Contents

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries/archive1

List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries[edit]

List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries/archive1

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. Bharatiya29 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think it meets the criteria's now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good work! —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So full disclosure, I have my own FLC candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and I figured the best way to gain some input on that is to give some myself.

• Lead - I don't have any real comments on the lead, the prose looks good to me, my challenges were cricket terms but it's a cricket article so I used the links to get an idea of what they meant.
• Table

• Under the column BF the "-" sorts as the lowest number, but in 4s it sorts as the highest? Same with 6s? is there a reason this is not consistent across the table?

• Sources

• I take it "CricketArchive", based on what I read on their wikipedia article is considered an "industry expert" or whatever the term is for Reliable sources?
• Looks reliable and check out on the "External links" tool.

• Other than the sorting being incosistent I would say this article has all the hallmarks of a a Featured Article. MPJ-US  13:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I have no idea how unknown stats should be sorted. I have started a thread on WikiProject Cricket to get a better idea. Bharatiya29 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good idea, personally I have no preference for one or the other as long as it's the same across the table. MPJ-US  16:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made some changes to the sorting order. I think consistent sorting will not work here, because there is a substantial difference between "balls faced" and "number of 4s". An innibgs with lesser balls faced and more 4s and 6s is considered to be better. As per the advice on the WP Cricket talk page, I have taken unknown stats as "worst", so I have sort them as 999 in BF column, and as -1 in the 6s and 4s columns. Bharatiya29 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay I am good with that way to sort since that's the Cricket project's suggestion on how to sort. Support  MPJ-US  23:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Besides the one article from The Hindu, the topic of "Ranji Trophy triple centuries" doesn't seem to have been discussed or covered in any notable secondary/tertiary sources. All other references are merely proving that a certain triple century was made, that too based on a website that stacks all Cricket stats. In that case, how is this topic even notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the subject(s) (Ranji trophy and triple century) is/are notable, there shouldn't be any problem (with respect to notability) with these lists. As a matter of fact, you won't be able to find significant secondary/tertiary coverage of filmographies, discographies, awards list, et al. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as long as "Ranji trophy" and "triple century" are independently notable topics, their intersection is also notable? Film-lists are totally a different genre or unencyclopaedic stuff and I am not directly comparing this list with them. The traditional printed encyclopaedias used to incorporate only "notable films" in biographies. Even WP did that earlier. Over time enthusiastic editors increased and taking advantage of expandable online feature, filmographies started including each and every film. Maybe all films of a particular actor are notable; but that does not happen with all. Take for example Dara Singh who has been in many B-grade films and I don't think those all should be enlisted. Similarly, we also try to keep only notable awards in awards-lists. Enthusiastics are always gonna increase for whatever reason. But that should not make non-notable un-educational stuff encyclopaedic. Should a "List of Tweets by Lady Gaga" be allowed because she is notable, twitter is notable and in addition various gossip columns also discuss her tweets? Sporting records, award lists, are almost on verge of NOTSTATISTICS and hence I feel it's better to see if the complete topic in itself is notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Scoring a century is an 'achievement'. A celebrity (or anybody for that matter) tweeting a 'tweet' is not. Twitter (as a topic) is notable. It's for the very reason we have articles like List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan, and not List of international cricket fours hit by Sachin Tendulkar, List of international cricket wickets taken by Muttiah Muralitharan. The best (or 'notable') century made by Tendulkar (or best fifer by Muralitharan) is subjective. They hardly matter because all centuries/fifers are considered an 'achievement' in the sport (regardless of who made it or how effective it is). On a related note, you won't be able to find much independent coverage on the centuries and fifers list of other players. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's irrelevant for FLC. If you don't think the list is notable, then file an AfD and see what happens. Otherwise, and similarly, if you think it should be merged into another article, there is a process for that. But none of those processes happen here. Harrias ^talk 17:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Passed

• Spotchecks: checked refs 4, 12, 22, 35, 37 - all clean
• Formatting: I dislike the "link the first time" style for references, but whatever. Also- in ref 11 you have "The Times of India (Lucknow)", but in 35 "The Times of India (New Delhi)" - pretty sure the location field is meant for where the newspaper is located, not where the actual news report was filed from. It should be dropped from both refs, as per {{Cite news}}: "place: Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the location; examples: The Boston Globe, The Times of India. [...] Alias: location" --PresN 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN:  Done Bharatiya29 07:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review now passed; promoting. --PresN 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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