Talk:Los Angeles Lakers

Former good articleLos Angeles Lakers was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 9, 2011, January 9, 2014, January 9, 2018, January 9, 2022, January 9, 2024, and January 9, 2025.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Rivalries" section is under developed, with many short, uncited sections. Should this be expanded upon or removed? The "1979–1991: "Showtime"", "1996–2004: O'Neal and Bryant dynasty", "2011–2016: Post-Jackson era" and "2019–present: James and Davis era" sections are quite long and give undue weight to these sections of the team's history. Can any of this information be summarised or removed from the article, or should additional headings be used? The article is quite long at 11,500 words; this much detail in the article does not make it concise. I think a subject matter expert should trim unnecessary information, while spinning out some prose into new articles. Z1720 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section claims that History of the Los Angeles Lakers in the main article, so such detail should ideally not be here per WP:SUMMARY style. —Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the energy to rewrite this article like I did for Mario Andretti, but I would hazard a suggestion that the semiprotection (which dates back to 2018) should be lifted. Opening up the page might inject more energy that could get this article over the hump. I defer to anyone's better wisdom as I'm sure this page gets vandalized constantly and @Bagumba, who applied the semiprotection, knows better than I do whether the game is worth the candle. Namelessposter (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2025 (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.

Hall of fame placements

Shouldn't Del Harris be in the coaches section instead of the contributor section? 89.243.118.11 (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, my apologies for my assumption at the time. 89.243.118.11 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing division titles

The seasons page has the 5 missing division titles from the 48-49, 51-52, 58-59, 67-68, 69-70 seasons with the 50-51 season being a loss and i remember old versions of the homepage also featured them. So could someone fix that glaring error at some point? So it would actually be 39 division titles.89.243.118.11 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an edit request? Or am i in no position to ask that as an anonymous user? 89.243.118.11 (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably awarded to the team with the best record, not the one that went to the finals. The Rochester Royals finished with the best record in the Western division in 1952 and have the division title for that season listed in their article. Alvaldi (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The seasons page has it the other way with the Royals winning the division in 51 and the Lakers in 52 so somethings not adding up here 89.243.118.11 (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to take this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association. Alvaldi (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's for just the 1 division title, a regular edit should put the other 5 on here any day without any issue 89.243.118.11 (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs no correction. Division titles go to the team with the best regular season record in the division.—Myasuda (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the 60s yeah 89.243.118.11 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like argue that then about the actual main page which literally contradicts that non-point you made in full confidence 89.243.118.11 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Divisions where the conferences pre 1971 and historical edits on here had those back when it said 32 conference titles in 2017-19 and then the article split them into what it is now in 2020 by putting the pre 1971 conference titles into the divisions but whoever edited it did it wrong, i know my NBA history thank you very much and in total the Lakers have 77 titles with 5 missing. It's glaringly wrong when you then look at the seasons article and you see them there like am i the only person that noticed that in 5 years? 89.243.118.11 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're using some confusing, non-standard terminology. What do you mean by "homepage", "main page", and "season page"? Try providing either links to the articles you're referring to or at least the full article names. Once you do that, we'll be able to understand what you're comparing. Then, if those other pages need to be fixed, we can proceed to go about that.—Myasuda (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership change

The Buss Family sold their majority ownership to Matt Walter. 2603:8000:8D40:18AC:FD20:8203:F7FA:4CA8 (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSBREAKINGNEWS that they agreed to terms ≠ sold (past tense). It's kind of like buying a house, not a bag of potato chips. —Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am aware but they still agreed to terms to sell their majority ownership. 98.149.165.98 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]