Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne/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 Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011.

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne

 * Nominator(s): User:joesayers talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC), The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. It is also very similar to featured lists for Glenn McGrath and Muttiah Muralitharan. Thanks for your time. User:joesayers talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You should change the symbols as they are not ACCESS-compliant. Replace the ♠ and * with the dagger and double-dagger templates (the symbols redirect there, so you can just put in the braces) and the corresponding alt text.


 * Thanks for thadvice and I have changed the symbols to the dagger and double dagger. If there is anything else please dont hesitate to let me know and I will change it. User:joesayers talk 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments NapHit (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "behind only Sri Lankan, Muttiah Muralitharan." remove only we've already established he is second so its not needed
 * table fails WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for more information
 * Is there any point in the ODI table being sortable when there is only one row?
 * I have made the changes regarding the comment "behind only Sri Lankan, Muttiah Muralitharan." and have also made the ODI table not sortable. In regard to the WP:ACCESS i'm afraid I have not had much experience in this area and would need more detailed instruction and direction in order to improve the accessibility of the tables. Thanks User:joesayers talk 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The MOS:DTT page should provide you with the information, if not just look at other lists that are up for nomination, they have the code in them. NapHit (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to me now.  Harrias  talk 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am retiring from Wikipedia due to other commitments and I apologise for not finishing what I started but I think this could with a bit of work be a featured list. If anyone would like to take over the list the please do, it would be a sincere shame for it not to be completed. Thanks User:joesayers talk 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a shame, I'm prepared to take it on and see it through. Harrias, if you could provide a comprehensive review, I'd be very grateful.  I've addressed a few of your concerns already but I'd like to make sure it's perfect.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –
 * Don't need the comma after Sri Lankan in the first paragraph.
 * A One Day International link would be nice.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done both of those, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further comment -- the sorting for wickets column needs some cleaning: All the entries use w . This key structure was created to sort wickets based on runs conceded e.g. 5 wickets conceding 50 runs would be sorted as better than 5 wickets conceding 70 runs and so on. Since the key remains unchanged across entries the sort template has no impact as the real sort is happening only on the display w and is just increasing the load time on the edit window. Either it could be changed to or use the right sortkey structure: w dd = wickets in two digits (5 = 05) and rrr = 200 - runs conceded. A similar concept can be applied for runs conceded too to show 70 runs conceded for 7 wickets as better than 70 for 5. ddrrr would be replaced by xxxtt where xxx = runs in 3 digits (80 = 080) and tt = 10-wickets taken. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot to check that. Should be fixed now.   The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support All my comments have been addressed, no other concerns. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and thanks for your diligent review. I cannot believe I didn't check the sorting on this list.  Perhaps I'm getting too old....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okeydokey. As I said before, it wasn't done that way in the first place because that's not what the sources say. But we're done now. I haven't the energy to argue the toss over this any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support --Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.