Jump to content

Talk:Slam dunk

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

History

[edit]

I remember seeing an NBA TV special on the history of dunks, which I believe used to be illegal in the NBA as well. In any case, I remember specifically a line saying it was considered rude and unsportsmanlike to dunk. It seems significant enough to add to the article, but having no specific source to cite I will not yet add it.

According to Squidbillies, a dunkis a signature white move invented by Larry Bird.

Allen Iverson

[edit]

Allen Iverson is not noted for his slam dunk ability, he's slam dunked like maybe four times in his entire career, i've deleted his name. Also, I've heard that someone recently achieved a 720 slam dunk, i will look for more info as to the validity of this, this could be useful for the Trivia section. Theonejanitor 9:38 4 August 2006

Slam Dunk is the code name for the plot by the U.S. military to take over the Presidency in the 1994 major motion picture "The Enemy Within". Since George Tenet can be presumed to have familiarity with this prominent story, his use of the term is ambiguous at best.Rgdboer 06:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

tennet regrets slam dunk comment

[edit]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/28/tenet.weaponsremark.ap/index.html


What? Jedre 07:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that people want to have an example... but this is: a) confusing since Iraq didn't have WMDs b) entirely too political for an article on Basketball c) out of place

Completely agree. It is beyond obvious that this was thrown in for purely political reasons. Are we to believe there is no better example than one that is so blatantly biased and political? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tone tag

[edit]

I think the second section ("Dunks in the NBA") has a somewhat odd tone and perhaps even the section itself should be deleted - or rewritten to refect the history of dunks in the NBA. Thoughts? [author1]

Agreed. "no doubt" used twice in same sentence, which is colloquial and also not cited. Players jump higher is not cited (early players couldn't jump high?). Best athletes in the world is unfounded (olympics?). "Though" is capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The passage: "there is some criticism from basketball fundamentalist who say it has damaged the game by corrupting young players into a score first, showboat mindset." contains a singular where there should be a plural and is completly anecdotal.

Paragraph deleted. Jedre 07:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also "the rules have since been altered" re: goaltending is not in reference to a time when they were different.

I've never heard it called a "bang", or a "flush"- maybe in Europe?

1967-1978 is neither correct nor "brief". A link to a conversation with citations about it being lifted beginning 1976, and not officially beginning because of Kareem: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=444206 .

Furthermore - "a term coined" and "the most popular one" are two examples of colloquial language that should be replaced with more formal writing. Jedre 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again - "bang" and "flush"? Can anyone back this up? And the 12 foot world record is hardly so, since most professionals have not attempted. I'd guess someone could make it more than a mere 2 feet above the rim, having watched sportscenter recently. Given that, for one example, Yao Ming's head is at 7'7" or so, I'd say he could manage a 12' dunk. Jedre 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch ESPN college basketball for any significant length of time, you will hear the term "flush" applied to a dunk shot. I have not heard "bang" though. As for the 12-ft record, there may be players who can do better but they would be exceedingly rare. Keep in mind that the very tallest players, including Yao Ming (who is actually only 7'5") have the least jumping ability. It is rare to see players taller than, say 6'10" or so, get off the ground at all. (Sugar Daddy 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Offensive Goaltending

[edit]

It's offensive goal tending deal with it. Dunking has ruined basketball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:FFC0:2E:4E5:3FFB:4AFF:3435 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Strictly speaking, a dunk is considered as offensive goaltending, and this is why dunks were against regulations in the early days of the game. However due to the immense popularity of dunks they were eventually allowed."

I doubt this passages validity, to my knowledge there have been no regualtions against dunking in the NBA. And in the NCAA dunking was only banned in 1966, hardly early in basketball history. In fact in the early days of basketball, the use of peach baskets would have actually made dunking useless since the ball would have simply bounced right out. If sources can't be provided to back up that claim then it should be removed. -(Brodey)

I seriously second that motion. The logic that it is offensive goaltending makes no sense. If a player grabs the rim, and then dunks, that is illegal, but putting the ball directly through the hoop is in no way, and never has been, offensive goaltending. Offensive goaltending is tipping in a ball that is on or directly above the rim, interfering with the shot.

Jedre 07:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is essentialy an offensive goaltend, but the rules have since been altered due to the popularity of dunks."

Will people please stop adding that dunking is offensive goaltending, as well to my knowledge dunking has never been banned in the 60 year history of the nba, therefore no rules were ever changed to accomodate it.- Brodey March 26 2006 (UTC)

If you can't provide evidence that it was ever against the rules in the NBA, then it must be assumed that it never was. If it was against the rules then it shouldn't be that difficult to find proof of it.--DavidFuzznut 04:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just wondering. Does anyone know what the penalty was if somebody dunked in the NCAA from 1967 to 1976? Was it a technical foul or something else? Just wanted to know. Bigbrainkt (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that it was considered offensive basket interference: see [1]— Myasuda (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Dunkers

[edit]

To BigBoyRubio,

Why did you remove Terence Stansbury from the list? He is listed in the NBA website as a dunker of note in the 80's. He is one of a few dunkers who ever scored perfect-50's in the Slam Dunk competition. He was just unfortunate to dunk at an era where Dr. J, Dominique Wilkins, Spud Webb and Michael Jordan reigned supreme. Just because he does not have a wikipedia article does not mean he has to be excluded from the list.

Ykentwegetalong 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women Dunkers?

[edit]

Anyone have any insight on Women dunkers? WNBA or NCAA highlight links to include? They dunk, too. Jedre 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only player to dunk in a WNBA game as of yet is Lisa Leslie. I don't know about NCAA, however, but due to the fact the the NCAA is a lot older than the WNBA, there have probably been a couple of woman dunkers there as well. 71.96.179.40 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Parker, the freshman player at the University of Tennessee, dunked in several games this past season. The number of women who have dunked in college games can probably be counted on one hand though. (Sugar Daddy 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I made somewhat of an ass out of myself by editing an article and reasoning that Candace Parker was the first woman to dunk in the NCAA. The edit I made was still correct, but I felt like a jackass. Sorry, irrelevant, but either that was just because I'm dumb or this part of the article is somewhat confusing because it states the first woman to dunk in an NCAA tournament, but not in the NCAA itself. Maybe we should either find the first woman to do it or just list her as one of the notable female dunkers.

Michelle Snow dunked in college on multiple occasions, but I don't think she was the first. Statalyzer (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on women dunkers; see what you all think of it. A significant number of women have done it now, at all levels of play. Leoniceno (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Brittney Griner from Baylor must now be included in this section.Dcrasno (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see Michael Wilson listed here

[edit]

As noted in the article, Wilson holds the world record for the highest dunk. As I recall, Wilson's vertical jump was measured at 51.5 inches. This was while he was a player at the University of Memphis.

The picture at the beginning of the article

[edit]

Is that even actually a dunk? It looks like the ball is about to come off of his fingers. Statalyzer (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That picture should be removed. It is not depicting a dunk and is not relevant to this article 66.57.49.115 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

[edit]

I replaced the image, in the previous picture it was difficult to see the actual dunk. I feel that the new image does a better job illustration it. Before & After --$user log (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out section: "Notable NBA dunkers"

[edit]

I cut out the following section because it is a highly subjective listing in violation of WP:NOR. I replaced it with the more verifiable Category:NBA Slam Dunk Contest champions. Onomatopoeia 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guards

MANU GINOBILI RUDY FERNANDEZ

Forwards

Centers

DWIGHT HOWARD!!!

First Dunk

[edit]

There should be information on the first dunk, I can not find reliable information, but I find that George Mikan was the first in a professional game. Dysalot 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of content from The leaner

[edit]

I suggest that the content of this page belongs here, if anywhere. Any thoughts? Feeeshboy 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dunk is iconic and symbolizes the age of the dunk more so than any other dunk. I'd argue that simply expanding the 'Slam Dunk' section to include 'The Leaner' is doing the leaner a disservice by denying that it holds a special place in basketball lore. It wasn't just a dunk; it was an event. --Natster237 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution and think it definitely should be mentioned, but I think your point of view is not the sole factor to be considered. The leaner is a very short article, with only a blog for a source, and currently none of its pictures have properly confirmed copyright status (thus are scheduled for deletion). I suggested this merge in order to save some of the valuable content, because the article itself may meet qualifications for deletion. Feeeshboy 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're trying to do, Feeesyboy, however I think that you're missing the point. As part of the basketball community, I find it appalling that there is no reference to this dunk in all of Wikipedia. It's my understanding that Wikipedia is a community, and simply because I may not be able to provide all of the things that you're referring to right away that doesn't mean that somebody else won't be able to.. In addition, I used what I could as a source for now with the intention of finding more as time goes on. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will the article on 'The Leaner' be. Thank you for fighting on Wikipedia's behalf, Feeeshboy, but let's not create a crusade where none is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natster237 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What differentiates dunking from so many other sporting feats is the high level of improvisation that can go into a particular dunk. Jordan is easily the most popular dunker of all time because of his ability to create spectacular dunks that had never been fathomed before. The leaner was such an unbelievable occurrence because of its novelty and the fact that it seemed to defy the laws of physics. It was truly a singular, one of a kind work of physical athleticism. Years later it is being voted the greatest dunk of all time, and it has the unique quality of being easily identifiable by name. Just as it holds a special place in basketball lore, without question it should have its own Wiki entry.

Okay... does anyone who's NOT a sock puppet have an opinion on this? Feeeshboy 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge . . . but there's not much content to begin with, the source article is poorly written, and someone has already inserted a clumsy sentence regarding it into the current Slam dunk article. Myasuda 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sock puppet??? it's obvious that you're a huge loser but that's beside the point. you claim to actually care about this site but you run around insulting people? don't you understand that that's not in the spirit of collaboration?


Alright guys, my intention wasn't to start a verbal war over an article about a famous dunk lol. I hope the article gets time to grow, either by my hand or somebody elses. It appears, however, that my inability to watch the posts like a hawk all the time might simply make that wish impossible to fulfill. BTW, I didn't write the previous post supporting keeping the leaner...what would doing something like that accomplish? I might be signing off from Wikipedia for awhile as I don't have the time to constantly follow up on issues like this, but best of luck with your cause, Feeeshyboy. Natster237 06:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete. The leaner has been tagged for proposed deletion and redirect to Slam dunk. Feeeshboy 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use as a colloquial term

[edit]

User:Wolfkeeper is removing content about the phrase related to the slam dunk [2] Can other editors weigh in on whether it should be included? I don't want to engage in edit warring. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered by sure thing. And the first paragraph gives the scope of the article, and this isn't part of that. In any case we do not duplicated material in the wikipedia; and articles are on just one topic; in this case basketball. You can mention it in the see also if you want, but you can't cover it here; it violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The disambig page sure thing doesn't mention slam dunk.
There are many instances of articles addressing alternate meanings. Your deletion of the entire section here, is as ludicrous as it would be to delete the "greatest thing since" info at Sliced bread, or the "Changing sensibilities" section at Gropecunt Lane.
It does not violate WP:NAD. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slam dunk as a phrase is just an alternate for 'sure thing'. As a matter of policy we don't include every different permutation of phrase for the same thing in the wikipedia, because the wikipedia is not a usage guide, but anyway feel free to add it elsewhere if you wish to. In this case it's off topic here, because it is nearly always used in non basketball situations; and this article is about a basketball shot.- Wolfkeeper 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it does contain examples of how words are used, as explained in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Wikipedia_is_not_a_usage_guide. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, provided it's still the one meaning the whole article is about. You don't get to talk about continence pads in Freedom just because they happen to share a name.- Wolfkeeper 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, if this kind of thing is permitted, we just end up with dictionary entries in the wikipedia. It probably sounds like a good idea, but in practice you end up with a tremendous amount of duplication because the wikipedia goes into much more detail than the wiktionary. The articles become WP:Content forks of each other.- Wolfkeeper 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we end up with encyclopedic entries on specific words and phrases. And information in other entries, that cover alternate uses, like Sliced bread. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Careful here. You end up with an encyclopedic dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. That violates, WP:WIS, which is very fundamental.- Wolfkeeper 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the way slam dunk has come to be used as a term outside of it's direct basketball usage is encyclopedic. There is no consensus for its removal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The English wikipedia is not a text book or usage guide for the English language. That's more what wiktionary does.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think that is what Wiktionary does, but you are incorrect (and based on your discussions there, you should know this by now - in july, an Admin there explained to you that "Our entries are simple definitions. If anything, your entries are too encyclopedic."). Please consider that you might be making decisions based on how you would like things to be, rather than the ways things are. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question- the question is whether you are breaking the wikipedias rules here. And the answer is yes, clearly, willfully, and apparently unashamedly. You are edit warring to force inappropriate material into an article. The wikipedia is not about phrases or words it's about a topic; and the top of the article says what the topic is; and at the very least, for this article it is not about a phrase. With only the rarest exceptions the wikipedia does not work the way you are trying to force it, has not ever worked this way, and almost certainly will not and indeed cannot work that way.- Wolfkeeper 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the topic is a word or phrase. Sometimes, articles on closely related topics get merged. It isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be (and "the way you are trying to force it" to be applies equally to you).
No, they never are. They are always about a topic that is referred to by a word or phrase. It's one usage per article. Dictionaries allow several usages per entry. It's never about two or more uses of a term that refer to different things. Rocket is about a rocket vehicle but Rocket is about a different thing.- Wolfkeeper 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are frequently about a word or phrase, as Category:Words and Category:Phrases (and their hundreds of connected-categories) prove. Why you are denying their existence is incomprehensible. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but it's the opposite way around to what you want to do with 'slam dunk'.- Wolfkeeper 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, picking one at random apparent death. This talks about animals that feign death for one reason or another. Three phrases are listed as referring to this topic, and all have their own section: playing possum, tonic immobility and Thanatosis. In other words, this article covers synonymous phrases for the same thing.- Wolfkeeper 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to have an article on a phrase, but you can't use the phrase in a different way than the article's topic. If there was a use that meant 'nobody is stealing my gin and tonic'(tonic immobility) that would go elsewhere, possibly in gin and tonic, but not in apparent death. Or if Apparent Death was when somebody was obviously dead; again, not in this article.- Wolfkeeper 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket is a strawman argument. Nobody has claimed that one should be mentioned within the other. If one of them were named after the other (which they don't appear to be) then that would be mentioned in at least one of them.
Here, however, the phrase "slam dunk" is clearly derived from the action of the "slam dunk", hence that is explained in the article. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly people called it rocket because of how fast it grew. That still wouldn't allow you to put it in rocket, anymore than Stephenson's Rocket goes there (which was named after rockets). If you were correct, you would be allowed to add it to the Rocket article. Try it if you like... ;-)- Wolfkeeper 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(It takes 2 to editwar. You are are forcibly deleting appropriate material from an article. Your understanding of "in/appropriate" material for Wikipedia (in regards to lexicographical information) is at odds with the majority of editors, and you clearly don't understand what belongs at Wiktionary). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that the discussion you linked to was when I was in the middle of making several edits; in fact I was writing about a dozen chemistry related articles for Wiktionary, and those articles that I wrote still stand.- Wolfkeeper 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a thing had led to a term being coined, then that shows the influence of that object. Saying that the influence an object has had on language cannot be included is saying that we are not allowed to have complete articles. This provides not only simple dictionary definitions, but insights into how language functions. Despite what you think, making an article more complete is not vandalism. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to come up with an example where this was done in any FA or GA quality article in the last 3 years. (You'd probably find one eventually, but they should be extremely rare.)- Wolfkeeper 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every article that is comprehensive includes the subject's influence and notable examples of things named after it. The phrase "slam dunk" clearly arises from the basketball play, so it's appropriate to include it. As far as "good articles" we see in Valkyrie, a GA apparently, that things named after the mythological figure and influenced by it are, of course, noted [3]. This includes music and a battle that are not themselves directly related to a norse god and only associated or inspired by it. Wolfkeeper, please cease your rampaging disruption. I would give you more examples, but based on your history I have no desire to have to defend more articles from being stripped of appropriate content because you want to make some kind of point about Wikipedia not being a dictionary. Consensus is against you. You're welcome to present your argument, but edit warring isn't constructive to collegial collaboration. I gave slam dunk and doughnut as examples in the pissing contest AfD discussion without even looking at the articles because I assumed that linguisic significance would be included, and it was as it should be. Please find something constructive to do like working on improving articles instead of picking fights. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming that poems, paintings etc. of Valkyries that are mentioned here:Valkyrie#Modern_influence are not really about Valkyries (female warriors)????? The mind boggles.- Wolfkeeper 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's explain it one more time. This article is about slam dunks. A slam dunk is when you put the... ball in... the hoop. Halfway down the article there is a subarticle which is about when something is a sure thing, and is not to do with putting anything in hoop at all. You see the difference?- Wolfkeeper 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some really interesting points here on both sides, but let's take a step back for a moment and look at the semiotic distinctions that we're making here. An entry in an encyclopedia should be a distinct sign. That is, it contains both a signifier and a signified, and the article describes both. Many articles contain an "origin of the phrase/term/name" section, which comments on the signifier, and then devote most of their content to describing the major characteristics of the thing that is being referred to, i.e. the signified. This is different from the work of a dictionary, which takes signifiers and merely provides the signifieds. We would not have an article on "Slam dunk" if it were merely a turn of phrase. Wolfkeeper points out that the concept is covered by Sure thing, but that page does not describe the turn of phrase or cover anything. It exists only because there are various signs that are encyclopedic that contain the words "sure thing," which are linked. The phrase itself is not encyclopedic.

Let's also examine the function of a disambiguation page: it is to disambiguate between similar signifiers that are really parts of different signs. That is not the case with slam dunk: the slam dunk that is a sure thing is only a sure thing because that's the nature of a slam dunk: you theoretically can't miss the shot (obviously you can, but that's irrelevant). I must emphatically disagree with Wolfkeeper's contention that the phrase has nothing "to do with putting anything in hoop at all". Perhaps in the future, "slam dunk" as a phrase will lose its association with the basketball shot. Perhaps people will stop playing basketball and the phrase will live on (like some archaic phrases such as "'til the cows come home"), although it won't then merit its own Wikipedia article anyway. In the meantime, I contend that the phrase "slam dunk" is very strongly linked to the basketball slam dunk, and that these signs overlap to a sufficient degree that there is ambiguity in the use of the signifier "slam dunk". I suspect that the use of this phrase to mean "a sure thing" is a very recent development, and I would be interested to see if this could be proven. For many, I suspect, George Tenet's use of the phrase was the first time they'd heard it take on this meaning. As a fairly new popular metaphor, as opposed to a cliche, this signifier is still very evocative of the original signified, so one is very likely to associate the "sure thing" with the image of a basketball slam dunk, in much the same way as one cannot say "the greatest thing since sliced bread" without being aware that no such comparison would exist without there being an acknowledged signified of sliced bread. Therefore, I suggest that the section about the use of the phrase is wholly appropriate. Feeeshboy (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're using the fancy (correct) terms, but you still haven't groked what an encyclopedia article actually is. An article is not about the signifier and the signified, it's only about the signified but it can also list several signifiers that refer to it (which we also do cover, although I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea...) One of the signifiers is selected to be the article title. In this article the chosen signifier is "slam dunk" and the chosen signified is 'put something in a hoop in a particular way in basketball".- Wolfkeeper 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand when the signified can be identified by 'sure thing' then it's a different article (actually it's probably certainty which is linked from sure thing, unless you can show what the difference between a slam dunk and a certainty is; I'm pretty sure there isn't one.)- Wolfkeeper 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of course a dictionary is the other way around; articles are about the signifier and each signifier can have several signifieds. The problem with dictionaries is that the signifieds appear in multiple places with different signifiers, and this creates too much duplication of the signifieds to have in depth coverage. Which is what ChildOfMidnight and Quiddity and others are trying to do here as well, they haven't got their heads around that this results in near inevitable WP:Content forks.- Wolfkeeper 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline WP:CFORK details quite a few variants of "content fork" that are not "POV forks". Could you please explain your claim that this is a "content fork"? What of, and in what manner?
I understand how the article you created at Credulity is a specific type of content fork - a rare, reverse article-spinout. It could easily become a POV fork (but hopefully will not).
You thought that pissing contest was a contentfork of battle of egos. Which article do you think the section at slam dunk is a fork of? The disambig page sure thing or wikt:sure thing or wikt:slam dunk? (Note that CFORK does not mention Sister projects) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say that we don't have phrases in the wikipedia; but phrases are just signifiers same as words are. There are entire categories of phrases in fact, Category:Phrases; many people claim that they don't exist, but there's plenty of them. They're actually phrase signifiers used to identify signified, and each article is on the signified not the signifier like any other article.- Wolfkeeper 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought that a new voice might be helpful here, but it is becoming clear from Wolfkeeper's condescending tone that further discussion on this matter is becoming irrelevant. Wolfkeeper continues to make assertions that are not backed up by examples or reasoning. I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated that an article is about a sign, not merely a signified, because, as I said, many articles spend time discussing the signifier specifically. Furthermore, I would add that many articles discuss how different signs have somewhat different meanings from one place to another. If an article were simply about a signified, then we would haved multiple articles for any such sign. Look at Adobo: the article has a section for the Filipino variety, which is very different from the other varieties, and, arguably, has little in common other than the name. In fact, it has its own article, and yet it still deserves a small section within the main article. This demonstrates that the article is about the sign and its various connotations, not merely signifieds (a claim which Wolfkeeperk has not supported). Simply because an article discusses related signs, that does not demonstrate that it is about the signified.
The discussion of Content Forks is irrelevent here because there is no repetition of content. The "article" to which Wolfkeeper refers is a disambiguation page, and thus has no content that could be considered repeated.
I did not say anything about phrases not having their own articles. I simply said that a turn of phrase, by itself, is not necessarily encyclopedic. It's useful to consider these phrase pages, however, because they further demonstrate the fact that the signifier is very much a part of the discussion of a page, hence bolstering my claim that it is not the signified but the total sign that is the subject of an article. How else can we even describe something but by using other signs to explain its place in the sign system? Feeeshboy (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we include multiple signs to point the same signified, not include multiple signified that are pointed to by a single sign. In other words, we don't include multiple distinct definitions of the same term; that's what dictionaries do; and that's specifically disqualified by WP:ISNOT as well as WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And that's the problem here.- Wolfkeeper 13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a problem if the section in question were a definition, but it is not a definition; in fact, it is encyclopedic content that is not redundant because it is not found elsewhere in Wikipedia. The phrase "slam dunk" is not a separate sign whose meaning is arbitrary (that is, unrelated to the shot in basketball). It is very much part of our understanding of a slam dunk (in basketball) that it is a "sure thing," just as it is very much part of our understanding of Sliced bread that it is associated with a common phrase. Of course, we've been through all of these arguments before. Feeeshboy (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, you can argue there should be a page called 'rocket' which is all about all the different things that are fast. So, somebody running, a fast car, a type of train, a type of salad, a space vehicle.
Sure, you can try that, but it would be inherently unencyclopedic, and this is unencyclopedic in exactly the same way.
The use of a 'slam dunk' to mean a sure thing when it is not about basketball, is simply a slang term. The fact that it doesn't appear elsewhere is not an obvious problem; feel free to copy it somewhere else because it's off-topic here, even according to the rest of the article.- Wolfkeeper 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are merely repeating past arguments. The consensus was and remains that this content is encyclopedic and relevant to this article. Feeeshboy (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am expressing a contrary opinion, there is clearly no consensus. Consensus is when everyone agrees. You merely stating that such and such is true does not make it true.- Wolfkeeper 00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that it is encyclopedic and is related to this article does not make it scoped correctly to be in this article.- Wolfkeeper 00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, consensus is not necessarily unanimous. Please read Wikipedia:What is consensus?. And it's certainly not my word that makes something true. It's just that none of your arguments have convinced any other editors of the contrary. I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of being "scoped correctly" or how that might merit removal of content that other editors believe to be encyclopedic and relevant. Feeeshboy (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sufficient to claim that it meets the topic, no matter how many claim that. Nor is it sufficient that people claim that they have consensus. Consensus is not the same as wikiality. The point of consensus is to establish whether something is or is not consistent with the wikipedias policies and the references. Unless you can show that the idiom as used in politics is actually a basketball term in that use, then the topic defined in the lead precludes it being used for political purposes.- Wolfkeeper 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The derived usage has strong consensus for inclusion here. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says that multiple distinct usages are not described on the same page. If you want to cover that distinct usage of the term you have to create another page. I mean, we're not short of pages. Or perhaps you think George W. Bush actually meant that he was gong to put a round spherical object though a physical, circular hoop? In addition, the article itself in the introduction specifically says it's about a type of shot; hence it is off topic.- Wolfkeeper 01:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper is misusing the policy. What WP:NOT actually says is "...articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." The usage as a phrase is not a distinct definition - it's a metaphor. Saying that finding WMDs is a "slamdunk" is an obvious metaphor referring back to the slam dunk in basketball, which is the subject of the article. That said, however, there are other issues with the section. Namely, the references given do not seem to be about the phrase, they just happen to use it. As such I don't think its importance to the subject has been established, and it should probably stay out until it has.--Cúchullain t/c 23:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Discussion also took place at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 33#NOTDIC on June 22–23. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above and the linked discussions, I've found more references regarding the phrase itself, and replaced the article-section with a reduced description of the Tenet example. I've also added a sentence to the introduction, per WP:LEAD. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having an entire section on it is clearly too much; that isn't compatible with WP:NAD. If you have a couple of sentences on it as an aside that might be OK.- Wolfkeeper 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as currently written. The metaphor speaks to how the slam dunk has become ingrained in broader culture.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do this, you need to put it into its own article.- Wolfkeeper 18:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... it's not a distinct use. It's a metaphor referring directly back to the slam dunk in basketball. --Cúchullain t/c 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metaphors are distinct from the original thing, otherwise they wouldn't be metaphors. And in this case, the metaphor is not covered by the definition of the topic, and is therefore distinct.- Wolfkeeper 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. It's not a distinct definition, and it's perfectly relevant to the article topic. It's merely showing how the slam dunk has become so well known that it's referenced metaphorically far outside the sphere of basketball. Useful articles don't just give a description of a topic, they also discuss its significance in a broader cultural context. At any rate, this won't be settled by revert warring, as you well know; please discuss instead.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinct definition for the reasons I already gave- the definition of the topic doesn't include it, it simply doesn't overlap with it in any way. And you're simply a hypocrite, since you are edit warring.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was something like Bread#Cultural_and_political_importance_of_bread which has a one sentence mention of 'best thing since sliced bread', then maybe. But an entire section and including a specific reference in the intro? Nahhhhhh.- Wolfkeeper 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yahhhhh. Unfortunately everyone else who has weighed in here over the course of several months has disagreed with your interpretation of the relevant policy.--Cúchullain t/c 11:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, people like Quiddity, you, and somebody Quiddity dragged in, oh and somebody who has since been banned.- Wolfkeeper 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even to do with policy, it's to do with this place being an encyclopedia, and that's more fundamental than policy, it's 5P stuff.- Wolfkeeper 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the material is encyclopedic, and has been judged to be so by everyone else who has weighed in here. Time to move on.--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of the article Sliced bread, which has a whole section on "The greatest thing since sliced bread", which itself has been linked from the Main Page last year and this year. I won't point out all the other examples, because you'll just drag this same argument to those places, or editwar, or use WP:OTHERSTUFF denialism.
I don't know what you mean by "dragged in"; I had no involvement in Feeshboy's commenting above; possibly you mean Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 33#NOTDIC where fences&windows commented. Either way, it seems irrelevant. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equally irrelevant is the fact that ChildofMidnight was banned for sockpuppetry on other pages. Having failed to generate a consensus that agrees with his/her own viewpoint, Wolfkeeper has taken to pointing fingers at the editors with whom he/she disagrees. This uncivil and unproductive strategy does not change the fact that no one agrees with Wolfkeeper's specific interpretation of wikipolicies. Let's all please remember that Wikipedia is not about winning, and that sometimes it's best to just let it go. Feeeshboy (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper, stop edit warring. If you really feel strongly about this take it to dispute resolution (or better yet, just move on).--Cúchullain t/c 13:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

[edit]
Give me one good reason how the idiomatic use of slam dunk and the basketball shot are the same thing, and I'll let it rest. If they're not the same thing, then they should not be covered in the same article. Encyclopedia articles cover one distinct thing, or multiple substantially overlapping things. There is no relationship here other than the same name. That's not enough.- Wolfkeeper 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't do that (and let's face it, you really can't) then you're simply wikihounding and revert warring.- Wolfkeeper 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Plenty of good explanation above. Time to move on or seek dispute resolution; simply reverting warring won't cut it.--Cúchullain t/c 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper, please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's been plainly explained that the idiom arose directly from (and remains closely associated with) the basketball concept, exemplifying its cultural impact. Your claim that "there is no relationship here other than the same name" is inexplicable. —David Levy 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, there's virtually none anymore.- Wolfkeeper 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should 'acid' in the sense of LSD have its own section in the acid article? I mean, it's exactly as related as this is, in fact more so. LSD is an acid, and so you could 'rightfully' include that there. Should cannabis have a section in the pot and/or weed article? Should we have a section on politics in the rotating door article? These are term usages that all very probably derived from the original topic, so on the basis you seem to think that they should be covered there.- Wolfkeeper 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it's done in encyclopedias. You can mention/link these derivations, but having an entire section is clearly too much. If you go down that route, then the Wikipedia becomes a dictionary, and there's lots and lots of problems with doing that.- Wolfkeeper 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still repeating the same arguments that have been addressed above. Your continued insistence that everyone but you is blind to (or intentionally ignoring) an obvious, incontrovertible truth (and oblivious to an encyclopedia's purpose) is rather insulting.
Unless you have something new to add to the proceedings, please accept the fact that your position lacks consensus and move on. —David Levy 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also the case that your position lacks consensus. The literature on encyclopedias indicates that what you are trying to pull here is not correct. This is simply your OR. That you are insulted by simple facts is your problem not mine. I'm glad you think you're superior to the written opinions of experts, that you think you can ignore standards and styles that are hundreds of years old, but the Wikipedia must not succumb to wikiality where truth is solely dependent on the foibles of who happen to be on a talk page. You're supposed to base stuff on reliable sources.- Wolfkeeper 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Begging the question. —David Levy 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply supposed to move the material out into a different article. Exactly what is wrong with you that makes you incapable of doing this simple thing?- Wolfkeeper 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Begging the question. —David Levy 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, begging the question means answering a question by assuming the answer is true. I do no such thing, I assume the answer is true, because that's what the policies say. In any case you asked no question, you made a statement. On the contrary you yourself begged my question, my question was:
Should 'acid' in the sense of LSD have its own section in the acid article? I mean, it's exactly as related as this is, in fact more so. LSD is an acid, and so you could 'rightfully' include that there. Should cannabis have a section in the pot and/or weed article? Should we have a section on politics in the rotating door article?- Wolfkeeper 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an answer.- Wolfkeeper 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoth our article:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

[The fallacy] is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." [Welton, James. A Manual of Logic. W.B. Clive, 1905.] More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise.

According to your interpretation of our policies, guidelines and mission as an encyclopedia, the content in question is inappropriate. Others disagree with your interpretations (and have explained why). You dismiss this input, citing the very same interpretations as "facts" that you believe render your opponents' arguments invalid. (You claim that you're right and everyone else is wrong, and you back this assertion with the "fact" that you're right and everyone else is wrong.)
Your "acid"/"LSD" analogy reiterates discussion from above. People have explained why the idiom "slam dunk," in their view, is relevant to this article. I don't care to rehash a point that you obviously intend to ignore. —David Levy 02:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on being able to cut and paste! That's the second time you've used it, well done!- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your derision is not helpful. —David Levy 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But your cut and paste was so helpful.- Wolfkeeper 03:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was intended to be helpful. Your response was intended to be hurtful. —David Levy 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really wasn't. People don't copy-paste their comments when they are intending to be helpful. You were and are replying in bad faith.- Wolfkeeper 05:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a sincere attempt to explain the concept. I regret wasting my time. —David Levy 05:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They simply have not explained why it should be covered in this article. They have stated it is related. Plenty of things are related. There's a relationship between the price of whisky and the salaries of teachers, that doesn't mean that teachers should be covered in the whisky article.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations have been provided repeatedly. You don't want to hear them. —David Levy 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway I asked you why you thought it was relevant, and you begged the question by saying that it was 'consensus' and then accused me of begging the question!
I repeat the question again, why do you think it is it correct for this article, and not correct in those articles? Or should those articles also be expanded? Should every article be expanded to cover things that have the same words if they are in any way historically connected???- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. You don't seem to understand what the term "begging the question" means. Did you read the article?
2. Again, I don't wish to rehash dialogue that you have continually ignored (including my initial reply here). —David Levy 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that Wolfkeeper is not going to consider that editors who happen to disagree with him may have a point. The matter is resolved for everyone else who has voiced an opinion of the content.--Cúchullain t/c 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just answer the fucking question, what exactly is supposed to be different here from those other articles (other than a few people stuffing the 'ballot')?- Wolfkeeper 03:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "fucking question" has been answered several times. —David Levy 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Answer the fucking question.- Wolfkeeper 14:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the discussion without disregarding others' views. You'll find your answer. —David Levy 14:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Please answer the fucking question. OK, we've conclusively proved you can't answer the fucking question. If you are unable to quote the answer then the answer clearly has not been given.- Wolfkeeper 04:34/04:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been answered. (We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.)
Please cease your incivility. —David Levy 04:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked what the difference was, and you were unable to answer. The answer is that there is no difference.- Wolfkeeper 05:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point as well. You believe that I'm "replying in bad faith," so I see little reason for either of us to continue this discussion. —David Levy 05:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

This is my understanding, of the examples.

Your examples from above:

Like weed and weed, or head and head, or rocket and rocket, these kind of examples are abbreviations of a full name, or barely-related nicknames, or plain homonyms. They are only accidentally, or distantly, related topics. Hence, they only require disambiguation.
  • Revolving door could definitely be expanded to include information on the political phrase. E.g. how the non-utilitarian amusement that results from making a 180° turn (or a "full-rotation") in these rotating doors, has given rise to its use as an analogous phrase. Currently, that article just contains a "See also" link, to Revolving door (politics), but that could easily become a full sentence, or more. (If citations are available)

My examples from before:

It is factual, and directly-related material. If any of those sections were to grow larger (ie. if we find many more citable facts about those aspects), then those sections could be split off into {{main}} articles, with WP:Summary sections left behind, in exactly the same way that Chemistry (etymology) was split off from Chemistry, and that Godwin's Law was split off from Mike Godwin. If those subarticles were too small, they'd be merged back into their parent articles. That is how merging and splitting work here.
And no, those sections cannot just be moved to Wiktionary, because Wiktionary is a standalone project, as are we. (Each of our articles should also be able to standalone, hence we can't just move the entire explanation from here to the list of sports idioms). These pieces of factual information belong in an encyclopedia article, whether it is printed out, or on a dvdr, or online. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The greatest thing since sliced bread used to state that this was originally an advertising slogan, but this claim has been removed from the article. Unless a connection to bread can be made I'm an not entirely sure it should remain in the article any more. The others Einstein, rocket science are simple one sentence mentions. I don't have any problem with mentioning other articles and topics, that's entirely fine; it's a question of what the article should fully cover, i.e. what is on, or off topic. If we allow off-topic material in Wikipedia articles then this is no longer an encyclopedia it becomes essays. You can cover multiple topics in essays. Articles are not essays.- Wolfkeeper 04:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a total of three sentences in this section. It takes one sentence to get in a "mention," which you say you would support, so you're arguing over two sentences, one of which is "The phrase is one of many Sports idioms." The other sentence references a single, iconic use of the phrase, for which neither Rocket scientist nor Einstein has an analogue, and it helps to clarify the phrase's use. This is not the start of some slippery slope toward Wikipedia being taken over by essays. It's relevant and purposeful content, and it's concise. Feeeshboy (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At sliced bread, there are 2 sentences in the lead, and 1 sentence in the History section, stating the phrase's relation to the advertising slogan. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Flambledamble"?

[edit]

The statement that "flambledamble" is slang for "slam dunk" sounded ridiculous enough to Google. There are 24 results as of 1/8/2010, ALL of which place it in the context of this article. Is this a test to see exactly how gullible Wikipedia readers are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.196.217 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Carter

[edit]

"Carter would later go on to comment that he copied these dunks from an article in Slam magazine featuring Jameel Pugh"

This is unsourced. I can't find this anywhere. It should be removed if a proper source is not found, i believe.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 20:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updates & Revisions

[edit]

I would like to revamp the slam dunk page as much of the content appears cluttered, and a sizeable portion of the language is informal.

A new module entitled Dunk Types has been already added to provide explanations and examples of the different dunks.

The primary issue with the aforementioned addition will be the bland descriptions of dunks. Perhaps a thumbnail of each could appear to provide visual aid.

The Notable Dunks section deserves to be reorganized into subsections. Perhaps by time period or significant element of the dunks (e.g. 'Broken Backboards', or 'In-Game Dunks'). Additionally, some of the content would be removed and would appear in the new section entitled Dunk Types.

JustinMBarber (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a reasonable set of suggestions. It might be best to make these changes be made in distinct stages, to allow for pertinent feedback / consensus on the restructuring. — Myasuda (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will complete the 'Dunk Types' module, which will result in the removal of some duplicate information from the 'Notable Dunks' portion. Thereafter I'll proceed with remodeling of the 'Notable' portion into subsections such as 'Rims Greater than 10 feet', 'Dunkers with Short Stature', and others. Thanks. JustinMBarber (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free-throw line dunk

[edit]

I suggest merging the newly created Free-throw line dunk into this article which is not unreasonably long. The free-throw line dunk article looks long but a lot of it is unencyclopedic. In particular a list of players who "have dunked from or near the free throw line" is unacceptably vague, subjective and impossible to verify. A more concise exposition would fit in great in the slam dunk article. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Multiworld Wiki (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything particularly worth merging from the Free-throw line dunk article into the existing article. I just moved some relevant content from the Slam_dunk#Notable_dunks section into the Slam_dunk#Free_Throw_Line section, and that should be sufficient. Instead, I would recommend having Free-throw line dunk be changed into a redirect to the Slam_dunk#Free_Throw_Line section. — Myasuda (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
Unanimous support for the proposed merge. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no reason for Baseline dunk to be a separate article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tomahawk

[edit]

The section "Tomahawk" starts with

Due to the undemanding body mechanics involved in execution, the tomahawk is employed by players of all sizes and jumping abilities

and then goes on not explaining what a tomahawk dunk is, except mentioning that both hands are used.

Could somebody please add a sentence desribing what a tomahwk dunk is? Thank you. --194.118.252.50 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Grand Slam, and Baseball Phrases in English

[edit]

The article says: ... baseball-inspired phrases "it was a grand slam" ...

This is misleading: as Grand_Slam_(disambiguation) says, it comes from Contract Bridge, so it is hardly a "baseball-inspired" phrase.

I have modified the page to use "step up to the plate", which makes the same point. I have corrected the English from "or otherwise an impressive achievement", which is not the right meaning, to "or a similarly impressive achievement".

I don't know why it says "were more commonly used in previous years". These sort of phrases are common around the world at the present time. Certainly UK English uses them a lot - is it really the case that they were more commonly used in previous years in American English, as it says? I would amend the whole paragraph to talk about English, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide.

Inappropriate version

[edit]

Wikipedia is throwing up the crappy mobile version of pages to high resolution tablet screen again. How long till it's fixed? It's unusable.

Surely there are some at Wikipedia of better than Script_kiddie skill levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.215.120 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hugh.glaser (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slam dunk. 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 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"out of 50" - misspelling correction

[edit]

Section "free throw line": changed "our of 50" to "out of 50".

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slam dunk. 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) 09:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slam dunk. 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) 16:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slam_dunk&oldid=1201209232"