This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Hey, I know this is a big favor to ask, but I was wondering if you may be able to help me find the results for the 60 metre dash at the 1935 USA Indoor Track and Field Championships, known as the National AAU Championships back then, on that magical newspaper website you got. On the page here on wiki, it only shows Ben Johnson's gold medal time, but not for silver or bronze, which I believe Jesse Owens and Eulace Peacock received, but can’t confirm. The best I could find is a newspaper article mentioning Ben Johnson defeating Owens, Peacock and Sam Maniaci in the final, but there’s no mention of who specifically took the silver and bronze (see below link). I’d be really grateful if you can find something, thanks! GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@GOAT Bones231012: Track is not my thing, but the finishes can be found here. I'm not readily able to find times mentioned for the others, but the site is sometimes tricky to search. Have you applied for Newspapers.com? Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Legend, thank you so much! Although probably not enough to add to the 1935 USA Indoor Track and Field Championships page without the actual times, this is at least enough to call Mr. Owens a silver medalist, which in full disclosure is what I was really after as I have been editing his page relentlessly over the past week trying to improve it. And don’t get me wrong I’d love to get a subscription to that website, I’m just too cheap😅 GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Lolll @Left guide I was just coming here to say that after I tried submitting an application. Looks like I meet all the other requirements, just need to wait 2 more months to start one. Can’t believe I didn’t know we could get access for free, that is amazing. Such an awesome tool. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@DaHuzyBru: "Mel Alas" is listed there though, so one could argue a redirect from his full name is a valid search term. In any event, deletion would need to go through WP:RFD, if you still think there is a case.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Jaylen Brown (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Per WP:ONEOTHER, considering using {{Distinguish}} hatnote instead for similarly-named articles
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ScarletViolet13:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
On 19 May 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tommy Vigorito, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: I wonder if the incident is trivial and WP:NOTDIARY, and deleting it would make the NFCC issue moot. Failing that, it's subjective whether it's essential for critical commentary or not i.e. see who shows up to the discussion. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I was thinking that too. One interesting point about NFCC8 is that the fair use validity is based on how it influences the reader's understanding of the article topic (as opposed to the specific detail it illustrates), which in this case is the Lombardi Trophy in general. In that light, its educational value is pretty dubious. If the incident meets WP:NEVENT for its own article (which seems very unlikely), then I can see the image possibly qualifying as fair use for that article. As for discussion, I'd prefer to bypass that and just PROD it, which is allowed for files on en.wiki. Thanks for the feedback. Left guide (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks like you're on your way. "Shot description" seems both mundane and potentially rife for WP:OR, but maybe that's me. —Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance and encouragement. I think the shot descriptions are a key piece of useful info for readers; big difference between a layup and a half-court heave for example. And so far, the "tip-in" and "spinning layup" are directly supported by the Sporting News source. I seem to still have that damn writer's block on fleshing out prose LOL, so that's an area that could use help if you're interested. Left guide (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
i wasn't saying it was you who would OR haha. The series result (did they win?) might be another worthwhile column. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I know you meant that generally haha. I also try to forecast what hypothetical drive-by IP editors might do, if possible. Honestly, a series results column might lean too much towards OR, and I'd like to be reasonable about not having too many columns, and furthermore my last edit links the round directly to the round description on the season playoff page which may be sufficient. Another possible option could be to highlight the rows or cells based on whether they won or lost the series, to avoid having too many columns. Left guide (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
a series results column might lean too much towards OR: I had already checked, the SN source seems to mention it for each one. —Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
So Australia has soccer, rugby, and Aussie rules football. Even though the soccer governing body is called Football Australia for some reason. I was doing a little research and it looks like most people in Australia do call it soccer. Harry Kewell, the Australian soccer goat supposedly, does say soccer.
It looks like rugby union and league in Australia are probably just called rugby even tho a few might possibly say football for those too depending on context (lol).
So maybe John Coleman above should just stay as "Australian rules footballer"? Even though I notice his parenthetical says "Australian footballer" like Australian professional footballer? LOL Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd have to dig. I know this has come up before. An Australian editor said it was even regional within Australia what was consider "football" (i.e. soccer vs. rugby vs. Aus rules???? don't quote me). —Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Right, in this case, it's probably best to just leave it as "Australian rules football"? It doesn't seem to be cut-and-dry like football in the US and Canada, so MOS:TIES might not work. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
If someone did "Australian professional footballer for Team A of the Australian Football League (AFL)" it would be obvious what sport it was anyway since it says Australian Football League. I think all the other Australian athlete bios are just called soccer and rugby players. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, now I know ruck is a player because I clicked the link you provided (lol). I've seen some other weird positions listed like that when I rarely venture into other random sports article like cricket, etc. There are usually enough context clues to know it's a player though. If it's not a player, it usually just says coach, manager, etc. Those names are pretty universal. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I clicked the link for the guy in the caption at ruck (Nic Naitanui) His article says "is a former Australian rules footballer" Hmm. "Australian rules" isn't a nationality so I guess that reads fine. "rules footballer" isn't even a thing either so that's probably fine. "Rules" in the middle really helps break things up. It doesn't suffer from the same problem as "former American football player" ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, NFL bios suffered on the "former American" being an ambiguity and no nationality mention like most bios (MOS:CONTEXTBIO). And there's only going to be more non-Americans as U.S. parents grow more wary of CTE and their kids playing. —Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi again, so for the article 2025 EuroLeague Final Four, I boldly marked it at the talk page as B-Class. Having written most of the prose, I may be too biased to be fully objective, so I thought it might be wise to ask for another opinion. Do you agree with the B-Class assessment? Left guide (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: I don't know that much about the Euroleague, and usually don't quibble over others' class ratings that are in the ballpark. Try the project, if you're still interested. Regarding the ITN blurb, is "Final Four Playoff" an oft-used term, and "Playoff" capitalized?[7] Maybe more straightforward as "In basketball, the EuroLeague concludes with Fenerbahçe winning the championship. —Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Somehow I imagined that you followed EuroLeague more than you now seem to indicate. Feel free to raise it at WP:ERRORS or the relevant WP:ITNC section, or just be bold as an admin LOL. You're probably the most basketball-conversant one, that I'm aware of anyways. One thing is that "Playoffs" could be confused with the preceding rounds (2025 EuroLeague Playoffs). I know that "Final Four" is an important phrase, so "Final Four championship" probably makes the most sense. Left guide (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m out on this convo any more, but not sure how this is looked upon (making non-substantive edits to keep a thread from being archived by the bot). Juvenile behavior. Rikster2 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: Thanks. You get an assist for it showing up on my watchlist. Incidentally, given that the sidebar is bulky, Duncan doesn't really show up on top, and actually is floating between sections on a monitor w/ desktop view. Should he just be on top of the § Selections sections, or even back to semi-chronologically? —Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
No problem. Duncan doesn't show up on top because that's how the coding is ordered. I did that because that seems to be the "standard" format. But I personally think that images and infoboxes pertaining to that specific article should go above the more broad topic sidebar. I'm thinking of just doing a mass-switch on all of them. How about I show you examples in my sandbox in a few minutes, and you tell me what you see/think? Left guide (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: These award pages got cluttered when infoboxes were added along with the existing sidebars. It seems like perhaps should be only one or the other, but I'm ambivalent on which one. —Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Why is the O in JamesOn capitalized though? It's so random. I've never seen a letter capitalized in a name when's it not even a syllable. It should have been written JameSon. Wonder if they made a typo on the birth certificate or something (I've seen that before). "James On Curry" If that's not proof there's some sort of sports god, I don't know what is. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Does this edit merit revdel? It's been there almost two months. I have a hard time trusting auto-confirmed users on that page. In general, they seem to have a tendency to add dubious potentially WP:BLP-violative material that's unsourced or poorly-sourced. Would EC protection be reasonable? Left guide (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm cautious about giving much credence to a 17-year-old AfD. Intuitively, the entry criteria would be nicknames referenced by reliable sources. I could make an edit run clearing out entries that are unsourced or poorly-sourced (i.e. obvious WP:UGC like Reddit and Urban Dictionary), but the problems may creep back in over time. Looking back at the page history isn't inspiring much confidence that newer users are doing a very good job LOL. I'd be more motivated to do it if it was EC protected (yes I'm aware that's not a standalone reason for increasing protection), knowing that the quality improvements would likely stick around for the long haul. Ironically, one of the AfD comments perfectly encapsulates my feelings on this: articles like this attract a lot of troublemakers, and I'm not sure if it's really worth the effort. Slapping a {{BLP sources}} tag is another option, and/or searching for sources on the plausible-looking entries in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Left guide (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: The AfD was more for reference on varied opinions before. Of course, one is free to renom. Re: EC, I'm not sure if extended confirms havent also made similar edits. You might try WP:RPP too. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Finally someone else who thinks former records are noteworthy enough to keep in the record sections of articles. That's always annoyed me a little when people remove former records. It makes all the old HOFers look like crap when they don't have any records anymore. Having former records puts their careers in better perspective instead of having to read through the entire prose to figure out what records they had. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9 I get why Marshall didn't already have, because he was pre-Internet. But for guys that already have a record section, it'd be so easy to just retain and move to a "former" section than having to research and re-create all the ones that get deleted. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9: I saw that the other day. I was looking into a guideline-based reason, one way or another, then got sidetracked. I mean, it's inclusion is not mandatory, but I'll consider making a statement there, to at least counter it becoming an accepted practice to automatically delete. —Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Ok, not asking you to do anything though. Just having some fun conversation. Don't want anyone to say you were canvassed (even though you said you already noticed it) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
So for phrases like "Game 1", "Round 1", and "All-NBA First Team" in the middle of running prose, how should they be capitalized? Should it be "game 1", "round 1", and "All-NBA first team"? I wonder because I see these at 2025 NBA Finals but can't tell if any are overcapitalized. Left guide (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: Someone else always seems to provide ngram data, so I don't directly use it often. I suppose it looks right. Dicklyon would know. I used to refer to NY Times, who were conservative about capitalizing, as a litmus test, but they canned sports, and The Athletic is pretty liberal on caps. Still, the historical NYT pages show mostly "All-NBA team"[9] and MOS:CAPS sees if a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized I doubt you could do a bold move, as the redirects probably have existing history. So either try WP:RM/TR or WP:RM. —Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Just realized that for the RM route, it might be worth bundling in the corresponding WNBA and G-League honors too. Can't imagine the capitalization patterns would be significantly different, though it would probably be wise to research those to be sure. Left guide (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I meant article-side. You're the only one who seems to watch and care directly at the sports award articles. General site-wide noticeboards like WP:RMTR presumably have more eyes from folks who care about article titles and policies LOL. Left guide (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi Bagumba.. I'm hoping this is the right place to do this. I, and a few other editors, are dealing with a very hostile editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Contino. They continue to bludgeon everyone that they disagree with in the deletion discussion, including people who are not voting but simply adding comments to the discussion. We've tried to talk to them, that is me and the other editors in the discussion, but to no avail. They are acting very uncivilly and commenting extremely long paragraphs that regurgitate the same point over and over again, making it hard to navigate the deletion discussion clearly. I don't believe it's a conflict that requires the Administrator's Noticeboard, but I think we need an administrators help to defuse the situation, at the very least. Thank you for any and all help in the matter. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Willthacheerleader18: Sorry to hear about your difficulties there. Generically, if it's a behavior concern and not content, you can refer to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which recommends talking to other party directly on their talk page. As for discussions like AfD, I think there's a tendency sometimes to follow WP:AGF to a fault when explaining positions. At a certain point, it might be ok to accept that not everyone will agree. Remember, consensus does not require unanimity. If it becomes a repetitive WP:WABBITSEASON, consider disengaging, and leave it the the closer to weigh the already stated arguments. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand. It's a behavior concern. They've resulted to personal attacks and refused requests to act civilly. I may have to go to an administrator's noticeboard then after all. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Willthacheerleader18: The account age is relatively new, so a warning (escalate as needed) like you gave offers them an opportunity to adjust, in the event they were not aware before. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Willthacheerleader18: When someone's conduct is this far out of line, WP:ANI is the way to go (I've reported there on your behalf in response to reading this, resulting in the user being blocked from the AfD page, with broader sanctions under discussion); plenty of community members and admins there are willing to fight for fairness, and put misbehaving users in their place. Sorry you had to deal with this. (p.s. using AI or LLM to generate comments like that user did is basically a cardinal sin on Wikipedia these days) Left guide (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide: After cursory look, many of the ones that have a name displayed are reputable. I'm happy enough when editors provide any citation haha. Hopefully at worst, they're still true but it's just replacing it with a better source. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm happy enough when editors provide any citation haha Same haha. BTW, which players do you think have a reasonable chance of taking home the NBA Finals MVP? I'd like to know if there are any images that might need cropping for ITN. It's a fun little task I enjoy doing sometimes on Commons like for the NHL ones yesterday. SGA has a couple of badass-lookingaction shots in a Thunder uni if he wins it LOL. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
So the beginning of the lead's fourth paragraph says:
Fouts led the Chargers to three consecutive AFC West division titles – 1979, 1980 and 1981 – and a playoff appearance in 1982.
It includes a vague link to NFL playoffs, but I'd like to improve it to the specific annual playoff tournament. My question is, does this refer to the 1981–82 NFL playoffs or the 1982–83 NFL playoffs? They both include the year 1982 in the title, and according to the respective articles they both involved the Chargers. Left guide (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Left guide I think it's fine as is, introducing the subject at a high level (MOS:INTRO). More detailed links can be in the body. Getting to your question, I always thought WP's NFL playoff naming convention was weird, but never followed up by surveying actual sources. I think of the playoffs as relating to the regular season year, so I'd expect 1982 NFL playoffs. However, WP uses the time span of the actual games, so 1982–83 NFL playoffs. —Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@ReallyAmazingDude13: Usually it's at basketball-reference, otherwise try their college bio, but look for "born" explicitly and not just "hometown" or "native", which could just be where he grew up. Otherwise, Google for an article with "born". Some people just might not have, like Bob Myers (though he didn't play in NBA). —Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Dicklyon
Thanks for coming to the situation neutrally instead of having a preconceived opinion about it. Even the ANI filer Chicdat said they are sorry for not supplying any diffs but they will be better next time. It's a little late for "next" time, Dicklyon is all but certain to be topic-banned. The original report wasn't even specifically about Dicklyon (half of it was about Cinderella157). No one actually filed a formal proposal to ban Dicklyon, hey man im josh just left their personal opinion on Dicklyon and then Robert McClenon split it out into a ban proposal against Josh's wishes. Where is Cinderella157's ban proposal? However, people ended up opposing banning Dicklyon from the whole site so then the topic-ban proposal was started as a "compromise" to Josh's ban proposal, and people love compromises. Still no diffs have been supplied by anyone, just emotion. "Dicklyon again!? He must be up to no good!" And then when Dicklyon tries to defend himself from the mob of unsubstantiated support !votes and the walls of text, he gets people !voting to ban him for "bludgeoning". Then he's getting flak for adding comments to the end of one of Josh's replies, which is a common practice on Wikipedia. He wasn't trying to be deceptive. He even said he annotated it. Dicklyon has obviously upset too many people around here. People are looking for any way to get rid of him. The same thing happened at Koavf's ban proposal. People were just tired of him, even though there was like one diff there (it wasn't necessarily ban worthy though). I guess we're gearing up for an NFL Draft RM in a few months in addition to moving back everything else that Dick got decapped? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
If I was in Dicklyon's shoes (and I cared enough about caps to argue about it), I would just start an RM for everything, even if it was 100% obvious. The "line" moves are what seem to have started this ANI report, even though they appear to have been correct because no one has moved them back or disputed them. There's no requirement to start an RM for everything, I still don't see any recent disruption. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure aslivering read all 300 pages, right? (just kidding) Just going by the numbers, if he wasn't topic banned there would have been an uproar. That would have been interesting to see lol... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9: So my analogy is to what happened at one baseball game I was at. One fan kept yelling "f*!$ the <opponent>" "f#$% <player>". Run-of-the mill stuff for pro sports. It was not a designated family section, but not upper-deck seats either. Enough people complained, and he was booted. The fan calmly argued, "everyone does it", "its a game", "freedom of speech", etc. The usher just said, "Sir, you're being disruptive", and he was led out. —Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
How do you figure he is a mid-importance NBA article? Because he’s a one-time second team all-defense guy? If so that doesn’t compute to me. Is the pre somewhere these are documented at WP:NBA? Rikster2 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I have questions about if making second team All-Defense once is actually of mid importance for The 80 year history of the NBA (as well as just being draft pick 2-5), but that’s just my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
@Rikster2 @Left guide Basing it on pure raw numbers makes the system rough around the edges. But its also simplistic to implement and remember (otherwise 2x 2nd team All-Ds but 1x of everything else?) if we accept it for what it is. And this isn't something critical like notability; I don't even know how "importance" is constructively used anyways. Feel free to have add it. —Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@GOAT Bones231012: Yeah, you could just move to the correct name yourself next time, and avoids cut and paste re-creation (a no-no if you weren't the only editor). Misspelling redirects aren't a bad thing, but I guess that was an unlikely one. For WP:G7, you could also just blank any page you want deleted in which you have been the only editor. —Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9 Blocked for a week. It's an IP, so I didn't block longer; you can let me know if it recurs afterwards. Incidentally, the text on the 2015 and 2018 cases, if you choose to restore it, need better sourcing to meet WP:BLP. —Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Just drafted by the Bucks, but is not expected to join the NBA this coming season. People will be updating his current team erroneously. Rikster2 (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@Rikster2: That WP:NO-PREEMPT thing. Put a note on the talk page, then it makes it easier to protect to direct discussion once there's been a few reverts. The practice was fine before when it was all US college players who were at least going to training camp, but it's not so clear cut now when there are other viable pro options, or if they're still under contract. —Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
All three of the accounts attempting to prematurely change his team have less than 500 edits, is EC protection warranted? Left guide (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Interesting situation at Kristaps Porziņģis since it's on PC protection; my initial view is that if the experienced page-watchers, PC patrollers, and NBA editors are doing a good job of holding the line on live changes (which seems to be the case), I'd say keep it and give the IPs (and brand new accounts) the satisfaction of thinking their changes actually matter, since it probably prevents the rants from piling up on the article talk page. Thoughts? Left guide (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
It's all good, I've been throwing a flurry of these at you lately, and you seem to be doing your best to keep up, which I greatly appreciate. Left guide (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Can you please put pending changes or semi due to the last vandalism incident? You previously did 3 mo. semi which was the third protection cycle since the Doncic trade. Left guide (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
So if a team changes names (but still have the same Wikipedia article), then the old logo gets deleted? See New Orleans Pelicans, where there doesn't appear be a Hornets logo? There has to be commentary about the old logo specifically or it fails non-fair use? See Florida Bobcats, where the Miami Hooters logo was deleted but the Sacramento Attack logo is still there because it "does not meet the threshold of originality" apparently.
@WikiOriginal-9 At least the current prose doesn't seem to meet ... the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. Admittedly, I don't have much experience in this area. —Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
NBA Finals mass move?
Hi again, so I'm wondering if the individual championship series articles for 1950–1985 should be moved from "Finals" to "World Championship Series". I checked a few random article talk pages that turned out empty, indicating no past history of RMs, and couldn't find anything in the WT:NBA archives. What is the sourcing from that era like regarding the names? And which policies and guidelines would be in play here? Also curious as to your general stance on the merits of such moves, if you're open to sharing. Left guide (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article from 1985 about the naming issue. "The issue is the NBA championship series. The problem is monumental: It doesn't have a name." Also, the 1950 results above have some false positives. The results are showing some "NBA's final" and "NBA Final"~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
