Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Test cricket hat-tricks

Test cricket hat-tricks
This is a renomination (previous nom). All of the redlinks have now disappeared (because the WikiProject Cricket people have created pages for all Test cricketers). Notes are now in the fancy &lt;ref> style; includes Irfan Pathan's recent hat-trick in the first over of a match.

The one thing it does not have, which was mentioned last time, is details of the hat-trick in the England v Rest of World series in 1970 (considered Tests at the time, but not so officially now) or the South African rebel Tests (also not officially considered Tests). I don't have details, and I am not sure that they belong in a list for "official" Test matches. If anyone else has details and can add a note, be my guest. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments. This is an excellent list, but I have a few small comments to make it even more perfect:
 * I don't understand why most footnotes are in the first column, but some are in the second or fifth columns. The sixth column I can kind of understand, but I think I would move them all to the first column.
 * The number of the Test within the series doesn't seem interesting. It just seems to be a way to link to the scorecard, but it's not actually obvious that this is where it links to until you hover. I wonder if there's a way to link to the scorecard more explicitly, and drop the Test number.
 * Why not use 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th innings of the match, rather than just 1st and 2nd of the team? It contains strictly more information than you've got at the moment.
 * Some place names link to the ground, and some to the city (sometimes even if we have a page for the ground, e.g. #11). Shouldn't they all link to grounds, even if that creates some redlinks?
 * Miniature flags would be nice, as seen on many of the other cricket lists.
 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the notes are in the first column because that seemed the right place, unless another column was more appropriate: note [8] is in the "Innings" column because it says "South African opening batsman Trevor Goddard carried his bat through this innings"; notes [13], [14] and [16] are about the match - both Asian Test Championships matches - and so are in the "Test" column. But I am open to suggestions.
 * Well, having mentioned the innings (which surely is interesting) I wanted to link the match in the series too. But I agree that the hidden link is not idea; there was once a scorecard column, but it didn't really add anything and went to save a few pixels of table width.  Compare Test match triple centuries.  Would it be better to link through the number in the first column?
 * Good idea. Will do when I have a moment.
 * Yes, they should. Now fixed, I hope.
 * Yes, they would: this one deliberately avoided them to save a few pixels (hence the abbreviated team names) but I have tried it out again. Better?-- ALoan (Talk) 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Follow up comments:
 * 1. That still doesn't explain note [9]. I would definitely move [8] and [9] to the first column. I understand the ones referring to the matches: I would tend to move them to the first column, but I see the opposite point of view too.
 * 2. How about after the date, maybe even in the same column as the date to save a bit of space? And then I would lose the Test column, at which point you'd have to move its footnotes. :-)
 * 5. I see what you mean about the width. I think I still slightly prefer it with the flags, although I'm not quite so certain now. At the moment, I'm seeing some of the country names beside their flags and some below, so I suspect some &amp;nbsp;s are needed.
 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, btw. I trust you will be supporting soon :)
 * 1. Sorry - missed that one out. I see what you mean.  I have moved them.
 * 2. Same column does not really save much space, if you need an extra word like "Scorecard" to be linked - the saving is in linking something that is already there. Although the scorecard is a bit of an easter egg, I hope the colour makes it clear that there is a link there, and the tooltip shows where it goes.  Perhaps a note somewhere would be a good idea: "The entry in the Test column is a link to the cricinfo scorecard"?
 * 5. Having put the flags back by hand, I agree. I see the names and flags on the same line (using IE) - each entry has a &amp;nbsp; between the flag and the team link, so it should work.  Which ones are you seeing on different lines? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm seeing all of them split if I set my browser window thin enough, but only in Mozilla, not IE. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support? Hint hint? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support when 3 is fixed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - it would be nice to have at least a mention of the hat-tricks in "unofficial" tests, but it's not essential, and certainly not enough of a reason to oppose. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've dug out and added some information on the two hat-tricks in the RotW matches. If anyone has information on the South African matches, let me know. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will support if references will be formated in reference (and not external link) format. Renata 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support even though it does not meet my definition of a great list. Renata 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support Will change to support if the references are formatted per Renata's comment. Also, whilst I don't regard it as sufficient reason for me to object, the first time the term ODI is used I'd prefer it to be the full term One-day International, or alternatively to be wikilinked to One-day International.
 * I have expanded out the first ODI reference (sorry, my mistake when adding the bullet point) and reformatted the references. I hope this meets with approval. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good. Oldelpaso 18:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)