Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball

WikiProject College basketball
Overview Project page talk Participants talk Project category talk Departments Assessment (log) talk Article alerts talk Cleanup listing Unassessed articles (381) Unknown importance (8670) Recognized content Featured articles (21) Featured lists (17) Good articles (283) Total WPCBB articles (63075)
Resources and Guides Master team table talk Popular pages talk Research sources talk Templates talk Yearbook references talk Yearly team pages format talk
Tools Active editors talk CBB Welcome Template talk Project banner talk Project Userbox talk
Important Articles 2026–27 NCAA season (M) talk 2026–27 rankings (M) talk 2027 NCAA tournament (M) talk 2026–27 NCAA season (W) talk 2026–27 rankings (W) talk 2027 NCAA tournament (W) talk
view • talk • edit • changes

regular season tournament championships

Is winning the Preseason NIT, Pensacola Invitational, or the Greenbrier Tip-Off really worth having a yellow banner line in the team season infoboxes?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

While many of these are clearly not of great significance, I could understand some people arguing strongly for a few. I don't think they are such an eyesore that we need to open a discussion to determine which, if any, are worthy of display in the infobox. Even of we did reach such a conclusion, we would then need to police each article to be sure unauthorized championships are not shown. If any infobox is showing things like Greenbriar Tip-Off third place, that is clearly going too far. But a championship of a tournament like that is probably important to the team that won it. If the article is about the team's season, that would indicate the tournament title is a relevant part of the story. I don't think any of these banners are confusing to readers and causing them to incorrectly conclude that this indicates the team was one of the powers in college basketball. Going forward, we may see fewer MTEs, since they are no longer needed to maximize the number of games a team schedules. The more significant events that attract power conference team will contiue, because there is a financial incentive. We'll have to wait and see how many schools will continue to sign up for smaller MTEs, if they are giving up scheduling flexibility. So, it may be a less frequent occurrence in the future. Taxman1913 (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

But does it fulfill MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That should be the determinative factor, but your question is difficult to answer. It requires the term key fact to have a universal definition for every team-season article. For a low-major, winning an MTE might be a key fact. I don't think the answer is the same for every team-season. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I don't have a problem with them being in there. It's a tournament, and a lot of these in-season tournaments are pretty historic (e.g, Maui Invitational). Creating a list of which ones qualify versus don't would get messy so I choose the side of inclusionism in this instance. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd generally exclude, erring on the side of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Individual pages can argue an WP:IAR or a per case basis, if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman

Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman 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) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Game officials

Are sections like this appropriate? 1983–84_Georgetown_Hoyas_men%27s_basketball_team#Game_officials. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see how they would be. It's unnecessary information. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Metro Conference#Requested move 29 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Metro Conference#Requested move 29 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Pages for individual rounds of the NCAA tournament

I think we should settle here which individual rounds of the NCAA tournament deserve their own pages and how it should all work.

To summarize, up until a few months ago, we had an individual page for the First Four, Elite Eight, and Final Four:

• I found the Elite Eight page to not really contain any important information that warranted its own article, as it only provided a brief description of the round and lists of certain oddities like "10 seeds to reach the Elite Eight". So, I did start a merge discussion and it was merged into the main NCAA tournament page.

• The Final four page is more of a general page that has information about "final fours" in general, extending beyond the scope of the NCAA tournament or college basketball as a whole. However, we also have the List of NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament Final Four participants which gives full results of every Final Four.

• Finally, we have the First Four page, which has been renamed to the Opening Round to reflect the recent tournament expansion. This page provides a history of the Opening Game/First Four since it was created in 2001, then has individual results of every Opening Round/First Four game ever played.
• After the page was renamed to "Opening Round", I felt that the page was not really necessary anymore, and I started a merge discussion. I argued that the history section could easily be merged into the main tournament page, and that it is not necessary to show all the results from this round, given the fact that we don't have a page show individual results for other rounds like the Round of 64 or Sweet Sixteen. In the discussion, people argued that the First Four was a "play-in" round, so it had a clear uniqueness from other rounds. However, this is not true. Colloquially, many people think of the First Four as a play-in, but the NCAA has never considered it that at all. For one, even if you lose in the First Four, you are considered to have made a tournament appearance. Let's also recall the few years where the NCAA started calling the First Four the "First Round". While that was very confusing and dumb, it made it clear that the NCAA viewed the First Four just as much a part of the tournament as any other round.
• With this new Opening Round format with 24 teams, it is especially clear that it is "just another round" in the tournament, so it doesn't make sense to me to have a page for that but not any of the other rounds.

Red0ctober22 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think merging every round into the main tournament page makes sense. Each year's championship games can have their standalone articles, but that's about it. SportsGuy789 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a merge request should be initiated. Also, "Opening round" is something that applies to much more than the NCAA tournament. Just a Google search pulls up Deadlock, the tennis US Open, UFC, NAIA softball and golf. I didn't even see NCAA tournament information.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I definitely agree, even if the page was kept it would most certainly require a disambiguation in its title.

I did already do a merge request and it resulted in no consensus, but since this is the appropriate WikiProject for this, if we can get consensus on which rounds should get pages, that can override it. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's be honest it was no consensus mainly because it only had 3 commenters, nom, oppose, merge. I think if more people knew about it, a more robust discussion could have occurred, and had a consensus.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion here, so I welcome @UCO2009bluejay and @SportsGuy789 to weigh in, along with anyone else here. Red0ctober22 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)