Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut/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 Crisco 1492 07:04, 26 June 2015.

List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut

 * Nominator(s):, &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Credits to User:Lugnuts for creating the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied the table up a bit. Happy to have him as a co-nom. With just eight players, the list might look short, but this is a never-ending list. We've had a discussion regarding this in the past. Look forward to your comments &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Wouldn't this list be more complete if it was called List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut and just include all 100 or so members, rather than divide it into countries with only 8 people? Mattximus (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go through the discussion in the link which I have quoted above. Besides, we already have two such FLs – Pakistan and South Africa &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, I won't oppose due to the discussion you linked, but I really think that an article containing all countries would be much more useful, as you could compare countries at a glance, with sortable columns. It would be a fantastic wikipedia page instead of several rather obscure tiny lists. I would vote to merge these independent lists into a single large one. Mattximus (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At which point they'd become to large to manage, and split back out to their component parts.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 144 or so is not too many. I really think much is lost by splitting them up like this. You can't compare countries, sort by date, etc... Mattximus (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you weigh in your opinion here? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A third possibility is doing like what was done with Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster: having a very general overview article, and more specific sub-article. I rather like that idea. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this was exactly suggested by sometime ago. Seems good to me &mdash; Vensatry  (ping) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I like Chris and Pope's idea. Down the line, perhaps that article could come to FLC as well. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with all those above, that's a great idea. Mattximus (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This as it's the same standard as the Pakistan list (linked above).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that I have included you as a co-nom? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 08:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, oh yes, just seen that. Thanks!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Nice work. I'll leave it up to you on the sorting, you're the better judge of which would be more appropriate. Well done. Harrias talk 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The five-wicket hauls were taken in seven different venues" => "The five-wicket hauls were taken at seven different venues"
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also need a comma after venues
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The various references to "on debut" should be "on his debut", "on debut" is not natural English. For that matter, I'm a bit unsure about the current wording of the article's title
 * I agree the title needs to be changed. I didn't know that "on debut" was not natural English. But see these publications:  . &mdash; Vensatry  (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I only looked at the first source, but in that one the only usage I could find of "on debut" was in the headline, and headlines often omit words for the sake of brevity. I'd be interested to hear what users like  and  think of the use of "on debut", which to me just doesn't seem like natural English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nissar, along with Ali and Shami are the only fast bowlers" => "Nissar, Ali and Shami are the only fast bowlers"
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the purpose of note A is, as it basically just re-states the sentence in the lead which it is placed against
 * Agreed &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ashwin's five wicket haul came in his second innings" - I don't understand this note, does it mean the fifer came in the West Indies' second innings (of batting)? If so, just say "Ashwin's five wicket haul came in the West Indies' second innings"; we don't refer to a bowler's second innings...........
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments "... during India's inaugural Test series—a one-off Test series" The prose is a bit, what shall I say, "strained" here. Can't we just say "in India's inaugural Test" or "India's first Test" ? Tintin 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be okay now &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Tintin 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The way this line is phrased now - Narendra Hirwani's 8 wickets for 61 runs against the West Indies, in January 1988, are the best bowling figures by an Indian on Test debut and third overall - could very well be interpreted that Hirwani's figures is the third best for India.
 * Moved to FN &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is Hirwani's 8/75 excluded from the table ? That he took 5WI doesn't mean that he did not take 5WI in the second, does it ? :-) Tintin 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * List of England cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut has handled this properly.
 * I had this in mind while developing the list. Since this list is about cricketers who have taken fifers on debut and not the list of fifers taken by them, I guess Cricinfo has ignored them. I'm open to add the second fifer, but would like to have the opinion of others too. Please share your thoughts on this and the "on debut" thing which ChrisTheDude had pointed above. &mdash; Vensatry  (ping) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the comments. As always, they are very helpful :) &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Support good work. NapHit (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


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