Battle of Old Fort Wayne

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Typo

A typo in the "Coaches" section; "Allen is also has the most wins in Kansas basketball history at 590." 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakuran: Oops that's my fault. I'm the one that added that part in there. I orginally intended to say "Allen is also the winngest coach......." and changed my mind at the last minute to say "Allen has the most wins..." but forgot to proofread it first.--Rockchalk717 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball. 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) 03:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball. 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) 16:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rank in notable areas" updates

Rank in notable areas needs to be brought current. Some stats appear to not be current (2014-'15), others through 2016-'17 season, and others include 2017-'18. As the stats pull from many different sources, I suggest four update notations on the end due to when they end and ease of tabulating so it is clear how current respective areas are.

  • "All-Time win and NCAA Tournament stats updated through (20##-'##) season" after the NCAA tournament
  • "Conference stats updated through (20##-'##) season" at the end of the regular season.
  • "AP stats updated through (20##-'##) season" after the final AP ranking for the season.
  • "Season and All-American stats updated through (20##-'##) season"

Or perhaps

  • "Rank and stats updated through season: All-Time win and NCAA Tournament (20##-'##), Conference (20##-'##), AP Poll (20##-'##), Season record totals (20##-'##), All-American (20##-'##)"

Also, much of the NCAA records could possibly be removed as it is appears in Rank in notable areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.236.195 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament Seeding History

I updated the overly wide Tournament Seeding History from just one long string which required horizontal scrolling into 20-year blocks that fit into the page width starting with 1981, including years Kansas missed the tournament (you take the bad with the good, not omitting years to give the false impression of an unbroken streak), which also aligns the years facilitating locating a particular year. Among other reversions, Rockchalk717 who has a history with 3RR wrote "No you do not.", and consistently, unconstructively reverts edits regarding the start of tournament seeding for all teams. Seeding all teams as used today and in the list started in 1979, not 1978 (as he keeps changing it too) where instead automatic "Q"ualifiers and at-"L"arge teams were seeded separately which is not what the list reflects. A note is needed to account for 1979 and 1980 not being in the table (a short one at that), or one could add them but at the loss of visual continuity. Another option would be to switch to multi-column list, but I stuck with the established table. Since Rockchalk717 has not constructively addressed this in his edit comments which are often blank or non-responsive (a form of edit warring), I've started this section in hopes he or others are more constructive. 76.92.195.32 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is edit warring but you. I have reached out on the talkpages of the IP's you have used in order to discuss this issue, and you have ignored my posts. I want to discuss this issue but you continued to revert instead of discussing the issue. Regarding the edit summary comment, almost every single time I reverted i had an edit summary. I only stopped after I had gotten frustrated with you making zero attempts to discuss the issue.
Now to actually discussing the issue, while the seeding format has changed, seeding still began in 1978. Now if you want to word it something like "Seeding began in 1978, however the current seeding format began in 1979" I'm ok with that. Second, there is no purpose to listing seasons they missed the tournament or even mentioning. This table serves one purpose, for readers to easily see what seed they have been in each tournament appearance, including years they missed in the table defeats that purpose.--Rockchalk717 17:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally since you seem to be using multiple devices to edit since I've seen you edit from 3 different IP addresses now, I strongly recommend creating an account so it's easier to get in touch with you when there is a content dispute.--Rockchalk717 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who you (think) you are making such false statements and adopting such a tone with your edits and apparently posting on other talk pages trying to hide your being in the minority. Such tactics are highly unconstructive and warring-some on your part.

Seeding for all teams (as we know it today) did in fact start in 1979. In 1978 there was some seeding separately among "Q" and "L" teams as I noted above. The year are part of a "wikitable" (look at the code) not a list, and as such tables do not drop a row or column simply because a cell has no entry or is blank (e.g. diagonal on mileage between cities tables). 76.92.195.32 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put the edit war behind us, we both are guilty of it, and work towards a consensus we can agree on. Bickering back and forth will get us nowhere. Seeding has existed since 1978 regardless of the format changing or not. That's why I think it should be mentioned separately that the format changed in 1979 but its existed since 1978. Or even simply word it, "The current seeding format began in 1979". Saying seeding began in 1979 isn't technically true even if the format was a little strange in 1978.--Rockchalk717 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your attempt to hide or close this by adding "÷←" to the header NCAA Tournament seeding history so it would not appear in the table of contents, and then revert my edits for the Nth time. You also falsely misrepresent my edit in your comments leaving out that it was "The NCAA started seeding all teams in 1979" unlike in 1978 when there were eight #1 seeds, 4 "Q" and 4 "L". Saying it began for "all teams" (rather than among auto-qualified and at-large respectively) is in fact true. Further, the section is titled "NCAA Tournament seeding history" and history does not skip years. A year they did not appear is still history and just as relevant as one where they did, same as 0 is still a number. 76.92.195.32 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the plus sign and equal sign, that was an accident. Your unwillingness to comprise is getting irritating. I have come up with a solution for our debate on the seeds that satisfies what we both want said and you have failed to work with me to come to an agreement. Regarding your comment about tournament seeding history, the pages for Louisville, Kentucky, Michigan State, Duke, Indiana, UConn, Villanova, Cincinnati, and NC State ALL have the years they missed omitted. So why should this page be any different??--Rockchalk717 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan Wolverines men's basketball is one team page that is currently listed as a GA. I'd follow that as an example, and it does not list the years that they were not in the tournament. That seems to be consistent with most pages. Mjs32193 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@76.92.195.32: Because a basketball team page that's a good article says 1979 I'll concede the 1979 part. Considering that article as well as the ones I've listed omit the years they did not make it, it seems a consensus has already been made.--Rockchalk717 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a "÷←" not a "plus sign and equal sign". Second, those pages also use 1979 as the first year for seeding and the "1979" link on the Kansas page leads to the NCAA tournament seeding section which goes into more detail regarding the NCAA's use of seeding in 1978 and 1979 with links to the respective tournaments for more detail. Third, consensus has not been made regarding applicability, only that some other pages omit years, but it would be a fallacy to assume a mistake elsewhere should be the norm, or conversely that an edit that is more appropriate on one page would lead to upgrading others. Lastly, as it is a "table" and not a "list", it is inclusive by nature, not exclusive. The referenced Michigan page's GA discussion was from 2008 while they were on a decade long streak of not making the tournament, and notes that GA is not perfection, rather it explicitly states "If you can improve it further, please do so." Kansas' seeding history is so long it necessitated wrapping, at which point it's quite noticeable when years do not line up as they should in a "table." Every wave of improvements has to start somewhere. 76.92.195.32 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what it was point remains it was an accident. I did say I concede with the 1979 thing so drop it. And yes the fact that multiple articles, several of which are powerhouse programs as well as one that is a good article, a designated good article is intended to be a template for that type of article meaning the layout is a consensus of the project. So yes I can comfortably say that not including them is the consensus.--Rockchalk717 02:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on what consensus is; a handful of examples it is not. "Good Article" status is a generalization (per criteria) and not a statement of all within being perfect without room for improvement (on the contrary, it explicitly states "If you can improve it further, please do so"). To conclude "if a page is GA, all it's components must be 'Good' too" is the fallacy of division. Your sock puppet claims did not hold up, your "1978" claims did not hold up, and now your remaining claim ... 76.92.195.32 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I called you a sock puppet because you were using multiple IP addresses and were not responding to my posts on any of the talkpages. So yeah, maybe I shouldn't have went straight to warnings I'll admit that and I do apologize I didn't assume good faith. Additionally my 1978 "claim" is still technically true, but that's neither here nor there. The issue still at play here is you are refusing to accept the fact that multiple pages have the years they missed omitted. Of the 20 pages for the power conferences (American, ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC) that have a seeding table all 20 (excluding 4 you changed all of which had them omitted previously INCLUDING the Kansas article) had the years missed omitted. So "handful of examples"??? More like every major Division I program that has a seeding table has the years missed excluding Louisville Kansas Indiana and Kentucky all of which YOU added the missing years. So tell me again who's argument is not holding up? You would have a case of it not being a consensus of there was one or two that didn't prior to you touching them, but that's simply not the case here. In case you want to know why I used only power conferences, well for starters there's over 300 Division I programs, most of if not all of which, have an article. Second, power conference articles are going to more likely to have more watchers and more traffic meaning most of the basic layout is going to be based more (not completely) on the project consensus.--Rockchalk717 03:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again with your false sock puppet accusations. You keep omitting the qualifiers "for all teams" and "current form" for which 1979 is correct. 1978 was an one-time experiment with "Q" and "L" not used again. You're also overlooking that those using 1979 have the same wording, i.e. same origin. Duplication is not consensus. Parroting is not consensus. Tables regularly include years missed such as for WWI and WWII for Olympic Games host cities as well as Indy 500 List of winners, and even in Kansas BB Season-by-season results for Conference and Standing through 1907 and for Postseason where missed through 1983. 76.92.195.32 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am having the same issue with this IP address on Michigan State Spartans men's basketball. It is a clear consensus when every other page, except the ones you changed, do not include the years missed. What purpose do the years missed being listed serve? Your reference to other pages that are not college basketball pages makes no sense. Quit hiding behind IP addresses as well. Lincolning (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet anymore. Yes I was before and it was an understandable accusation to make and I think any editor would have made the same claim. But I am no longer calling you one so stop bringing up things that have been squashed. How do you know it's parroting or mirroring?? You're assuming just like I'm assuming every major program has them omitted means its a consensus not to include them. In case you aren't keeping track, that's 3 votes to exclude years missed and 1 to not include them. If more people do not side with you on this and soon, then this content dispute is over and I will remove the years missed from the pages for Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisville, and any other pages you have added them to since I checked last night and if you continue to add the years missed, you will be at risk for a block. Until this debate over stop adding years missed to other teams as well. You wanted to discuss the issue of including or not including and we are. I have also made a post in the college basketball project page over the weekend to get more people involved. Additionally, the articles you brought up are irrelevant. This is why there are projects on Wikipedia. Different article types have different policies for what can be included and what cannot. The only articles that relevance to this issue are college basketball related articles.--Rockchalk717 19:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Time is running out. If there are no additional supporters by the end of the week of the inclusion of the years missed I will be removing them.--Rockchalk717 17:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rockchalk717, may I point out that your comments and actions here demonstrate WP:HOUNDING by "following another user around... accompanied by... personal attacks". You have made false claims and made personal attacks ("not accusing you of being a sock puppet anymore"), stated you would stalk and revert edits on "any other pages" I made even if accepted, made threats of blocking (are you an admin?), admitted you "didn't assume good faith", avoid discussion by saying "irrelevant" without elaboration, argue for stasis in contrast to being bold WP:BB via methods which drive away editors and preferring to engage in WP:GAMING rather than constructively discussing merits. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P4 which has no rules "carved in stone" WP:5P5, which I enjoin you to recognize. For programs with as many NCAA Tournament appearances as Kansas, years that they missed are in fact notable WP:NOTE as they buck the norm or pattern, and the most concise way to illustrate this in the context of "seeding history" is by "-" the applicable years which also aligns years vertically into a grid. College basketball does not exist in a vacuum, nor its related Wikipedia pages. Other sports tables list years without participation including List of World Series champions (1904) in addition to the Olympic and Indy500 examples above, which ARE relevant ala Amicus curiae from other sports. 76.92.195.32 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My actions are not "hounding". I'm not doing this with intent to irritate you and I'm not following you around or anything like that. Personal attacks?? Lmao. That's funny. I have done no such thing. I have not once name called, threatened legal action against you, or anything like that. You might wanna check WP:WIAPA because Wikipedia considers false accusations of personal attacks, a personal attack. Additionally, calling you a sock puppet is not a personal attack. It appeared (KEY WORD THERE!!!!!) initially you were making edits under multiple IP's to give an appearance is different people the edits. Again, it appeared that's what you we're doing until you finally took the time to post on this talkpage then I knew you were not and dropped the sock puppet accusation which you keep bringing up despite me dropping it. You are also accusing me of not being civil, don't get frustration with the situation and a lack of civility confused. I was frustrated as were you and it's clear to anybody reading this it's simply frustration. I have not threatened to "stalk" your edits only simply stating if nobody agrees with you on this soon I will remove years a team missed the NCAA Tournament on any pages you might have added them on, all that means is I will go through each major DI programs page and check if the years missed are included and if they are I will remove them. Yes, I have threatened a block and you do not have to be an admin to do so. It just needs to be clear the person you are threatening is in violation of policy which is exactly what you will be doing if you revert my removal of the years missed after this debate is over. The pages you keep mentioning are indeed irrelevant because they are not under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball. The only pages relevant are college basketball related pages which includes any of the 351 Division I programs with a page, any coach that has ever coached college basketball at any level, and any player that has played any level of college basketball. I get your argument for inclusion I totally do and it is out of the norm. I still do not feel the years missed is necessary to be included additionally I feel it will be blatantly obvious to anybody looking at the table that if there is years are skipped, then that means they didn't make the tournament those years, not to mention the table is to let readers easily identify what seed they were in the years they qualified, so an inclusion of years they missed serves no purpose. Additionally you keep claiming a lack of a consensus when 3 editors including myself have told you it is a consensus, one of which even used the exact words clear consensus. --Rockchalk717 03:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need to be including the years they missed the Tournament. The others have made it pretty clear – it serves no point. @Rockchalk717 and Lincolning: Is this a consensus (if so, provide a link) or is this just a "standard"? If it's a standard, then the IP can seek a consensus over at WT:WikiProject College basketball where its members and other sports-related editors can decide. Corky 20:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: I think standard might be a better phrase. I was just assuming consensus by them being left out in all pages that have the table.--Rockchalk717 20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then, even though I think there is enough here for a "consensus" (others might disagree), if the IP continues adding it to the page(s), we need to seek an overall consensus from the WikiProject. Corky 21:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree on that. I'm worried if I go to remove then it's just going to start another edit war.--Rockchalk717 21:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it so we'll see how this goes... Corky 21:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Could go either way with the experience I've had. Though things they have said have made me think they show intention of backing down on this. I admire them sticking to their belief so strongly but eventually you have to learn to waive the metaphorical white flag.--Rockchalk717 22:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

with all years, it is so much more clear as to when we were on and when we were not. 2605:A601:901:DC00:501F:AE98:D1E:AFA (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to omit years that the team did not qualify for the NCAA Tournament. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2 IP address both located in Kansas City suburbs making the same argument. Hmm........ I think this content dispute is over. Any additional objections need to be taken to the College Basketball project talkpage and until a consensus has been reached otherwise, years missed shall not be included in the tables. At some point today when I have more time (just wanted to check on this discussion) I will be removing the years missed.--Rockchalk717 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I get accused of invading your privacy by tracking the location of your IP understand this, this is the risk you run by editing under an IP. The information contained in your IP address is public information and can be tracked by free websites. I used iplocation.net. This is why its recommended to create an account.--Rockchalk717 17:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 2021-22 season stuff in "History"

Just thought it would give a refreshed feeling to the article :) also, KU PRIDE! #KUFOR2022CHAMPS! CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 02:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locking down until after championship game?

I’m not a regular on here, just happened to spot a prankster added 2022 to the list of national championships. Would it be appropriate to limit edits to both this page and UNC’s until after tonight’s game? Kyle Adams (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this, I think we should just remove it, but not go as far as limit edits. Was the same thing added to UNC's page too? If so, then I think you might have a good point, but if not, I think simply removing it would do the page better (Unless in the rare case that the user repeatedly adds it, but then we could just give them a temp block). Also, limiting edits for merely a quarter-a third of the day is a ridiculously short amount of time to lock not one, but TWO pages. I appreciate the argument you bring up, but I think what you suggest would be going a little too far. I might ask the Teahouse to see what they think, but if I can't get another point of view, this conversation is reaching a dead end. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 20:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kansas just won 10 minutes ago. No need for it now :D CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 03:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball