Talk:San Antonio Spurs/Archive 1

message: The sunset is complete 
Go spurs go—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.226.100.216 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Go Spurs Go

message: "Go Spurs Go" belongs in the article.  The local media recently noted the San Antonio Alamodome crowds that attending the replaced New Orleans Saints games had chanting "Go Saints Go."  The local media joked about the city borrowing from one professional team.  "Go Spurs Go" belongs in the Wiki article.  70.129.22.10 13:07, December 26, 2005 (UTC)
*It's already in there.  See the "Spurs in San Antonio" section. Dknights411 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Go Spurs Go" Concur

message: I was browsing the page, and I was very surprised to see that James Silas didn't have an article. So, now he does. Please feel free to look over this new page and add as much as you know/can find, as I honestly knew little about him before I started doing the research for the article. Please leave me feedback either here or on my talk page. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James Silas]]

message: I think you must add the Dallas Mavericks as a Strong I35 Rivalry. In three times san antonio and dallas have played in the playoffs and san antonio has won the first two 4-1 and 4-2 and now pending the third one in a tied series 3-3.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.128.99 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I35 Rivalry 

message: Could anyone please put a list for famous fans of the Spurs? I know someone deleted this before. I know they are many notable fans. Taylor Hicks and Eva Longoria are the only ones that I know, I'm pretty sure they're might be more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.114.193 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good idea.  I know that you could also add Shirley Manson from Garbage in that "famous fans" list.  I'm unsure of any other people who could be added to the list.  But three is a good start.  (Krushsister 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: New addition to "famous fans" roster:  English footballer Thierry Henry, whose Wiki article (a.) states this and (b.) also states that he's friends with Mr. Tony Parker!  Wow, this celeb supporter list is growing.  Slowly.  (Krushsister 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous fans  

message: Anyone know for sure where the name Spurs came from when they moved to SA?  I've heard that they were named after Red McCombs' home town of Spur, Texas.  The story I heard goes that as the team moved to SA, the business association in charge of the team move held a contest here in SA.  The winner was suppose to be picked by the committee, and then the winner would receive something like 4 season's worth of tickets.  However, as the contest drew down to just a few finalists, the committee decided that they didn't like any of the entries.  At some point in this, McCombs stated that the name should be associated with Texas/San Antonio, but be short.  After the committee threw out all of the contest entries, one of the committee members mentioned going with McCombs' idea and naming it after his hometown, Spur.  I thought about adding this to the article, but I can't find a reference for this story anywhere, and I'd rather not added it till we know it as fact and not some SA urban legend.  Can anyone help out on this?  --Brownings 00:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link looks like a sufficiently reliable source to justify including the origin of the name http://www.sanantonionames.com/pages/exerpts.html --Mikebrand 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurs' Name

message: I'm thinking of creating a new subheading possibly called Unsigned Draftees (open to better suggestions).  It would be located under the Current Roster heading (at contents position 6.2) and include links to players such as Ian Mahinmi, Luis Scola and Robertas Javtokas.   The point would be to provide a quick reference to the drafted players considered "projects" by the Spurs.  I'm imagining a table with columns for name, position, year drafted, nationality, and current team.  Any thoughts? --Mikebrand 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, so long as we're able to keep it up-to-date with their current teams. An intro to the section would be nice as well, such as "The San Antonio Spurs have used _ of their last _ draft picks on foreign-born players, and have had arguably more success than any other club in finding foreign talent, selecting All-Stars Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili..." Sources would obviously be nice, but I think they're probably the only club to have drafted two foreign-born All-Stars. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I gave it a try.  I decided to list in the table only facts that will not change (or are unlikely to change: position).  The items that change (eg, which league and team they currently play for) would be best listed in their personal profiles.  My introductory para may need some editing.  It is possible that a similar explanatory para should be written for the whole NBA, and this entry merely link to it. --Mikebrand 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned Draftees 

message: Every time I come by this article, the "Not to be forgotten" section on former players has expanded.  It has reached the point where it is not very useful.  It should either be cut down to the 5-10 most notable who don't fit into another list (AJ and a few others) or cut entirely.  Eluchil404 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Selecting the 10 worthy of inclusion would be a very subjective process.  An alternative would be to change the title to "Former Spurs" and make it very inclusuve.  That could actually be a useful list as I don't think such a list exists elsewhere in WP. --Mikebrand 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fully inclusive list would be equal to :Category:Spurs players.  It would also be too long for its current place in the article.  My first choice would be to just delete the section outright as POV and unneccessary but I wouldn't object to a seperate page List of former Spurs players with information like numbers and seasons with the team.  Eluchil404 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate list of former players (with numbers and years) sounds like a good idea to me.  --Mikebrand 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be forgotten 

message: Ah man, I cant beleive we still dont have any safely free images on this page. Looks like Ill have to go to a spurs game and shoot some myself! Too bad the Detroit game is already sold out!--Zereshk 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Quadzilla99 has been removing the "controversial" adjective from "...controversial game-winning shot." Considering the amount of press this shot received after the Spurs filed a protested, claiming the clock did not start when it should have, I believe the adjective fits (as did the editor that put it there some time ago). Here is everyone's opportunity to comment on this shot. (Considering the fact it even needs to be discussed supports its controversy.) Clipper471 
03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my and Clippers talk pages and this for more details on the discussion: Quadzilla99 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The shot was certainly controversial.  Whether that shot should count or not was the talk of the town for the next several days.  While it is true that Fisher released the ball before the clock expired, he held the ball for more than 0.4 seconds.  The issue is, does 0.4 seconds mean 0.4 seconds of possesion, or does it mean 0.4 seconds from when the ref starts the clock.  By NBA rules, it is the later, but try to explain that to a Spurs fan and you have a controversy.  --Mikebrand 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yet to see one reliable source stating he did not get the shot off in time. AP report: "replays showed Fisher got off the shot in time." Washington Post:"The miraculous bucket, which was reviewed on video by all three game officials and declared good,", and I'm a Spurs fan, so that holds no water. I stopped using forums a while ago but here's a one of my old forum profiles: Quadzilla99 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just say the shot was heavily contested but later proved to be legitimate by NBA rules. People may still remember the shot and feel hard done by but that does not alone make it controversial. That said, if it can be shown, as Clipper41 submits that the press framed the shot as a controversy, then we have the evidence. Chensiyuan 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I've yet to see one reliable source stating he did not get the shot off in time." -- You won't see a source that will say that. Do you not understand it's about not starting the clock in time? Clipper471 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means, if there are sources saying the clock was not started in time (allegedly, perceived, actually, or otherwise), then that helps. Chensiyuan 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion in local media was not whether the shot was released before the buzzer (it was, no controversy there).  The discussion was about how long it legitimately takes the clock to start once it is in a player's possession.  There was plenty of media controversy about that length of time (ie, immediate or after some fraction of a second, like 0.4).  The fact that this discussion has generated multiple responses in less than an hour indicates it is still controversial, even several years later. --Mikebrand 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then prove the media controversy! It's very simple. These events happened in the age of the internet, I am sure something can be found. Manderiko 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll chime in, several responses in an hour is proof of nothing. You need valid sources. I'm a big NBA and Spurs fan and I never heard of any real controversy. The replays all showed it to be good. Harvey100 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning! I suspect Harvey100 may be a sock puppet belonging to Quadzilla99. Quadzilla99 has made an edit on Harvey100's user page indicating as such. This should be considered when considering his message. However, in response to Harvey100's message, how do you source a controversey? Was there a cover up to the JFK assination? According to the Warren Commission, no. So I guess there's no controversey? Clipper471 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Source with exact verbiage: "So, while his teammates rushed to view a replay of Derek Fisher's controversial game-winning shot, the Spurs' guard sat quietly alone in the locker room, considering what might have been had Fisher misfired with his desperation jumper." ("Parker perplexed once again", San Antonio Express-News, Tom Osborn, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another source: "The Los Angeles Lakers brought Hollywood to San Antonio on Thursday night, complete with suspense, action - and some might argue a robbery." ("S.A. is heartbreak city", San Antonio Express-News, Amy Dorsett, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added another source, the Houston Chronicle with comments from Jeff Van Gundy. Clipper471 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The references have been added to the article. Please do not remove these. Read the articles for the "evidence concerning the complaints by the Spurs", including the appropriate adjectives and comments from other leagure sources. Clipper471 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Derek Fisher shot controversy

message: I've reverted a massive change to the article applied by an anonymous user (71.41.180.99). Many of the changes were added without sourcing. Please propose such changes that will dramatically alter the article here before applying them. Clipper471 11:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive changes

message: Is there any documentation that shows that was supposed to be the original name for the Spurs in San Antonio?  I never knew that and it seems all made up.  DandyDan2007 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Antonio Gunslingers? 

message: I added an unsourced tag this article needs more inline citations, see the Toronto Raptors article for an example of a well sourced article.  Tayquan hollaHard work 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced

message: How come this article doesn't have more sources like a lot of the other Wikipedia sports articles like Wayne Gretzky? Aaron Bowen 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No answers? Aaron Bowen 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: *Merge and redirect. Clipper471 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The stats need to be updated in the table to reflect the 2006-07 season. Miranda 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Stats to reflect the 2007 season 

message: You guys sure about this?  SA's population has increased massively in recent years and they're the 7th biggest city in the USA.  Of course, they have few suburbs and are not joined to another large city like Dallas/Ft.Worth are so their MSA is not nearly the 7th largest, but according to the SA wikipedia page, as of '05 they were still 29th and probably have moved up/will move up...I realize there are differences between "media market size," NSA population, city size, etc, and probably even different ways to define "media market size," so I'll let you guys make the call. -Thermal0xidizer
Those figures are correct.  The San Antonio/Del Rio Designated Market Area (DMA) is currently (2006-07) ranked 37th largest in the nation as defined by Nielsen Media Research and the San Antonio MSA is the 29th largest.  
The DMA ranking is based on population within a geographic region designated for that market.  Some DMA's include large geographic areas with little poplulation and in some cases they cross state lines.
Given those variables, individual city population and metropolitan area population rankings rarely correlate with a DMA ranking.  For example, Houston is the 4th largest city in the country and the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA is the 6th largest, but is the 10th largest DMA.  By the way the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA is the fourth largest in the nation and is the 6th largest DMA.
I hope that clears thing up.IceBRG 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: San Antonio as only 37th biggest market?

message: I'm thinking we need a new section title for what is currently titled "A new era (1997-present)".  An era that's a decade old now is really not so new, IMHO.  In keeping with the lightly humorous nature of the Robinson Era section title, I was thinking of what could be done with Duncan's name.  The obvious one that comes to mind is something like "Slam Duncan (1997-present)".  It's simple, it made a basketball pun off of Duncan's name, though a fairly obvious one, but it would give IMHO a nice theme to the current section.  Anyone have any other ideas?  Or think that the current section title is fine as it is? - TexasAndroid 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried using titles like "the Duncan era" or the championship era, but I kepp getting rv'd.  I still have a few ideas though. Dknights411 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Part of why I came in here first.  If we can get a consensous here on talk first, it's easier to get it to stick on the page itself. - TexasAndroid 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I suggest something like "Twin-Tower Era" (not sure the spelling). Duncan era is not quite right because he still plays. -- Lerdsuwa 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds good. Chris! my talk 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Era not so new any more 

message: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please do not use rumors and alleged reports as an excuse to update a team's roster.  If you want to update a team's roster, please check the Spurs roster on their official website [www.nba.com/spurs] for news and changes.  This way, team roster information is kept official and up-to-date.Dknights411 18:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
ok --86.133.144.179 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTICE

message: I see no reason I can't add that many people did consider the series the de facto NBA Finals.  There is no source cited for it being "controversial," but that's included.
I could have cited a hundred sources when the series was being played and right before.  Do I have to order tapes of ESPN for that week?
There are many sentences on wikipedia that aren't cited to anything and are far less well-known statements.Theknightswhosay 08:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, leaving the bench is not just "leaving the bench".  According to the NBA rules, if you leave the bench DURING AN ALTERCATION, you recieve an one game suspension.  There was not an altercation occuring on the court during the Duncan incident so Duncan did not break the rule there.  Amare, on the other hand, left the bench during an altercation (Nash tried to retaliate against Robert Horry for his hip check).  The circumstances behind the two incidents are entirely different, so they just can't be lumped together like what you tried to do.  Based on just that, we can't say that Duncan broke the rule and should have been suspended, when that absolutly not the case at all.  Moreover, the statements you made in your edits, particularly the part about the "real NBA Finals" is just way out there to list it as a part of an encyclopedia.  The whole assumptions wou mad in your edits seems like they are just from one fan's point of view.  We can't base anything in Wikipedia off of editorials and opinions.  That's not what an encyclopedia is there for.  Let's just stick with saying that the suspensions happened and leave it at that.  Dknights411 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This isn't a sports chat board; all of this op-ed based commentary does not belong here.  A better idea would be to clean up the puffery in the 'reputation' section instead of continuing to add poorly sourced negative information for 'balance'.  Feel free to propose changes, or simply make the changes and let other editors craft compromises. Thanks. Kuru talk 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To Jacksonthor, if you watch the replay of the Duncan incident, Duncan came off the bench after his teammate went down under the basket.  This isn't an "altercation" because no one tried to start a fight afterward, as opposed to Amare's circumstance when several Suns players (including Steve Nash) tried to go after Robert Horry after his hip check.  In other words, there was a definate threat of a full blown brawl during the Amare incident, while that threat did not exist at all during the Duncan incident.  Just look at the video of the two incidents in question and you can see the difference (Duncan video Amare video).  I'm also going to concur with what Kuru said in his reply.  Next time you have a concern, discuss it first instead of making negative edits like that.  Dknights411 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Adding "by some homers" was not the mature rewrite of the overly positive paragraph I had in mind.  I hope that's not your best attempt.  If you'd like, I'll take a look at it this weekend and clean it up; but please refrain from making edits in the meantime if you're not going to take this seriously. Kuru talk 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurs/Suns series

message: An anon IP has been adding a link to SpursTalk.com in. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10, links to forums should be avoided. The site doesn't even have any content; it's a forum, straight up. Does anyone see any reason why this should be added? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I saw links to other forums and even a blog page I thought it would be only fair to list the most active (by far) Spurs fan forum on the internet. Can you please explain why are some forums allowed and others not?--193.77.147.15 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Odds are that the others shouldn't be included either. Depends on the situation and their individual notability. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the selective removal of only the link to Spurstalk then? Wouldn't you agree that the rules should be the same for everybody? On the subject of notability Spurstalk is by far the most active and largest Spurs fan community on the internet. Several members are accredited journalists (the owner and creator of the forum is such a person) and because of the sheer size and dedication of its members, quite a few news have broken on that forum - the latest example was the Brent Barry re-signing. Spurstalk was where the first reliable (emphasis on reliable) information on the subject was published, approx. 6 hours before the national media. So what's the solution? Leave the Spurstalk.com link or remove all the others? My vote is to leave it there since it's an excellent source of information and opinions for Spurs fans.--193.77.147.15 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until now, I haven't really taken a look at the External links section, but upon inspection, I don't think that most of those links should be there either. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for linkspam. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just treat them all equally is what I ask. It is stupid to have links to some forums that are not really that good and not to the arguably best one. I checked a few other teams wiki pages and some actually do have forums in their external links, while others don't. I agree that the rules are against it, so I'll expect to see the other disappear as well.--193.77.147.15 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurstalk.com? 

message: I start this discussion because User:75.58.163.152 keeps inserting references of the Spurs being a dynasty to the article. I reverted him since he is pushing pro-Spurs pov while downplaying the accomplishment of Celtics by vandalizing the article of Boston Celtics. As of now, he continues to revert my edit. —Chris! ct 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, it does seem like you're hijaking the article for yourself. if you want changes made, discuss it here or on the NBA Wikiproject talk page. Moreover, I strongly suggest creating a wikipedia account for yourself if you're going to be editing on a regular basis. Dknights411 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:75.58.163.152  

message: The champions of the NBA are not world champions208.114.167.95 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why, but the NBA regularly uses "World Champions", despite being an obvious misnomer.  It's been that way since the beginning.  Why?  I don't know. Dknights411 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title, I think, the NBA uses is "NBA World Champions" which literally speaking is correct. 75.38.51.224 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And, there is the fact that the NBA is, like it or not, the most prestigious basketball league of the world. like the Wimbledon of Tennis. Congradz San Antonioooo! Keep on sweeepin baby!!--Zereshk 06:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do people call the winner of Wimbledon the World Champion now?  Is the winner of the Masters in golf a world champion also?  Is the person who wins NASCAR a World Champion?  How far do you want to take it?  It seems that to be called World Champion would mean beating teams of a variety of countries.  One Canadian team does not make it a worldwide league.  I think that's what the original commenter was getting at.Theknightswhosay 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the term, "World Champions" should not be used by the NBA since it's sort of depicting some superiority with other basketball leagues. They should stick with the term, "NBA Champions." 199.38.51.134 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it up with the NBA! lol. Chensiyuan 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  world champions 

message: This section should have a more inclusive and balanced history. For example, there is no mention of the "Charmin" era.
This section is also riddled with biased opinions that are not backed up. For instance, it says the Spurs "are often seen as a team of 'good men with big hearts.'" But the only "objective" source it cites is a column by a writer from a San Antonio paper. 
I doubt many people in Phoenix or Houston or Dallas would say the Spurs are "good men with big hearts." Bowen and now Horry are considered among the dirtiest players in the NBA. 
The Spurs, especially Duncan and Ginobili, have gotten a reputation of being whiners and complaining about every call - see http://www.bullz-eye.com/paulsen/2007/0523.htm and http://sports.aol.com/photos/biggest-whiners-in-sports  - AOL Sports recently named Duncan among the biggest whiners in sports.
That whining reputation would also contradict the statement that "the Spurs seem as low key as the residents." A whiner is not low key. That's a myth about these spurs and not supported by any evidence in this section. 
There is this statement that still doesn't have a citation: "The Spurs share a unique bond with the city of San Antonio that is unmatched by other teams.[citation needed]" Most teams share such a bond and do community work. 
I would edit out this entire section - which seems like it was written by a biased Spurs fan - or let those of us who know otherwise contribute our parts. Jacksonthor (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given a third opinion below on this subject. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation