Talk:Brooklyn Nets/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

notes

On the "Players of note" section, "Basketball Hall of Famers": Julius Erving Drazen Petrovic Rick Barry Nate Archibald Bob McAdoo Brian Scalabrine - Is it a joke or what?!--Lironos 08:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sly

There is no mention of the Nets mascot "Sly." I am not a wiki guy and did not find an appropriate section to add this in. Rather than create a sloppy new section myself, somebody else could add it. As a nets fan how could this not be included but also mascots are important information in respects to sports teams. http://www.nba.com/nets/mascot/sly_index.html

Why did you delete Brooklyn?

Put it back!

hi i'm the biggest nets fan!!!=)

Owner

It's currently listed as Jay-Z. While he is a partial owner, Bruce Ratner is the majority owner. Should they both be listed, or just Ratner? If that's the case, why not find the whole ownership group?

I'm changing it back to Ratner until further notice.

Unsourced

This article needs references. Tayquan 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It also needs a longer lead. Tayquan 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

There's an image of the new Jersey Americans logo at Image:NJAmericans1.gif but it's rather grainy - don't know whether it should go into the relevant section of the article or not? -- Francs2000 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's the 1990-1997 logo? WAVY 10 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NJAmericans.GIF

Image:NJAmericans.GIF 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 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 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Netslogo.jpg

Image:Netslogo.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 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 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vince Carter is not captain

In the roster part of the page Vince Carter is listed as a captain, he was never named captain by the Nets.

Source: http://www.nba.com/nets/roster/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmazter3 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Prudential Center move

I thought that the Prudential Center was made so that the Nets would have a home while they were building New Meadowlands Arena on the site of Izod Center. What happened to that? I thought that they would have said something. Plus, what happened to the New Meadowlands Arena? I've got an artist's rendering of it, but I can't find it. Basketball110 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nets are moving to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. There is no new arena being built at the Meadowlands, only a new stadium and the Xanadu mall. The Nets were never planning to move to Newark as a part of the Prudential Center. --Michael Greiner 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos

We need an organized logo section with a nice table. Anyone? Basketballone10 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Rivals

I added the fact that the Toronto Raptors are a big rival of the Nets ever since the Nets acquired Vince Carter, and for some reason it got deleted. Any idea why? I'm not going to play this game where I put something up and it gets deleted and then I put it back, only to have it deleted again. Anybody who follows the Nets knows that they have had a rivalry with the Raptors the last few years and if you want these wiki pages to be complete and accurate you should stop deleting things that actually make the article more complete and informative!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.18.71 (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Original owner

At the beginning of the "Franchise history" section there are these sentences: "The franchise was established in 1967 as part of the American Basketball Association, with trucking magnate Catherine Esquea as the owner. Brown had operated several AAU teams in and around New York City, and was viewed as an ideal pick to run the league's New York franchise." Who was the owner, Esquea or Brown; if the latter, what is Brown's first name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.12.221 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown was team founder Arthur Brown. I don't know who Catherine Esquea was/is, but she is probably a vandal who put her own name in the article. Tis fixed.oknazevad (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Brooklyn

Brooklyn - Ratner has not stated he would sell the team if the sale did not go through - its obvious that he wants the team in BKLYN, but he has made no statement that he'd sell if the arena falls through Schnu 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumors of move to St Louis, Ottawa or Montreal - where have you seen these rumors? I tried searching for any info and could not find any info on this Schnu 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jay-Z expressed interest in renaming the team the 'Brooklyn Ballers'." Has this been verified? If so, please include a citation. Steven Dudick (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unverified, and a Google search only turns up this page, other wikis which take their content from this page, and sites quoting this page. May be vandalism, but in any case is unsupported. I'm taking it out. SixFourThree (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Long island

When exactly did the Mets and Jets play on Long Island? That has to be an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobejks (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mets currently play on Long Island at Shea Stadium and the Jets played there from 1964-1983. --Michael Greiner 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mets currently play in Queens. Lets get it straight.

Are you serious? You do know where Queens is, right? 162.136.193.1 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Who forfeited?

In the early years, it says

"After the Colonels refused to play, league commissioner George Mikan forfeited the game to the Colonels."

This seems like an obvious error, as the team that refuses to play would not be given an automatic win ...who refused to play, and who got the forfeit? 162.136.193.1 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No the team that was unable to supply a venue that was safe and acceptable (that is, the then-Americans), would be the one forced to forfeit. Providing an appropriate venue as the home team is a neccessary condition for all pro leagues. Failure t'i abide by that is what caused the forfiet. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusing Weasel Words

Someone tried to address the stupefyingly obvious fact that team will be called something other than the "New Jersey Nets" once it moves to Brooklyn. They came up with this rather amusing example of Wikipedia weasel word speech:

  • There is also speculation that the team will change its name once they move to Brooklyn.

The statement was cited with an article which states, quite plausibly, that the owner hasn't decided what the team's new name will be. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The official web site refers to the team simply as "the NETS" and features the motto "Jersey Strong: Brooklyn Ready." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The unknowns are not the obvious dropping of "New Jersey" once they go to Brooklyn, but whether they will use "Brooklyn" or "New York" in their name, and whether they will retain the "Nets" nickname. The above sentence is a reference to the "Nets" question, to be exact. As we don't know what those answers will be, anything other than that simple statement would be utterly inappropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. oknazevad (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

knicks fans at nets games

"When the division rivals meet in New Jersey, the arena is often evenly split between Nets and Knicks fans. "

I was at the Knicks-Nets game tonight. It was at least 95% Knicks fans. Definitely not even split by any means. I was at the Celtics-Nets game last Saturday, and it was also absolutely packed with Celtics fans. The Nets currently have a very, very weak fanbase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.119.72 (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Brooklyn already?

Are they officially the Brooklyn Nets yet? The 2011-12 season isn't over yet. --Airtuna08 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is for them, since they missed the playoffs. Today they announce themselves as the Brooklyn Nets pbp 16:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by someone else (not me). pbp 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey Nets → Brooklyn Nets – According to the page, in three days (i.e. four shorter than a move request takes), the team will be officially renamed the Brooklyn Nets pbp 02:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The official name is irrelevant when considering what to name the article. You need to show that independent reliable sources have also changed what they call the team, and are referring to them as the "Brooklyn Nets". See WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, etc. In the meantime, alternative names, such as official names, should be mentioned in the lead. Jenks24 (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't hold water...you appear to be arguing that even when they officially move and change their name, we should still call them the "New Jersey Nets" if other things haven't bothered to take notice. As of Monday, they won't even play in New Jersey...they already had a very well-publicized last game there. WP:COMMONNAMES somewhat ignores the reality of sports franchises moving...they move at a set date (Monday for this article), and things should be changed as close to the set date as possible. But it won't matter anyway, because things will take notice...you forgot that one of the ones that does is already in the article? pbp 13:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not making an argument (note I haven't opposed), and to be honest I haven't even looked at the article recently. I'm explaining to you that, in order to comply with policy, you need to show (through use in reliable sources) that the common name of the team has changed. Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a good ideal, but it's silly to delay something that is as close to a certainty as anything in this world just because the sources won't change until after Monday. Powers T 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; might as well change it. Powers T 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on Monday When they're holding the press conference where they're supposed to officially change their name. --Michael Greiner 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when it becomes official. Seriously, Jenks, common sense and WP:IAR are policy, too. We don't need to wait for a laundry list of reliable sources for an obvious, inevitable change. A name change is a name change. For factual accuracy, we need to change as well. oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Jersey Nets own page

Should the New Jersey Nets get their own page, much like the current Oklahoma City Thunder and the Seattle SuperSonics have? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. Just as we don't have seperate pages for the New Jersey Americans or New York Nets, which also redirect here. Unlike the SuperSonics/Thunder move, the Nets are still within the same media market and metro area. While it may be more of a pain for me to get to Brooklyn than Newark, I, as a Nets fan, can still get to Nets home games easily. (Affording it, that's a different story!)oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say no as well. Seattle, much like the Cleveland Browns 1946-95, retained all rights to the Sonics' name, colors, unis, etc when they moved. Nothing like that with the Nets, who still have the same name. The Sonics are kind of the exception rather than the rule. pbp 17:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a fan of creating own pages for relocated teams, but in this case I'd say no – Newark's just a coupla miles upriver from Staten Island, it's essentially another suburb of NYC, even tho it's in a different state! The team's literally moved across town to become the Brooklyn Nets. BigSteve (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say that Florida -> Miami and NJ -> Brooklyn are the exception rather than the rule. In addition to Seattle -> OKC, see Vancouver Grizzlies -> Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Hornets -> New Orleans Hornets, Montreal Expos -> Washington Nationals, Atlanta Thrashers -> Winnipeg Jets, even Houston Oilers -> Tennessee Titans which is a move that occurred before Wikipedia was established. Most relocated teams get new articles on WP. --108.81.25.227 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The Florida Marlins didn't get a new WP article when they moved to Miami proper. (Miami Marlins) Not that I agree, just noting the precedent. --108.81.25.227 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, there are several examples of former teams that redirect to the current team only because no one has yet written specifically about the former team. --108.81.25.227 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Owner on info box?

I do not think Shawn Carter should be listed alongside Mikhail Prokhorov as the owner in the info box. Carter only owns one fifteenth of one percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rungladwin (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet, as noted in a rather prominent New York Times article that is already the source for his ownership percentage, he serves as the public face of ownership and seems to have a pretty large outsize influence on the running of the team. Or, to put it another way, it's not the size of his stake that matters, it's what he does with it that counts. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Should we really put minority owners? 198.151.130.66 (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article for GA. However, I think this article does not meet GA criteria. There are entire sections of this article that are unreferenced, such as the Kidd and Carter Duo and Radio and television sections. Verifiability is an absolute must, so let's try to address that first. See WP:GA? for more on GA criteria. — MusikAnimal talk 16:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortening the article

To shorten the article, I propose making a "History of the Brooklyn Nets" article and revising the current text in this article. JC · Talk · Contributions 23:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I have split the 2 articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Home city location for the Brooklyn Nets

I sincerely believe the home city location for the Brooklyn Nets should be listed as Brooklyn. The Nets' Front Office page lists the team's address as: 15 MetroTech Center, 11th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Not only that, but the Barclays Center's home page (seen here) lists the address as: 620 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11217. I sincerely believe Wikipedia should list the home city location for all professional sports teams by the team's home arena/stadium address. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree Brooklyn is fine (very common to use Borough, State for NYC boroughs as a "town.") Not sure where the consensus indicated in the dirt summary was reached - perhaps the editor can link it? Rikster2 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's your ANSWER. I agree with that person as Brooklyn is not a city. No further explanation is needed. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's one dude's opinion for a franchise that doesn't even go by the borough. Doesn't qualify as consensus. Plus, it's hockey. They feel no obligation to follow anything done by basketball or anyone else, why should we feel compelled to use the same logic? It's not a WP-wide policy as near as I can tell. Rikster2 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, I am just going to point out that the hockey template reads "city," but the basketball template reads "location," which Brooklyn, New York certainly is. Rikster2 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There should be an equal application for both the Nets and the National Hockey League (NHL)'s New York Islanders. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it's a consensus (letters are this big for a purpose as you CLEARLY don't understand what I meant). It was always New York City, New York for Nets, Knicks, Islanders, Rangers. And when someone wrote Brooklyn (on Nets' or Islanders' articles) or Manhattan (on Knicks' or Rangers' articles), it always got reverted immediately. Furthermore, if we went by your logic then Lakers' location should be listed as Downtown Los Angeles, Bulls's – Near West Side, etc. That's nonsense, isn't it? And that sort of thing should be adapted for every other team around the world... – Sabbatino (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to yell or scream. I've changed the location in the infoboxes for both the Nets and Islanders articles to NYC. I've listed that both clubs play their home games at the Barclays Center, located in Brooklyn. I hope this is acceptable for everyone. I guess I'm finally persuaded that all teams who play games in NYC should have NYC listed as their home city, and the arena/location mentioned in the body of the article. I hope this satisfies everyone. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
My message was directed at other user who thinks that I stated something which I didn't. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
First off, you need to settle down. No one was rude to you and I refuse to be spoken to that way. Secondly, this case is different than those others both in the way the template reads and in that the Nets are the only franchise in that group that actually named itself the "Brooklyn ____." The others all self-affiliate with NYC ("New York ___"). I also don't agree that this needs to be handled in the same manner as the hockey franchises for the same reasons - difference in template and difference in self-identification with the borough vs. city. Truth be told, I wouldn't care if the Yankees' location were "Bronx, New York," but I leave that up to the baseball guys to determine. Brooklyn is an address, a zip code and plenty of other things so it isn't that different from other places in the U.S. Like Woodland Hills, California and Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Rikster2 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are we talking about here? The location/city field in the infobox? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Rikster2 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rikster. Unless there is some outstanding consensus otherwise, the location for the Brooklyn Nets should be "Brooklyn". It is in their name, after all. This is the most logical answer. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I support "Brooklyn, New York" here too. That's how the Nets identify, and that's how you'd address something mailed to Barclays Center or anywhere else in Brooklyn. That Brooklyn is not technically a city is not relevant here. It's actually a borough that is co-terminus with Kings County. In the rest of New York State outside of NYC, and most the of United States, counties are composed of cities, towns, and villages, but the New York City is a city that is composed of five counties, thus making it something of a super city. "Brooklyn, New York" is the best descriptor of the location of the Nets as it should appear in the infobox. New York City is too broad. Prospect Heights is certainly to granular. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be New York City. Brooklyn is just a part of a bigger city, regardless of what they call themselves. To go by that logic you would have to list Golden State as just being located in California or Minnesota in Minnesota or Indiana in Indiana and so on and so forth. All teams should just be listed as their actual city. -DJSasso (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you don't have to follow That logic for the Golden State Warriors or Minnesota Twins or Indiana Pacers, that is a strawman. The field says "location," it doesn't say city. And Borough, State is absolutely a valid location, as is used in the address of the team and the team name. Rikster2 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That is not a strawman, it is quite serious. You need to be consistent with all teams. So if you are going by what the team is called then the correct "location" is that which is in the team name. The states are also used in the addresses. And either way, most readers are going to take location to mean city. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You act like NYC boroughs are obscure. They are not. borough, State is used for places of birth and location all over Wikipedia. And again, city isn't the field. There is no reason the Brooklyn Nets can't use Borough, State just like it is used in other cases. This isn't the "Upper a east Side, New York" we are talking about. Rikster2 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I never said city was a field, what I said was readers are going to take the meaning of that field to be city. You are creating a false impression that Brooklyn is a city regardless of how you label the field since all the other teams list their actual city and thus would be treating it differently than all other teams which can cause confusion, the boroughs to you might not be obscure but I can guarantee you they can be to people in countries on the other side of the world. I am simply stating if you don't want location to mean city then you need to make all teams consistent and use the location that they are named after or make them all use the actual city they are located in. -DJSasso (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
However, I'd be less concerned with Brooklyn, New York City, NY. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Great. So long as you're clear that what you are stating is a fine opinion, but not a fact. NYC boroughs, townships in Pennsylvania, combined villages in Massachusetts (like Chestnut Hill, which is actually spread across three cities) are commonly treated in the same way as cities. I disagree that "Brooklyn, New York" as the home of the Brooklyn Nets will be any more alien to people outside the U.S. than "Oakland, California" as the home of the Golden State Warriors. It doesn't need to be the city, it's a valid location typically treated the same way. My two cents. Rikster2 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I would also be fine with Brooklyn, New York City, New York Rikster2 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"Brooklyn, New York City, New York" is unnecessarily clunky and is a construction unlikely to be found in any reliable source. As I argued before, for purposes of location identification, Brooklyn is as prominent and functional as Oakland. If you mail a letter to the Barclays Center, the proper way to address it is "Brooklyn, New York". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for starting this. My reasoning for initiating this discussion was to ensure that the accurate geographic place name was listed for the Nets franchise. However, I'm persuaded that New York City is an accurate enough geographic place name to list in the infobox for the Nets article. After all, if WP lists Brooklyn, then it has to list other boroughs/neighborhoods for other teams, and then (IMO), it gets too complicated. It's just easier to list NYC as the home of the Nets in the infobox and also in the location for the National Basketball Association (NBA) article. Yes, I'm aware that the team lists "Brooklyn" as its mailing address for its team office and also the Barclays Center. However, I'm also aware that "Brooklyn" is still one of five boroughs of New York City, so it makes sense to just list NYC as the city location in the location field in the infobox of the Nets article. As long as there's a mention that the Nets play their games at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn in the lead paragraph (which there currently is), I'm satisfied. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Charles, just to be clear, the Nets don't list "Brooklyn" as their home address as if that's some calculated act (e.g. a marketing ploy). That's the way all 2.6 million residents and thousands of business in Brooklyn perfunctorily list their addresses, as per long-followed convention. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. However, the Nets don't just represent the borough of Brooklyn; they represent the entire population of New York City. That's why I now understand that the home city should be listed as NYC for the Nets. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, if the Nets list Brooklyn as their location it is not mandatory that all NYC teams show the Borough they are in. This happens to be the only case where a major league sports franchise actually is named for the borough as opposed to just calling itself the "New York ____." Borough, State is a reasonable location format and the naming convention is certainly enough to justify an exception. Rikster2 (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You still fail to understand that Brooklyn is not a city. And name doesn't mean anything. Just look at Detroit Pistons – name states Detroit while they are actually based in Auburn Hills which is a completely different city and about 30–35 miles separate them. Shouldn't they be named Auburn Hills Pistons? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand the discussion perfectly - it isn't that complex. I've never stated Brooklyn was a city, but the 5 boroughs are treated interchangably with "city" in many contexts, just like townships and villages are on some contexts, certainly common enough to have it populate a "location" field. Don't mistake someone disagreeing with your POV as not understanding. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue seems to be whether a postal address should be used to identify locations. Personally, I think they are more recognizable, as opposed to using some other convention. For example, I was never sure what was the rationale of listing Las Vegas Strip locations as being in Paradise, Nevada, as opposed to it's postal address of Las Vegas, Nevada (e.g. 2015 Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament). For a sports article, it seems mentioning NYC is at best trivia of where Brooklyn is located and how the NYC is divided, and not core to the understanding of the Nets. Mention NYC in the prose, but keep it out of the infobox, where info should be compact (and in it's most recognizable form)—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that is sort of what the argument is. I would argue the most recognizable form is New York City and would say mention Brooklyn in the prose obviously. -DJSasso (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
DJSasso, the infobox of Detroit Pistons lists location as "Auburn Hills, Michigan". There isn't much in the way of documentation at Template:Infobox basketball club, but based on the sequencing of the fields it seems that the location field, directly following arena and capacity, is intended to hold the location of the team's arena. The most consistent way to populate this field would be to do so with the standard city and state of the arena's address. In the case of Nets, the address for the Barclays Center is, without question, "Brooklyn, New York". New York City is a very special case. While most cities are geographically subordinate to the county or counties in which they are located, New York City is essentially a super city composed of five separate counties all contained entirely within its borders. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, the Nets office is also in Brooklyn, so it's not a case like the New York Jets where the team office is located in one city and plays in another. Even for the Pistons, I believe the office is also in Auburn Hills. The fact that they choose to use "Detroit" in their name is an entirely different matter.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Right but the location of the arena is in New York City. And the most consistent way, would be to list the city it is in, like we do with every other team. Even if New York is special, a city is still a city. If you absolutely feel the need to mention Brooklyn in the infobox then I think the only consistent way to do it would be with the Brooklyn, New York City, NY suggestion thus you eliminate any possible confusion and get all the information out that you want. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@DJSasso: NYC might be more recognizable, but it seems to go against WP:ASTONISH to not list Brooklyn, which is also in the team's name. Those outside of NY are not as familiar with the intricacies of Brookyln/NYC.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I would actually argue the opposite, that it would go against ASTONISH because NYC is more recognizable and because people wouldn't realize Brooklyn is in NY and thus would think Brooklyn was the city it was in, when it is infact not. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The address of the Barclays Center is 620 Atlantic Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11217. QED. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes its mailing address which is different than its legal location. You don't need to keep repeating that. There are many cases of parts of cities that have a different mailing address than the city proper. All a mailing address proves is how a letter gets to that location. As a legal entity it located in city of New York. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There are also cases where another geographic unit is used interchangeably with city (especially when appearing in a field labeled "location" not "city") and the NYC boroughs fit this. For example, what city does Boston College play its football and hockey games? If you said "Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts" you'd be wrong - that is a village that spans parts of three cities (Boston, Brookline and Newton). The arena and stadium are technically in the city limits of Newton. But the location of the college and its teams is always Chestnut Hill. Rikster2 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No I would say Newton which it should be changed to if it doesn't already say it. We write for the larger world that doesn't know the intricacies of local mailing customs and would be confused by not using the legal location. We don't write for the locals. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well you go ahead and change that and see what happens. We do write for the world, but the idea that Brooklyn, NY is less recognizable to non-North Americans than Columbus, Ohio or Auburn Hills, Michigan or Green Bay, Wisconsin is silly. People have heard of Brooklyn as much as many pro sports franchise locations and as always a person can click a link if they aren't sure where it is. It's doubtful non-locals get that Auburn Hills is a suburb of Detroit at first blush either. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
If WP:BASKETBALL or those who are interested in the NBA, prefer to use Brooklyn? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In an attempt to reset the discussion, I think these are the major points of discussion that have been raised:

  1. The infobox field in question is listed as location, and does not explicitly say it is the location's city.
  2. A location's postal address in some cases does not list the location's city, but instead might be a borough.
  3. The team's name is the Brooklyn Nets. While the name includes the borough, the city is more universally recognizable.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn is not a city. Besides, "New York City" is more easily recognized. Epic Genius (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those points have already been raised. Any new ideas to reach a consensus are welcome. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A consensus should probably include facts (just saying). That said, I prefer "New York City," if possible. Epic Genius (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"A consensus should probably include facts": As the field is Location, I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps the problem is that it is ambiguous, so one option might be to change it to City, but not sure if there are other existing template transclusions that use the existing field for something other than a city. In that case, just create a new field called City.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
for the record, I'm very opposed to changing the field from "location" to "city" just to satisfy some editors' need to have location=city in 100% of cases. I think that's right for MOST cases (95% or so), but in some cases (like the Chestnut Hill for BC example I gave earlier and - in my opinion - the NYC boroughs) it is perfectly acceptable to use a unit other than city on an exception basis. If the concern is that the NY Islanders would "have" to change to Brooklyn because they play in the same arenas, I would suggest that the template differences and the choice by the Nets to identify with Brooklyn vs. NYC (in contrast to the Islanders) are reason enough for these to display differently. Heck, MLB doesn't even have a city/location field on their team template. As I said, I am personally OK with "Brooklyn, New York City, NY" if that's the only way to meet consensus, but I don't think it is necessary to include "NYC" in the middle. Rikster2 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
or maybe we can use "location" as a parameter, then add "Brooklyn." Epic Genius (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the field also works as "location," which is what the template actually says to the reader. It also works for "city." I'm not going to change it because this discussion is ongoing, but the field doesn't actually have to say "city" at all as is. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally favour "Brooklyn, New York" for the same reasons as others have explained. That is, it is the official mailing address, and moreover that the team identifies with the borough apart from the rest of the city. It would be different if it were the only NBA team in New York City. I asked at WP:NYC about this a while back here. At least at that time we seemed to prefer including the borough name, but that was solely in the capacity of WikiProject NYC, and not our rather unique scenario here of two teams being in the same city, not to mention a subject much more notable than the examples I brought up such as Flushing Meadows–Corona Park. If localized WikiProject consensus were to take precedence here I would say it would be WP:NBA. — MusikAnimal talk 23:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get others opinions on Brooklyn, New York City, NY. I know Jweiss11 has said he thinks it is clunky and Rikster has said he is ok with it and I like it. Perhaps we can see what others think as perhaps this is a good compromise situation? -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this is in the infobox, I think "Brooklyn, New York" is sufficient. Per WP:IBX, "present information in short form", which is accomplished by using its postal format.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
For the "location" parameter, "Brooklyn, New York" works fine. For the "city" parameter, "New York City" works fine. Epic Genius (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
City and location are the same parameter. One redirects to the other in the code. Thus it needs to be one or the other or a combination. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The template documentation says "location" and the information displays on the template as "location." I'd be all for deprecating "city" as a RD on this template. Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So it should be "Brooklyn, New York." Epic Genius (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, but that would only apply when important information wouldn't be getting cut out by shortening it. The infobox is for the most important information of an article. The city it is in is quite possibly the most important piece of information about a team beyond what sport it is for. So it needs to be in the infobox somehow. Be it by combining the two in the location field or by adding a second field. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That is an opinion that I disagree with. The location of the home arena is what is the key piece of information. This is usually the city, but I disagree it officially has to be the legal city in all cases. In this case, Brooklyn, New York serves as location and in my opinion is fine. This is one of the cruxes of this argument. Rikster2 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Would any other editor object if I went ahead and updated the |location= field in the Brooklyn Nets main article to read as New York City, New York? My thinking behind this edit is to make the link in the infobox be similar to the links in other NBA team articles. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
My recommendation is don't worry about it until this discussion closes. How the links work is a minor issue and it is not decided that "New York City, New York" is what it will read ultimately anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Poll on location

The discussion above has reached a lull, so a poll would assess where we stand. There are many forms of what can be placed in |location=, but it generally boils down to whether it is some form of Brooklyn (e.g. Brooklyn, New York; Brooklyn, New York City, New York; or Brooklyn, New York, New York) or some variant of New York City (e.g. New York City, New York, or New York, New York). Once one of the two is decided, we can have subsequent discussions regarding the specific format and wikilinking details.

Issue: Should the New York City borough of Brooklyn be listed as the |location= in the infobox for the Brooklyn Nets?

Yes, list Brooklyn
  1. Use the postal address of "Brooklyn, New York", as post addresses are the most common method of communicating location in the United States. It is also the same as the team name, so it is less WP:ASTONISHing to readers unfamiliar with the Brooklyn Nets. New York City should, and is already, mentioned in the prose in the lead. If it were considered a city, Brooklyn would be the 4th-largest in the U.S—it's hardly some unknown entity for most readers of this American subject, who would likely be somewhat familiar with the U.S. The displayed field is Location, which does not directly imply it is limited to being a city instead of a borough.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Prefer "Brooklyn, New York." In addition to Bagumba's points, I believe that boroughs are used interchangeably with city in many cases (like the mailing address example). To me it is significant that the team self-identifies with the Borough and is why we should use it instead of the also correct (though less specific) "New York City." I see this as valid reason to use Brooklyn with this article, but not be compelled to use "Manhattan" with the New York Knicks (who choose to self identify with NYC). Rikster2 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    And the Knicks play at Madison Square Garden, whose postal address is "New York, New York"[1].—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. I agree with both Bagumba and Rikster2. Even though I am open to listing either Brooklyn or NYC in the infobox, I would think that the |location= field in the infobox of the Nets' article should list Brooklyn. There are two (2) reasons why I think the |location= field in the infobox should be listed as Brooklyn: 1. the geographic identifier in the team's name, and 2. the office address listing on the team's website, seen here. Whatever the WP:CONSENSUS is for identifying the |location= field, I believe that the wikilink should include either the borough or city name and the state name, similar to how it is for other NBA team articles. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Yes, list "Brooklyn, New York" in the location field. "Brooklyn, New York" is the proper address for the home arena and corporate office of the Nets. Plus, they clearly identify as Brooklyn, not "New York" or "New York City", per their team name. Finally, Brooklyn, while technically not a city, is co-coterminous with one of the five counties that make of the "super city" that is New York City. In other words, Brooklyn is larger and more substantial than the vast majority of other cities around the world—it has a population of 2.6 million and, moreover, it is a highly recognizable cultural entity. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, do not list Brooklyn
  1. I don't agree and think it should be New York City, New York. US residents are not the only people that read English Wikipedia and not everyone knows that Brooklyn is in New York City. Furthermore, Brooklyn is not a city and that's another reason why I don't agree. P.S. If it was my will I would delete |location= parameter from the infobox and a mention in the lead would be enough (just like in football clubs' articles).– Sabbatino (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Nobody has said that everyone knows where Brooklyn is. For the majority of people that read this article that presumably do, it's there as they would expect. For the rest, they can click through Brooklyn on the infobox, or they will find NYC early in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Discussion

ABA Championships

The NBA doesn't recognize ABA Championships, so isn't it misleading to say that the Nets are two-time league champions? Is there a way we can point out that the NBA doesn't recognize those championships? For instance, the NFL doesn't recognize NFL and AFL Championships from 1966-1969 as being worth the same as in other years (due to the Super Bowl superseding those championships), and the Wikipedia articles reflect that.50.136.139.204 (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the line in the infobox which says the team has 2 championships? It accurately says they won 2 titles in the ABA. The body text says the same thing. In no way would it be appropriate to remove that at all. The Nets won 2 ABA championships. No where do we claim they won an NBA title. So I don't know what you are saying. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brooklyn Nets. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brooklyn Nets. 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) 12:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Rivals?

The Celtics as a rivalry? One playoff series and a couple trades does not make a rivalry. I’d say you’d be hard pressed to find many Celtics fans who count the Nets as a rival outside of being in the same division HunkD25 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brooklyn_Nets/Archive_1&oldid=1140847668"