;Comments from Bagumba
Need a general reference that lists the highest scoring games to verify that the list is complete.
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need more links to this article. It was an orphan until I linked Run TMC to it. Perhaps adding it to a navbox would help e.g. {{NBA statistical leaders}} .
- Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be useful to breakdown the number of 20- and 30-point scorers (and perhaps even list the players) directly in the table among the number of double-digit scorers.
- I don't know if that is a good idea. I don't want to overwhelm the note column and one can see that from the note.—Chris!c/t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table already has notes like "3 players scored 40+ points". Granted 40 > 30 > 20, but 30 and 20 point IMO is more interesting than double-digit scorers, and this would also address your concern that the footnotes section is quite large. I know you've invested a lot of time into this, but I think this would make the list more concise and interesting for an FL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the change to the first row. Is that the formatting that you prefer? I don't want the whole article just yet.—Chris!c/t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's continue this point at Talk:List of highest scoring NBA games.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be more interesting to see the scorers breakdown per team, instead of an aggregate total for both teams.
- Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make a sortable column for whether or not the game went into overtime.
- Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CITEHOW, publisher is considered unnecessary for all but books. If it is to stay, Template:Cite web recommends to leave off designations like "LLC".
- Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why include link to NBA season with the date? It would be more useful to link the teams to their specific season article (e.g. [[1958–59 Boston Celtics season|Boston Celtics]]).
- Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The season is still in the date column, which looks clumsy to me. Perhaps you can explain the motivation for including it with the date.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the regular season list has removed the season, but the playoffs list still includes link to playoffs and note on which series it was (e.g. semifinals, finals, etc). I suggest instead to link the year in the date, i.e. "May 11, 1992", and add the series to the notes, i.e. "The Trail Blazers won the conference semifinals series 4–1".—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I didn't change the links when the city name is the same as article name.—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the reader is interested in {Denver in Colorado), not both Denver and Colorado. In any event, the state would always be in the lead in the city article. This to me seems like the spirit of WP:SPECIFICLINK. If it's a matter of effort, I'd volunteer to make the changes if there are no objections. I won't make this a condition for approval, either way.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth mentioning Nuggets coaches Doug Moe and later Paul Westhead and their offensive philosophy, considering their teams appear multiple times on the list.
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Need citations for Westhead using run and gun. Also, cites for both coaches tenures with Denver.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should discuss that scoring per team was in the 100s until the mid-90s. Here is one source [4]. The recent teams like Phoenix and Dallas were coached by offensive coaches Mike D'Antoni and Don Nelson, respectively.
- Where do you think I should add this?—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nelson coached the Warriors game mentioned in the lead, so that it one point to integrate him. The source says "As late as the 1992-93 season, teams were averaging 105.3 ppg" Since then, only Suns with D'Antoni and Nelson with Mavs are on the list. You could bring D'Antoni in there. Maybe you can find some other sources on scoring since 2005–06 (which is where this source stopped).—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a b-r link that lists league scoring avgs per year.[5]—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added something. Did I address this point?—Chris!c/t 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only one post-1993 game makes the top-ten list": It wasnt entirely obvious the statement is limited to regular season. I was thinking to cover both regular season and playoffs with the trend analysis, as the eras for the records for both seem to coincide. Then Nelson can be mentioned with Dallas as well as GS.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I made the change. I didn't add Nelson with the GS since I use the 1995-96 as the cutoff. I also moved the paragraph to the end as a way to conclude everything.—Chris!c/t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nelson can be mentioned in the regulation game record after Mullin and before Moe. Throw in Nellie Ball style of run and gum too. Then you can make note in last paragraph that his team is on the list again.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioned Nelson after Moe. Since the Moe part introduces run and gun and then the Nelson part brings in Nellie ball, a variation of run and gun.—Chris!c/t 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Besides Vandeweghe, English, Thomas, Long ...": I wouldn't assume that a reader has read every preceding footnotes, so I would link names again and not consider it WP:OVERLINK.
- Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since † is used in Notes, which has full text, it seems more straightforward to add the short description "NBA record" directly into the notes instead of relying on the dagger and an entry in the key.
- Done. The only thing I worry is that there too many notes.—Chris!c/t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I meant that "NBA record" should be in the "Note" cell, not relegated to a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- done—Chris!c/t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is already a dedicated "Notes" column, is there a reason to add more notes in footnotes in other columns as opposed to centralizing them all under "Notes"?—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting everything under "Notes" would overwhelm the column. This format allows readers to see basic info from the table and they can read the additional info from the footnotes.—Chris!c/t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that an entry is a former record is significant, and having "Former record" in "Notes" or using coloring in the "Total points" cell with an accessible indicator should be used. I agree that the duration of the record is semi-trivial and is suitable to remain a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have the dates footnote after "Former highest-scoring record", to keep them together. I guess to keep the locations of the dates consistent, the highest on the list will need a "Current highest-scoring record" in the notes, with the date footnote after it too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"High scoring games were not possible in the early days ...": "not possible" sounds strange, as "high scoring" is a relative term, i.e. game could be high-scoring for their era. Needs rewording to convey point that scores were lower relative to the shot clock era. Quantifying with some numbers would be a plus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Games above 100 points were not possible ...": "not possible" still does not seem right. Maybe rare, but a ref that has PPG avgs doesnt prove definitively that nobody scored 100 in some games.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "Games above 100 points were rare ..."? Or do you have a suggestion?—Chris!c/t 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest "Teams only averaged around 80 points per game in the early days ..."—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphens: Including the title of the article, there is an inconsistent use of hyphens with "highest scoring", "highest-scoring" and "low-scoring". I'm not an English expert, but MOS:HYPHEN seems to suggest using hyphens in this case. Googling news articles also shows inconsistent usage. Pick one and be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For marking the games won by road team, it seems like the "Winner" cell should be marked instead. I find myself looking at the score marked as won by the road and then having to go back to the "Winner" cell to again see who won.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|