumba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

It seems odd to me that 'National player of the year' is not capitalized while conference player of the year awards are. Can you explain? (T23tran (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

I am not the final authority, but it seems to me that "MVC Player of the Year" (etc.) is the title of an award while "National player of the year" is a class of awards with names like the Wooden Award, Naismith Player of the Year, etc. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. "National player of the year" is not a proper name.—Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

T23tran: Sorry to be repetitive, but I do suggest you familiarize yourself with the points I previously made as User_talk:T23tran#Capitalization, namely regarding MOS:CAPS—WP's guideline on capitalization which is based on "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources"—and more specifically at MOS:NAMECAPS, the use of capitalization for proper names. If you still have questions, feel free to bring up specific points. Your response, "seems odd", frankly appears to be too general of a response for someone that might have intently read up on those guidelines. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Never being one to miss a grammar/syntax/spelling/capitalization debate, I thought I would jump in, guys. NPOY should be capitalized if "National Player of the Year" is all or a verbatim part of the actual award name. Otherwise, no. For example, if the award is the "Associated Press National Player of the Year Award," I think you can easily justify capitalizing an obvious abbreviation such as "National Player of the Year" in the infobox. If it's a paraphrase of the actual award name, it's problematic because capitalization is misleading as to the actual name. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• For context, T23tran is discussing the use of "National player of the year" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#College_and_high_school_highlights when describing a player who has won multiple NPOY awards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Got it. My answer remains the same. Only one of these award names follows the NPOY naming pattern. Therefore, if you want to combine all NPOY's on the same line of the infobox honors, the description should not be capitalized. (Contrast how we combine all-conference and All-American honors, which share the same name for the honors regardless of the selector organization.) Clearly, such NPOY awards are noteworthy enough to have their names set forth in full in the main body text of the player articles, and they should be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, no caps. The link was for background only (not a subtle hint that you were mistaken).—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Also agree that, ideally, the specific awards are expanded in the body, or in a comprehensive list of all awards in a standalone section. This is the main reason I don't just uniformly remove them from the infobox unless I'm willing to relocate the detail in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly right. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 San Diego Chargers season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Phillips. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Could you please semi-protect Anthony Bennett (basketball), lots of recent vandalism. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Y—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Could Terrence Jones also be semi-protected for the same reason? DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Only one bad edit in one month. It doesnt get much activity, but it does seem to be bad the last few months. I've given it "pending changes" for a month instead.—Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind protecting Sebastian Telfair? It has been the target of vandalism from a couple of IPs (who are the same person IMO) lately. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Would seem more appropriate to block the individual user(s) if this continues after your final warning. As I might not be checking in much the next couple weeks, consider going to WP:AIV if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bagumba. Is there a good reason why this page is not page protected? Everything in the past six weeks on it has been vandalism or reverted disruptive editing. There is not much to change on it most of the time. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 2 months.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's for the best. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, it did have pending changes, so the suspect edits were not automatically visible; however, semi-protection saves the overhead of having to review the predominantly non-constructive edits.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are a moron, because I did this many times and you're the first "grown man" to complain about it. And please, don't ever post "cheers" on my talkpage, we are not friends. Paulinho28 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a nice day too.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Someone has changed Kevin Durants listed height in the opening section, player profile and on the side of his wikipedia profile. He is officially listed by the NBA and ESPN at 6-9 and 240. People estimating his height and weight is not correct as it's "Listed Height and Weight". Please chagnge the intro section, player profile section and the info box section back to the normal listed height. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.65.28 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notice. I've reverted it and warned the editor about unsourced edits. In the future, you can also make your edit request at the article's talk page e.g. Talk:Kevin Durant, where multiple editors' can address your concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get yours from? - Hoops gza (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't say I've had any since Suzy Q lunch pail days.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba. I stumbled on a message for you at the bottom of User talk:Cincao03 by this IP. It may be the blocked user returning as an IP or it may be someone else. In the grand scheme of things it may not be important but I did want to make you aware of it just in case. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks for the notice. Not inspiring when they can't even follow simple instructions of Wikipedia:Standard offer. Sigh.—Bagumba (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please protect this page? - Hoops gza (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Tim Duncan could use some type of protection as well. Thanks. - Hoops gza (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

JaVale McGee. - Hoops gza (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Someone else took care of McGee per your request at WP:RPP.—Bagumba (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I figure I'll pass the basketball ones your way most of the time. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want some other sports ones to look into, I suggest page protection for Wayne Gretzky, Larry Bird and Tom Brady. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Bird, and pass on the others. Generally, I'd rather not spend a large amount of time on page protection, though I occasionally take a look at WP:RPP to help out. So far I've been OK handling individuals' requests on my talk page—I understand it's sometimes easier to have an admin with knowledge of the NBA instead of having to explain the problem in more detail. I occasionally will redirect individuals to WP:RPP if I know I won't be getting to the problem in a timely manner.

Jason Kidd - Hoops gza (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Y Semi for 6 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Kevon Looney at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this worthy of inclusion? It reads poorly. It needs a major rewrite. I pieced it together and then realized that I don't really know what I'm doing. But it seems notable enough to be a standalone article, like the Flu Game would also be. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Also, it's too... stolen in its current state, which is another reason for a rewrite. Also, isn't posting the statistics stealing? - Hoops gza (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction was whether WP:LASTING or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is met. It's debatable that it is, but I don't think it's on the level of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game or Pacers–Pistons brawl. The key I think is really Wikipedia:Notability. Even if everyone agrees there is sufficient coverage, it says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Consensus might be that dealing with it in 1985–86 Chicago Bulls season, 1985–86 Boston Celtics season, and 1986 NBA Playoffs is sufficient without a standalone article. One example was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career, where there's tons of coverage on his high school career, but it was decided a separate article was excessive. I would suggest you discuss this at WT:NBA to get more feedback if you want to pursue this article.—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This might be a close precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobe Bryant's 81-point game.—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC) btw, are you still on vacation? Your talk header says so. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Back as of today.—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

When you have the chance, could you please look through some of the edits of Special:Contributions/Luka1995 on Scottie Pippen? I'm not sure that some of the content he is adding is encyclopedic (he added that Pippen has a tattoo). I'm also not sure he's abiding by the rules of neutrality and using reliable sources (he uses Bleacher Report, for instance). He also leaves odd edit summaries, containing slang, for instance. I certainly see no need for a disciplinary measure, just some advice from an admin in this area. - Hoops gza (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the content concerns. I briefly glanced at some of the recent edit summaries; while you may find them "odd", they are possibly better (or arguably no worse) than many who leave nothing at all.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my edits. I am very new to editing Wikipedia and I did not know there are guidelines for articles. Thank you for letting me know, and once again, my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticsFan76 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@CelticsFan76: No problem. It's all part of being bold.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Blake's infobox isn't even long and leading the NCAA in rebounding is a pretty significant achievement. (T23tran (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC))

@T23tran: Feel free to get consensus at WT:NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Ugh. Can't I just ask you? Lol. If we list NCAA rebounding leader for Blake Griffin, that would make only 4 listed college achievements which is the same amount as Stephen Curry and Carmelo Anthony and much less than Tim Duncan and Anthony Davis. (T23tran (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC))

Per MOS:INFOBOX, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize 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." The reality is whatever cutoff we pick, some other case will come when someone will argue that "one more won't hurt". I'd suggest adding the "rebounding leader" to the prose in the article. Also consider adding a list in the body similar to Chris_Paul#College where it can be more exhaustive.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that Griffin actually already had it in prose and in a list in the article. Readers still get the info this way, and the infobox remains manageable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I added it when I did the infobox as well. (T23tran (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC))

Hi! I noticed a user who has a large history (including tonight) of editing articles with premature information and lacking credible sources. The user has been warned repeatedly on their talk page, and I noticed you had warned them last year about this. Is there anything that can be done? The user is Ryanwoody1

thanks!

Garchy (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to Lester, it appears his agent has verified the Cubs signing.[1] It would be good if editors added references to their edits, but I usually provide leeway if the info is at least accurate. Granted, some people may want the club to make an "official" announcement, but that is better to be resolved on a talk page if there is disagreement. In regards to the user you are referring to, while they have been warned in the past, I usually like to see some higher level warnings from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace before considering any admin action. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! Garchy (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, could you please watch over the page Mark McGwire? There has been some vandalism on that page in the past and I want to make sure that there isn't any in the future. Thank you. -Sincerely, CelticsFan76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticsFan76 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the article's history, and there does seem to be problem edits, though infrequent. I've applied pending changes protection to the article. I'm not going to add it to my watchlist, but feel free to solicit at WikiProject Baseball if you are concerned with the number of watchers. Also, you can request additional protection in the future if needed at WP:RPP.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just saw your name pop up on my Watchlist. Can you protect the articles involved with the Dodgers tonight (Rollins, Gordon, Heaney, etc.). Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. Not intently following winter mtgs. Is 3-day protection sufficient?—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been an active one this year. Three should do it. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we add a 24 hour protection for Wade Miley due to the Red Sox trade? Thanks Garchy (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone got to it already.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: page edit I deleted info that said "all sources report..." when that wasn't sourced or true. However I won't ever edit a MLB or MiLB page in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemcee (talk • contribs) 05:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you not to edit, but it's your prerogative. Your edit removed a comment informing other editors that the deal might not be complete yet. You also removed his current team, "Los Angeles Dodgers", without an explanation.—Bagumba (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Having not !voted, would you be able to close this AfD? Is there sufficient support for this to be closed as keep? DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

AfDs usually stay open for 7 days per WP:CLOSEAFD, which would be December 19 in this case. I personally wouldn't declare it a WP:SNOW yet, though it is headed towards a keep based on current discussion. On a minor note, I've generally chosen to not spend time closing AfDs.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nah, fair enough. No big deal. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bags, I am quite sure that my aggravation is showing in the present TfD. It's not directed at you, of course, but you need to understand some of the basic history and purposes of the infoboxes being discussed:

• Template:Infobox NFL player is the only infobox that is supposed to be used for current and former NFL players. It was the result of the merge of several predecessor infoboxes that were eliminated as they were replaced. It has over 14,000 transclusions. It includes options that cover all parameters for the NFL, AFL, AAFC, CFL and Arena leagues -- it is the only infobox which should be in current use for American professional football.

• Template:Infobox gridiron football person is the only infobox that is supposed to be used for current and former CFL players. There was at least one predecessor infobox, Infobox CFL player, which is now a redirect.

• Template:Infobox football biography only exists as a redirect to Infobox NFL player. This apparently was intended to be a merge of Infobox NFL player and Infobox gridiron football person that no one in WP:CFL or WP:NFL wanted.

• Template:Infobox pro football player was apparently created as an alternative to the predecessor infoboxes of Infobox NFL player, and was intended to be used for AFL players (1960–69). Yes, once upon a time there was an active WP:AFL, but that WikiProject has been dead or virtually dead all of my five years on-wiki. The last few hundred transclusions of this template should be replaced with Infobox NFL player. Per your request, I have slapped a deprecated template notice on the template page, and I may ask for volunteers at WP:NFL to help complete its replacement.

• Template:Infobox college coach is not a football infobox; it is a uniform infobox for all college coaches, whether football, basketball, baseball, softball, lacrosse, swimming, track, golf, gymnastics, volleyball, etc. It was the result of a serious standardization effort across all American college sports in 2009-10, and it has been nearly uniformly implemented thanks to the ceaseless toil of Jweiss11. Given its exclusive and uniform use for all American college sports, it should not merged with anything.

• That leaves Template:Infobox college football player, the only infobox that is supposed to be used for current American college football players. Frankly, it needs work, and it needs to have its parameter labels (and their order) standardized with those of Infobox NFL player for easy conversion for those college players who advance to the NFL. It does not need to merged with Infobox NFL player; like the CFL infobox, there has been a conscious branding decision not to employ identical infoboxes for American college and professional football players -- they are visually and graphically distinct and that is intentional. That graphic distinction is not an accident.

Once the present TfD is concluded, I will seek assistance from a template editor and input from WP:NFL and WP:CFB to complete the merge of Infobox NFL player and Infobox NFL coach, as well as the long-overdue upgrade of Infobox college football player. The ultimate design of those modified templates should be the result of the consensus decisions of WP:NFL and WP:CFB, not random TfD participants who are not "stakeholders." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, random participants controlling consensus is as much about the [lack of] organization of the stakeholders as it is about a few rogue editors who might be pushing a solution where they have limited knowledge of the domain. I will say this: most non-involved people would look at all these template and their similar names and conclude that a merge is worth consideration, if not ultimately implementation. I know you are a big proponent on educating readers on the dynamics of college athletes and their academic institutions; however, I do not think a players major is typically part of their notability, and only serves to clutter an infobox (much like listing announcers and referees for Super Bowls e.g. Super Bowl XLVIII). I'd be ok with class, if these are mostly kept up-to-date (I don't keep track). Like I said, college basketball uses a generic infobox now, and nobody seems to be complaining. Perhaps football is different (or not). Regarding non-athletic notability, this applies to pro players as well as college—I mentioned Billy Hunter (American football) in the TfD; Fred Dryer would be another example. There is no reason to treat this as a unique issue with college sports. It doesn't mandate a merge, but it doesnt need to be categorically ruled out either.—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Random participants controlling consensus is as much about the [lack of] organization of the stakeholders as it is about a few rogue editors who might be pushing a solution where they have limited knowledge of the domain." Truer words have never been spoken. Sadly, some of the best organizers of WP:NFL (Pats1, Eagles247, et al) have withered on the vine to the point where they barely edit now. WP:CFB has recognizable leaders; WP:NFL has become kind of a free-for-all with a lot of newbies, and some editors on the fringes who barely nod to the WikiProject and its standards.

As for the proper perspective on student-athletes and the universities in college sports, yes, I do advocate that and I make no apologies for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. That someone could write a bio of a college athlete, or an article about a college sports team with clarifying the relationship with the university not only does a great disservice to our readers, but presents a distorted version of college sports to the world. At any given time, we only have articles for about 300 to 400 active CFB football players because of the limitations of Wikipedia notability (less than 10% are notable at any given time) and the inevitable graduation or departure for the pros. By the time most of the best CFB players achieve notability, they're done with college. Maintaining the information in that number of active CFB player infoboxes is far less challenging than the weekly stats updates required for active NFL players using Infobox NFL player. Editors like Yankees10 are great at doing the annual infobox updates for active CFB players.

As for infobox parameters that contribute to notability, most standard infobox parameters are marginally related to notability or not at all: birth date, birthplace, high school, college, weight, height, etc. But they are relevant biographical data points for athletes. And, yes, for college athletes, grade year in school and major are also relevant data points. And for former student-athletes who never played in the pros, their degree information and post-college profession are also relevant data points for a well-rounded biographical article. For the World War II, Korea and Vietnam generations, you will also note that Infobox gridiron football person also includes a module for military service -- not sure how I feel about that, but if we start replacing the 2,000 to 3,000 instances of Infobox gridiron football person that should use Infobox NFL player, we're going to have to make some decisions there, too.

Bottom line: infobox parameters are decisions best left to the relevant WikiProjects, not six random participants in a TfD -- three of whom have never edited a sports article and don't know the difference between American and Canadian football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that WikiProjects cannot operate in silos. As one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS, for better or for worse, "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". As such, I'd prefer to just understand why it is the templates do what they do today (it's clear even project members don't even know). Given the facts, consensus will determine if status quo is the best course or not.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bags, I'm well aware of LOCALCONSENSUS and the limitations on WikiProjects, but I will not ignore the accumulated wisdom and experience of WP:NFL/WP:CFB because some OCD type who has been in front of ANI and Arbcom a dozen times because of his compulsive/aggressive/disruptive editing issues with templates thinks it's a good idea. Or did I miss something? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortuantely (or maybe fortunately), I'm not aware of the history of the editor you are referring to. As such, I'm more focused in wrapping my head around all these templates and see what, if anything, can be improved. Not to go WP:WABBITSEASON on you, and we can agree to disagree, but my comments re: NIH summarizes my curiosity in the current state of the football templates.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

B, we have worked well together in the past, and that buys you a lot of credibility in my book. We haven't always agreed on the details, and that's okay. If it were you and me in isolation, I'm sure we could always arrive at a reasonable compromise when we weren't in 100% agreement at the outset. As for your WABBIT questions, they are good questions to ask. But I also think history, prior consensus and intent deserve some deference in the current TfD. These three templates were designed to look different in order to differentiate between CFB, NFL and CFL players; properly viewed, that's a good thing for our sports readers: instant recognition of CFB, NFL and CFL topics. No one has attempted to replaced them or substantially change them in five or more years; that's a pretty strong and stable consensus for keeping them.

I also believe that template editor maintenance is a way, way, way over-played issue in the context of three templates that share similar, if not identical coding, but were specifically designed to look different one from another for different subcategories of article subjects. All three of these have been substantially reworked by the full-time template editors over the last three years, and no one has suggested that there is any amount of real upkeep on any of them. Most of the maintenance changes have been small, and most of the attempted "substantive" changes (like switching from meters to centimeters for height) have been quickly shot down. If there is a real problem with these templates, it's that Infobox NFL player and Infobox gridiron football person are too damn long, with too damn many options, which when every option is invoked, renders an infobox twice as long as the main body text for many articles. A real reform of Infobox NFL player would involve eliminating redundant fields like debut year and final year, which information should be evident from the infobox team tenures and main body text. I've also come to question the wisdom of including the high school in Infobox NFL player -- something I personally pushed for -- because many if not most examples of the infobox are too long.

Anyway, my ideal outcome, after the final round of pending merges/replacements, would be only three football player infobox templates left: (1) Infobox NFL player, (2) Infobox gridiron football person, and (3) Infobox college football player. Their subject matter is different enough, and there are enough uses of each, that their continued existences can easily be justified. The football projects will have already reduced the number of infobox templates that existed five years ago by three quarters or more. Let the three projects have their three differentiated infoboxes -- there's no harm in it, and no particularly good reason to try to merge them all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I moonlight in software when I am not on WP. If I were overseeing this from Day 1 in my professional life, the goal would be a more generic solution for both cost, ease of use, and maintenance. Like I said, there is a time and place for a brute force approach such as what we have today, the reasons usually ranging from lack of experience or quick turnaround. We're all volunteers here, so I won't pre-judge the decisions made in the past. If someone comes in and is willing to spend the time to do it "right", I will in principle support it. If I had reason to believe it wouldn't be executed properly, my support might waver accordingly. At any rate, my current !vote of oppose has not changed yet, but I do suspect there are opportunities for improvement/merge given due diligence on submitting a proposal. At any rate, be careful to avoid those helmet-first hits out there.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Be careful to avoid those helmet-first hits out there." Very wise oracular advice, even if somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you protect Troy Daniels and Corey Brewer? Rumored trade getting lots of activity with the Brewer article at least. Rikster2 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Y—Bagumba (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about Ronny Turiaf too? He seems to be a part of the deal Rikster2 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Y—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Could Giannis Antetokounmpo please be semi-protected – just non-stop vandalism recently, never any useful edits. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Y—Bagumba (talk)

Following Josh Smith being waived, there have been no constructive edits from IPs or new users. Short-term semi may be warranted. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Done. BTW, be more convenient for me to find new requests if you started a new thread when old ones like this one are not near the bottom. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

On 24 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bryce Alford, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that basketball player Bryce Alford joined his father at UCLA after breaking a 50-year-old New Mexico high school single-season scoring record? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bryce Alford. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bagumba. Having dealt with similar instances in the past like this, would this user be warranted for a block in the future if they keep editing like this? I've warned the user similarly like you did with this user but I feel they may not stop unless a block is enforced. Check out what I rescued here on Josh Smith. A bit like what we've dealt with in the past with multiple edits removing lots of valid, sourced content. Thoughts? DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to think we can WP:AGF. However, escalate warnings if it persists. The last resort would be to go to WP:ANI or ping me.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I do assume it's in good faith, but editors like this often don't heed warnings. I'll keep an eye out. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope for the best (but be prepared for the worst). It is interesting that one of the users you linked seems to have stopped editing almost right when the other began ... —Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

True. It's eerily similar type of editing, the bulk content removal over many many edits. Can't say I'm surprised, it often happens. Very frustrating! DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Another request, Josh Smith needs another round of semi as the Rockets deal could take a few more days. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Twas made official :) DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up. I thought they could be deleted but good to know. Kante4 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No prob.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On 2 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kevon Looney, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that UCLA freshman Kevon Looney (pictured) was named Wisconsin Mr. Basketball after he nearly averaged a quadruple-double in high school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kevon Looney. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 12:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we protect all the players in the rumored JR Smith, etc deal? Rikster2 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing this only now. Looks to be official now.—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You've got a life too. Rikster2 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, what would you think about completely removing the UFL stats options of the infobox coding? The UFL was never a pro football "major league" like the NFL or CFL, and, in fact, was expressly marketed as a minor league alternative and potential farm system for the NFL. No other major league sports template includes minor league stats, and this would be one way to reduce the size and complexity of an infobox that has become far too long, and far too complex. To my way of thinking, this is an easy call. What say you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection here.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, B. I see this as a small part of the process necessary to get the length of this infobox under control. I will request Frietjes remove the UFL stats legacy coding on the template talk page. I'd be grateful if you would chime in with your endorsement.

Also, how do you feel about removing the debut year and final year fields from the template? This smells like a carry-over from the MLB player infobox; pro "debut" has much greater significance in MLB than the NFL. In the NFL, 90%+ of all players debut their rookie year, or they don't "debut" at all, unlike baseball, where most players play several seasons in the minors before appearing in the Show. To me, this looks like another good place to cut. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the UFL params. As for debut/final years, I'm ambivalent. The same info can be gathered from the team history. If others want it, perhaps a compromise would be to list it on one line as "Playing career: {{{debut year}}}–{{{final year}}}"—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"The same info can be gathered from the team history." Exactly: this debut/final year information is redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You removed the retired hidden category from the NFL infobox, Category:NFL Retired currentteam parameter articles. It is used to removed "Retired" from articles that use it., since Retired doesn't go in the infobox. I used it to update about 30 articles two days ago. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Sounds fair. It wasn't apparent before, especially after that recent edit to documentation encouraging editors to add "Retired". Thanks for the clarification.—Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey. This same person keeps making new accounts over and over again with one edit each time with a goal to remove a perfectly fine, working reference every single time on Bruno Caboclo. Would you be able to semi-protect this page for a week or so to perhaps stop this person? An individual block would not work here, and it's getting stupid now. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

1 month protection.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, the 1st reference about Bruno Caboclo's life is completely untrue, as a Brazilian I can say that the things there are 90% false information, the guy who wrote the article is not a reliable source of information. I would like to erase that false piece of information from the page, however I cant do this, I'd grateful if you erase that reference for me.

Thanks, if need some help I'm here to help you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxy 10101 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I invite you to raise the issue at the article's talk page, Talk:Bruno Caboclo, and get consensus for whether this is a reliable source. Also, would you happen to be the same editor, Reason 103 (talk · contribs), who earlier removed the reference you are referring to? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ! The new reference in the article is reliable now, the current link belongs to the brazilian government. And by the way i've never made any changes in the Bruno Caboclo's article, but as a guy who lives in Brazil, it was weird to see that link used as reference so I have decided to delete the wrong reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxy 10101 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but I reckon this user is the same person as these users. Started on December 26, a day after DanLongly was blocked, with edits very similar and a similar style user name. Not saying there's been any wrong doing as of yet, but if my hunch is correct, isn't block evading a block straight away? DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had my eye on it as well. I would probably want a checkuser for lack of a smoking gun (so far). Feel free to open an WP:SPI if you want to expedite.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Here you go.—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Bagumba. It's always easy to tell. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably slightly conservative in calling people WP:DUCKs after this happened.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, when you have some time, please take a look at this draft list of ideas for reducing the length of this infobox: [2]? You're only the second editor I've asked for your comments, but as a long-time sports editor I believe you should have some practical insights on getting our arms around this problem. I wanted to get the benefit of your experience before opening the subject for comments from a wider audience. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I comment at the sandbox itself? Be easier to start threads and avoid having to refer back and forth. General comment: When presenting to the community as a whole, it would be more effective to itemize the rationale for each item of change. Reduces the number of initial objections, which sometimes cripples well-intentioned (if not empirically good) proposal. Also, try to address what the anticipated objections might be.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. You're being treated as an insider for purposes of anticipating objections, etc., of the masses. The ideas will probably be substantially re-written before they are circulated generally to WP:NFL and WP:CFB editors. You're pretty good at poking holes in things; that's one of the reasons you're being asked up front, so we can anticipate points of resistance, etc. I'm probably a month away from general circulation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done (in case you didn't watchlist it)—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, the TfD for Infobox college football player has closed. We would like to get your opinion on the revised infobox template for college football players: [3]. After determining what data points to include, we'll recruit a template editor to handle the coding for us. Once we determine what fields we're adding and what we're deleting, then we'll work on the modified graphics. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gh87 in the public computer: A case could be made for semi, but I added another 3 mos of PC. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, this is the user formerly known as Hoops gza. Nate's page needs a fresh page protection. - Bossanoven (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed for Steve Nash's page you semi protected it. I was wondering how one goes about semi protecting a page of their own? Also since Steve Nash is semi protected under your User, do you get notifications whenever someone edits it? Thanks Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "semi protecting a page of their own"? Technically, no one editor owns a page. If you meant how does one get pages protected, you can make protection requests at WP:RPP. I don't get any special notifications for having protected the page. I do have it on my watchlist, which you or any other editor can do as well.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What I specifically mean is when you go to edit Steve Nash's page for example, there is a red bar at the top saying Bagumba semi protected etc. Anyway thanks for the info. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Bearxvi. However, since he only edited a handful of articles, according to his edit history, I was surprised that you did not revert them. I just reverted the last four.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Thanks. I got sidetracked.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba,

Thank you for adding the tags onto List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders and List of National Basketball Association career franchise assists leaders; it was the right thing to do. Just in case you didn't see, I took off the tag for List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders because I added what I thought was needed. If you have any concerns leave me a message on my talk page. Robert4565 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I still do not think it meets WP:LISTN, namely: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The sources that were added only seem to talk about the rebounding leader of an individual franchise, not the general group of all NBA franchise leaders. Keep in mind that pure stats lists, e.g. non-prose sources, are generally not considered sources for establishing notability; otherwise, we could have 1,000s of stats lists, which would conflict with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Unless you somehow agree and choose to self delete, I'll probably nominate this for WP:AFD and get others' opinions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that in infoboxes for Major League Baseball catchers, the only statistics listed are batting average, home runs, and RBIs. How come a catcher's career hits are never listed in the infobox? If you know why, please let me know at my talk page. Thank you.—CelticsFan76 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not anything specific to catchers. Generally only the triple-crown stats are listed. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_39#Stats_in_player_infobox. You can discuss at WT:BASEBALL if you have suggestions.—Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a little more background on this post? I don't understand the issues here or what is being suggested. I'd like to weigh in. Thanks. On a side note, I think we need to discuss guidelines for using the new "draft_league" parameter. There was a question about use of NBA vs ABA draft when a player was selected in both, and I have always had a concern that people would start using the D-League and CBA drafts when I don't think selection in these is particularly notable. Rikster2 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

For the template stuff, can you be more specific on what needs clarification? I'm not a TemplateData expert by any means, but I think I understand what the issue raised was. You can comment at Template talk:Infobox basketball biography#TemplateData, in the event others have similar questions.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

For "draft_league", you can WP:BB be bold and put it in the documentation and see if it sticks, or discuss at WT:BASKETBALL if you worried about it looking unilateral.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bagumba. I am just wondering why you partially reverted my recent edit on Damian Lillard because it was an "unexplained introduction of extra column" as seen here. Same with Mike D'Antoni in the lead section when I changed "Italian-American" to "American-Italian" and you said because he was "born in US" as seen here. Here is my explanation: I see a lot of NBA pages formatted like that, so I decided to do some formatting to make it look "normal". Thank you. —Magicaluniverse (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. Re: Lillard, your edit had a blank edit summary, so I boldly reverted as it didn't seem logical to introduce an empty cells in that row. This is not totally atypical; see Tim Duncan, which is a featured article. Surely other stuff exists that has the empty column, but if it was not there already, I see no reason to introduce new ones.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: D'Antoni, since he was born in the US, it's common place to list one's ethnicity or dual citizenship before "American". See David Blatt, who is listed as Israeli American.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —Magicaluniverse (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, the recent editing of this user bare watching: he is making wholesale, widespread changes to the national championship history of articles for various NCAA Division I sports programs and conferences, claiming some sort of mandate for uniform formatting and presentation of the national championship sections of these articles (see here for list of recent changes). I have reverted him twice on the Florida Gators article, requesting him to discuss these changes on the article talk page before implementing any further such "uniform" formatting in my edit summaries. These changes include the deletion of long-established consensus text and sourced footnotes, as well as numerous newly created MOS problems. He subsequently reinstated his changes, left a message on my talk page (see User talk:Dirtlawyer1#National team championships) and disappeared. My response on my user talk page urged Paulmec to please take this to the WP:CFB talk page. Obviously, someone claiming some sort of a mandate to implement widespread "uniform" changes with no supporting consensus and no prior discussion presents very real problems for WP:College football, WP:College basketball and WP:College baseball. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As you've gotten at least one other interested editor at WT:CFB, I'll stay uninvolved for now. Let me know in the event an admin becomes needed. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bagumba. I understand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I did a search of basketball player pages that have indefinite protection and created a list at User:Bossanoven/Basketball players. Some of these were apparently mishandled years ago in doling out indefinite protection, namely these four: Leandro Barbosa (because of a trade in 2010), Chuck Swirsky (only protected once, in 2009), Blaine Taylor (2011), Behdad Sami (2010). The rest are certainly understandable. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The system ain't perfect, for instance Wilt isn't there and you protected that back in June. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bossanoven: Follow WP:UNPROTECT if you think some should be relaxed. You typically should consult the original protecting admin.—Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did not know that, thanks for splaining. - Bossanoven (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If you ever have the chance, I suggest trying Corner Bakery Cafe's whoopee pies, they are fantastic. They usually have them in stock where I live. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought that you'd enjoy this topic. - Bossanoven (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have received your message.I will modify.If I meet with difficulties,I hope you can help me.李郓梁 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@李郓梁: No problem. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OK?Longxiaozi (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've emailed you via "Email this user" on the left tab, but the email was returned due to an odd error, which I'm studying (up to filing a bugzilla report). If you haven't received anything from me on WikiOriginal-9, please email me and I'll resend in the reply mode. Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: I tried sending you one with the link on the left tab as well, and strangely I get an email back saying "Message not accepted for policy reasons." It does seem to have your email addr on it, so I'll try sending it directly. Let me know if you don't get it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've received your email and replied. Looking where to post the privacy bug .. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a look here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Bleacher Report a reliable source? Someone has added GOAT discussions into the Tom Brady lead with Bleacher Report as the source. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I would say BR is not reliable. However, they have been hiring some reputable journalists the last couple of years, so exceptions seem reasonable on a per-case basis. If you are referring to Mike Freeman (columnist), I think it would be fine. However, anyone individual opinion needed to be attributed, e.g. "Mike Freeman said ..." and of couse cited as well. For the NBA, there is a related thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Reliable_source_resources.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bagumba, you're the best. By the way, I asked you about whoopee pies up above. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tend to avoid restaurant chains. Thx.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)