Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association

Discussion on allowing "greatest" in the lead of all NBA players

There is a discussion at the Wilt Chamberlain talk page on Chamberlain's greatness and also the feasibility of including the subjective term "greatest" in biographic leads such as we have done with Jordan, Kobe, and Antetokounmpo. It's a discussion on the lead in articles, not so much in a separate legacy section. Since this could eventually affect all NBA player articles, please join in and give some opinions. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If we're trying to create and enforce a style standard across NBA articles, that consensus would need to be reached here, not at an individual article talk page. Left guide (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It's also important to remember the WNBA, lots of "greatest" fluff on articles like Sue Bird and Caitlin Clark. Wamalotpark (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess this project is not for basketball but NBA, but still could be discussed, or mentioned in a WNBA talk. Wamalotpark (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. We've gotten most of the greatest stuff removed in tennis player leads but I didn't realize the prevalence of tossing it around in basketball, and in keeping it out of older generation player bios. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The WNBA task force at WP:WNBA is indicated as a sub-project of the NBA based on its page name, and the league itself is a subsidiary of the NBA. Furthermore, the task force is tagged as inactive with no meaningful posts on its talk page in over five years. So based on all of those factors, I'd presume WNBA players can be covered by consensus here, for folks interested in maintaining those articles. Left guide (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the relevant question:

Do we want to allow subjective iterations of the word "greatest" in the lead of player bios? Or do we want to keep that stuff in legacy sections?

Left guide (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC) emphasis added Left guide (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You all took away Widely considered GREATEST OF ALL TIME… from Micheal Jordan’s wiki page. Why is the question? 2600:387:F:4016:0:0:0:3 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion here. Ladtrack (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

unrelated topic but it's because he's no longer WIDELY considered the Greatest of all time. for the love of god they debate it every day on television and twice on sundays Jtchen26 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

In all fairness, it’s not a debate unless they’re comparing two players. The media obviously has a tendency to debate this topic on live tv as it drums up views, interest, reactions, and just the overall never ending desire of discussing the "GOAT" topic. Continuously calling Michael Jordan the greatest and not considering anyone else isn’t exactly great for ratings and besides, what else would all these sportswriters, commentators, and analysts do with themselves. That’s why actual rankings list is more definitive to me. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

They do frequently compare Michael Jordan and Lebron James. Fans and media outlets both. It's, at this point, just not representative of the situation to say Michael Jordan is widely considered the GOAT in the same way Phelps or Tiger Woods are Jtchen26 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ummm Jack Nicklaus definitely has something to say about the latter GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That might be true that he is compared to Tiger Woods, but Tiger Woods is not considered the goat... he's buried beneath Jack Nicklaus. That must be a current era is best argument, because Jack is still the man they all fall short of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, both Nicklaus and Woods's pages say "one of the greatest golfers of all time". If either of you think it should be different, go litigate that on WP:GOLF, not here. Ladtrack (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s not true. Ask a thousand basketball knowledgable people, and 80 percent or more would answer MJ. “Widely considered the greatest” is correct, unless you believe feelings are facts. 83.250.25.103 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This is so pointless. I don't think so, you think so. Ok. Jtchen26 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ask a thousand basketball knowledgable people, and 80 percent or more would answer MJ. WP:WEIGHT (my emphasis):

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Left guide (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source on the claim that "80% of basketball experts prefer MJ"? Because if you don't, it sounds like it is just what you feel is true, not a fact. 96.57.72.38 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The low hanging fruit is that "one of the greatest" is redundant for a player already in the HOF, like Hakeem Olajuwon Per the WP:SUBSTANTIATE policy:

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this.

Just say they're in the HOF. —Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Chamberlain's case was unique in that there was a GOAT claim in the lead, but it is a minority view. WP:FRINGE guideline says:

Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point of view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of Bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but that baloney FRINGE stuff is wearing a bit thin. Like if you say it often enough it'll be true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Overall I'm glad we moved on from the "greatest" stuff for things like Lebron and MJ, though I am worried that by not including things like "greatest", when articles like Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes and Lionel Messi and Wayne Gretzky all have things like that, it might be odd for a reader to read about say, Lebron James, and not be introduced to the idea that many people consider him the greatest of all time. I hope for consistency across sports articles. Wamalotpark (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The consistency should be based on solid principles (e.g WP:DUE), not necessarily the mere presence of greatest (Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments) —Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. To build meaningful consensus, it would be helpful to identify and interpret key guidelines and policies pertinent to this situation (WP:SUBJECTIVE in particular comes to mind). Anecdotally, the "greatest" claims in leads I've picked apart are typically ref-bombed with questionable and unreliable sources, and a healthy dose of cherrypicking and original research mixed in. (i.e. saying "widely regarded" when the source doesn't explicitly say that) Left guide (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

'One of the greatest' is not subjective. People with that distinction have multiple individual accolades which represent the pinnacle of the sport as well as a consensus backing through written articles. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

NBA MVP, Player of the season awards in the top soccer leagues, Ballon D'or, MLB/NHL/NFL MVP awards. People hailed as 'one of the greatest' usually have more than one. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:SUBSTANTIATE would argue to just mention the awards and let them speak for themselves as to whether the player is "one of the greatest". A laundry list, however, wouldn't convey rare cases when a player is "widely considered the greatest.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfair to positions in sports that have multiple 'greats'. They deserve the 'one of the greatest' distinctions in the lead. That's just my opinion. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It is unfair to compare across positions. A guard is completely different than a center. A striker is completely different from a defender. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Y'all goofed getting rid of "greatest" signifier in the lede of freaking Michael Jordan. I mean as it used to say the actual NBA website calls him the GOAT and NBA fans are obsessed with the concept of it. It's significant and should be there. Same with Lebron. Somarain (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually the NBA site still says he's often regarded as such, but the same NBA site says a similar thing about Chamberlain. Then we had some say the NBA site is not a reliable source. It's very confusing who to believe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

NBA.com says on Jordan:

By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.[1]

On Chamberlain:

Asked to name the greatest players ever to play basketball, most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list.[2]

Zagalejo noted at Chamberlain's talk page that NBA.com has used the Chamberlain line at least since 1999. Few experts have him "at" the top now, not that the line ever specified a ratio before. —Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Expert what? Experts on building ranking lists? Plenty of sources have him at the top. That NBA article also says Wilt was "the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen" and in the same article also asking a top 10 great if Wilt was the greatest "The books don’t lie." Most of the people making these lists to sell magazines probably weren't around when Chamberlain played so we go by people who were. And the Jordan article was written around the same time as Chamberlain's so I don't know what that has to do with the price of eggs. My complaint has always been about the bias in the articles. We allow it one but not in another. We either keep them all or throw them all out. Keep them all in a legacy section or flood the leads with them. As long as we stop using POV to handle the situation I'm fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know for sure when the Jordan article was written. Jumping off the Internet Archive link above, I don't think it was in NBA.com at that point. (There is a list of all-time great players, but Jordan's link simply goes to a basic stats profile.) It's possible that the Chamberlain write-up can trace its origins even further back than 1999 (perhaps to a print source?), but I'm not sure if we'll be able to determine that. Zagalejo (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be. For those guys who stand out above the rest like Wilt, Dirk, Giannis, LeBron, MJ, Mailman etc. Eg224 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I got linked here from the Magic Johnson page. Magic Johnson is the player most often cited as the greatest point guard of all time. How the lead to that article states it (“Often regarded as the greatest point guard of all time”) is perfectly appropriate and to not mention as much would be bizarre. CarlStrokes (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'm so glad one of the player links worked. If you want to participate in the current discussion, it's actually down here. Ladtrack (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The original discussion was whether to include the claim at Wilt Chamberlain that some consider him the greatest basketball player of all time. This was, correctly, regarded as fringe. The only people who can have that claim made and it not be fringe is Michael Jordan and LeBron James, as confirmed by sourcing (visible most clearly in the legacy section of James's page). These two should say something along the lines of "sometimes considered the greatest player of all time". This would be accurate and not a fringe viewpoint, unlike the claim for Chamberlain.

Simultaneously, we need to include "one of the greatest players of all time" in the lead for many players, which is a wider claim that does not necessarily demand that a player is often considered the greatest. This is standard practice in other sports, including for players that are not necessarily considered the single greatest in their sport. (I can provide examples, including some featured articles, on request if it would help.) There is no reason basketball players should be excluded from this. This is obviously of immense relevance to the biographies of the players; the lead is supposed to summarize the most noteworthy information about the person, and that for example Tim Duncan or Hakeem Olajuwon are considered two of the greatest basketball players of all time is perhaps the most noteworthy thing about them. The lead is incomplete without that. Ladtrack (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there is clearly a difference between saying someone is the greatest versus one of the greatest. If someone doesn't understand that, they shouldn't be editing. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone with concerns about dubbing someone one of the greatest should tell Britannica how to write an encyclopedia while they're at it. [3] [4] [5] [6] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Calling someone "the greatest" is absolute water-cooler stuff. Claiming only Jordan and James get that is ridiculous. "One of the greatest" is certainly more clear cut, especially in a legacy section, and most Hall of Fame inductees would could fit that description. It was never shown to be fringe that Chamberlain is in that same mix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest basketball players of all time, and his lead should say so. When this dispute started, his article claimed that he is "often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time", which is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". That's why I said it was fringe. Not that he is one of the greatest, but that he is the greatest.

I don't know exactly what "water-cooler stuff" means, but if you're implying that determining who is the greatest basketball player of all time is not a topic worthy of serious discussion, somebody should let the media know about that, they seem to have made a mistake. On another note, it is absolutely crucial to Michael Jordan's legacy that at the time that he retired, he was widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time. More individually important than the five MVP awards, baseball break, or playstyle. Aside from maybe his immense personal popularity and its impact on the sport, that is the most important thing about him. It should be in the lead, a reader's understanding of the man is incomplete without that information. Same with LeBron James. As for why only they get it, look through the sources. There are so, so many of them, the ones I've linked are only scratching the surface, and they don't all agree, but probably something like 80% will claim one or the other or both. I am not the one making the claim, the sources are, and our job is to reflect the sources. Ladtrack (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

His lead does not need to say that at all. Who's the best is stuff kids and adults have argued about at the watering hole since humans have been around. It's fun and it sells newspapers and books. It's not encyclopedic. But it is not fringe that he is the greatest. And of course it's a great topic of conversation... that's why it makes money by selling copy. It's fun. I do it also. Jordan's legacy is what he did for basketball, his records, his accomplishments.... not the subjective "greatest" moniker. It should not be in the lead at all. If the thing that is put in the lead at Jordan was that quote from the NBA, then the same NBA quote for chamberlain should be in his lead. I don't agree with putting them there, but I vehemently disagree as pov with plopping it there for one and not both. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think either quote from the NBA should be in the lead. Jordan's is outdated, and so is Wilt's. Some of the sources they used to make that claim for Wilt of being the greatest are from the 1960s, and obviously these are of marginal use because many many basketball players came after that. Jordan's, too, is years old and should not plainly state that he is undisputedly the greatest player of all time, because newer sources suggest otherwise.

I am not sure what your standard for encyclopedic content is, but Wikipedia's is following the sources and the sources clearly consider this worthwhile. We can't simply ignore what they say because we deem what they are talking about frivolous, that is your own opinion that you have arbitrarily made and that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As an aside, I think both Jordan and James would disagree with you on the importance of being the greatest to their legacy. Michael Jordan approved the use of footage for a multimillion-dollar miniseries that you may have heard of literally during Cleveland's championship parade in 2016, and James had said "My motivation is this ghost I'm chasing. The ghost played in Chicago." I don't know what you would consider their legacy but that looks to me that they think it's important to it. Ladtrack (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a highly significant source. It's the first thing that appears when you search a player's name on Google. It should contain the correct information. It's critical for an uninformed audience to learn if a player either has been called or is widely considered the greatest of all time.

I don't think that it's outdated for MJ. 73 percent of fans voted for MJ as the greatest. Espn.com May 17, 2020. That is only one example of countless reliable sources that have called him the goat. Also, many of those who have called Wilt the Goat are considered experts in basketball, so it's a respected minority opinion. I think that it should be in the lead for both.

I think the way to solve this debate is to distinguish between who is widely considered to be the goat and who has been called the goat by experts. While experts and fans have called LeBron, Wilt, and others the goat, MJ is still widely considered to be the goat through the majority opinion of fans, writers, and players, although LeBron has gained ground in recent years. All of that is easily backed by countless sources Orlando Davis (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult to prove that something is a "fringe opinion." There's such a vast landscape of NBA commentary that you can find evidence for all kinds of opinions. But if we focus on sources that discuss the GOAT debate itself, it's fair to conclude that Chamberlain's reputation has fallen in popular culture. This ESPN article says, "It's the never-ending debate among today's NBA fans: Michael Jordan vs. LeBron James. Or should that be LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan? While arguments can be (and have been) made for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell and other NBA greats, the modern debate over who is the greatest since the NBA began has been boiled down to MJ vs. LeBron." Zagalejo (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course it has fallen... the older the player the worse they become in the eyes of youth. That the old CEIB argument. But you posted a 2020 story that is now five years old and you could have posted a story from 2024 that disagrees. Or another from 2024. Or even another from 2024. This is not fringe. There are about 10 players in the conversation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't immediately access the NY Daily News article, but the first two pieces are clearly presented as the individual opinions of Mike Breen and Walt Frazier, rather than broad overviews of the debate in general. The fact that the first article frames Breen's opinion as something that "might surprise you" helps to prove my point. (Even the brief portion of the NY Daily News article I can read begins with the assumption that people view the debate in terms of LeBron vs. Jordan.) Again, you can absolutely find individual commentators who list Chamberlain at the top, but where do they fit within the whole spectrum of basketball opinions? The best sources we can work with are those that take a meta-level view on the debate itself. Zagalejo (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

And we disagree that those are the best sources. They didn't see Chamberlain play, and Jordan is now fading in the distance. That's what always happens with new sports analysts. It's not unique to basketball either. Tennis has the same issues with many jumping on the Nadal, Federer, Djokovic bandwagons and forgetting the Lavers and Rosewalls, the Tildens, the Gonzaleses... or with Serena Williams and forgetting the Graf and Navratilovas, the Courts, Wills, and Lenglens. I don't fault the situation... it is what it is, but as an encyclopedia we can do better and we should do better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a variety of players that you can make a case for, including Wilt, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and others. I've already stated my opinion, but that can be worked out. Surely, though, this verbiage is worthy of putting in the lead. As of right now, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Wilt Chamberlain do not have any permutation of "the greatest" or "one of the greatest" in the lead sections. At a bare minimum, all three surely qualify for "one of the greatest". This should be added back in. Ladtrack (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I would add "one of the greatest" for Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson could be considered too, but then it opens the door for discussion of others as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, what is the inclusion criteria for saying "one of the greatest"? For players already in the Hall of Fame, is "one of the greatest" even needed, given the guidance at WP:SUBSTANTIATE? —Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I said this before... while I'm not a fan of "greatest" of any kind in the lead, if they all say "one of the greatest" I can live with that from a POV standpoint. But what determines "one of the greatest?" Editor Bagumba mentioned the Hall of Fame but then why wouldn't we just say Hall of Fame member and let that stand for what it is? The legacy sections with it's quotes are more a place for local bar room debates on greatest attributes and quotes from former players. Heck in looking I saw a bunch of Kobe being the greatest also. GOATs are fun to debate outside of an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there’s a monumental difference between "Hall of Famer" and "one of the greatest". There are hundreds upon hundreds of hall of famers. "One of the greatest" should boil down to about 10 players max. I agree with @Assadzadeh list of players and maybe even add Larry Bird and Tim Duncan? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If a player can show they are called "one of the greatest" in print, then they can be called one of the greatest. You just adding a few players here and there is arbitrary. We do need some sources that say it. Someone like John Havlicek was one of the greatest of all-time... it certainly wouldn't be a pile of modern players only club. The press is always going on about best point guards, best centers, or best 6th men in basketball history. They would all be in that list for it not to be pov. It's one of the better reasons to have none at all in the lead and leave it to legacy only. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an exceptionally modern list. I don't know why you insist upon that but it isn't. There are two primarily 60s players, one primarily 70s player, two primarily 80s players, two primarily 90s players, three primarily 2000s players, and one current player. That seems nearly even to me. Definitely not modern-skewed. Ladtrack (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Gregg Popovich said Maurice Cheeks was one of the greatest of all-time.[7] Would that go into his lead or not? —Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, because it requires a consensus, and Gregg Popovich is not a consensus. That should go under Maurice_Cheeks#Honors and awards if it is deemed noteworthy enough. Ladtrack (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If a tight list is required, then this list is almost right. I'm not sure that such a tight list is necessarily the best idea, personally I'd go for a bit looser list, but if that's deemed correct then it's fine with me. But a couple more to add would be Hakeem Olajuwon and Shaquille O'Neal. I know it's eleven instead of ten, but these would rightly be pointed as the most obvious missing ones if only those nine had it. Ladtrack (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not.

This shouldn’t be a discussion.

Michael Jordan and LeBron are considered to be the two greatest players ever. The word greatest or phrase “one of the greatest” has been used in Wikipedia articles for several years so the whole discussion about having it removed entirely is just stupid.

As one previously stated the phrase “one of the greatest” can be used with players who are considered to be great but not the greatest (Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Larry Bird Anonymous7432 (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree as this is more commonly seen before. Taking the word greatest off is just irrational.

I also agree as this was commonly seen before with many others players who are considered to be one of the greatest.

But as seen with players like Michael Jordan and LeBron James they are considered to be the two greatest ever so it’s correct to include “often regarded as the greatest player of all time” Anonymous7432 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Jordan and LeBron are so oftenly called The Greatest player of all time that I think it should warrant "often regarded as the greatest player of all time". As for Bill, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, etc. maybe it should be "often regarded among the greatest players of all time" ?? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

And then we are back at square one again with POV with the post by Anonymous7432 (who only posts on LeBron James articles). None of that should be in the lead as it's so subjective. And in a legacy section if you have quotes that many of those other players are/were called the greatest ever, you can use that. This un-encyclopedic goat stuff causes arbitrary divisions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s called giving an opinion. I can talk about and address my views on anything that I need to.

I even said that taking the word greatest off in general is just irrational. Players like Wilt Chamberlain, Giannis, Steph Curry deserve to have that type of credit. It was on there previously so changing it for them and removing it doesn’t sit right with others Anonymous7432 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to adding those two as well.

List of players: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon

The newer generation may even want to add Stephen Curry — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOAT Bones231012 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear about my earlier comment about the "one of the greatest" statement, it should not be in the lead section, but rather in a separate Legacy section, assuming one exists for that player. Assadzadeh (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I understand where you're coming from, but the purpose of the lead section is two-fold; to summarize the body of the article, and to give readers an understanding of the most important things about that person. Mentioning that a player is considered one of the greatest of all time is one of the most important things about all of them (maybe the single most important for all aside from the few notable activists on this list) so it is by definition lead-worthy. And having a full explanation of that player's position in the history of basketball and why they're considered one of the greatest (eleven championships, ridiculous stats, two three-peats, et cetera) would be appropriate for the legacy section of the articles, summarized in the lead by "X player is widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time". This is standard practice for other sports, from hockey to soccer to cricket to (American) football. There's no reason to leave it off here. Ladtrack (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I am out of line here, but I feel it should be said.

If a player was graced with the honor of being named to the NBA's 75th anniversary team, they should be honored with "considered to be one of the best players of all time" in their opening. Boles P94 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

For example, Giannis Antetokounmpo has that in his page lead, and it is because he has accolades to back it up. See the link below.

[[[Giannis Antetokounmpo]] Boles P94 (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Giannis Antetokounmpo

(sorry, one too many brackets at the beginning) Boles P94 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

75 players would be overkill and that list would just grow more and more in the future. Adding players like Giannis and Jokić is just going to be a matter of time, they still have plenty of playing career left before they should be considered "one of the greatest" tho imo. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, isn’t that going to happen regardless as the game continues into its 100th anniversary? For example, there are over 400 players in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, but of the 400+ inductees, only 65 of them made the list. Not to mention, the current players (11) who were also on there are assumed to be inducted into the Hall of Fame after their playing careers. It’s an exclusive list that is only going to grow. Despite the number of players, it doesn’t weaken their case of being “one of the best of all time.”

Then again, the whole discussion is subjective, right? Boles P94 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem I have with the NBA's 75th anniversary team is that are you really going to call 75 different players "one of the greatest of all time"? Kind of takes away from the exclusivity and prestige, don’t you think? Not to mention the fact that you’d have to add more when they announce 100th anniversary team, 125th anniversary team, etc. In order to be called "one of the greatest of all time" there should be a multitude of reliable sources that claim this outright practically to the point where it would be common knowledge even for a casual fan. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It ultimately comes down to the weight of coverage in reliable sources that directly make such claims. Per the second-to-last paragraph of WP:WEIGHT policy:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Left guide (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If a player was graced with the honor of being named to the NBA's 75th anniversary team, they should be honored with "considered to be one of the best players of all time" in their opening. is out of line because such a conclusion amounts to original research which is forbidden by WP:OR policy. Left guide (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s not original research made by myself or whomever added that to his lead if these are claims made and structured by the NBA themselves, no? Boles P94 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose not, if it's directly verifiable. But a bigger issue is that the NBA is not an independent source, so such "one of the greatest" claims should be attributed at most, and don't really establish weight on their own. We use it as the main source to verify transactions, but context matters, and for something like this so subjective and oftentimes editorially controversial (as evidenced by this thread and Chamberlain's talk), we ought to be surveying independent secondary scholarship and focusing on the best sources. Or more simply, we can just write articles factually and let the 75th aniv. team accolade speak for itself without editorializing about it. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Another test case In his time in Boston, [Kevin] McHale was part of three NBA champions, including the 1985-86 Celtics team, widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time. Boston.com. Would this be lead worthy for mentioning "one of the greatest"?—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That claim characterizes the 85–86 Celtics, not McHale. Left guide (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Is that what they call a dangling modifier? —Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course he was one of the greatest of all time. Again that doesn't mean we include it in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In this case, that is the correct answer. In that sentence at boston.com, the part that says "greatest of all time" links to this page, which explains why (according to them) the '86 Celtics were the greatest team of all time. That verbiage doesn't refer to McHale himself. Even if it did, it would require substantially more than this one source. WP:WEIGHT says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Claiming that a given basketball player is one of the greatest of all time is an exceptional claim, so it requires exceptional sourcing. If we're going by a tight list, this one (maybe minus Curry) is nearly bulletproof. You could probably find dozens of sources for each one, and I would wager that these players make up the top 11 in the vast majority of lists published by reliable sources. That's a consensus, which is what we require. If we want to be looser about it we can drop the standard a bit and include it on more players, but even then, with all due respect, I suspect we'd have to get quite a bit looser before we get to including Kevin McHale. Ladtrack (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Lol at how we quoted the exact same policy clause. Left guide (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah we did haha Ladtrack (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Test case II "[Elgin] Baylor is widely recognized as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport and he's got the accolades to back it up." CBS Sports.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I will have to send Pete Blackburn a stern email lol. My point still stands tho– there should be a plethora (I know you like that word) of reliable sources to back it up. Mr. Blackburn was probably over-exaggerating out of some sort of sympathetic obligation based off Elgin Baylor's recent passing that was mentioned in the article. On top of that, no one in their right mind would consider a player without a single MVP or Championship to be among the greatest players of the history of the sport. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Elgin Baylor is a given as easily one of the greatest of all-time. With eleven all-star appearances he is an easy call. My goodness, how long have you been watching basketball? This is why putting greatness in the lead is problematic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Championships and MVPs are an arbitrary cutoff based on original research. Sources may use that as an influencing factor, but we simply publish what they say, not invent our own criteria for "greatness". Left guide (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think Baylor is closer than McHale. If you loosen it to about 25 or so players, Baylor maybe makes it, and he for sure does if we get 30 or so. The sources for him wouldn't be as strong as for, say, Shaq, but depending on what strength sources we decide to require, it could be there. Basically, the looser the standards we keep, the more players get included, so with sufficiently loose standards we would eventually get to Elgin. That would have to be a community decision, I don't think I could make that snap call. If you're asking me personally, I'd probably cut it a bit before it gets to him. But that's just me, if the community decides otherwise that is ultimately their call. Ladtrack (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Well wait a minute. I assume Mr Basketball (George Mikan), THE Greatest player in basketballs first 50 years, is easily one of the greatest of all time? We usually judge against one's peers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, since basketball was invented in 1891 and Mikan started playing college basketball 51 years later and professional basketball 55 years later, he can't be the greatest player in basketball's first 50 years, can he? Well, aside from that, for whatever reason, basketball historians seem to tend to start considering players to have gotten really excellent around 1960 or so. Perhaps that's because that's when the NBA actually became a national league and not a regional league centered in the northeast. Unfair to Mr. Mikan, perhaps, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. If it's any consolation, he might be considered the creator of great basketball, considering how much of the game was molded around him (like goaltending and the shot clock). Ladtrack (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually he can since it's not my words, it's AP. So per experts and historians, yeah he was one of the greatest. We have hockey greats before the NHL branched out to more than six teams in 1967. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, the NHL was both older and substantially more popular before 1967 than the NBA was before 1960. Also, I checked and three players that I found that played before 1967 have "one of the greatest of all time" in the leads: Bobby Hull, Jean Béliveau, and Gordie Howe. George Mikan was really good, but he's not the basketball equivalent to any of these three players. He's more like Eddie Shore; probably the best player of his era, but played with very very different rules and substantially lower competition than later players. Note that Shore's Wikipedia page does not say that he is one of the greatest players of all time. Ladtrack (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That's your opinion but not that of the NBA and basketball. Mikan is a legend and one of the greatest of all-time... per the NBA Legends, Hall of Fame, NBA 75th Anniversary Team, NY Times, basketball.com, even Shaq ranked him as his Laker equal. And rules keep changing all the time. Zone defense, carrying over the ball, the way charging is called, 3pt lines, .... rules change every decade. To say Mikan is not an all-time great is simply wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Look, "one of the greatest basketball players of all time" has to stop somewhere. Otherwise you could get far enough and I'd be one of the greatest basketball players of all time, if you counted several hundred million people ahead of me. The NBA legends page and the NBA 75 both include 76 players. That basketball.com list appears to include 61 (but not Oscar Robertson?). The Hall of Fame has hundreds. Would we say that Damian Lillard is one of the greatest basketball players of all time? We could, if we were being broad enough. He is, after all, already on three of the four lists, and is a surefire future Hall of Famer as well. But we probably would not, both because it is harder to source than players that are generally believed to be better, and because "one of the greatest players of all time" becomes progressively less meaningful the more players are included.

As a note, I took the liberty of looking through a few sources for the hockey players I mentioned. All three players are within the top 10 here, Beliveau and Howe are in the top 10 here, and the three players are 4th, 7th, and 14th here. By comparison, Mikan is 35th according to the same website that you provided as a source, 28th according to ESPN, and 24th according to Sports Illustrated. Could we include him? Sure we could, if we broadened the criteria enough. Had he been an equivalent hockey player, I feel fairly confident that the good people at WP:NHL would not have. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not dissing George Mikan for no reason. Basketball would not be what it is if he wasn't there. But the statement "one of the greatest" inherently means less the more people you put on it, and not everyone can make it. Ladtrack (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

But Wikipedia cannot make an arbitrary cutoff. That's POV-pushing. If multiple sources call someone one of the all-time greats, then that's good enough. What Wikipedia can do is decide whether to put that stuff in the lead. But we can't do it for some and not all. That's unfair an against policy here. When you have 80-85 years of pro basketball, there could easily be 100 greats. That's about 12 players per decade. Sure, some decades (especially older ones) will have less. And I didn't say Mikan was top 10, but he was one of the greatest players. I don't think we will ever agree on what I deem a short-changing bias against older generation players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Wikipedia cannot make an arbitrary cutoff., though my rationale is that it's a form of WP:OR. Left guide (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It must not be arbitrary, but Wikipedia should make cutoffs based on WP:WEIGHT:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

—Bagumba (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

But WEIGHT also says we would include things that are of minority view, but to a lesser extent. So you wouldn't write paragraph after paragraph on it compared to Magic or Robertson, but it would still be mentioned if it's used for others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe for someone like Mikan, we can say something else like "He stood out as one of the best in his era" or "He was a defining player of his era" or "He was a true legend of his time". GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume Mr Basketball (George Mikan), THE Greatest player in basketballs first 50 years, is easily one of the greatest of all time?: Sources say that AP called him the greatest player in the first half of the 20th century.[8] That's fine for a statement about the past. However, there would need to be more recent sources if we were to write that he still is considered "one of the greatest of all time".—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Which is why there was more than one or why it would that "he has been called on of the greatest of all-time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I got thrown off by "the greatest" statement. "one of the greatest" is open-ended per #Meaning of "one of the greatest" (below). —Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Meaning of "one of the greatest"

In the discussions, I'm seeing a wide range of interpretations of what "one of the greatest" can mean, for example:

1. One of the players ranked No. 1 or considered the GOAT (e.g. Jordan, James, Abdul-Jabbar)
2. Among the top 5 or top 10 of all time (e.g. Olajuwon, Bryant)
3. HOF inductees or HOF worthy (Mikan, Barkley, Durant)

—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Well we wrote about this in the essay WP:Aesthetic opinions (aka WP:GREATEST) a while back as follows, and this is actually also a reply to Ladtrack's last comment as well:

Unquantifiable rankings such as "one of the greatest" are inherently irrefutable due to their vagueness and ambiguity, so they should only be considered for usage when directly supported by a large proportion of the highest-quality sources.

Left guide (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion going off the 3 "classes" of legends you mentioned…

1. "widely considered the greatest player of all time" (or some other variation)
2. "regarded as one of the greatest players of all time" (or some other variation)
3. "one of the greatest players of his generation" (or era)

GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Essentially, none of those three definitions mean much, especially for a claim so subjective like this. It comes down to being directly verifiable in a large proportion of high-quality sources, so one or two local beat writers isn't usually going to count for much, maybe not even five, depending on how big the field of scholarship is, which in this case is very big. Left guide (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The high degree of subjectiveness is exactly why greatness should not be in the lead at all. When you have to define "greatness" to our readers something is wrong and unencyclopedic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the "test cases" above may be a misleading and unhelpful exercise, because one source (or even a few) can easily be cherrypicked. Surveying and analyzing the whole field of scholarship would be more useful. Left guide (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Per policy we are not allowed to survey and analyze.... that's improper synthesis. We simply state what sources say and properly attribute it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the "test cases" above may be a misleading: They were merely sources that were presented for discussion, with no other commentary. I found it useful to see how people assessed its relevance w.r.t. WP. —Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is a very high bar to clear. As I've said before, the sourcing has to be very high. As in, you could probably find a dozen high-quality sources high. I do think we can loosen requirements for narrower superlatives (ex. Chris Paul is one of the greatest point guards of all time) but greatest players of all time is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sourcing. I believe I've already used nearly that exact verbiage here before but it bears repeating. This serves two purposes. One, the higher the sourcing bar, the better the player is almost inevitably required to be. This isn't necessarily on purpose, more of a happy accident, but in practical terms, the fact remains that sportswriters are more likely to describe a player as one of the greatest if they are considered greater all-time. This, in my opinion, makes the list more useful to readers, and while that's not grounded in Wikipedia rules, it is important. The other benefit is that it better fulfills Wikipedia policies.

As for why put it in the lead, I'll just copy this here, I think I explained it well enough last time.

The purpose of the lead section is two-fold; to summarize the body of the article, and to give readers an understanding of the most important things about that person. Mentioning that a player is considered one of the greatest of all time is one of the most important things about all of them (maybe the single most important for all aside from the few notable activists that would qualify) so it is by definition lead-worthy. And having a full explanation of that player's position in the history of basketball and why they're considered one of the greatest (eleven championships, ridiculous stats, two three-peats, et cetera) would be appropriate for the legacy section of the articles, summarized in the lead by "X player is widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time". Ladtrack (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

And again we disagree massively. Sportswriters are more likely to use "greatest" if it's the last 15-20 years and forget the greatest before that. CEIB creeps in over and over. And we disagree that something as subjective as greatest should be in the lead. Then we add weasel words like "widely" or "most" and it gets even crazier. The lead summarizes the body of the article but that doesn't mean we synthesize it into greatest. If we start allowing the term "greatest" in the lead then if we can properly source it anyone with that moniker should be allowed to have it in the lead. It can go into greater detail in the article proper for those in the top 10 of multiple lists because of article weight. We report what we see here, we don't make judgements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm genuinely asking you, do you have any real reason to believe this is the case? I haven't seen any evidence of this. I checked ESPN's list of the 75 greatest players (compiled in 2021), and the first 10 has four players that played before the ABA merger, and the next 10 has another four. This is exactly the proportion you'd expect: in 2021, there had been 75 seasons in NBA history, and 45 of them had been after the merger in 1976. That means 40% of all seasons are pre-merger, and sure enough, 40% of both the top 10 and the top 20 players are pre-merger. I don't know what else can be expected; including more old players would actually be overrepresentation. Ladtrack (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

But you are using the top 75 for two different things. You said a dozen or so greatest players because the bar is so high and now it sounds like top 75. That's more reasonable. And that's one list when you were telling us that not as many lists pick Baylor or Chamberlain or Bird or McHale or Dr J. Then we use what they say in that 75 greatest list and the list is not a good source for "some" players. Now I didn't go and total it but you used 20 players on the greatest 75 list for your 40%. What about the other 55 on the list? And in the 30 first years what is the percentage of top 75 in 10-year chunks? I would expect there to be a bit less in the first ten years, and a little more in the next ten, and little more in the next ten, as the league evolved. If we used a blanket term for all 75 on that list that said "considered one of the greatest players of all time by the NBA" and plopped that in the legacy section, I could live with that. It's by the NBA, it's a reasonable length, and I don't think most sources would put the term "greatest" on players outside this list. There may be a small handful of exceptions. We don't need to add weasel words like "widely" or "most." We don't need to synthesize because we have the source printed in many magazines and newspapers that we can link to. Would I add greatest to all these players legacies.... probably not because it is a subjective list and I think we're better than plopping the term "greatest" in bio legacies. But I also understand that many editors like the term and the stigma it gives to their favorite players so I would step back and say nothing about those additions. At least it's fair and non-pov. I would still disagree with it being in the lead, and strongly disagree with it being in the lead of only some of the players and not others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think leaving it off the lead entirely would be a bigger mistake. There are so many different categories of sports where it is stated in the lead of their respective players. See Lionel Messi, Mijaín López, Wayne Gretzky, Babe Ruth, Usain Bolt, Tiger Woods, etc. A wide array of different sports. I don't think it would be right to leave it off this sport when it’s still clearly in the lead of many others. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No. That's not what I meant. I was using that list to shorthand a point I was making. I figured ESPN would be a reliable enough source to show you this, but to actually make the list we would need probably a dozen more. And as for why I picked the top 20, that's about how many I would estimate as having the sourcing required to put a claim like that at the top. As I've said, it's an exceptional claim. We would need a lot of sources, and as a general (though not absolute) rule, the greater the player is, the more likely sportswriters are to describe them as one of the greatest of all time. When Bill Russell (no. 6 on the list) passed away, this is how sources described him: NBA legend, the greatest winner in basketball history, is widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time, basketball great, NBA great, one of the greatest players of all-time, the ultimate winner. When Wes Unseld (no. 48 on the list) passed away, sources described him as: a Hall of Fame center, NBA Hall of Famer, Hall of Famer and former Washington Bullets star, won MVP, Washington Bullets Hall of Famer and NBA champion, Hall of Famer and NBA champion in DC, Hall of Famer, former MVP. You can see the difference here, can't you? Both are Hall of Famers, both are on the NBA 75, but according to the sources, Russell is one of the greatest players in NBA history, and Unseld isn't. That's why Russell's lead should say that he is one of the greatest players in NBA history, and Unseld's shouldn't. That's what I'm talking about when I say reflect the sources. It isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of the sources.

And frankly, at this point, I think I have proven sufficiently that there is not a bias. I have provided proof that sportswriters do not appear to bias against older players (7 of the 11 players on the tight greatest list retired before "the last 15-20 years" in your words, 40% of the top 10 and top 20 according to ESPN are pre-merger). What you are asking for is a lot of work. I would be willing to do it if absolutely necessary but I refuse because you have failed to provide even a shred of evidence that sportswriters bias against older players, you simply repeat the assertion without providing even reasoning, never mind evidence, for why you believe this. If you have a good reason for believing this, show it to me, provide some evidence for the claim, and then I'll consider your request. At this point of time, the onus of proof is on you. Ladtrack (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You provided proof of the NBA top 20 for your cutoff point. Not all the other sources you like. But I'll take a look at the rest myself as you suggest to see how it fairs with the NBA. The NBA list is probably a lot more fair. As far as what goes in the lead we are on a different planet it seems. That happens at Wikipedia. But I'll look at the other 55 this week and see what I come up with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if I came off rude there. I was a bit annoyed but I've reread what I wrote and I did not intend for the language to be that harsh.

As for why I only did the first 20, I can explain that. It has to do with the Russell/Unseld difference I've attempted to show. I honestly believe the sourcing suggests that Russell is one of the greatest players of all time, while Unseld is not. I was looking through sources for Unseld it is very hard to find someone actually calling him one of the greatest players of all time, or attaching any sort of superlative to him; meanwhile, those of Russell are very generous, as you can see. Using Wikipedia's sourcing standards, we would not be able to claim that Unseld is one of the greatest players, while we would be able to claim it for Russell. I can't technically say for sure but I am very certain that this difference is because Bill Russell is considered to be a greater basketball player. So, if Unseld isn't and Russell is, then clearly the line between one of the greatest and not must be somewhere between 48th greatest and 6th greatest player. To tell you the truth, I just looked for a reliable source that ranked NBA players. ESPN's list just so happened to have 75. If it had 30 players, or 50, I would have still used it all the same. I then eyeballed where I thought the line might be based on the players on the list, which was top 20, and discarded the rest. To actually determine where to draw the line for sure we'd have to look through more lists and analyze sourcing, but I was not making the guideline there, I was just conducting a snap test for era bias. I figured since players outside the top 20 probably wouldn't be considered one of the greatest of all time, it didn't really matter to check the rest, since the conversation only related to those who would be considered one of the greatest. That's why I didn't check the other 55. Ladtrack (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is getting long, so I haven't read all of the recent comments, but one fundamental problem I see is that taking a list of "75 greatest players of all-time" (even the NBA's 75th aniv. team) and then translating that into Wikipedia on 75 player bios as "one of the greatest players of all-time" is a form of original research, and any cutoff is going to be arbitrary. For example, there's a baseball book on 1,000 greatest players, and there's a basketball publication of 500 greatest players. The NBA itself is also a conflicted non-independent source, so doesn't carry much weight for exceptional claims like this; they have a vested financial interest in promoting many players as "one of the greatest", especially among active players. Generally, the only thing that those lists are good for is for attributing the exact ranking they provide. (something like Bill Russell was ranked #8 on ESPN's list of 75 greatest players of all-time published in 2022) Left guide (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand. Please read the first paragraph of this comment for my explanation of my logic for a cutoff. I understand that it is always going to feel a bit arbitrary but I feel it is possible to do it in a way that doesn't involve original research and instead accurately reflects the sources. It will require research but it is very doable. Ladtrack (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, one idea that might be helpful is to start a subpage of this project to track and organize all of the sources. Perhaps something like Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/GOAT research. Left guide (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I would support something like that and I would be happy to contribute to it but first we need consensus. There are about a dozen editors that have opined on the topic and I don't think we have any consensus on even including it in the lead, never mind how to go about doing that. If it isn't too much trouble, do you think you could set up an RfC on this? I would do it myself but I am going to be very busy the next couple of days. Ladtrack (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking of that over the past few days, but the Chamberlain RfC is still technically running, and it seems inappropriate to have two related RfCs running simultaneously in different venues. I'd be happy to after the Chamberlain RfC is closed. FWIW, I did file a closure request explaining the situation, so hopefully that gets attended to sooner rather than later. Left guide (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You'll also note how I worded it... "considered one of the greatest players of all time by the NBA." That's an NBA list that was selected by current and former NBA players, coaches, general managers and team and league executives, WNBA legends, sportswriters, and broadcasters. That is not original research when worded that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I think anytime you mention "GOAT" you have to follow it with "of their era"... Most of these players didn't play against each other or some were in their prime while the others were not. All in all, it makes no god damn difference. Wutang forever! 2600:387:C:7015:0:0:0:8 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not a problem if multiple players have statements in the lead that say that many experts believe they are the greatest of all time. There isn't a goat, but there are various players who numerous experts believe they are goats. And that is very relevant in explaining the impact of each player to uninformed readers. I don't think that a minority opinion is the same as a fringe opinion. A fringe opinion is saying that the earth is flat. Many experts have called Wilt the greatest, and he still has the four greatest single-season averages, including 50.4, which is more than 13 points a game, more than the next closest player. There is a difference between having been called the greatest and being widely regarded as the greatest. MJ is widely regarded as the greatest due to many polls of writers, players, and fans. But saying that LeBron and Wilt have been called the greatest does not break any neutrality since you can verify those claims with many reliable sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There’s probably 30-40 or so players that fit the mold if i had to estimate off the top of my head. If you’re an NBA fan you kinda have a grasp of who they are. Eg224 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. You should mention that all of those players are considered to be among the greatest ever. Also, I am not sure you can cut it off at 30 or 40. I think that as long as reliable sources have said, you should write that on Wikipedia. It is necessary to educate uninformed readers. Orlando Davis (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s also fair. If sources will consistently say it, definitely. Eg224 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Would inclusion on the NBA 75th Anniversary Team or previous iterations be a reasonable measure for determining who is one of the greatest? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that being included on the NBA's 75 greatest is enough to say they are one of the greatest ever. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Being included in the NBA 75th Anniversary Team is a good prerequisite, but I don’t believe there should be that many players considered as one of the greatest of all time. For example, Carmelo Anthony is on the list, but you’d be hard pressed to find reliable sources claiming him to be one of the greatest players of all time. It should be more exclusive than 75 players, especially considering that total will grow with each anniversary. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  While that could be true, almost all those players on the list would be considered one of the all-time greats. One or two anomalies is no big deal because at least we would have a list to point to as opposed to some arbitrary WP:OR list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree it’s a great list to point to, but I’d say there are definitely more than one or two anomalies. Besides Carmelo Anthony, there is Ray Allen, Nate Archibald, Paul Arizin, Rick Barry, Dave Bing, Dave Cowens, Billy Cunningham, Dave DeBusschere, Damian Lillard, Bill Sharman, etc. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  As fun as going through this again would be, instead do you mind looking over my proposed RfC here? I'm trying to get feedback so I make this as good as possible to increase chances of getting consensus. I'm already adding context and clarifying that the second question is optional because of feedback I've already gotten. I want to put this RfC on tomorrow so if you have any input now would be the time. This applies for anybody that wants input, by the way. Ladtrack (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC time?

Now that the Chamberlain RfC has closed, I'm wondering if there's still interest in launching a project-level RfC here to reach a consensus on using "greatest" in leads. Here is an example question I had in mind. It should be neutral, and easy for uninvolved editors to quickly understand and answer. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the way that RFC closed, and I'm worried about the precedent it will set. The problem is that there isn't a foolproof way to demonstrate how common a given GOAT appellation is, relative to other claims to the title. You can't just say, "40% of commentators say Chamberlain is the GOAT." There's no practical way to determine that.

I know very well that if we say that Chamberlain is considered the GOAT, drive-by editors will constantly remove that statement or change it to be "one of the greatest." That was already happening.

I truly think that the best way to bypass future timesinks is to avoid such statements in the lead and just stick to straightforward facts (major records, awards, statistical rankings, etc.). Zagalejo (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't a foolproof way to demonstrate how common a given GOAT appellation is, relative to other claims to the title. There is actually, it's called digging up the entire GOAT scholarship field, which presumably numbers in hundreds or even thousands of sources. But that points to a bigger problem in that such a task is an exorbitant drain on the most precious resource of volunteer hours, both for the folks researching, and the others discussing and reading/examining sources. I think at a certain point, WikiProjects can and should consider cutting their losses. For example, the F1 project has deprecated GOAT claims, and the ice hockey project doesn't include awards in infoboxes. Left guide (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

We should workshop the actual issues and specific questions before considering if another RfC is necessary. I don't think there is common ground on the actual issues yet, let alone a solution. —Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If I was to make one, I would say something along the lines of:

1) Should the leads of the articles of any NBA players say that they are often considered one of the greatest players of all time?

2) If the answer to the previous question is yes, what standard should be used?

• Every NBA 75 player is listed as one of the greatest.

• Some list of players that Wikipedia selects - this list would be one possibility, but there could be more or less based on Wikipedia consensus.

• Something like the proposal I outlined here.

Obviously these are just my rough approximations of choices to make based on proposals in the above discussion. If any of these options needs to be adjusted or anyone wants to add new ones, we can do that. My idea is that if the answer to the first question ends up being "no", that's the end of that, and if it comes out being "yes", we proceed to question two. I didn't touch on "the greatest" because the discussion ended up being mostly around "one of the greatest" and quantifying the GOAT debate is a whole other can of worms that'll end up dominating the discussion. We can do that another time. This would just be to determine if we can say "[X player] is widely considered one of the greatest players of all time".

I wouldn't be too worried about the result of the Chamberlain RfC; we can change that page to accommodate whatever consensus we form. Thoughts on this proposal? Ladtrack (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with leaving the greatest stuff out of the lead section. WikiProject tennis has pretty much also eradicated greatest from the lead section...Laver, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer etc. How it would get worded in a legacy section I'm not sure. There's only about a dozen simply goats, and the 75 cutoff for one of the greatest could work. It's always tough with these subjective water cooler greatest debates but at least you'd have the NBA 75 list to point to in the NBA Guidelines on use of "greatest.". Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Evidently not for female tennis players, but that's not really the point. I wasn't asking what your preference is. I know what your preference is. Do you think this wording will work for an RfC on the topic so we can get consensus on the question? Ladtrack (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned that question 2 may be too detailed and granular to garner meaningful input from uninvolved editors who don't have a specialized interest in NBA/basketball. If all of the participants end up being the same folks from the above discussions, I feel like things would just go in circles. Perhaps it should be emphasized from the get-go that question 2 is optional so that non-NBA fans still feel comfortable engaging in the RfC. Left guide (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Do you think there's anything that should be altered or added to the question? Ladtrack (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Question 1 is too narrow; it should refer to the concept of subjective iterations of "greatest" (and related words like "best") broadly construed, rather than a specific claim. Not sure yet if I endorse question 2 in terms of RfC usefulness, but if it is to be included, procedurally the options should have brief identifiers that can be attached to bolded !votes (i.e. letters like "A", "B", "C"). Left guide (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a single question is just fine but I worry about context for uninvolved editors. The sentence is just fine but perhaps a second paragraph with some background to go with it? Something like:

• Should subjective iterations of the word "greatest" be allowed in the lead of player bios, Yes or No?
• Background: Various historical NBA players have been called "one of the greatest", "the greatest of all-time", or "the greatest at a position" by the press, magazines, books, former players, experts, etc. These terms are very subjective in nature and cover a 75+ year history, but can be sourced none-the-less. Discussions have ranged from the terms being vital to non-encyclopedic, from leaving the term in a player legacy section to prominently being displayed in the lead to not using the term at all. Discussions have also touched on the number of greatest players there actually are, from a handful to arbitrary cutoffs to using the NBA's own list from the NBA 75th Anniversary Team. Please help us out with a yes or no on the term "greatest" in the lead section and the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

That's how I would create the RfC if it was WikiProject Tennis related. I'm not saying we need an RfC but if one is created I'd give background on past discussions to the editors who would be responding so they don't have to wade through all the past discussions. I think I got it pretty neutral with the gist of our many discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You should put the half of that that you believe into your oppose vote when you vote against question 1. You can say you think it's unencyclopedic and that any cutoffs would be arbitrary and that it's too vague and all the other stuff. I've found that in RfCs people tend to read the other votes, if only so they can find someone else that has already said their argument, so if you put all that in your vote everyone will find out. I'll for sure mention at least some of the counterarguments and I'm sure all of the arguments will be included in the discussion eventually. Ladtrack (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said... I believe in a more comprehensive RfC wording for those called here by BOT from the Philosophy Project, so we handle these things very differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I think it'll be good. I would remove the second-to-last sentence because the second question itself renders it redundant; that question explicitly lays out possible criteria for considering a player one of the greatest. @Left guide has I think wisely suggested we explicitly mark that question as optional, but should voters care, they can weigh in on it directly. The rest of it looks good to go as is. Ladtrack (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree for now. Broadly asking for the use of the term greatest will inevitably break it into two questions.

One is the one we have mostly been discussing, which is if to say "one of the greatest players of all time". There are slight variations on that like "one of the greatest shooters of all time", "one of the greatest point guards of all time" etc. that can be included. This can use the sourcing standard that I mentioned.

The other one is "THE greatest player of all time". This is a more eye-catching issue and one that involves a number of more complicated discussions. In particular, it will most likely require a different sourcing standard, one that we have yet to determine. If we include this question everybody will focus on it and the RM will result in "no consensus" because it just ends up dragging into an MJ/LeBron/others debate. That's the topic that pulls in the most casual NBA fans and the thorniest issue, because the title inherently implies that only one player can have it. We can figure that out some other time.

For now, I would much rather gain consensus for the first question, then we can figure out the second one some other time. If we put them together, everyone will ignore the first question and only focus on the second question and we will have accomplished nothing. Ladtrack (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually some of part two has already been figured out with Chamberlain allowing it. I'm sure Jordan and James and multiple others would fit into that also. The question would be on GOAT do we allow it for none or do we allow it for ten? Part one helps decide that, especially if it's No. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's not good enough without a more comprehensive policy (which the closing nominator seems to imply), in addition to people mostly focusing on the spicier question, we'll just get bogged down in the same traps again, (like what is the threshold needed to make the claim, how useful is a source claiming Wilt or Russell to be the GOAT that is before most of the major GOAT candidates were NBA players, etc) and we do not want to do that especially with this discussion primarily focusing on a different question. If it is good enough, great. That means we don't have to ask it here, since it's settled. Either way, I think it would be better just to focus on the one narrow question for now. Ladtrack (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it only focusing on #1 as long as we have some context, especially for non basketball editors that join in. When all we say is do we allow greatest, editors are coming in blind to the situation. Removing the second to last sentence of mine is fine. Chamberlain is settled per the closer as would be other players but NBA Project certainly has a say about whether that stuff belongs in the lead. What we can't do is arbitrarily allow it for some and not others, or to allow sources for one player but throw them out for others. That's what pretty much started this whole things down the slippery slope of doom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I like your proposal. We should add the greatest to the leads. I believe the key lies in using distinct phrasing for each player. What if we framed it this way: for anyone on the top 75 list, we could say the player was honored as one of the 75 greatest of all time. For those recognized by numerous experts as the greatest player ever, we could state that they were called the greatest of all time. If a player is widely acknowledged by many as one of the greatest players in history, we can say they are widely considered as one of the greatest players of all time.

Only MJ could be widely considered to be the singular greatest of all time since he is the only one who has a consistent majority opinion of fans, players, and writers. That's what Wikipedia can use based on its guidelines. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• One of the greatest is a nebulous term. Jordan or Russell might have claims to The Greatest. Many have claims to one of the greatest. I grew up watching former MVP and 3xNBA scoring Champ Bob McAdoo. He is both NBA 75 and Euroleage 50 as well as consensus 1st team AA in college. I would be comfortable describing him as one of the greatest.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure most people would be comfortable using that term with McAdoo in arguing around the Thanksgiving table. But in an encyclopedia "greatest" will always be very subjective. It will always be one person's views against another. And the closer to the current era the more likely the older eras get the short straw when you narrow down a list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Jersey Numbers

Was it ever decided anywhere that the reason for players wearing jersey numbers aren't notable enough to mention? I was considering adding one but then realized that I've never seen an article that includes that information. This includes really well-known, easily sourceable ones, like LeBron James wearing 23 because of Michael Jordan. Is there a reason these are near-uniformly excluded? Ladtrack (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion if it's notable or WP:NOTDIARY, but Shaquille O'Neal § Early life mentions at end. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately comes down to whether it's WP:DUE. FWIW, MJ's infobox has a footnote cited to two sources briefly explaining the story of wearing a nameless #12 for a game because his main jersey got stolen. Left guide (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

See also the beginning of the fourth paragraph of Kobe Bryant#Scoring records and playoff upsets (2004–2007):

Later in the season, it was reported that Bryant would change his jersey number from 8 to 24 at the start of the 2006–07 season. Bryant's first high-school number was 24 before he switched to 33. After the Lakers' season ended, Bryant said on TNT that he wanted 24 as a rookie, but it was unavailable as it was worn by George McCloud, as was 33, retired with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Bryant wore 143 at the Adidas ABCD camp and chose 8 by adding those numbers.

Left guide (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

So I should be good adding this sort of thing, then? My gut says probably it is notable especially for players that are tightly associated with a number. Ladtrack (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Up to you honestly. I'm not aware of any consensus against it, and it's unlikely there ever will be. Stick with reliable sources and avoid unreliable ones (WP:NBASOURCES may be helpful). Otherwise, have at it, good luck. Left guide (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on NESN or Slam (magazine) as reliable sources? There's a story about Julius Erving's number being 6 because Bill Russell was a personal hero of his, which is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. But I'm not sure if these are reliable enough sources to cite. Ladtrack (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked about Slam over a month ago at WT:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References#Slam (magazine) since it shows up often in this topic area, but there were no replies. Never heard of NESN before. These inquiries might be worth raising at the reliable sources noticeboard. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Slam is (was?) a long-time monthly mag. NESN is a regional sports network in the Boston area. Both seem fine. —Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's probably fine if there's an encyclopedic backstory to the number. It's distracting (and trivial?) if it's just randomly placed "they wore No. 4" and nothing else.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The function and purpose of a simple "they wore No. 4" is already supplanted by the infobox "number" parameter, so it's unnecessary to repeat that in prose if there's no further context. Left guide (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been doing this if there isn't at least something else. I've started with the NBA 75 team but I skip people if I can't find any reasoning or anything. For what I've done so far:

[Abdul-Jabbar] wore the jersey number 33, which he chose in tribute to his favorite player, New York Giants fullback Mel Triplett. He would continue wearing this number throughout his college and professional career.

[Dave Bing] wore a No. 22 jersey in college, as he had in high school, as a homage to Elgin Baylor, who he had watched play on a playground court in Washington, D.C. as a boy in 1957. [On the Detroit Pistons, he] wore the jersey number 21 because player-coach Dave DeBusschere already wore No. 22.

Antetokounmpo selected 34 as his jersey number because his mother was born in 1963 and his father was born in 1964, so he combined the last digits of their birth years.

[Carmelo Anthony chose the number 7 on the Knicks] because his son was born on March 7, and because 7 was the result of subtracting his number in Denver, 15, from his high school number of 22.

Nowitzki chose to wear the jersey number 14 [in the Bundesliga] because Charles Barkley wore that number during the 1992 Olympics. Nowitzki was unable to continue to wear his No. 14 jersey with the Mavericks because Robert Pack was already wearing it, so he swapped the digits and wore No. 41 instead.

O'Neal switched his jersey to No. 34 on the Lakers, as the No. 32 jersey he had worn in Orlando was retired in honor of Magic Johnson, and the No. 33 jersey he had worn at LSU was retired in honor of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The No. 34 jersey was also in honor of his stepfather, who wore that number in the Army.

I haven't got too far yet but when I continue I will only put these if there is something else to say, like what I've got here. This should be fine, I hope. Ladtrack (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I checked some of the additions, and from a cursory look, they seem good. Please remember WP:NOTBURO; if no one objects to your changes, you can assume they're fine. You are also inherently trusted by other community members. Best, Left guide (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly, MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS says

There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.

A jersey number without a backstory is probably one of those exceptions, and seems like a de facto standard editing practice anyways. Left guide (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m fine with it. Some jersey numbers have very interesting backstories. Ping me when you get to Rodman😂 GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I just did a check, and the Rodman story is astonishingly hard to find good sources for considering how well known it is. I did eventually find a couple of sources though, so I'll put the story in when I get to him. Ladtrack (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I put in what I thought was a perfectly ordinary story for Michael Jordan, but another user thought it was excessive. What do you guys think? Ladtrack (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding the backstory of how a player chose his number is irrelevant to his playing career. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is getting disjointed. I commented on the Jordan situation at the Jordan talk page. But to address the more general point: Players are more than just their playing careers. The jersey numbers are significant to their status as cultural figures. The numbers show up in memorabilia, in song lyrics, etc. I think if information about the choice of jersey number exists, it could be worth including. Zagalejo (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

References

NBA G League

Noticed the NBA G League articles are incomplete.

Started the 2024 G League Draft article a few months back, by chance the missing G League Expansion Drafts for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 can be fixed? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

"the most recent" tidbits

Pages sometimes have random "the last time" trivia, like

1. 2016 NBA Finals: "this is the most recent NBA Finals to feature a Game 7"
2. 2017–18 Golden State Warriors season: "The Warriors are the last team to win back to back titles, as of 2025."

MOS:DATED says:

Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided ...

Even #2 going to the trouble to say "as of 2025" is problematic, because who readily remembers to find this page and remove it when it's outdated?

I'm proposing that we not have these in historical pages, as

• A maintenance issue to find and remove when outdated
• An encyclopedia should mostly deal with enduring facts, not something transient and "most recently"

The "most recent" winner on a general page like NBA Finals or NBA Finals Most Valuable Player, on the other hand, are high-traffic pages that will presumably get updated.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but not sure why a formal proposal is necessary to enforce MOS. Sports championship (and related) articles are often magnets for WP:OR trivia from drive-by IPs, which I'm sure you know. One option within admin discretion could be to pending-changes protect some of these that have an ongoing issue; PC patrollers tend to be good at gatekeeping unsourced/OR content. Left guide (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The MOS can technically be resolved by "as of", so it's more of an editorial issue. The content is usually verifiable, even if not cited. —Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed from the aforementioned pages. —Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Working on a Chicago Bulls dynasty article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball § Working on a Chicago Bulls dynasty article

 – Centralizing.—Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have just started a draft on the Chicago Bulls dynasty which I need some help working on. Can anyone please help me work on the draft? Wcamp9 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

An initial concern is the use of the word "dynasty." I don't personally disagree with the word in this case, but it needs to be clearly defined and that definition needs to be supported by reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise whatever this article turns into is inevitably headed toward an original research dispute. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

could we say Chicago Bulls sports dynasty or Chicago Bulls NBA dynasty or something along the lines of that. I can only say without research but watching things like the Last Dance that many news sources call it a dynasty at the least Wcamp9 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New category alert

A new user created the categories Category:NBA eventual champion elimination seasons, Category:NHL eventual champion elimination seasons, and Category:MLB eventual champion elimination seasons which was flagged as "really unnecessary" at the baseball project. A CfD may be in order. Left guide (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nominated for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 29#Eventual champion elimination seasons. Left guide (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Team logo galleries

Do I remember correctly that there was a consensus no to have logo galleries like at Los Angeles Clippers#Logos and uniforms? WP:GALLERY also advises against having them. – sbaio 10:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There's prose in the section, so some relevant images seem appropriate. However, WP:GALLERY that you mentioned says:

A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article ... Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.

Place them next to relevant text, and remove ones not even covered by prose. —Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for David Falk

David Falk has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The "greatest" in the lead

Just to be clear here, are we all just going to leave "widely regarded as one of the greatest players" in the lead of players like Nikola Jokic and Giannis Antetokounmpo, but leave it out of the lead of players like Michael Jordan and LeBron James? I don’t get how this happened and why it’s repeatedly deleted on those two players pages but never on Jokic or Giannis' page. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be included for Jordan and LeBron, and deleted for Giannis and Jokic. Assadzadeh (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

We can set certain criteria for the inclusion of "one of the greatest players" in the lead of players. Like for example, a player must have won at least 2 championships, been named finals MVP at least once, regular season MVP at least once, all-star selections at least 10 times, and All-NBA selection at least 10 times. If a player meets all this criteria then he may be allowed to have "one of the greatest players" in their lead. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That's original research, unless there are outside sources that explicitly make such a criteria. Left guide (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, scratch that then. I just want to know what’s going on with this since it’s been so long even the bot archived the Rfc we were having before. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't on purpose. Some people deleted the phrase for some articles and other people put the discussion tag for other articles. When we get the results of the RfC back (they will un-archive the RfC when they do so), we can standardize everything. I didn't know it would take a month but hopefully it shouldn't be much longer. Ladtrack (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, I just can’t stand seeing those inconsistencies for this long. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like the RFC on this topic was archived before it could be properly closed. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Wait for a formal close on the RfC (the close request still pending)—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is correct. I don't know what's taking them so long but when they do close it they will decide. We can then figure out what to do based on whichever criteria ends up being selected by the closer, if any. Ladtrack (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know what's taking them so long ...: Everyone is a volunteer here. It'll happen when it happens. —Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)