Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Zimbabwean national cricket captains/archive2
I nominated this before, but it failed because of too many red links. Now, thanks to other users, most of them have disappeared so I'm renominating. The previous nomination was on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Zimbabwean national cricket captains/archive1, SmokeDog 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
- Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I was concerned that one of the previous red links, when I went to look at it now, simply says "XXX is a Zimbabwean cricketer" or something like that - I thought that they had all been filled in as such minimal substubs purely for the sake of getting the FLC through. I should have known better from the Wikiproject Cricket - all the others are short but perfectly adequate articles. Good work all round again. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 10:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'm going to bring this up again. The proper name for all these lists is list of national cricket captains of Zimbabwe. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) states that "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." Zimbabean national cricket captain should be about the position itself, Zimbabwean national cricket captains (the plural) should be a redirect there, as is common, and this should be at list of national cricket captains of Zimbabwe to disabiguate the difference. This is just like what happens at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and list of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Content-wise, it's another great list, and my only question is whether there are women's teams as well, since didn't the other lists have them? --Dmcdevit 07:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection to a rename to List of ... Is there a consensus to this? - Ian ≡ talk 08:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a consensus, and I don't think a rename is necessary - I think the title implies that you'd expect to see all captains listed - there's really no benefit in making the title that little bit longer. On Dmcdevit's other point, Zimbabwe has never played a women's Test or a women's ODI, jguk 08:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think I tend to agree with Dmcdevit. First, I don't see what's wrong with adding "List of". I mean, how much does title length really matter? I think it's more likely that people will click on links to get to the list, and if not, the benefit of consistency across lists probably makes up for the extra keystrokes. For the ones on office holders, I think it's especially critical to have "List of" in there, since there's going to be a big article on the office itself. However, I'm less certain for lists like these, since there may never be an article on the office of National Cricket Captain of Zimbabwe. Any information related to the office could probably fit in the lead of the list. However, if there ever is an article, then we'll have to move the list to include "List of" and change the redirect to redirect to the article, not the list. So I guess that unless someone wants to argue that an article on the office of National Cricket Captain of Zimbabwe is inherently non-notable, I think I'll support changing the names of these lists to include "List of". I also prefer usng "of Zimbabwe" instead of "Zimbabwean" for consistency's sake as well, because if the USA ever starts playing national cricket, most of the western hemisphere will be mad if we say "American national cricket captains". --Spangineer (háblame) 17:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You're behind the times, the United States cricket team has already played two one-day internationals, in which it was captained by Richard Staple, although their most famous player is Clayton Lambert. They lost heavily to both Australia and New Zealand. However, they failed to qualify for the World Cup and gain official ODI status when they only finished tenth, one behind Oman, and one above Papua New Guinea, in the recent 2005 ICC Trophy. Recently their form has dropped because of a mixture of a major political split in the game, and the selection of an aging team - indeed, I think the USA holds the record of the oldest average age of an ODI team, jguk 19:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- US? Cricket? How embarassing for Papua New Guinea! Well, let me give a more extreme example. I assume Kiribati doesn't have a cricket team yet, (but you'll correct me if they do), but when they do, would it be easier to locate the list at (disregarding the "list of" part for the moment) "list of Gilbertese national cricket captains" or "list of national cricket captains of Kiribati." The adjectival form is inherently more prone to irregularities (consider French, English, Chinese, Canadian, Mexican, Kuwaiti, Congolese, Dutch, all formed differently), while the noun form, being the name of the country itself, is inherently regular, and much easier to find since we must assume that the searcher already knows the name of the country they are searching for, but we can't assume they know every irregular adjective formation. --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, Kiribati is not a member of the International Cricket Council. When it does, maybe you could help the Cricket WikiProject by writing an article on the I-Kiribati cricket team:) More seriously, you describe nothing that can't be solved by expeditious redirects, jguk 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I guess what I mean is that for consistency's sake (as the most common construction seems to be "X of country," like Culture of Denmark, Politics of Denmark, Economy of Denmark, etc.) the main article should be at the noun (country name) and the redirect should be at the adjective. But anyway, the "list of" part is actually more important to me, as I don't like having a plural as a title. And I'd be pleased to write the Kiribati article even though I don't know much about cricket, (because I doubt that a country with a population that's a fiftieth of the city I'm living in right now is going to get an international cricket team any time soon :). --Dmcdevit·t 00:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, Kiribati is not a member of the International Cricket Council. When it does, maybe you could help the Cricket WikiProject by writing an article on the I-Kiribati cricket team:) More seriously, you describe nothing that can't be solved by expeditious redirects, jguk 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- US? Cricket? How embarassing for Papua New Guinea! Well, let me give a more extreme example. I assume Kiribati doesn't have a cricket team yet, (but you'll correct me if they do), but when they do, would it be easier to locate the list at (disregarding the "list of" part for the moment) "list of Gilbertese national cricket captains" or "list of national cricket captains of Kiribati." The adjectival form is inherently more prone to irregularities (consider French, English, Chinese, Canadian, Mexican, Kuwaiti, Congolese, Dutch, all formed differently), while the noun form, being the name of the country itself, is inherently regular, and much easier to find since we must assume that the searcher already knows the name of the country they are searching for, but we can't assume they know every irregular adjective formation. --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You're behind the times, the United States cricket team has already played two one-day internationals, in which it was captained by Richard Staple, although their most famous player is Clayton Lambert. They lost heavily to both Australia and New Zealand. However, they failed to qualify for the World Cup and gain official ODI status when they only finished tenth, one behind Oman, and one above Papua New Guinea, in the recent 2005 ICC Trophy. Recently their form has dropped because of a mixture of a major political split in the game, and the selection of an aging team - indeed, I think the USA holds the record of the oldest average age of an ODI team, jguk 19:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think I tend to agree with Dmcdevit. First, I don't see what's wrong with adding "List of". I mean, how much does title length really matter? I think it's more likely that people will click on links to get to the list, and if not, the benefit of consistency across lists probably makes up for the extra keystrokes. For the ones on office holders, I think it's especially critical to have "List of" in there, since there's going to be a big article on the office itself. However, I'm less certain for lists like these, since there may never be an article on the office of National Cricket Captain of Zimbabwe. Any information related to the office could probably fit in the lead of the list. However, if there ever is an article, then we'll have to move the list to include "List of" and change the redirect to redirect to the article, not the list. So I guess that unless someone wants to argue that an article on the office of National Cricket Captain of Zimbabwe is inherently non-notable, I think I'll support changing the names of these lists to include "List of". I also prefer usng "of Zimbabwe" instead of "Zimbabwean" for consistency's sake as well, because if the USA ever starts playing national cricket, most of the western hemisphere will be mad if we say "American national cricket captains". --Spangineer (háblame) 17:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- ALoan (Talk) 19:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)