Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/ICC Cricket Hall of Fame/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [1].

ICC Cricket Hall of Fame[edit]

ICC Cricket Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's been a while since I tried a cricket list, and this is crying out for becoming featured. Cheers, as ever, for your comments and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support Harrias talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
* As I've already commented on the talk page after a request to look at this article, I think the lead is a tad on the short side, but on the other hand I can't really suggest anything to expand it with. The paragraph regarding Heyhoe-Flint is a single sentence, which is frowned at, could it maybe be merged in with another paragraph, or maybe some more information added to that one (though as I say, don't ask me what!)
  • The table sorts fine, and after fixing a couple of the references they all seem okay. It's a pity that the playing role couldn't be referenced, it would have been interesting to have it included.
    • Thanks for those fixes. Yes, the role would have been interesting, but not directly relevant I suppose. These players were inducted for as "legends" and not against a particular criterion. And the difference between batsman/all-rounder and all-rounder/bowler is always going to lead to some subjectivity... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the '+' be super script, to stop it appearing that they were inducted some time after 2009, ie 2009 plus.

Otherwise, all looks good, nice work. Harrias talk 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments and those here. I'll work on expanding the lead a touch more. Any suggestions wouldn't go amiss! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Gave a talk page review before the nomination, and I thought everything was fine even then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments relating to licensing problems at Commons with images that were formerly used in the list
  • Comment quickly looking at File:Keith Miller.JPG it seems to be PD, but it is not clear why. Could you update the description with sources to match the criteria in the PD template. Also the OR operator in type A is rather weird; how can something be published prior to 1955 but not taken prior to 1955. Sandman888 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Commons image perhaps you could ask the uploader. If it's a problem for this list, I can replace it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source is also a deadlink. If it's not possible to verify as PD it should be tagged for deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's a Commons image so take it up there please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image also replaced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other pictures has similar problems. Sandman888 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, these are Commons licence issues, so please take your concerns there. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OD) Normally the nominator is responsible for pictures used in the list/article are correctly licensed and sourced. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are confused.. by licenses at Commons, please take it up there. If you object to the use of specific images here, say so. They can easily be replaced. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I think I've removed any images whose licensing issues may have confused you. They are used in many other articles but I admit I have no energy whatsoever to argue with you about license semantics at commons. Cheers for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's not semantics, but a question of proper licensing: all PD claims must be sourced. I am not confused by any of the licenses, but your retort seem to confuse constructive input with ad hominem attacks. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this is no longer an issue with this list. Feel free to contact the uploader at Commons to continue discussion over any further license concerns you may have. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:WGGrace.jpg is still missing source, publication date and author. Sandman888 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced. Thank you for your diligence. I trust you will chase up the various uploaders at Commons now? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, no I will not. I trust that you were already on it since you are now aware of how PD claims of images ought to be sourced? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Commons and Wikipedia are different, and I work in Wikipedia. You seem to be very diligent in finding PD problems at Commons, so I suggest you get an account there and state your case. If an image exists at Commons with a problem, you have to go to Commons to solve it (especially as I removed these images from this list). In any case, I assume you have no further issues with the images in this list? If that's all then please collapse these comments as they've become rather lengthy for no gain other than replacement of a couple of Commons images. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the list stands, it's pretty good: well-referenced, comprehensive, and the lead is generally well-written, but it feels a bit light. What was behind the decision not to include player some basic stats such as runs, wickets, and averages? I know people weren't inducted based on their stats, but it might give the reader some indication why these people have been singled out. It might also be worth including a table showing the break down of HoF members by country, with a column for when the country started playing Tests (and perhaps how many they've played to take into account breaks such as the boycott of South Africa). Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All good points. However, as an overall rule, I would see it as synthesis to include an personal estimation as to why these individuals may have been singled out. The ICC say this accolade "recognises the achievements of the legends of the game from cricket's long and illustrious history" and doesn't go into more than that. You're right, we can definitely speculate that Barry Richards was included despite only playing four Tests because of the circumstances, but we can definitively state it as fact, unless we can find an ICC source backing it up. In short, I think I'm saying the objective basic Test career stats are included, and nothing else because other stats may mislead a reader. In actuality, I guess the only really neutral approach is to just list the names, teams and year of induction. But I felt the balance was finely struck between all stats/speculation and bare list of names. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – And one question, is Wasim Akrim alphabetized correctly? I know nothing about Pakistani surnames and their proper use, but judging by the rest of the Pakistani names in this article, he deserves to go top of the list. And maybe in Bishan Singh Bedi's place in list should be determined by the first surname just like in Rachael Heyhoe-Flint case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinsh (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments and support. I've made Akram sort consistently with the other Pakistani players. I don't think Singh is part of the surname, so it sorts by Bedi. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/ICC_Cricket_Hall_of_Fame/archive1&oldid=1197949477"