Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One-day International records

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of One-day International records

[edit]

A sister article to List of Test cricket records which is already a featured list. This list also is well referenced, has few redlinks, has a good intro and is up-to-date - although given the nature of the list it will always need changing. An active editing community will keep it so.

I admit it could do with some images, but that's a perennial problem and there's nothing in the vault that's suitably licensed and which could be added to this at the moment. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the tag. Stub tags seem to be so common I tend not to notice them anymore. There must have been 50 edits since the tag was no longer needed. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed as it's clearly under copyright to http://www.newindpress.com/sports/worldcup2003/ -- Ian ≡ talk 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also have the following comments: (1) If Bermuda's to be added into the list straightaway, shouldn't Ireland also be there? Arguably so should Oman (although it's not clear at present whether the 2006 Asia Cup, for which they are qualified, will be played). (2) "Highest successful run chases" might be better than "Greatest successful run chases" - after all, some run chases were greater achievements and spectacles! :) (3) Are the lowest team totals for an innings where the number of available overs has not been restricted (eg by rain)? If so, it would be useful to say this. (4) The guide at the top (which is very useful, I think) says that those currently playing cricket are in bold - wouldn't it be better to have in bold those who have played at least one ODI in the last year, or since 1 January 2005, or some other empirical measure?, jguk 11:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - great suggestions. 1) removed Bermuda as I feel it would be best to leave teams off the table entirely unless played at least one ODI match. 2) Changed to "Highest successful run chases" for reasos you gave above. 3) none of those matches were rain affected: all had the team batting first losing 10 wicket before the 50 overs had been played [1]. 4) slight disagree with an empirical measure of bolding or not bolding. "Curently playing" gives a bit more flexibility. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the players not in bold are playing, what about someone playing professionally for Lashings, say, or playing amateur cricket. That's why I don't like "currently playing", jguk 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could you make collumns in tables of equal width? The tables themselves are good (equal), but the columns are not. Renata3 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd be difficult, as each table has different numbers of columns and each needs different widths based on content. Some tables have 3 or 4 wide text columns but others eg. the Matches played table contains 6 numeric columns which only need a few pixels each. The browser (now) cleverly adjusts col widths to the optimum for users' viewing pleasure :) . -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for these reasons:
  1. There should be a minimum number of matches played for a team to get in the team sections. I mean, if a team with three matches played is ranked just behind a team with many more, it doesn't really give a real indication of how "good" a team is, right?
  2. Internet references should have a date of access because the internet is an elusive, ever-changing will o' the wisp that will never be static; and yearly published sources really should have a year, too.
  3. This is not comprehensive.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As well as a ranking table (which is secondary, really), the first table is a complete list of all countries with ODI status and the matches they have played. The table therefore records every ODI match ever played. The ranking is just that - a ranking based on the matches each has played. An arbitrary minimum number of matches in any of the teams tables would a) make the list incomplete and b) introduce endless arguments about what the cutoff number of matches should be.
  2. The last updated date in each table is the date the Cricinfo reference was accessed.
  3. How? A list of this type will never be complete - this is a list of the main ODI records - there are probably hundreds of potential records tables which could be included, but it is not practical to do so because of the maintenance effort rquired to keep them up-to-date. There are several database driven websites in the =References= which include the more obscure tables. If there's any specific table/s you think need to be included, you could leave a note in the talk page and I'm sure someone will find a source. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not comprehensive because there are no women's records. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I see. You raise a very good point. Women's cricket in Wikipedia is very poorly covered and needs to be a focus for WP:Cricket in the future. Project particpants have had a few attempts at expanding women's cricket articles in the past but much moore needs to be done.
However, the convention is that when referring to men's cricket we say One-day international cricket and for women we say Women's one-day international cricket; or Test cricket and Women's Test cricket. This is the norm in Wisden [2] also. In a sense, Women's cricket seems to be thought of as another form of cricket, much like Test, ODI's, Twenty20 and Women's cricket. This article is thus meant to show men's records only. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One-day_International_records&oldid=33472117"