Talk:Lisa Leslie

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

Siblings[edit]

How can she have four and a half brothers? 66.191.231.116 (talk)

Statistics[edit]

How tall is she? 6ft 5in. tall when did she retire? she is currently still playing for the Los Angeles Sparks.

photo[edit]

isn't there a better one in the public domain? the one currently in use is not flattering of LL and may be a vanity photo of the fan. Decafdyke 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University[edit]

This article sat for a long time saying she attended the University of Framingham. Recently, people keep pointing to USC, instead. Does anyone have a source?Kww (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gold medal stand at Bejing[edit]

There have been several attempts to include the following into the article. I tried once to "neutralize" it according to WP:NPOV, but it was altered and then finally removed. In the state here, it needs either to remove words like "embarrassed" and "antics" or have citations to show they apply.

Leslie embarrassed American women's basketball with her antics at the medal awards during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Despite being requested by officials to act in the Olympic spirit, during medal presentations Leslie insisted on wearing gold medals from 3 past Olympics whilst being awarded her teams current win. Leslie not only upstaged second and third placed competitors but distracted attention from her fellow team mates. Leslie's antics were viewed as grandiose and poor sportsmanship.

I've reverted it once again. Please discuss here.

(forgot to sign a while ago): (John User:Jwy talk) 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support it, 2-0. It goes in.JJJ999 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how I understand "consensus" to work, so I won't ask where you got the "score." I would expect a conversation/debate about my concerns mentioned above: the "embarrassment" and "antics" are not neutral and un-sourced. They are still not neutral and un-sourced. WHO was embarrassed and where is this documented? WHO determined them to be grandiose? It is a VERY strong consensus on wikipedia that articles must be WP:NPOV and properly sourced. I don't think that unreasonable. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought you were in favour, and bearing in mind nobody else has commented I simply assumed there was no contention about this (and hence consensus). You are opposed?JJJ999 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm sure the lack of signature caused confusion.

I am against it as I quote it above for the reasons I mention. The recent additions are a great improvement, but:

  • Embarrassed is still an issue.
  • The sources only mention that the Olympic officials did not want her to wear the other medals, not that they thought it grandiose or unsportsman-like.

(John User:Jwy talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie's 100 point game[edit]

Overall context: this is an incomplete article with a "start quality" rating. Obviously more needs to be done to make this article 1st class, and considerably more detail added.

  • Point 1) It is one of the most famous events in her career. A paragraph (and a short one at that) does not seem excessive. It still receives coverage today, and Leslie admits to always being asked about it. Indeed, an argument could be made (probably unsuccessfully) that the game is notable in and of itself to get a page of its own.
  • Point 2) Period of time it took is irrelevant- Ron Artest's actions at the Palace are a good example (which does have a page of its own btw). Saying it took "only one hour" is not a reason to make it less than a paragraph. I'd be inclined to add more criticism throughout the article btw, since it is so utterly absent. The rivalry with Lauren Jackson is probably worthy of comment also, and the hair extension incident. It's not even "critical" per se, it simply makes the article 3 dimensional, and not simply about how awesome Lisa Leslie is, which is what the article was before given the strong justifications which had been included for why her 100 point game was acceptable in context, and nothing in response to that (even though the opposite opinion was the majority one in the sources).
  • Taking that together, there is no reason to change the length of what I have written. I could maybe see my way to lopping off the last sentence as superflous, but the rest is clearly relevant to the incident. In fact, the 100 point game should maybe have a section of its own.JJJ999 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not argued that the circumstances of the 100 point game be removed and in the minimal space of an edit summary I could not explain myself more, so I'll take the opportunity here. I meant to indicate that the importance of that event seemed to be getting much more attention compared to the rest of the article. The paragraph is significantly larger than any other and that seems disproportional. I attempted to keep the sense of what you had, but shorten it. I'm not trying to clean up the woman's (or her coach, or whom ever) acts at that time. It seems, to put it politely, "over-competitive" and that should be indicated. But I disagree about how much detail needs to be included. If people want the detail, they can go into the sources.
I have no trouble with the Jackson rivalry, except I don't see anything that says it was "accidental" and the sentence seems to indicate the hair thing started the rivalry when it appears to have already have already been in motion. I was unaware of that rivalry, so I don't know more details than what you reference - but the article should be consistent with the sources. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the argument that the paragraph is larger than any other paragraph in the article is an argument for one of the following:
  • a) lengthen other paragraphs so they have more detail, something the rating of the article as "starting quality" clearly endorses, or
  • b) Create a separate paragraph for the 101 point game.
  • I don't really think an article should not be descriptive of events. If we took the attitude that people should "go follow the links to find out more" then we could just have a page full of links, and not bother with descriptive information. Reading other good articles you often find lengthly descriptions of events. As I said, I'm not opposed to maybe moving a sentence, but I'm doubtful that such a pivotal and notable event in her career doesn't merit a (short) paragraph. The fact that the article at present is overly short isn't an argument for shortening well sourced and useful material. I mean, we're basically agreeing violently here, with the difference being a few sentences or so. I really don't see the harm in keeping them. It makes it a better article, more in line with what you find on other top notch articles (see for example Tim Duncan which is a featured article).
  • As for the hair extension thing, I'm not fussed.JJJ999 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS- I have now tried a new paragraph out to see how it looks. Much better I think... Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game has a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain%27s_100_point_game), and this section is comprable to the section in Wilt's article about his "20,000 women claim", a one off claim which generated enough media interest to easily be worthy of a paragraphJJJ999 (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to an "all links" article is equally absurd: We could describe every shot/rebound/foul/block in all her games as long as they were sourced. My hope is that whatever level the article is, it covers topics with the appropriate amount of focus on each issue. I still believe the criticism of the 101 game, while important to the article, is given undue weight as the article currently stands. - and a source for her continued "pride" of the slaughter would be in order. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at it. Turns out to be about the same length and contains the facts as I could find them in the sources - and fewer quotes to make it flow. okay? (John User:Jwy talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of article[edit]

I thought the overall tone was over familiar in part because of calling her "Lisa" throughout. It is customary to use the person's last name, so I have changed that. Also the passage about her mother sounded judgmental and, in any case, some of the information in it was irrelevant. I have modified the tone throughout to read more like a typical encyclopedia entry. For comparison, see "Larry Summers." Ms. Leslie deserves an entry that is respectful. Eperotao (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image size discussion[edit]

Lilwun92 changed the size of Lisa Leslie from 250px to 200px without an edit summary.

I reverted, with an edit summary.

After reverting, I decided to see if there were guidelines for image size.

WP:IMAGE does say:

As a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 180px default.

However, I decided to look at some featured Articles, assuming those have been checked carefully, and provide guidance for image size.

The first two I checked each had an image wider than 250px

Arguably, both are images that are horizontally oriented. So I decided to look at the sports category and select an article with a person’s image:


I’m not claiming this is a scientifically rigorous study, but I’ve found three FA’s with images wider than the “suggested” 180px. Given that reducing the Leslie image makes it look small within the infobox, I think it looks better to roughly fill the info box, so I reverted to the 250px size. --SPhilbrickT 18:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Section heading[edit]

Why are International and Olympic accomplishments listed separately from USA Basketball? USA Basketball was the organization that selected Leslie for the international teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absurdist1968 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lisa Leslie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 12:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lisa Leslie. 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) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Leslie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fav color[edit]

What is Lisa leslies fav color 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:13 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lisa_Leslie&oldid=1194493062"