Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Test cricket hat-tricks/archive1

Test cricket hat-tricks

I have been working on this for a week or two, adding in extra details and references. It is almost there: ~~I just need to add links to the scorecards for the first seven instances and check them.~~ I'd be grateful for any comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The scorecard links, etc, are fixed, so please vote. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's ten Test playing nations - at least officially. WP:NOT a soapbox for anti-Bangladeshi/Zimbabwean sentiments. ;) Maybe a few wikilinks to bowled, lbw, caught and bowled and stumped wouldn't hurt either? Apart from that, looks good! Sam Vimes 14:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will action (pace other arguments, BAN and ZIM have one official Test hat-trick each). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully fixed now. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, so I will support Sam Vimes 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak object~~
- ~~The table creates an annoying scrollbar in 800x600. A solution to this problem is to reduce the width of the "Inn." & "Test" columns. (Set the table width to 600px while testing)~~I've fixed it but the style is now messed.
- Lots of red in the centre of the table. More % of blue is needed.
- Some of the notes are not working
- ...recently by James Franklin... --> ..."New Zealander James"...
- A photo perhaps? You might get an old PD photo from Australia )pre-1955)
- Q: are all the mentioned hat-tricks been taken in the same over? (You can also mention that a HT is valid for three deliveries a bowler bowls... it neededn't be valid in an over/innings.
- You can also mention which all dismissals count for a valid hat-trick. (eg run-outs don't count)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

I've "subst:"ed {{prettytable}} and changed the font size - better?
I think there is clear majority of blue links, but we need people to write stubs for some more or less obscure South African and Pakistani crickets.
~~I am not a note expert, and this is the first time I have used them. Which ones are broken? Can you help?~~
- I think this is now fixed (see below). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Added one from Fred Spofforth, the first Test bowler to take a hat-trick
A: No. It should be apparent from the table that the balls in a hat-trick can be in different innings (and hence in different overs) and there are footnotes for each of the hat-tricks spread over two innings - for example, Merv Hughes' hat-trick was in three different overs in two innings, over 24 hours apart. I don't have ball-by-ball details (and they are quite difficult to get for the very early matches - they may not even exist). Are you really asking for a longer explanation of what a hat-trick is?
I'm not sure the article needs an explanation of when the bowler gets credit for a wicket - isn't that in dismissal (cricket)?

-- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Support. Would prefer it if those red links are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refs/notes don't work (at least for me). Clicking on the ref in the body goes down to the notes OK, but clicking on the "^" doesn't go back up. I confess I don't know how to fix that. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha - I have found out that {{ref_num}} is not intended to provide working backlinks: you have to use {{ref}} the first time and only use{{ref_num}} if you want to have the same footnote with the same number. I think it works now. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. Great work - Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in the venue col, you've linked some to the ground and others to the city. Could it be standardised please? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good list, but more redlinks need to be cleared. Will support when there are half a dozen or fewer. Could also do with a note of the hat-trick in the England v Rest of World series in 1970 that was original treated as a Test, and about South African rebel Tests, jguk 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "half a dozen or fewer" is a pretty extreme interpretation of a "significant majority of blue links"! I'll see what I can do about your and Nichalp's other points. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we should aim high - particularly for the cricket lists - otherwise we could end up nominating another dozen all in one fell swoop, jguk 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the more the merrier - which "other dozen" are you thinking of? If a list has less than say 1/3 red links, that would usually be good enough for me. The national lists of cricketers should help fill in many of the redlinks in due course, but historical cricketers from some countries (e.g. South Africa) seem to be poorly represented. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]