Talk:Halifax Rainmen

Notable Players

It seems fair to include a notable players section for this this team. I am not suggesting that we include "fan favourites" but players from previous seasons who are of major importance outside of their involvement with the team seems fair. Anderson is the starting point guard on the Canadian National team, and Benoit is the head coach of a University team. It is likely that people may look to wikipedia to find out information about these two former players.24.89.192.139 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Chris

The problem in picking and chosing who to include and who not to include is point of view editing which violates WP:NPOV. If we had a section called something like "National Team alumni" then it would not be POV and would be ok. However, having a section like that for a single player is probably overkill. -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For an example of a featured level sports article with a similar section see the Calgary Flames. Its not basketball I know, but this is what the eventual goal is for sports teams. To only include players in quantifiable ways, in the case of hockey the hockey project only lists those players who entered the hall of fame or had their numbers retired. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important information to include, but I see your concern. Minor league team webpages seem to include a bit more info on former players, the Moosehead's article for example includes a list of all the starting goalies. Is there a solution you can suggest which provides the info that people like Benoit and Anderson played for the team? Would it be best to include it in the section on the 20007-08 season? I do want to maintain NPOV but still include useful information. Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated.-Chris902 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

If someone was up to the task of doing something like List of Calgary Flames players (like List of Halifax Rainmen players) for the Rainmen then I would probably place it in the notes section of that page. And then putting a link someone on the main Rainman page (probably in a See Also section) to that page. That being said if you were to create a page like that it would have to be comprehensive and have all players on it. But its a suggestion. If either of those players are mentioned in the page you could possibly put that they went on to be come head coach of ... as long as it fits in with the rest of the paragraph etc. -Djsasso (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

February 2009 edits

An anonymous user at 142.227.9.1 has added the information on the hiring of Coach Berry, and has stated--in the revision history--that my edit of today (which preceded the hiring), making the Rainmen history more concise, was partly commendable but has partly "removed important information."

In several cases, replacing the assertion that the Rainmen or Levingston announced that a policy would be adopted, I simply say that the Rainmen adopted the policy. I did indeed delete the information that the Rainmen's original location was the Northeast Division of the ABA's Blue Conference; the details of the final regular-season game of last year; and the praise given by the president of the D-League about Halifax and the Rainmen (What else is he going to say?), preferring to state his conclusion that induction wouldn't happen for at least a year.

The anonymous user has reverted all my edits to the history up to the Crookshank episode. This reinstates awkward text that I had corrected. A newspaper sports section might, but an encyclopedia ought not, have a second, flowery reference to "their inaugural season" and state not that we played a game but that we "tipped off for" a game. One outright grammatical error has been returned to the text.

There is very little reason to have reverted my edit in its entirety. Are there other users of this page who would care to weigh in? --Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS--I have again edited the 2007-08 history, more lightly this time; but I still think that stating which team the Rainmen beat, last year, to end a 7-game losing streak, is excessive detail; also the D-League president's praise of Halifax; and mentioning a second time the dissatisfaction for the ABA in the final paragraph. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PPS--In the 2008-09 history, the anonymous user adds that the reason for Crookshank's suspension was "a series of conflicts with Coach Lewis." This was the fans' speculation. If it is a fact, it supersedes the sentence in the article that "The Rainmen did not comment on the nature of of the suspension." --Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I left the majority of your edits intact, many of which preceded the "Crookshank episode". I agreed with your restructuring of the opening paragraphs and the paring down of certain language. Those edits are still present in the article if you compare it to previous edits. However, you did eliminate some significant information. I felt it was important to keep divisional alignment, significant wins in the franchise's short history i.e. their first game, the game that snapped a losing streak that dominated much of their first season, and their final game of their season (and in the ABA) against Atlanta. I don't think that these three landmark games are excessive. Also, whether it is expected or not, I felt that Dan Reed's statement was vital to the understanding of the NBADL's decision not to expand.

A number of sentences were excessively long/complicated and need to be shortened or changed in order to form a more coherent narrative. This is also the reason that some information was reinserted. I will agree with you that mentioning dissatisfaction with the ABA for a second time is unneeded.

Also, it is never mentioned that the reason for Crookshank’s suspension was “a series of conflicts with Coach Lewis." However, the suspension did, in fact, follow (almost immediately after) these conflicts. That is a fact, not speculation. The edit does not give any reason as to why Crookshank was suspended, seeing as nothing official was confirmed. If “follow” sounds too ambiguous, perhaps another word can be used in its place. It is along these lines that I removed your previous reference to fan speculation. It just doesn't belong unless it is confirmed by other sources. So it looks like we are on the same page there. 142.227.9.1 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Game-by-game schedule/results table

PS--Do you agree that the 2009 schedule at the end of the page is excessive? It's not being updated frequently either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.9.1 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being ill for two weeks. Next time I'll try to make sure I get ill in the off season. LightningMan (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The schedule certainly seems excessive given the fact that the Rainmen have an up to date website. Chris902 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Major sports teams have game by game logs on their current events pages. These teams are too minor to merit current events pages so they go here. If you don't like them, they can disappear after March when the season is over. LightningMan (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[paragraph deleted by Spike-from-NH on editing the Crookshank suspension]

Deleting the table raises a consistency issue. The articles on the other nearby PBL teams have one. Today I restored the table in the article on the Montreal Sasquatch, which someone had truncated at the point that the Sasquatch were suspended from the league. And I update the table for my team (Manchester Millrats) faithfully, though I have condensed its format, contriving to eliminate the Home/Away column and declining to list full names when two or more players are tied for the lead in a category. I don't see much added value in the listing of top scorer/rebounder/assists. I agree that CREZ is doing a better job, and almost instantly, and that you should not have a table that is always out-of-date. The Millrats page, however, does not have a table on season-by-season record, although it is stated in the text. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No team should have a game by game table on its main page. It is undue weight and its recentism. -Djsasso (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

None of these teams are important enough to merit current event pages like the major sports. For teams such as these, the main page is the only page for it. LightningMan (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is the point, the game by game stats of a team at this level is considered not notable enough for wikipedia and that leagues at this level should only have season pages for the entire league minus the game by game summary. It doesn't mean that the stats then shift to the team page. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac comes into play for this. -Djsasso (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy quoted here says, in part: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." I think that most readers who follow a Rainmen article to this point know what points, rebounds, and assists are. So I don't agree that the policy statement prohibits such a table, nor that it does so only for teams at the level of the PBL. Again, though, I have condensed the one on Manchester Millrats, and would like it even better if the summary of each game fit on a single line. For example, the column listing the arena is not newsworthy and seems to be there mostly to help readers find the location of the team's next games, for which the team web site and pocket schedule work well. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just linking the policy that was used for most of the discussions that determined that leagues below the top level leagues in sport ie NBA, NHL etc should not have season pages because the statistics stop being discriminate and/or notable. Just tacking them onto the team pages isn't any better. The team pages are supposed to be about the team, not about the games they played. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LightningMan's conclusion, there not being a current event page, was to restore the table to the Rainmen article. He sent to my talk page: "How about we have Halifax match the eleven other pages I take care of?" Well, that would be consistent. In case your count of eleven excludes the Manchester Millrats, which I have been doing recently, please look at my modifications (eliminating Home/Away and condensing top players) and see whether you would like to adopt these changes or whether you have a problem with my mods.

Also please monitor or join the discussion on Template talk:Player2. I have asked that there be a way, in the roster table, to inhibit the automatic assumption that the players have Wikipedia links. (The template was created for major-league sports. For the Millrats, only 6 links work and only Desmond Ferguson has his own article; the other links are incorrect.) --Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

PS--User:LOL has modified the Manchester Millrats table, adding |dab=basketball to force the player names to become red-links when appropriate (automatically relinking if an article on the player should be created). He further proposes a code |autolink=y that would let the page builder remove the linking rather than build a red-link. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PPS--User:LOL has implemented |autolink=y and tried it out on the Manchester Millrats article. I've applied it to the Halifax roster table. It seems that none of the Rainmen have a Wikipedia article; Bailey and Bennet have a link, but it's not them. For them, I've also added |dab = basketball. This will automatically create a link if an article Tony Bennet (basketball) is ever created. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Red-links

I have edited the article to remove almost all of the red-links. It is not doing anyone a favor to let him click on a word and be taken directly to an article that doesn't exist (even though the player may deserve one). Separately, LightningMan and I have discussed briefly the use of links to dates, but the Manual of Style, at MOS:UNLINKDATES, says "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." As January 10, etc., in the game-by-game results table has no inherent relationship to all the other things that happened throughout history on January 10, I have removed these links. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halifax Rainmen. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130131183113/http://rainmenbasketball.pointstreaksites.com/view/rainmenbasketball/news/news_59449 to http://rainmenbasketball.pointstreaksites.com/view/rainmenbasketball/news/news_59449

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halifax Rainmen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006180959/http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/sports/article/119864 to http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/sports/article/119864

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)