Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cricketers who have played for two international teams/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 User:Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC).

List of cricketers who have played for two international teams

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Watching the ICC Champions Trophy the other day, I noticed that Luke Ronchi has a rather odd distinction, in that he's played ODI cricket for both Australia and New Zealand. I looked into it a bit more and discovered a small group of men who have played for more than one country during their international career. These are they. Thanks to any of you have the time and energy to review and comment on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment from me at the moment, bug me for more later: could we at least make the name column sortable?  Harrias  talk 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that's possible! I'll see what I can do.  Although with row spans, when sorting it'll double up on the names.  Is that okay?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yeah, I didn't think about that. I'll let you play with it and see whether you think it is worth it.  Harrias  talk 22:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty grim. You can play with it yourself by simply adding "sortable" in the wikitable class, then sorting by name (or anything else)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to let people know that the article is also currently undergoing a DYK nomination. As reviewer of the DYK, I will reflect here what I said there that I thought that the article should have a list that includes Twenty20 matches.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There aren't any players who have played T20I for more than one country. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, Geraint Jones has played for England and Papua New Guinea.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Papua New Guinea T20Is aren't considered first class, are they? Cricinfo certainly don't believe PNG's T20Is to be relevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo also lists World Cup qualifying matches, must be relevant if they do that.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they list under-19s too. But see this.  In any case, I've added a caveat to the list.  This is about First class or ICC tournament players, not the vast array of the dozens of associates and affiliates to the ICC.  Incidentally, you could work on the Geraint Jones article, it's clearly incomplete right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I emailed Cricinfo, and (wow!) got a reply, Jones' appearances for PNG are not classed as internationals hence why they wouldn't be included here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Didn't know that Cricinfo denied the existence of PNG as a cricketing nation despite playing World Cup qualifiers.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You could always email them to ask why I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wessels is listed twice, so I don't see why Ed Joyce can't be listed in a T20I list as well as the ODI list, and Dirk Nannes included in that list too?  Harrias  talk 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Joyce and Nannes could have their own list, true. That would just leave poor old Gavin Hamilton on his own.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done the T20I list now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Could the lead include something (a brief overview) on how it is even possible for a player to represent more than one country....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it could. I'll have a look.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added some words, not brilliant, and will do some more digging, but early days it was a free-for-all, these days it's passport-based (so to speak) with a prominent case of Fawad Ahmed's re-nationalisation being fast-tracked in time for The Ashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a typo in Wessels' date range in the second table.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments –
 * In the above-table note, the first word of "First-class cricket" probably shouldn't be capitalized.
 * There's a typo in the publisher of ref 4 ("BB Sport").
 * Ref 33 needs a publisher. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Got 'em, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Another solid list, fairly easy to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A few little comments…
 * Some of the quirks of cricket could be made a little clearer. Exactly what "international cricket" is (for the purposes of the article) should probably be better defined, i.e., what distinguishes the upcoming Test matches between Australia and England from a match between Vanuatu and Nigeria or matches at West Indian domestic level, which are both "international" in a more general sense…and hence why players like Michael Di Venuto (Australia and Italy) and Frank Worrell (Barbados and Jamaica) are not included in this list. Maybe just a little [note] saying "For these purposes, international cricket refers only to Test, ODI, and T20I matches, blah blah blah", or maybe altering the note just above the table of contents—"tournaments accredited by the International Cricket Council" covers a lot more than just the three major formats.
 * Could the title of the article be reduced in length? Something along the lines of "List of cricketers who played for multiple international teams", or even just omitting the "have"…i.e., "List of cricketers who played for more than one international team". I wouldn't really be too fussed if the current title stayed.


 * Very, very pedantic points, I know :) Great list overall, definitely FL material (and sorry for the late response).  IgnorantArmies  14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, pedantry is not a bad thing here, so thank you for your comments. I have extended the note and linked out to "international cricket", I'd rather leave a page move to after the FLC (it's just a logistical issue) but would be happy with any community consensus on making it shorter.  Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the title is too bulky. Why not 'List of cricketers who have played for two international teams'? Since they've all had exactly two, 'more than one' is almost misleading, and it's unlikely someone will play for a third team any time soon. Reywas92 Talk 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okeydokes, moved the lot (the page, the talkpage, this page etc) to your preference. Thanks for the interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I won't support at this point. The comments above are minor and could/should be addressed, but I would really like to see this table sortable. Personally, I would remove the rowspans and the "Batting", "Bowling", and "Fielding" subheaders and just make a second row for the different country of the same player. Are the statistics for individual countries comparable in your opinion? Albacore (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * those players who played for more than one international team were generally those why not just lose the last "were" and "those" for "international team generally...".
 * Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * who had been born in one of those countries and whose family had emigrated to the other "Those" is overused in this sentence, and I feel like the phrase "one of those countries" is ambiguous.
 * Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Files are OK. Alt text looks OK. No DAB links, no dead links.
 * Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The final two paragraphs are dry. I don't mean to make the lead too large, but if you could add in a half-sentence explaining why some of the players switched, other than their parents moved, that would be appreciated. The more recent players would be of more importance for this rule.
 * I'm afraid that information probably resides within the brains of the players who switched. Unless there are reliable sources saying why each modern-day player made the switch (I suspect "in order to get a game" which they're hardly likely to say out loud), this would be speculation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What does the asterisk mean in the table (for instance "20*" for Ferris)?
 * Key added (it means not out). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the table what do "HS" and "BB" stand for?
 * Key added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What purpose do the colors serve?
 * Just a visual cue to break up bowling, batting and fielding more easily. It's commonplace and doesn't, in my opinion, detriment the visual appearance or utility of the list.  Quite the opposite.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is he "Nawab of Pataudi snr" in the table but "Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi" in the caption?
 * Fixed for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You use "location" on reference 5 but on no other newspaper references.
 * Actually on use it three times, but I've made it consistent since all news refs are linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I firmly believe that sorting is not required here. These players played in different generations of cricket, their side-by-side comparisons are really irrelevant.  What is relevant is how they did for each country.  And that's nice and clear since the stats are side-by-side on each table.   Thanks for taking the time to review the list in detail, much appreciated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "In the late-19th and early-20th century, players who had represented two international teams had been born in one country and whose family had emigrated to another." -- prose?
 * Any suggestions? I've tried to work around this concept a couple of times, had several suggestions, perhaps you have a more satisfactory solution?!  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure it's clear. It definitely reads awkwardly though. Maybe "In the late-19th and early-20th century, players who had represented two international teams had been born in one country, before emigrating with their families to another." Of course this, and the original sentence may both be interpreted to imply that they played for one nation, before emigrating with their families and playing for another. But I'm not sure this is what you mean to say. -- Shudde  talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * " More recently, legal citizenship has become the defining attribute as to whether a player can represent another country." -- it might be good to say exactly who decides on how one qualifies, or even explicitly what the criteria is (rather than talking of the defining attribute). I understand this could be complicated for countries such as England and Scotland. I'm assuming it is the ICC that sets the crtieria, or is this decided on a nation-by-nation basis?
 * There's no de facto solution for this, citizenship is defined on a country-by-country basis. If a player is a citizen then they can represent their countries.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the footnote doesn't actually support the statement. I know citizenship is defined differently everywhere, however does each national side use citizenship to determine eligibility? Are stand-down periods decided on a case-by-case basis? --  Shudde  talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Found ICC's regulations -- haven't read through them yet though. -- Shudde  talk 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Three cricketers moved from representing India to Pakistan in the 1950s" did this have anything to do with when Pakistan won independence?
 * Don't know, and trying to link that in may be borderline original research, unless you have a specific source backing it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah just wondering if you knew. -- Shudde  talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a deadlink in the caption for the image of Nawab of Pataudi snr
 * Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we know that File:Billy Murdoch.jpg was published in Australia? Would it be good to have a PD-tag for the UK as well (not sure how these things are handled) ?
 * I'm not going there, not my speciality. I'll replace the image.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Others section, is it worth noting that Scotland do not have Test status, so once he switched Gavin Hamilton could never have been included the the changing Test affiliations section?
 * Well I thought Note: These lists include only those players who have played first-class cricket within Test matches, ODIs or T20Is accredited by the International Cricket Council. would cover that, but if you feel an explicit note for Hamilton is required, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering if the casual reader will ask why he never represented Scotland in Test matches? If you think they would – add a note. If you don't – don't add one. I'm happy either way. -- Shudde  talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

All my comments are pretty minor. Quite a quirky and interesting list, well done. -- Shudde  talk 05:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review Shudde, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Support— Since there is no reasonable concern left, however I thought an image for the lede may be an improvement. Good work, meets the FL standards. Zia Khan 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me, I put an image in the lead which I think livens it up a bit, but this is just personal preference and doesn't affect my support. I feel this meets the FL standards, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.