User talk:Left guide

Archives

Left guide is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with:

altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;
reduced availability on Wikipedia during times when they experience issues;
limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page or email messages in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.

Thank you for your understanding.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

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]

Tomizawa

Shortcut

WP:TOMIZAWA

@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]

Gwynn

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]