Talk:List of Test cricket triple centuries

Suggestions

Nice work. A few suggestions. Sorry, I haven't got time to tweak it myself at the moment.

1. Lose the vertical line between the flags and country names.
2. Lose the second column of flags (opposition flags).
3. The innings column could convey more information if it said the innings of the match (1st ... 4th) as opposed to the innings of the team.
4. It doesn't seem as interesting to me which Test of a series it was in, so you could lose another column there. You'd need somewhere else to link to the scorecards, but maybe they could move into the descriptive text below.
5. Some of the ground names link to grounds and some link to cities.

Stephen Turner 16:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

400 is not a triple!

To be pedantic, Lara's 400* isn't actually a triple hundred. Of course it can't be in a list of its own. But it should be mentioned that it isn't really a triple hundred, but a quadruple. DaGizza ^Chat 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I think a 400 is also a triple century. Just as anybody who has scored two-hundred and something has also scored a century... Cribananda 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a batsman's centuries are usually excluded from their tally of fifties (despite a score of 100 or more also being a score of 50 or more) but it is unusual to compile or present statistics for 150s, 200s, etc. But in any event, the first sentence of the lead section makes it clear what we are talking about: "This is a list of Test cricket triple centuries; that is, a list of the batsmen who have scored 300 runs or more in a single innings in Test cricket." -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Double centuries are normally counted as centuries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.194.75 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Batting second, etc.

I suggest the terminology used throughout the Notes is slightly unusual and not clear. What does "batting second" mean exactly? There are two openers and when one of them is out Number 3 comes in. I'm especially worried about Note 4, "Batting second, coming in to bat at 14 for two..." which is surely a non-sequitur. If you come in at 14 for two then you are Number 4 in the order. I would rather see batsmen described as openers or coming in at number 3, 4, 5, etc.

(Spathaky (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Batting first means that in the first innings, that players team batted while the other team fielded. Batting second means that in the first innings, that players team fielded while the other team batted. Sorry if thats confusing but I cant explain it any other way. Terlob (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"At risk" comments

My concerns over the list's current suitability for featured status:

• The maintenance tag needs to be addressed. I had a quick look at Note 1, for instance, whose reference did not completely cite all the information in the note itself (e.g. I didn't see where it referred to Lara's 106th test). In general each of those Test notes needs to have every fact cited.
• "2nd-6th December 2009" avoid nd and th here, and use en-dash for separator.
• Image caption seems almost verbatim repeat of the final para of the lead. Perhaps just focus on Bradman's achievements here?
• The table data:
  • {{sortname}} should be used for the cricketer's name as right now it sorts by first name.
    • Done: Although haven't put it in for the Pakistani players; never too sure on this? Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No real reason for the small text.
    • Done: Have englarged to normal size. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds noddy, but I think a key would be useful for non-experts who don't necessarily know what you mean by Inn. or Test or * for instance.
    • Done: Added short key for the time being, may alter later. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Date would be preferable in human-readable format, using {{dts}} for correct sortability.
    • Done: Also changed it to the date of the start of the match, rather than the span of the century itself. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A not-out score should rank higher than an out score if equal.
    • Done: Used {{sort}}. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• "follow on" or "follow-on", needs consistency.
  • Done: Changed all cases to "follow on". Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also think scoring nomenclature could use explanation (e.g. 9-580) as to a non-expert this is confusing.
• The initial ordering seems a little odd to me as well, I would have thought it would be in chronological order rather than decreasing final score order, but I'm interested to hear what others think.
  • Done: Changed to chronological order. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing, there is a book on Test triple centuries which isn't bad. I've used it before and I can probably get hold of it again, or provide scans of the relevant bits to anyone who wants to fix this up as I'm rubbish at tables. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look at this later in the week, in the mean time I'll try and fix some of the simple sorting problems.Harrias ^talk 17:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The cross-referencing...

...is messed up! I mean the notes are numbered by ranks of scores, but in the table the scores are listed by chronology. Wouldn't it be better to match the numbering in both places? TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.193.41 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This must have been overlooked when the table was reordered. Now fixed! —Raven42 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarke's score

According to the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/live-cricket-scores-and-commentary-20091124-jfji.html), Australia declared on 639/4 with Clarke on 329 n.o., not 334 as shown here. Matt Adore (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this has now been corrected. Matt Adore (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

The wording under the picture of Donald Bradman - says that Karun Nair has scored 300 or more runs on more than one occasion (in Test Cricket). I think this may be incorrect as he has just scored his first tripe century.

Australian Donald Bradman is one of only five players in Test cricket to have scored 300 or more runs in a single innings on more than one occasion. The others are Brian Lara and Chris Gayle of the West Indies, Virender Sehwag and Karun Nair of India. 37.244.66.116 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

New entry in "List of Test cricket triple centuries" on 19th December 2016. Karun Nair is the Indian Batsman, who scored 303* against England in 5th test between India and England. Edit the list. Subrat Kumar Dash (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Test cricket triple centuries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123002231/http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGH_INNS_SCORES.html to http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGH_INNS_SCORES.html

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) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)