Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1990–2004)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC).

England cricket team Test results (1990–2004)

 * Nominator(s): Harrias  talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. (I have an open FLC, Featured list candidates/List of winners of the New York City Marathon/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding concerns.) Harrias  talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "England won more matches than they lost against Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sri Lanka the West Indies" - missing comma
 * Oops, added. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "who they beat by 329 runs" => "whom they beat by 329 runs"
 * I never know which to use. Switched. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The image caption needs a source
 * Added. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "The England cricket team represented Scotland until 1992, when they" - ambiguous as to who "they" are
 * Clarified. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * alt. description for images.
 * Added. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delink repeated venues per MOS:OVERLINK, only once is enough.
 * No, because a sortable table can have different rows at the top, we link every instance. See MOS:REPEATLINK. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It says " if for readers, a link may be repeated", so MOS:OVERLINK should be followed (no one click those link, if anyone wants a single link is enough). And for the table, it does not have any different categories of rows, for which the places are needed to be linked mutiple times and for sorting, the table can also sort without linking multiple times. (name changed) Drat8sub (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, completely disagree, sorry. Harrias  talk 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing completely! Fine, so you are disagreeing the MOS:REPEATLINK policy which says "'" which is not the case here and MOS:OVERLINK which says "'" until and unless its necessary. I don't see any clarification from you, how the linking justify the policies of Repeatlink and Overlink. Give a clarification on the policies, because you are a reviewer here too, your take will be reflected on other's nominations here and may be helpful. Drat8sub (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. As you say, MOS:REPEATLINK says that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So let's establish a string of statements, and let me know where you disagree:
 * Including a link to the ground and location is helpful to the reader.
 * The reader will want to be able to easily access that link.
 * In a sortable table, if the table has been rearranged, it might not be easy to find where that link is.
 * Providing the link in each row of the table makes it easier to access the link. A lot easier in fact.
 * Therefore, repeating the link in the table is helpful to the reader.
 * Note that MOS:REPEATLINK goes on to say "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." It specifically draws attention to the fact that including duplicate links will aid the reader if the table "is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom", which is very much the case in a sortable table. Harrias  talk 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See also, this conversation where the topic was discussed a few months ago. Harrias  talk 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have read that before, that discussion was not about locations, more of seasons which I can understand can be helpful for readers. But my particular concern is about location i.e, cities or countries. I am ok with linking the stadiums which may be assumed to be helpful for readers but not the cities, once will be enough, as without a link to cities will not make any un-helpful situation; the statistics says so, no one actually open these cities' and countries' link, specifically coming to a article dealing with sport topics. More than that, even if they are interested in venue and click the stadium, obviously the same cities link will be found in the stadium article. So you can delink the cities atleast keeping once. I can make my final comment after that. However, FYI I've opened a discussion already there, let me see what other editors have to say on this particular matter, if you want to wait till that discussion over, you can wait. Drat8sub (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Essentially, my argument, as laid out above, is that if something is helpful to link in the table, we should link it every time. If you are suggesting that some cities should not be linked, per MOS:OVERLINK, then I have sympathy with that view, but the issue comes of where to draw the line. I can easily agree that London doesn't need linking, but Kandy does. How about Centurion, or Bridgetown? Harrias  talk 19:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am happy to support. I think this should not be the reason to block the nom because I think the discussion will take time and once any consensus reach, we can work on the various articles later on.


 * Well, may be I'm missing here something, so if you allow me to know why the record is from 1990 to 2004, why not from 1990 to 99. Again, since Scotland board became independent entity in '92, why not '92 to '99? Again, the exact lowest point is in '99-2000 so why not from 1990-2000? If your intention of recording the history of England lowest phase then it would be upto Sri Lanka series of 2003, as after that England revived. With that, is there any similar preceding articles to see a consistency with such record?
 * The navigation box at the bottom of the article will link you to England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), England cricket team Test results (1920–1939), England cricket team Test results (1946–1959), England cricket team Test results (1960–1974) and England cricket team Test results (1975–1989). The initial time spans were due to the World Wars, but since then it was collected into roughly 15-year blocks simply for size considerations; not a reflection of the team's performance. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, seen that, looks fine then. (name changed) Drat8sub (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. Dey subrata (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias  talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wondered if you'd had a chance to look over this again? Harrias  talk 09:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there were some problems with the account. Addressed the points above. Drat8sub (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems ok to me, happy to support the nom. Drat8sub (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


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