Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unusual dismissals in international cricket/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 06:31, 13 May 2015.

List of unusual dismissals in international cricket

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite an interesting list, IMO. Look forward to your comments and suggestions &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  Support  nice work. Harrias talk 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck my support (hopefully temporarily) due to the issue raised by the IP editor below. I can't see any justification not to include unusual dismissals in women's international cricket in this list. Harrias talk 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why isn't there a column for actual reason of dismissal. Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point here. You want me to have a "Key" for the items listed in the table? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, it is covered in the mode column. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead counts hit wicket among the "much rarer" dismissals, but it isn't considered "unusual", and the bowler does get credit. It's also much more common than the unusual dismissals. &mdash;Raven42 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "These are regarded as "unusual" ways of dismissals in cricket" - by whom? Is there a reliable source that says that these methods of dismissal are widely considered/referred to as "unusual"?
 * "the bowler is denied of any credit" - should just be "denied any credit"
 * Second sentence of second paragraph doesn't start with a capital letter
 * "six different players were dismissed for "handled the ball"" => "six different players were dismissed for handling the ball"
 * "the most common way of an "unusual" dismissal" => "the most common form of "unusual" dismissal"
 * "the first player to be dismissed in both the ways" - "the first player to be dismissed in both ways"
 * "In international women's cricket, the only instance of a usual dismissal" - should say unusual
 * Also, as mentioned above, the lead indicates that there are five "unusual" forms of dismissal, but hit wicket is not included in the list. Either players who were out hit wicket should be included, or else it shouldn't be considered an "unusual" form of dismissal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I do agree that hit wicket is a rare dismissal, but unlike others here the bowler is credited with a wicket. I think this fairly distinguishes it from other "unusual modes". Also, their frequency is quite high when compared to other "unusual forms". There have been 154 and 62 occasions in Test and ODIs respectively. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that the lead explicitly states that there are five "unusual" dismissals but then only four are used in the article. The lead needs a statement as to why only four of the five are used (and to be honest I think it would need to be something more concrete than just "hit wicket hasn't been included because there have been a lot of them".  Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed hit wicket from the lead. According to Wisden Dictionary of Cricket and The Extraordinary Book of SA Cricket, hit wicket is not counted among the unusual dismissals. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I remove retired out from the list? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Any update yet? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Editor removed all references to women's international cricket from an article supposedly about "international cricket", obviously has problems. THis is why women are driven away from Wikipedia, don't marginalise women's sport. 58.7.156.156 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I very well know that women play cricket at all levels – Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Technically speaking, I see a point to include women's cricket stats, after all this list talks about international cricket. But please tell me do we include women's cricket in all articles/lists associated with international cricket. For instance, why is Tendulkar regarded as the first player on the planet to score an ODI double-century when Belinda Clark did that many years ago. Also why is Sri Lanka credited with scoring the highest team total (443) in ODIs when the New Zealand women's cricket team made 455 way back in 1997? If your answer is good enough to convince me, I'll more than happy to include women's cricket stats here. Above all, you should stop campaigning against me. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think in many cases there is sufficient information on women's cricket that we can have separate articles. However, in this case, with just one unusual dismissal in women's international cricket, it does not warrant its own article, and therefore should be included in this one. Harrias talk 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Harrias. There's no need for us to have two separate lists for unusual dismissals since there is only 1 record from women's international cricket. Also, the fact that other articles and lists don't include women's cricket isn't a convincing reason. If the scope given by the title and lead of the article don't exclude women's cricket, there's no reason it should be excluded. If that means that other articles need to be fixed (either by clarifying scope or adding women's cricket), then so be it. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any update yet? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 07:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your new edits look good to me. I can't find any other issues with the list. Kaldari (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Just a heads up that this is currently an orphaned article/list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The kid has now been adopted by four of its relatives. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 12:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Support - Looks pretty good to me, although it should probably be consistent about whether the refs are in a separate column or not. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Harrias, is the current version of the list acceptable to you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, yup, looks good to me now. Harrias talk 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


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