Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dutch ODI cricketers

List of Dutch ODI cricketers[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently brought this up to date and edited it to comply with the Manual of Style. Now seems to be in line with the other featured cricket lists (the last of which was List of Indian ODI cricketers, nom here). Not the shortest list in the world to be nominated for FL and whilst the lead is short it's the same as the others, so it seems adequate. Thanks. :) AllynJ 10:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Centre the text. Maybe one more ref just to back up the one you already have. Looks a bit dull being all white. The lead looks a bit short but then again it is the Dutch cricket team. Buc 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Text centring: I was going for consistency with the other lists, this isn't done on any others.

2) References should be fine really, between those linked early on and those in the External Links section there should be enough, surely? That's all that's linked on the other lists.

3) Yeah, I'm thinking a picture may help. Perhaps the Dutch flag or the Dutch cricket board logo? Not sure.

4) As mentioned earlier, I think the lead is fine: more important countries have the same length (if not the same text exactly) lead. AllynJ 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no doubt this is inline with other cricket featured lists but I do wonder if these lists are worthy of featured status at all? I could see the whole series being featured but every single version in the template seems a bit much. Since I have not contributed to featured lists before, is it normal for all lists in a series to get featured status rather than just one featured status for the collection of lists? David D. (Talk) 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, one of the featured list criteria is that they are stable. It is easy to see how this is true for lists of world cup winners or california birds, but how is it possible for the sports stats type of lists to be stable? They need to be updated all the time and this alone seems like a reason to delist all this class of list. Is there some rationale I am missing here? David D. (Talk) 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This list is unashamedley an word for word, number for number, copy of this site and this site. If it, and the other pages that are very similar are not altered anytime soon - they could be speedily deleted. In addition, the article fails to meet 1c, 2a & 2b. Todd661 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is exactly what the figures are... There's no other way to represent them, on here or elsewhere. I do also think they are relevant to Wikipedia's scope. I certainly don't think they should be deleted. Re: 1c, I don't see how it isn't? It has stats from two Cricinfo sources and one from Howstat, it's certainly verified correctly. I've covered my thoughts on 2a before, and 2c... Not sure how to tackle that. Thanks for your comments, though. AllynJ 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of the figures are irrelevant in this article. Personally, I think this list should have headings such as Name, Debut - an exact date they started, not the year, Type - such as batter/bowler/wicket keeper/all rounder, and how many matches they played. The other infomation is not needed on this site. Expand the lead a bit. Talk about the lits (which you do), then talk about the cricket team in general - when did they start, who was it against?

Sorry for the delayed reply: I've been doing some brainstorming and have personally decided that the comments here are certainly worth looking in to, if not changing to as soon as possible. I've started some discussion over at WP Cricket (see here) and if you'd like to add your thoughts they'd most certainly be welcome. I'll be withdrawing the nom now, although I certainly hope I'll be back with this particular article in the future. :p :) AllynJ 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On stability, the fact that an article or list may need to be updated on a more or less regular basis does not make it unstable. Instability is more about edit warring - major changes to the form or content of an article from day to day. You will know it when you see it! This kind of instability should not be an issue with any of these lists.

On "the whole series" - yes, in the past, we have promoted separate Featured lists on similar, closely related, topics (how about 2002 NFL Draft through 2006 NFL Draft, or List of Florida hurricanes (1950-1974) and List of Florida hurricanes (1975-1999)) and it is exactly the same with Featured articles (there are three on aspects of Saffron, for example). If there are lots of featured articles/lists on similar topics, there may be a case for a Featured topic.

A cricket reader will want all of those facts in the list (matches, innings, not outs, runs, high score, average, etc...) article: they are the important figures. The fact that several external sources provide the same information is great for verifiability, of course: the strength of a Wikipedia list is its wikilinks to articles on the players, and to explanations of the various terms.

But I see what you mean about the lists being a bit "boring". I am not sure what we can go about that: a bit of colour on every other line, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to address the stability issue. I'm not sure I meant to imply they are boring. Clearly stat heads (me for one) love poring over this type of data. One possible improvement would be to indicate which cricketers are active (possibly have two tables active and inactive). At least then there is an explicit understanding that the stats are final. I'm all for color but i don't think it needs to be done without good reason. David D. (Talk) 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I tweaked the formatting a little including reducing the font-size slightly as it just seemed too 'busy'. Those things are just personal taste but IMO it looks nicer now. Meets all the criteria. —Moondyne 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to have left this so long before opposing, but I've only just noticed the nomination. The lead is uninspiring, and seems to leave out some important info. Looking at the first and last dates for the players, it looks like they only played ODIs in 1996, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 (and no years in between). I can just about work out why, from looking at Netherlands national cricket team and One-day international, but the history of Dutch ODI status needs to be explained in this article (an expanded lead will also help to deal with the issue of the list being "boring"). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]