Talk:Ateneo Blue Eagles men's basketball

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Women's sport: Basketball This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Women's basketball task force. Basketball: Women's This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball articles This article is supported by the Women's basketball task force.

I suppose we must have an actual discussion here first in the article talk page before other people get involved. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do ask for a reason why it was promotional, and by a reason, not just saying "because it was". You saying "it was" doesn't make it promotional. It lists even the unsuccessful seasons; how can that promote... something? What was what it promoting anyway? WP:PROMOTE talks about spam and advertisement, and it's certainly not like that. I can probably pull up newspaper references from newspaper archives of the final team standings, and Ateneo's finish in the playoffs if it made it; at this point, the stats are from individual season articles, and there's no reason to believe that those are made up. I remember Ateneo being the third seed in 2003, beating UE twice in the semifinals, and winning in game 3 of the Finals vs. DLSU; it's not WP:OR in the sense that it's completely made up out of thin air. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is completely unsourced.
2. It is partly double with the section "Championships". The parts that are not in that section are IMHO irrelevant.
3. This article was in the past victim of spammers and promo-writers (not sure about paid editing). So I am straight on edge when someone adds a lot opf unsourced information

The Banner talk 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I can work on it being unsourced. I can look for references on the last 29 years of the UAAP. However, it is not WP:OR and can easily be cross referenced to other websites. I don't think you'll dispute Ateneo finished 1st last season with a 11-3 record, and defeated UP in the finals 2-1, or the season before that, they finished first with a 13-1 record and were defeated by UP in the finals 2-1, and so on. It's not pulled out of thin air.
2. Why are the parts not in that section irrelevant? Unsuccessful seasons are irrelevant? You mean entire articles such as List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons are irrelevant? Again, "The parts that are not in that section are IMHO irrelevant" doesn't make it irrelevant. Ateneo has had winning and losing seasons, we do not just promote the winning seasons, right?
3. Completely understandable, as these kinds of articles are easy targets of such promotional material, but that's not the reason to tag every major edit as promotional, even if it is clearly not promotional at all.

If you do not want this added, I will move on posting this to WP:3O. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Clubs (an WP:ESSAY) actually recommend on having a season-by-season section. The format recommended though is not really relevant for the UAAP teams, or even Philippines-based clubs, as that's primarily for European teams, but still, it is expected that basketball club articles will have this sort of section. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An essay is just an opinion, not like a policy or guideline. And if you like essays: WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (in relation to your Tar Heels-argument). The Banner talk 08:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, Try this. Go to List of Premier League clubs. Click through to each team. Search for seasons. You'll find that most of the teams have either an article on seasons or a template that links to each season. Visit List of National Football League seasons and find links to hundreds of team/season articles. Do the same for any American NCAA Division I University, NBA team, Major League baseball team, etc. This is not OTHERSTUFF, this is GA stuff. It needs to be sourced, but it is definitely not WP:PROMO, it's history. This is what a good sports team article should do. — Jacona (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised by his reversion, as this is pretty standard and boring fare for sports team articles. Heck even the Lakers have an entire article -- an WP:FL to boot! -- about it. The fact that we are discussing its inclusion is unbelievably mindbreaking; this is what you want, or look for, on a sports team article.

The Banner, Please restore the section. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no need to restore unsourced stuff. That is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 19:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I supply sources to all 29 years from 1993 to 2022, will you allow its inclusion? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it is partly double fancruft. So, as a compromise I suggest that you post the list here, with all its independent, reliable sources, prior published sources. In that case, we can review it first. The Banner talk 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner does not WP:OWN this page. No one needs your permission to make an edit. If the information is reliably sourced and is not part of what Wikipedia is not, and fits the style of other sports pages, Howard should add it. — Jacona (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop with your aspersions please? I let you remove part of my edit, now you are trying to make this into a battleground. That is not so nice and certainly not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only restoring the section once every row is cited, or at least most of it. I have no issue with his/her's insistence on sourcing. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I won't be posting what is intended to be posted on the article here on this discussion first. What will be added to the article the next time I add the section will be entirely sourced. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With or without the section listing the team honors, and I can't believe I am explaining this again, this is pretty standard stuff that you'd expect to see on sport teams articles. This is so boring people forget to update this on some occasions. This is the only time someone has to justify its inclusion in a sports team article.

I'm going to use the Google News newspaper archive. They have the archives of the Manila Standard from the 1980s to 2003, and the Philippine Daily Inquirer from 2000 to 2007. From 2007 to 2022, Google News search should suffice, as the Philippine Star has its newspaper articles on its website from 2001 onwards. These are FL-levels of sourcing. FWIW, Draft:Ateneo Blue Eagles Basketball has identical team records; like I said, I didn't pull this out of thin air. These are actual, real stats, and I suspect that you know this.

I need you to be honest to me that these will be included in the article once the sourcing is done, otherwise I shall go forward with next stage of the dispute resolution process. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a compromise. If you refuse that compromise, feel free to ask elsewhere for opinions. By the way, I have never seen that draft before. The Banner talk 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I suggested to post the list here, is to give you a venue where you can work in peace. I do not think the work can be done in five minutes. The Banner talk 20:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do need a straight answer from you. Once I edit the article with the appropriate sourcing, would you revert it straight away or not? If you would, do you really want to undergo the whole dispute resolution process? I won't go the WP:3O route already as someone else already commented on the discussion (so it is not just merely between two people). I could do this as a binding WP:RFC, and just as what was explained to you, sections such as this are expected in sports team articles. If you want to justify its exclusion to even more people who would scratch their heads and ask themselves "is this guy serious?" be my guest.

FWIW, I'm not going to do it in 5 minutes... maybe over the weekend. I will post the edit right away on the main article. I have already explained to you where I am getting sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the sourcing: 1994 standings from the Manila Standard via Google newspaper archive. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]