Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 12:16, 1 August 2009 [1].

List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks

Featured list removal candidates/List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it breaches WP:MOS terribly. Also, during the past three years this kind of list needs an update per the revised WP:WIAFL. There's also a kind of {{trivia}}-based section which would render this entire article void of any kind of usual recognition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Why is the font size so small? It makes the table harder to read than it should be. Is it required so that the entire table fits on one screen? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've increased the font size from 85 to 95, I think the table automatically fits onto one screen (at least in IE) but at 100 some text moves onto the next line. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Keep ~~Issues~~ This isn't in too bad a shape; I think it can be fixed. Off the top of my head, here are a few things that can be improved:

"Bowler" column doesn't sort properly – {{sortname}} should probably be used.
- Done
"This is a list of all hat-tricks in One Day International cricket" FLs don't begin like this anymore.
- Fixed up, with some other lead modifications. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Symbols are needed to accomodate the color (e.g. * ^ #).
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviations ("a", "b" etc.) need to explained.
- Can you just clarify which abbreviations you mean?
  - I'm guessing you mean the footnotes which don't link back into the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe this is fixed now? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was referring to the letter abbreviations in the "Wickets" column. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, hence the confusion. I don't believe "a" is an abbreviation of anything in cricket so I'd be surprised to find that in the column you've noted. Each and every one of those abbreviations is wikilinked now. Do you need more? Would you prefer it in the key as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, please. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Added, complete with cherries and ice cream. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Should the b's, c's, etc in the table be unlinked? --Jpeeling (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cricinfo is the publisher, not the work, in the references.
- Done
Some of the footnotes are jargony; e.g. " Aaqib Javed ended with 7-37" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All jargon has been linked on its first use to something useful in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer - as I am handing over to iMatthew on FLRC for a bit, while I take on a bit more at FLC, I felt that I could work on this with no conflict of interest as I will not be closing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your help. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can SCG and MCG be spelt out in the Venues column? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- <cricket snob>GAH</cricket snob> Sure thing. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if there's a better place for the cricket records box than the references section. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonder on. I was actually looking at said same box on Ganguly's FLC thinking how ugly it was. I wonder if it could be refactored into a full-width template. I can't believe we'd advocate the delisting of this list now based on this template placement. What would you like to see?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you said, I'm wondering. I never said anything about delisting. I wouldn't advocate delisting over a minor issue like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is, after all, FLRC. I would like to think the fantastic work done by User:Jpeeling already would be enough to secure a Keep before we get too stressed about the placement of such a template. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You also have done good work. I've changed to "leaning keep" (akin to a weak support at FLC), because I would like to see the opinion of an uninvolved cricket editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair point. Maybe a flaw in the "notification" process? We're reliant here on you and CrzyCheetah pretty much to give independent views on whether to keep or delist these specialised articles. Fingers crossed we get some more comments then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        According to FLRC instructions, the primary contributor should be notified of the FLRC too. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which would be useful if the primary contributor still contributed. These lists which were promoted three years ago stand little chance of their original primary contributors still being around. I reckon the average "wikilife" is a couple of years. I knew the primary contributor to this list, now known as "User:RetiredUser2".... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outent) I see. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this "retired user" seems to have been on-wiki a week ago, if only for a short relapse. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that, and that particular editor is aware of this FLRC. Water under the bridge. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be to 'blame' for the placement of the template, it was originally top right but I thought it would be better to have an image there. I'm not sure where else it can go, if it's placed after the reflist there's a large whitespace and if it returns to the lead there would be no image in the article. I could create an EL section but I've only found two links [2], [3] which could be suitable so the whitespace would still be substantial. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Good work has been done here since the FLRC began, and I think it has brought the list up to current standards. I'm not a fan of the records box either, but it's not worth removing the star over. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is Vaas the only guy to take a hat-trick in the first over. Did anyone take a hat-trick in the last over. I know Rana Naveed was on a hat-trick in the 50th over, and McGrath French cut the hat-trick ball about one stump wide of leg, for four. Shoulnd't wicketkeepers be denoted with a dagger as he is special typoe of fielder, eg, Bari is not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Vaas is the only first over hat-trick taker, Lee's fourth over HT is the second 'earliest', not surprisingly most HTs have occurred in overs 40 to 50. Langeveldt and Bond took 50th over hat-tricks while Taylor and Morrison completed HTs with the first ball of the 50th over, do you think it worth adding as a note? Daggers done. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Starting the first sentence of an article with "when" is not a good idea. Start it with a noun, something like "A hat-trick in cricket is referred to an event where..."
  - Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence should change accordingly (It is rare...)
  - Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the key, letters in parentheses are used more often than the symbols, so why not just use the letters? "W" is already used as an indicator of wicket in Leg before wicket, so why not use it again for Wicket-keeper?
  - The dagger is universally used as an indicator of a wicket-keeper, just as a * next to a player's name indicates captaincy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the "date" column should be colored, since that's where a symbol is used. In the "wickets" column, a lot of symbols are used along with the color and it's confusing.
  - Done by User:Jpeeling. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see another image in the body, as well.
  - No need, would just clutter the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When is the cricket nation going to upgrade their Template:Cricket records to a modern collapsible navbox?
  - Not sure about a "cricket nation" is, but the template is now a navbox. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I agree with Giants2008, a huge improvement has been done during this nomination.--Crzy cheetah 04:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.