Talk:National Basketball League (Australia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Listed as High, surely the NBL isn't a highly important article to wikipedia! Davo499 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format fault[edit]

Why does the first line start indented one space? I can't find anything in edit to fix it. RickK 02:24, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Looks fine for me using Mozilla 1.4 on Windows. Maybe this is a technical issue with the new software. What browser are you using?--Robert Merkel 03:35, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
IE 6.0. But this seems to be the only article that I see this happening in. RickK 02:47, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I was wrong. I'm seeing it happening in other articles now, too. But it does seem to have started since the new software. RickK 03:15, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is an issue through all the NBL team pages (and this one). It refers to awards, etc. from the 1998/9season (where a season runs over parts of two years) onwards as only the year that it finished. As per cricket seasons, these should be referred to as 1999/00 or 2006/7, not 2000 and 2007. These should obviously all be corrected and not left as incorrect just because all the pages are formatted the same way. BartBart (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

League's first year[edit]

Wasnt the leagues first year 1979, not 78? Koberulz 10:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMH article on Ch.9 broadcasting[edit]

I reckon we should scrap the mention of that article. It was such a beatup and had no evidence to point to. Burton was very careful not to give any indication some deal had been done.

I disagree...I believe it should be mentioned and can easily be added to if it hasn't happened. Big Dan 11:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you'll publish stuff here regardless of whether they're based on facts? The story seemed pure heresay. If it doesn't happen, you'll have to scrap it, and if it does happen, why not write about it then...when it is fact.
Not necessarily, you can always mention the rumours of such a deal. THOUSANDS of other articles here at Wikipedia, if not MILLIONS have done the same thing. And it wasn't like it was just made up. This was in a newspaper seen by thousands, and on a associated website seen by potientally millions. So its not like its been made up out of thin air by a punk looking to cause trouble. I'd leave it in there for the time being. Big Dan 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I have just added to the article that is ONLY a rumour. That way, it an be easily edited as being nothing more than a rumour, or if it does happen, it can be edited from that point as well. Does that make you happy, or do you want emulate Orwell by saying no such article exists? Big Dan 13:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because the Herald ran a baseless claim, you think it's worth mentioning? The fact is they don't know either. You seem to think if it's in the Herald, it must have some authority. It's just a journalist speculating because they have to invent a story for the paper. There's absolutely no confirmation talks are happening, or even that the networks are interested. You're giving the journalist far too much credibility. On Wikipedia, I want to read facts about the NBL, not rumours.

Have I got news for you mate...pick up a copy of today's Australian, and turn to the Media section. Nine are about to announce that they will be broadcasting a one hour highlights package for the rest of the season. Oh, and a bit of advice. How about identifying yourself in future? Not that hard... In anycase, the article should stay. Big Dan 02:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11.30am, starting October 15, on Nine and its affilates, highlights of the South Dragons and Wollongong Hawks. How you do like them apples? ;) Big Dan 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Star Game[edit]

Does anyone have any information on previous All Star games? I think it would be good to have a page (or just a section) on the NBL All Star Game. Such as previous teams, selection criteria, locations, etc. Aceboy 11:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be able to find that information in a Media Guide. Beg the league for a copy or ask a player/media person for one of their old spares.

Minor Edit[edit]

Coast FM don't have a Hoops Show anymore so i have taken it out of the broadcasting details.

Minor Edit 2[edit]

I've added that 3XX 1611 AM have begun broadcasting NBL in Melbourne - this can be confirmed on their website at and on their myspace page (which in their blog lists the first two games they covered).

I'm unsure if SEN in Melbourne still broadcast NBL or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NBL Australia.jpg[edit]

Image:NBL Australia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Team Location Graphic[edit]

Could the author of this picture please adjust the location of Wollongong please? It is not below Canberra it is only just south of Sydney —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. How does it look now? Davo499 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RIP Sydney Kings[edit]

Sydney Kings are no more. (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, Larry Sendstock says the Kings aren't 100% in for 2010/2011 season...Mightymouseman (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NBL2007-08.gif[edit]

The image Image:NBL2007-08.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean-up of content[edit]

I apparently must gain "an unanimous agreement by the wiki NBL community in the talk page" before I may change content in the infobox, as said by Energy110. As my edits have been reverted 3 times already, I will do so. I wish to remove flagicon's before team names, remove bullet points, and add correct disambiguation. If there is any disagreeance, please inform as to why. --2nyte (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because we took State Pride seriously. (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will need to further elaborate, but from that statement I assume you don't agree with the changes I propose. Well I am sorry to inform you this but Wikipedia does not care of your or any others "State Pride". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place for state rival or any personal agenda. --2nyte (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2nyte, please stop it. We welcome you to contribute, but wiki isn't a place to do rule nazi things. We should pay a lot respect to the creators and long-term members who have spent a lot of time contributing to this project. The infobox has been maintained in that way for a long long time and nobody has a problem about it, so should you.2sc945 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have said before this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Respect to the creators and long-term members is nonexistent. Every Wiki member has equal input and as such, this page should conform as with every other article. Do not take it personal, I am not doing this under spite, but the infobox must change to conform with all others. As in National Basketball Association; flags must be removed as per Template talk:Infobox sports league#Country .2F flag and bullets must be changed to Unbulleted lists. This should be an easy edit with little/no complaint, the fact that there is so much complaint means only one thing: that personal agenda is getting in the way. Wiki is not a place for personal agenda. Again, if there is any disagreement, please inform as to why. --2nyte (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a simple solution: you must go away. The fact that you've put wikipedia ahead of the wikipedians community means you don't know how wikipedia works. There are no universally fixed rules as long as there is no objections from the community. You can continue doing what you like but you won't achieve anything. It's like fighting against the waterfall, totally worthless. My suggestion to you is forget sbout this site and go to another site. Here is another NBL wiki site similar to this one except they have been set up not long ago by some ppl from the ozhoops community. They are less organised and you have more freedom to do what you want there: NBL Wiki. (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I am doing is trying to clean up this page. All my changes have so far been accepted (or at least haven't been reverted), but why is change to the infobox of such concern. I respect the Wikipedia community, that is why I am here in the Talk page discussing the edit, but I have not yet received a response as to why the edit should not be made. Please give me a comprehensive reason as to why this ([1]) edit should not be made. --2nyte (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wondering why would you bother to 'fix' something which is deemed acceptable here in the first place. Why on Earth you have the idea that you just have to make those adjustments? You probably don't know that most wikipedians contributing in the NBL project here are West Australians, including myself, DaHuzyBru (who is also the editor-in-chief for, Mark, Energy110, SatuSuro and a couple of guys from ozhoops (where West Australians also form the largest community). Even Chuck Harmison, the NBL General Manager is a regular contributor here. We are a close community, if something is not okay in the infobox, we would be the first ones to fix it. 2sc945 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you have to question me? Just face the fact that I would like to change the infobox, which is perfectly reasonable. I acknowledge that you don't agree with my changes, so I am asking you why don't you agree. Stop complaining, stop telling me to go away and stop asking me to question myself. Just explain what you find unacceptable about my proposed changes. --2nyte (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok 2nyte. I have looked over the revision history for the NBL page and I'm now commenting to inform you that you are probably not going to win this one. I mean, all the changes you made are just asking to be reverted/removed. Despite being big changes that aren't going to please many people, you are also not giving edit summaries yourself. The NBL community (whoever they may be) is not going to accept these changes which have been generally accepted for so long now. Personally, I don't really care as all I do in terms of the NBL is basically player pages/profiles and the rosters so yeah, keep fighting but like I said, I don't think you're going to win. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And tbh, know one cares about this Template talk:Infobox sports league#Country .2F flag. It's out dated and I've never heard anyone talk about this before. Flags are fine, why do you care so much about whether there are flags or not? The NBL is the NBL, we don't have to base it on the NBA's style, ok. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, this is an explanation into what I would like to change and why. Please inform me why you do/don't agree with the changes.
  • First the flags: I personally think they are visually unappealing, quite excessive and unnecessary. The clubs don't represent the state or country in which they are from, they are franchises and merely represent themselves. Also it's quite unnecessary to have a flag when the the teams name is "New Zealand" or "Preth". In therms of flags besides TV partner names; I added a direct link to the Broadcasting section which explains in detail from which country the TV partner is from; so again, unnecessary.
  • Secondly, remove the bulleted list. I think we sould change to Unbulleted list, again for visually appeal (it just looks cleaner and simpler). So I think I explained my edits to the infobox, which appears to be reasonable to me. Also I just noticed that the National Basketball League (New Zealand) infobox does not have any excessive flags, or "Related competitions" that are infact unrelated.
  • Thirdly, the disambiguation. I think a clean-up should be done to quite a few National Basketball League articles, which I am preparing to do myself of you allow me to. I just want to link to a disambiguation page which lists articles associated with the same title rather then just adding a list of titles. Again this is due to the current version being visually unappealing, quite excessive and unnecessary.
--2nyte (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far I have done everything I intended to do, with the exception of removing flagicons as many protested this change. I would still prefer to remove the flagicons, though it won't hurt to leave them for now. --2nyte (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brisbane Bullets 2013–[edit]

I have noticed that Brisbane Bullets were added to the Current clubs section by Special:Contributions/ referring that they will join from the 2013–14 season. I have looked it up and can't find a source to support this. I just wanted to know if this is true or not and if Brisbane Bullets should be removed for the Current clubs section as they were before. --2nyte (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct. They have not been re-instated into the league. Whoever keeps adding them in is wrong. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I wanted peoples opinions on merging various NBL Award articles to one page. These various articles include:

The reason to do this is that all the articles are rather small and not really worth being separated into 12. It would also be easier to update 1 page rather than 12. I have previously done this with List of A-League honours, so that is basically how I intend for it to end up. Also regarding the name of the page, I suggest List of NBL honours. Thoughts? Opinions? --2nyte (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. Over the years, so many things have been linked to these pages i.e. player awards in player infoboxes. If you removed/merge all these pages, all that is gonna stuff up. I'm definitely saying no to this. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I didn't notice that. --2nyte (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australia or Australasia[edit]


I am a bit confused regarding whether or not the NBL is Australasian or Australian. According to <>, it seems that the NBL is an Australian-based league. Are there any secondary sources supporting the fact that the NBL is Australasian?

I need to be able to find a secondary source to substantiate this claim in the leading section, because it appears, according to <> that is it based in Australia. I understand that the New Zealand Breakers are involved in the competition, but this does not necessarily indicate that it is an Australasian based league. Any input or links pointing to reliable secondary sources substantiating this claim would be greatly appreciated.

--Hrbm14 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 21:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Basketball League (Australasia)National Basketball League (Australia) – Consistency with Category:National Basketball League (Australia), and the league refers to itself as "Australian" here. It does include a New Zealand team, but Radio New Zealand calls it "Australia's National Basketball League competition".[2] StAnselm (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment is natural disambiguation possible? Otherwise I'm actually a little confused on which is better--I think the proposed disambiguation device is good enough and would mild support. Red Slash 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Clearly the Australian "National" league; not the Australasian "Inter-national" league. Timmyshin (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Melbourne United[edit]

Why are Melbourne United listed with a start date before 2014?

They were a new entity who openly stated that they did not share the historical lineage of the Melbourne Tigers.

The NBL page should reflect that; the Melbourne Tigers are defunct, Melbourne United has no history before the existing season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Basketball League (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on National Basketball League (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NBL as competition or private company[edit]

There has been an ongoing dispute over whether the article should characterise the NBL as a basketball competition or as a private company that happens to operate a basketball competition.

In my view, the former is obviously correct. As is evident if you read the rest of the article, it is about the competition, not the company. And given the article is about the competition, it ought to refer to the competition by its common name, the National Basketball League. seems concerned that, although the NBL is the name commonly used for the league, for technical reasons related to how the company is structured this is an "incorrect" usage. Their arguments seem dubious to me, but are moot in any case because for Wikipedia's purposes we prioritise recognisability over absolute technical accuracy: even if it were the case that it was incorrect to call the basketball competition "the NBL", whatever that would mean, we would go by the name which is predominantly used. – Teratix 14:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following attempted discussion is copied from editor The-Pope’s Talk page.

The-Pope, “I note you are a follower of Australian Football and, uncommonly, have been able to distinguish between the entities (AFL, WAFL, SANFL, TIAFA, South Fremantle AFC and other leagues, associations and clubs), the competitions and the sport of Australian Football.
The National Basketball League is a misnomer as it has never been a league of teams or clubs but just a single organization operating a competition. Basketball Australia in one of its entity forms (among bankruptcies and restructures) was the owner and operator of the NBL competition and spun the NBL off into as subsidiary company, National Basketball League Pty Ltd and then sold the majority of shares to Larry Kestelman. The name "National Basketball League" is a trading name of National Basketball League Pty Ltd, which means behind the name, is the company. A trading name such as 'Jack's plumbing' is not a separate thing but is just Jack, trading as 'Jack's plumbing'. "National Basketball League" and "NBL" are trademarks used by National Basketball League Pty Ltd which means behind the names is the company. There is no separate entity or thing called the National Basketball League. What you refer to is not the National Basketball League but the National Basketball League's competition. The NBL's competition is not the NBL. The competition should be referred to as the "NBL's competition". You would not refer to a school fete as the school. You would not refer to a swimming competition as Fremantle Pool. Regards, (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
One of your edit summaries referred to "common use" in reference to names but when that use is mistaken or otherwise incorrect, it shouldn't be utilized in Wikipedia to further mislead. We can't protect fools from themselves but Wikipedia and its editors shouldn't be misleading and deceiving. You're an Aussie Rules supporter. Many people mistakenly call Australian Football "AFL" but Wikipedia makes the correct distinction and does not mislead readers on some justification that it is "common use".
In your request for page protection, you claimed:

"editor has a very strange concept of what this article is about ... and thinks this article is about a company, and not a league."

but a league is a type of organization, so an article about the National Basketball League is about the organization, which is the company. The NBL's competition is not the NBL, its the "NBL's competition". Regards, (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In response to Teratix’s comments above and their reference to “common name”, the article is about the NBL which is the organization. The competition is not the NBL, it is the NBL’s competition. Most of the article is logically going to be about what the NBL does, i.e. the NBL’s competition but that doesn’t mean the lead should make incorrect and misleading statements. Editors and readers are capable of understanding the distinction. State the NBL is a company and move on with the story. The alternative is to be deliberately misleading.

The article is not just about the NBL competition as it refers to other programs, junior development and other competitions operated by the NBL, its funding, ownership, president, other company directors, company CEO, company office bearers, company headquarters address, company commercial partners and contracts. Therefore, the article is clearly about the organization, not just its main competition. The article is capable of being about both and providing information about the organization (company) and its competition. The issue here is whether the nature of the organization as a company is deliberately obscured by a misleading article as some editors want for undisclosed reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument falls apart once you ask "What is the NBL's (the company) competition called?" Well, it's called the National Basketball League (the competition)! A league is after all an association of teams for the purpose of competing, and a company is almost always used to give such an association structure and legal personality (even at grassroots sporting levels). The distinction you are attempting is (a) not actually useful for the vast majority of readers who are trying to find information about the NBL (the competition) and (b) only correct in a limited set of circumstances (e.g. discussing the NBL's (the companies) finances. In most scenarios, the competition and the company are actually identical. 00:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly! The company and the competition are identical because there is only one identity - the company! The competition is just something the NBL company does and the competition has no identity of its own because it is not an entity, just an action. The article has to be about a thing, an entity, not about a nothing. As to the question posed above, "What is the NBL's competition called?, the NBL's own website refers to it as "the competition" and one instance of the "NBL competition". The current competition is called the "Hungry Jack's NBL23". The NBL's competition is also referred to as "NBL premiership" and the finals are called the "NBL championship", so don't claim the competition doesn't have a separate name to the organization. The generic term used by the NBL itself is "the competition". Other sport organisations call their competitions the "AFL club premiership", AFL-Womens and the equally unimaginatively named W-League but the NBL has an arrangement with Basketball Australia to operate only one competition - the men's national/supranational competition, so it doesn't really need a distinguishing name. In any case, it is usual to name non-entities. School and club fundraisers or events are rarely given a name other than a descriptive designation, along the line of 'NBL's competition'. The distinction as to the organization and its competition is useful to correctly inform readers and most readers are well capable of coping and understanding. As editor 5225C's comment above indicates, there is nothing unusual and certainly nothing wrong about a sport organization being incorporated. Correctly identifying that the NBL is a company that operates a competition and then most of the rest of the article inevitably being about its competition is not a threat to the article. The article already extends beyond the NBL's main competition to the organization's other competitions (e.g. NBLxNBA) and other activities (e.g. Graduate Development Program), so the article is very apparently about the organization (company) and not just the competition. The correct statements do not detract from the article and seem to be opposed only by certain editors, who, for reasons they have not properly explained, want to hide that the NBL is a company. (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I am disagreeing with you. You are trying to make a distinction between NBL (company) and "the NBL's competition". One thing we can agree on is that there is no practical difference between them. The NBL is both a company and a competition. The competition has become a company in order for the competition to have a legal personality (teams can't exactly sign a contract to compete in a competition unless there is a body for them to sign an agreement with, just as an example). You are trying to distinguish between the two in favour of presenting the NBL as a corporate body. This is not technically incorrect, it is a company, but the company exists to run a competition of the same name. When people come to Wikipedia, they are typically looking for information on the National Basketball League (a competition), not looking for information on the National Basketball League (corporate body). It would therefore be incorrect to present the NBL as a company. The examples you are quoting don't actually support your argument anyway, but I don't think I have the vocabulary to explain linguistically why. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5225C, You set the standard of proof for your position with your question "Your argument falls apart once you ask "What is the NBL's (the company) competition called?", but when your claim is comprehensively shown to be wrong as the competition is referred to by separate names, you move-on in serial argument. You state you don't have the vocabulary to explain and that is the root cause. You have lived with a misconception that a league is a competition when a league is a type of organization. Look at a dictionary definition of league, it is an organization. In both your comments above, you suggest that a competition is formed and then an organization (in this case a company) is made to operate that competition. When people or clubs come together for a common purpose, in the case of sport, a competition between them, they have formed a league. They are in league together. The league is the form of organization between them. The league is formed before there's even been a competition. In league together, they organize and operate a competition. The league is the organization, not the competition. Early sport competitions were organized by individuals, schools, church groups, universities, etc ("clubs") coming together for one-off matches and competitions and agreeing rules. These were informal leagues with no lasting rules or competitions. This became more permanent with the clubs forming more formal leagues to set rules and organize regular competitions. The league organizations came before the competitions they organized. You've been living with a complete misconception as to the meaning of a league. An article about a league is, by definition, about the organization but the content would be mostly about what that league does, in the case of the NBL, about its competitions. You use weasel word arguments stating (in double negative) "This is not technically incorrect" but then claim "It would therefore be incorrect". In plain speak, my edit is correct but from your own POV, based on your misconception and misuse of language, you just want the article to be different. You want the article to represent your own misconception and to mislead others into the same misconception. Conveniently for your argument, you completely avoided addressing the inescapable point that the article is already about other activities and programs of the NBL and not just its main competition and therefore the article is already about the organization and not its competition. I am not trying to make the article entirely, mostly or (as you try to suggest) "in favour" about the company like some corporate register or record, nor am I trying to make it less about the NBL's competition as you suggest. My edit made a single statement that the NBL is a company that runs the competition and moved-on quickly to have an article overwhelmingly about its competition and other activities. Why is this a threat? (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody has said it's a threat, and you seem to believe that we are working under a misconception (we're not) and/or that we're trying to mislead people (we aren't). I'm not repeating myself again. The distinction you are making is not useful and is incorrect for the purposes of Wikipedia as I have stated above. There is no consensus for the changes you wish to make and none will be formed at the current rate. I have nothing further to say in this discussion, but if you choose to take it to another forum I will follow you there to rebut you (with a linguistics major in tow). 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current Teams Map Formatting[edit]

The map of current teams is not properly formatted for mobile. The pins are scattered way off the map itself. I would fix it myself, but am inexperienced with that type of formatting. Experienced editors, please review and fix if possible. 2601:1C2:1900:E840:D82A:525F:6277:D30F (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]