Talk:List of Test cricket records/Archive 1

Archive 1

Size

Added a couple of tables, but this has pushed it over the 30k mark --Paul 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete List?

Is there any reason why this article is in the incomplete list category? MyNameIsNotBob 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• gone. Ian ≡ talk 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

I noticed Mark Taylor's 334* is missing from the list of highest scores in an innings. We love Tubby, and he DECLARED instead of going for more. Love it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.8.238 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy

I've noticed that Pakistan's one wicket victory over Bangladesh at Multan in 2003/4 is missing from the narrowest wins by wickets section. [1] Just wondering where all the other records have come from (so they can be checked). Kind regards, jguk 4 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

• I added the test results, wicket keeping and partnership records. There were mistakes in 2 of those 3, so that's not too bad is it? :) The other data was already here and I basically reformatted it and added the links. I'll now go through each table and check for accuracy/updates. - Ian ≡ talk 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

The latest 6th partnership record should be versus India (not New Zealand) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.212.80 (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Its a great list! Some helpful points:

• I think a little copyediting is needed to mention what 300/3 etc. means. Its currently too vague.
• Any chance of you adding colours to the tables? Say as in the List of Indian districts?
• The headings shouldn't be in title case. Only the first letter of each heading should be capitalised.
• The references should be formatted according to wikipedia:cite sources.
• Any records for most series wins/losses?

Best of luck! =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 18:41 (UTC)

• This is now looking very good indeed with the tables and so forth. Well done all those responsible. Lisiate 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wicket keepers

We have records for most catches and stumpings, but there is nothing about the sum of the two. Should catches be changed to dismissals ? Tintin 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

More stats

Could the statistics for most wickets and most runs in a calender year be added. The most wickets in a year record was predicted to be broken by Shane Warne this year, but I cant find any current statistics on the net. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

77 so far, [2], two and half Tests to go, looking good. --Paul 02:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Need to edit all stats

Earlier today, I updated the top bowling figures for Australia after England's second innings in the Third Test. ALoan correctly reverted my change, pointing out that several other stats needed updating each Test.

Then when I came to update the page again after the match was over, I discovered that some other stats were out of date — for example, Gilchrist's catches, and Fleming's matches as captain.

All this got me thinking. Should we require all stats to be up to date all the time, or should each table have its own "as of" date? I can argue either side. The former is obviously desirable for the page as a whole. But in practice, it makes it more difficult for people to update accurately, and some stats are likely to slip out of date without us noticing.

Thoughts?

Stephen Turner 18:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not both? Try to keep them as up to date as possible, but adding a date whenever they are updated? Sam Vimes 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been worrying bothering me also. I agree with Sam's suggestion, FWIW. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me restate Sam's proposal just to make sure I've understood it:

1. There should be an "as of" date at the bottom of each table;
2. Obviously it's desirable to try and make sure everything is up to date;
3. But it's permissible for someone to update just (say) the top career bowling figures but not the matches played in career, if both have changed during a match.

Is that an accurate summary? Is this the consensus, or does someone disagree? Stephen Turner 09:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's how I understand it. See User:Ianbrown/Sandbox -- Ian ≡ talk 12:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense. Sam Vimes 14:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Page changed: tables all have a "last updated: x" in footer - Ian ≡ talk 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Plenty wanting to update Lara's record mid-match, but he's now had another innings - where are they now? :p --Paul 06:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I think I said on WP:FLC, This page is always going to be a pain to keep up to date. I think it makes most sense to try to keep the whole thing up to date, but agree that individual records can be updated provided the relevant table has an "as of" date and ideally a reference.

May I suggest one improvement? I think it would be helpful to add numbers of matches (and, where relevant) innings to the individual records for highest batting average, fielding, and wicket-keeping. -- 11:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to people who know about this sort of thing

There have been a number of edits from anon IPs changing names several times in a short period of time to something completely different. I noticed one clear case of vandalism by User:Inba but I can't vouch for the rest. I'll leave you guys to check this out. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the unprecedented amount of vandalism this morning, and the number of anons and new users doing the vandalism, I have semi-protected for a while. Presumably this is a result of Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid being so close to appearing on two of the tables (best opening stand only a few runs away, and highest partnership a bit further away)... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear ALone, good that you have 'semi-protected' the page, The current 'table of partnerships' is correct. I have verified it from ICC website. --User:San25872 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the figures - it just seems a bit pointless to state how high a score they made, when a part of the innings was inevitably made outside of the partnership. Sam Vimes 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just updated Murali to 600 wickets —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E munky (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 March 2006 .

Players who have scored two centuries in a match most times

According to the television stats guys, in the latest SA vs. AUS test, Ponting became only the 3rd player to have scored two centuries in a match 3 times. Perhaps this record should added? (can't find a ref tho.) Mikker ^(...) 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added this record. 10 players have achieved the feat two or more times; including the players on 2 twin centuries made the table quite large so I elected to include only Ponting and Gavaskar. I can add the others if preferred. --Muchness 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Good job... Mikker ^(...) 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we list every record?

I'm becoming concerned that we're adding too many records to this page. Should we only be adding the most important few, or should we be adding everything that anyone wants to add? I'm just worried that this page will get too long if we add everything — there are surely hundreds of possible records that one could add. Anyone else got an opinion? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Hmm..

I share your concern. For example, the recently added "Centuries in both innings of a Test" it pretty ephemeral, as is "Most man of the match awards". I can see the justification for all of the others, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree here also. The two mentioned above should go I feel. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I've removed those two. Personally I could happily lose "Most runs in an over" and "Highest proportion of a completed innings total" too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this article & lists generally, so forgive me if I make any noob mistakes :). I honestly don't think we should get too concerned about length, I mean, the version with both extra stats included was only 39 kilobytes long, which is only 7 kilobytes longer than the "recommended" length at WP:SIZE. Besides, if you look at the justifications for the recommended size (technical + readers tire), the former, rather minor worry, doesn't apply yet and the latter doesn't apply at all to lists. Additionally, it is always possible to split the records up - into, say, List of individual Test records, List of team Test records etc (WP:NOT paper). Lastly, yes, there are hundreds of possible records but I think the two added are indeed quite notable. Most man of the match awards won is indicative of how many times a player has truly excelled in a game - surely a worthwhile thing to note. And scoring test hundreds in both innings is quite a feat. Doing it three times is amazing - again this seems notable. In any case, this is what I think. Mikker ^(...) 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A nightwatchmen list now. Tintin (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that every time someone breaks a record, it's added to this page. I've reverted it: Gillespie's feat was excellent, but there would be 100 tables on this page if we had every record as important as that one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

After a rethink, I'm going to do a U-turn here and ask what does it matter? Wikipedia is not paper and as long as it's a record which isn't going to be broken every week and is not too obtuse, where's the harm? If it's verifiable (cricinfo etc.) and someone has gone to the effort of formatting a table, there's every chance someone else will want to read it. As Mikkerpikker said, we can always split the article if needs be, but we're a long way from that just yet. I'd like to hear a really strong argument why not have the three or so mentioned above. -- I@n ≡ talk 08:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is less useful if it accumulates dozens of "trivia" records, which someone just happens to have broken recently. I also think the maintenance burden is too high. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for List_of_Test_cricket_records#Best_figures_in_an_innings_-_progression_of_record

I note there is no source listed for the section List_of_Test_cricket_records#Best_figures_in_an_innings_-_progression_of_record, did we get this info from a reliable source or is it original research? Mikker ^(...) 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That list was created by me (Paul - remember me?), so I guess it might count as OR - but I'm an reliable source :p

I remember (I think). Can you please give us a link so we can add a source to the table with "Compiled from [source]"? Mikker ^(...) 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It may well be original research, in a really strict sense of the word, but the data is all available from one source, for example [3], you just have to do sorting. I don't think we should be pedantic about making sure that someone else has actually compiled the list before. Being able to verify that the list is correct by checking well compiled lists of every instance of "7 for.. and up" is more than enough. Also, WP:RS is currently not in the best shape, constantly evolving/devolving and all, so using it in an authoritative sense isn't going to be overly effective. Ansell 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've got it in a book from the 70s. This can be used as a source reference, I think. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept that argument (I was just wondering). I would be worried about the difficultly of maintaining a list that has to be compiled from other general bowling statistics, but I suspect it will change only very rarely so I guess there's no need to worry. Nonetheless, can we add a ref? I.e. add a link to the list this was created from and have something like "Compiled from [1]"? Mikker ^(...) 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Sam has the list in a book it would be handy, otherwise I think it should be sufficient to put down a list of top scores, preferably one with dates as I have above, to justify the list. Its handy a guy for 7- in the first test as all of the scores are guaranteed to be in such a list. Ansell 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Highest batting averages

At the end of the test Michael Hussey is likely to be inserted into the list of highest batting averages at number 2, given that he is in the middle of his 20th innings (finally!) and currently as of last night has an average of 80.13 (a figure which will change as the test goes on but is unlikely to drop off the bottom :) Ansell 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll list him, sure, but, to go off topic a bit, he aint all that. Won't last long in the top 5 IMO. Maybe that's just SA bias speaking, I donno... Mikker ^(...) 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be one of the more focused cricketers that I have seen. IMO, he looks better than Ricky Ponting did when he first started, although, the comparison is not really valid, as Ponting started playing for Australia at a much earlier age. Of course, from a QLD bias, I should say Hayden for PM (or some such silly comment, but its clearly wrong ;-) ) Ansell 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt he's a good player but I'm not sure yet whether he's a great player (that deserves to be in the top 5 averages of all time). He'll be figured out soon enough, how he reacts to that will be a good indicator... Mikker ^(...) 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

More than a year later and he has a HIGHER average! Take that! 58.178.57.101 (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Games

I notice there isn't a record for "Most Test Matches Played". Is there no source, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.69.113 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its already there. See List of Test cricket records#Individual records (other). - KNM ^Talk 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Highest career batting average

At the bottom of the highest career batting average table, it says: "The highest average ever achieved is 336 by Lawrence Rowe (his first scores were 214*, 100* & 22)." What does that mean? For a start, the average over those three innings is 112, not 336 (that's the total), secondly, in what sense is it the highest achieved? Does it mean the highest average at achieved at some point during a career? Whatever it means, it needs a source - the source given is just to confirm those run totals, it doesn't compare them with anyone else. I suspect it's just plain wrong - Rowe's highest would have been after his first innings, when it was 214, and there have been better debuts than that (chances are, the highest ever average is the same as the best debut). --Tango (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

lol, way to edit an subject you obviously know little about. A dinky di Wikipedian. Anyway here's some enlightenment http://www-uk8.cricket.org/columns/content/story/210965.html

Since no-one has replied in over a month, I've removed the statement. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cricket batting averages are determined by dividing the total number of runs by the number of times dismissed. In this case the total runs = 336, number of dismissals = 1. So, in that sense, the statement is correct. But it is only of curiosity value. Average rankings are usually only applied to batsmen with a minimum number of dismissals, which is always greater than 1. Rowe ended up with a batting average of 43.55, and that's what is important.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If it is going to be included, it still needs a proper reference. --Tango (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Test records by country

Has any thought been given to a series of articles about Test records by country?--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorting order for 'Matches played'

For the 'Matches played' (by all the nations) table in top of the article, I am proposing to use either the number of matches played or the alphabetical order, as the sorting order. The referenced Cricinfo page uses alphabetical sorting order. Any thoughts? - KNM ^Talk 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Career runs and wickets progression records

• Progress of Test cricket career run aggregates record
• Progress of Test cricket career wicket taking record.

Two unfinished articles were recently deleted which contained essentially these series. The tables need to be wikified and moved into this article if someone has the inclination. Suggest only showing when the record changes hands, as opposed to showing every year. —Moondyne 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now the entries like this :

Bannerman : 19 March 1877 - 4 January 1879 Ulyett : 4 January 1882 - 23 July 1884 etc.

Why doesn't "Dates record held for" for Bannerman extend till 4th January 1882 ? Tintin 09:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. I just reformatted the table a previous editor left here[4]. I haven't had time to check verify all the details yet, but will do so. —Moondyne 10:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[5]Bannerman (Charles) played in the 1st 3 Tests up and including the 1878/79 match in Melbourne. He retired at that stage with 239 career runs. Ulyett was on 163 at that stage. Uyett didn't play in the 1880 match but did in the 1881/82 series and had 273 runs at the end of the 1st Test (Dec 1881). So it does sort of make sense. The dates appear to apply to the end of a series rather than the end of a match. I'll do some more checking though, but suggest changing the dates to years which is what is in the linked reference at HowSTAT!. —Moondyne 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I understood what he meant but surely they held the record till somebody else broke it. Or, the heading should be changed to indicate that it is the end of their career. Tintin 02:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The tables on HowSTAT! are missing some details necessary for a full progression record (especially the class of 1902). Here's a table on a Cricinfo blog with more detail. —Raven42 (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1000 runs in calendar year

Could players who score 1000 runs in a calendar year say 3 or more times be added? Aaroncrick (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not split bowling, batting and other team records

If you are a fan of cricket then you know how difficult it is to sum up even important facts and records (leave aside all records) related to Test Cricket in a single page. A single page can't do justice to team records as well as individual records, batting records as well as bowling records and fielding records, captaincy records, wicket-keeping records etc and the list goes on. So I just want to dedicate one single page to bowling records, one single page to batting records and so on... Come on guys its more than 100 yrs that Test cricket is being played, while other less important things have got more coverage on Wikipedia. U can see for yourself that the bowling record section on the current record page doesn't even mention these important facts.

• Most Career Wicket - Progression of Record
• Most No. of 5 wickets/innings
• Most No. of 10 wickets/match
• Most No. of maiden overs in career
• Most No. of duck dismissals by a bowler
• Most No. of wickets through caught & bowled, stumped, LBW, etc.
• Facts related to hat-tricks

While similar/analogous data for batting has been mentioned. I have all these facts related to Test bowling ready with me. so please let me proceed. Reply Soon. Regards. Snigdh. Snigdh.Chandra (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Refer #Should we list every record? above. There is a real danger that this list becomes unwieldy if every piece of trivia gets added in as a new table. We should restrict it to only the most well known and accepted stats. I do agree that Most Career Wickets - Progression of Record would be a worthwhile addition tough. Hat-tricks are covered under a separate article List of Test cricket hat-tricks.

Venues

All venues are now the format [[stadium]], [[city]], except when the stadium explicitly names the city. –Moondyne 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work on that! Aaroncrick (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvement Ideas

A few improvement ideas:

• Most of the 'Last Updated' are small but some are normal size, small looks better to me but as long as we're consistent I'm not really fussed.
  • Done. All now small.
• When writing the lead I didn't link the sources for refs, but table refs are linked, unlinked looks better to me but as long as we're consistent I'm not really fussed.
  • I don't understand what you're saying. :(
    • Don't worry many don't :) I will attempt a different explanation: when you look at the references the first 18 don't have the source linked but the remaining 40 do. I'm not sure there's much value in linking the source but as long as there's consistency throughout I don't mind either way. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the See Also links are in the template so do we need them?
  • I don't seem the harm in them being listed twice.
• The Highest proportion of runs in a completed innings total record is pretty trivial, remove?

Any opinions on these or other possible improvements welcome. --Jpeeling (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Removed. Rationale at FLC review page. –Moondyne 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Removed special coloring/tagging for Indian players in Individual batting records section --Siddheshp (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Highest 3rd Wicket Partnership season

The highest 3rd wicket partnership is listed as being during the 2006 season at Columbu, which is southern hemisphere, so surely this should be 2005-06 or 2006-07 and I don't know which.John Allsup (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

South African flags

I notice that both the modern multi-racial flag and the post-1928 apartheid state flag are used in this article. I see some argument of making the use of the flag appropriate for the time with a different flag being used to distinguish all white and multiracial teams. Unfortunately each flag has been used in the wrong period somewhere in the article and looking at List of South African flags there was a third design used between 1912-28 and no flag at all before 1910. I suspect that the flags used for other countries are also used anachnronistically when appended to 19th and early 20th century records. Is it better to remove the flags altogether?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Triple" Centuries

Should that not read "Treble Centuruies", in keeping with British English? And the list is inaccurate, missing many many names (unless I'm missing something!) bigpad (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Telephone Numbers

I've tried in vain to revert the Skyped phone numbers to ordinary dates - does anyone know how to do it? Or is it just something that happens for Skype users? WillE (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnathan Trott

Hi Guys, I wouldn't know how to do it and I would hate to ruin the article but Johnathan Trott needs to be added to highest batting averages in test at 64.00 --86.141.89.146 (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Did it ! --86.141.89.146 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

This article is now semi-protected indefinitely due to constant vandalism and very little effort to monitor and revert. Unregistered users wishing to make changes should post a message here and a registered user will review and action it. Thankyou. –Moondyne 12:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 196.210.137.250, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Sachin Tendulkar - 51 Test Centuries

196.210.137.250 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done –Moondyne 13:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is women's test cricket not played?

Is women's test cricket not played? If this list only includes men's test cricket, maybe it could be renamed to better reflect the gender of the topic: List of men's Test cricket records. If not, maybe the women could be included into the article? Their absence feels a bit conspicuous. --LauraHale (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Women's Test cricket is poorly covered in Wikipedia, but changing the name here or including women's test records here would be a mistake, IMHO. Better to create a new article List of Women's Test cricket records. The current scope here could be explicitly defined I suppose. Moondyne (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Run chases

Fourth Test, 1948 Ashes series states that the Australian team "set a new world record for the highest victorious runchase". I was checking to see if this record still stands, but run chases don't seem to be included here. Not knowing anything about cricket, is this a statistic that's generally measured, or even important? If yes, is there any plan to include them in here? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nearly 2000 Tests

Surely 2000 Tests, or from tommorrow, over 2000 Tests!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.181.167 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kwkrishna, 30 July 2011

Most Test centuries

Centuries	Player	Matches
51	Sachin Tendulkar†	178
40	Jacques Kallis†	145
39	Ricky Ponting†	152
34	Sunil Gavaskar	125
	Brian Lara	131
	Rahul Dravid	154

Kwkrishna (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done verified at original source. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

Tendulkar just scored 15000 runs. I request you to change it.

117.192.11.101 (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2012

Update Centuries table with recent data, using source 41. Specifically, Ponting should show 40 centuries. Text to update is listed below. Update reference 41 with current retrieval date.

Centuries

Most Test centuries

Centuries	Player	Matches
51	Sachin Tendulkar†	183
41	Jacques Kallis†	150
39	Ricky Ponting†	156
36	Rahul Dravid†	159
34	Sunil Gavaskar	125
	Brian Lara	131
Last updated: 19 November 2011

202.156.10.12 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Most Test quadruple centuries

Is this section really needed? If it had more than one entry, I could see the point. Lugnuts (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No objections to removal. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. On a related note, Chris Gayle is listed as being a current Test cricketer for the triple centuries table. Is he? I thought he no longer plays TMC. Lugnuts (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

New record!

It's not a current record category, but maybe Tino Best's record 95 for a number eleven should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in the cumulative records

Can we remove all the people who scored less than Bannerman's 165 in the first Test in the cumulative best Test score, or perhaps add in Shaw and everyone else for the bowling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.91.161 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Removed. It's was not referenced anyway, and may be wrong: I always thought Bannerman scored the first run - if so his 1* was always a better record than Thomson's 1 - and presumably Bannerman was on more than 12 when Horan was out (the score was 40 of which only 13 had been contributed by his partners). --RobertG ♬ talk 05:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Most Runs In An Over Record Equalled By George Bailey!

George Bailey just scored 4-6-2-4-6-6 against England in an over in the 3rd test of the Ashes 2013 (in Australia), equaling Brian Lara's record of 28 runs in a single over!

Please add this record to the Most Runs In An Over above Brian Lara's record in the table.

GDSTheChosenOne (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2014

 Done 122.57.169.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) pasted whole edited page here, which I have removed: the suggestion was to update the list of double centuries. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

On the partnership records, it currently states the 6th wicket partnership was against New Zealand instead of against India.

Shafzm (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Highest Career Batting Averages

As per Cricinfo Pujara no longer has an average above 60 and should be removed from this list.

Scoops81 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

All rounder records

I've created a new section titled "Individual records (as an all-rounder)" though I'm not happy with that title.

It now includes the table containing the list of cricketers who have taken 10 wickets and scored a century in a Test match. Please review and amend as required. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

Rajesh311311 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Don bradman is one of the godfathers in cricket history.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

50.184.34.61 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is strike rate list limited to current players?

Why is the bowling strike rate list restricted to current players, when (a) every other list on the page doesn't have that restriction, and (b) the cricinfo reference doesn't have that restriction either? I propose fixing it. Adpete (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. It's a bizarre restriction, and in my opinion, both artificial and misleading. If the record is to be retained, either reflect the one in Cricinfo , increase the minimum number of deliveries, use the Wisden qualification of 75 wickets, or remove it. Personally, I'd reflect Cricifo or Wisden, probably the latter as that is generally regarded historically as cricket's book of record, but either seem perfectly reasonable to me, and certainly far more acceptable and in keeping with the rest of the page than the current restriction. Cicero71 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015

style="text-align:left;"|New Zealand || 10 January 1930 || 401 || 81 || 161 || 0 || 159 || 20.19

|- 117.212.69.192 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You have not explained which of the numerous tables you want this added to, nor cited reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Qualification for batting average

Previously the article used an arbitrary 5000 run cutoff for the batting averages list. This is not used generally, as is indicated by the fact that the ESPNCricinfo link provided needed to interrogate the database. The 20 innings cutoff is industry standard, used by Wisden, ESPNCricinfo, the MCC etc. This is the default list that ESPNCricinfo provide if you look up Highest Career Batting Average. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html Apart from being quite arbitrary, the 5000 run cutoff is quite a restrictive cut, eliminating every player who retired before WW2 except for Hobbs. And so, I've edited the list to use the industry standard cutoff of 20 innings. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Strike rates

Dales Steyn's stats under "Best career strike rate" are wrong. The page currently has 41.6 (8,932 balls; 396 wickets). Strike rate should = balls/wickets.

From Steyn's page, his stats are currently 16,957 balls & 406 wickets giving a strike rate of 41.7.

Saffer72 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Requests: Add 1. most sixes in a Test match innings 2. most sixes in a Test match career

With the retirement of Brendon McCullum this might be a good time to add these. Also it would align better with the List of One Day International cricket records page. There the top 5 are given in each list.

Links:

• 1. most sixes in a Test match innings

• 2. most sixes in a Test match career http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283122.html DadaNeem (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

Highest score no 5 should be changed tp india's 800 declared against england, chepauk Srthkgpt (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. (759 is not 800) - Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

New request

Excuse me,actually Pranav Dhanavade, a boy from India has scored 1009 runs in a test match.So please include him.

Could you provide a scorecard of the Test that he scored 1009 runs in? I will then add it for you. Spike 'em (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

England flag inappropriate?

A small point maybe, but if you look at the entry for 'England Cricket Team' it says that the team represents 'England and Wales' and up to 1992, also represented Scotland. I appreciate that it is commonly referred to as 'England', though it has had players from throughout the UK play for it. However, the flag that is shown is the flag that only applies to England.

Surely it would be more accurate to have the England & Wales Cricket Board badge next to the team name instead? GlenUsk2 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

{ Sagardm (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Test cricket records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722032321/http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/10/record_holders_for_most_number.php to http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/10/record_holders_for_most_number.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Test cricket records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130809001230/http://www.cricmatez.com/2013/06/09/all-records-of-sir-don-bradman/ to http://www.cricmatez.com/2013/06/09/all-records-of-sir-don-bradman/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409121137/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Binnings_number%3D4%3Borderby%3Dteam_score%3Bresult%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dteam%3Bview%3Dinnings to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Binnings_number%3D4%3Borderby%3Dteam_score%3Bresult%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dteam%3Bview%3Dinnings
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Borderby%3Dbatted_score%3Brunsmin1%3D400%3Brunsval1%3Druns%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120716180433/http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5225.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround;view=match to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5225.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dallround%3Bview%3Dmatch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311005633/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Bgroupby%3Dcaptains%3Borderby%3Dwon%3Bsize%3D10%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dteam to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Bgroupby%3Dcaptains%3Borderby%3Dwon%3Bsize%3D10%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dteam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

Ireland have recently played their maiden Test match and so I want the statistics on the page to reflect this. In the 1st table on this page tabulating the team records, please add Ireland's record (a loss in their debut test match). HritamKanji (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear to me what you wanted doing, so I have done so. The table is already sourced.Spike 'em (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

error in the list of cumulative record holders for the most wickets in tests.

The same test in which Briggs took his 100th wicket and was the first to do so (test #45), CTB Turner did too. Except Turner ended the test (and his career) with 101 wickets (Briggs ended the test with 100 wickets, and later went onto take 118). CTB turner needs to be listed as holding the record at 101 wickets - albeit only for a month.

This article may be of use. It also indicates we are missing George Lohmann. I don't have a copy of Bill Frindall's book to check what he said, as that is used as the source for the footnotes. Spike 'em (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how the dates on list work yet, but

Turner went to 101 in Test from 1-4 Feb 1895. [6];Briggs was on 96 before that game started, but got to 100 before Turner bowled (Aus batted first and won by an innings).

Briggs overtook in next Test from 1-6 Mar 1895 [7],ending Test on 103 wickets.

Lohmann over took in match of 21-23 Mar 1896, ending on 109 (Briggs still on 103) [8]

Match of 1-5 Jan 1998,Briggs finished on 112, level with Lohmann (who was not playing and alreadyon 112). [9]

next match, 14-19 Jan, Briggs finished on 113, Lohmann still on 112. [10]

This all matches what is in the article above,so can use that as source to alter the table, so I'm not doing (too much) WP:OR. Spike 'em (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

Change highest individual score carrying the bat from Alistair Cook 244* to Tom Latham 264* vs Sri Lanka at The Basin Reserve, Wellington, New Zealand, 2018 cricket season. Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/25555322/tom-latham-registers-highest-individual-score-carrying-bat 2406:E007:4EEE:6E01:F8BB:BD5E:4D20:CF7B (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Done, should have noticed this sooner! Spike 'em (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Seasons

The Listing notation / Seasons section states Cricket is played during the summer months in most countries. Domestic cricket seasons in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies may therefore span two calendar years.... West Indies, India, Pakistan/UAE, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are all in the Northern Hemisphere, so the domestic seasons don't take place in their summers. This makes up 1/2 the Test playing countries, so I'd suggest just ditching the "summer months" sentence and remove the "may therefore" in second one. Sri Lanka and West Indies have recently held Tests in their summer months (and the CPL is run in summer) so maybe a bit more of an expansion is needed. Spike 'em (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Effort to check all records

We should all (myself included) make more of an effort to maintain all the records, not just those for players from the teams we follow. I have just noticed that we should have had Mohammad Abbas on the list for Best career average from 19 October 2018 until 27 November 2018. Spike 'em (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And Rabada had been missing from the strike rate list since October 2017! Spike 'em (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat mixed-subject paragraph in the early material looks muddled

The article starts with paragraphs with clear topics. For instance, paragraph 3 is about teams, successful and unsuccessful. Paragraph 4 is about batting. However paragraph 5 starts with bowling records (Laker and Kumble) but halfway through drifts into batting. Any reason why paragraph 5 should be so mixed up? It comes over to this reader as being muddled. JRGp (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Most successful team in Test cricket, for a few months has not been Australia

The early paragraph about the most successful team in Test cricket says that Australia has the highest win percentage (47.00%). Unusually, at present (I think since March 2019) this is not true; Afghanistan has a higher percentage having won one out of two games and will hold this higher percentage at least until November; my source for the win percentage this is lower down in this same article. Perhaps there should be a qualifying remark about excluding teams which have played only a few (e.g. less than 5) Test matches - similar to the sentence about least successful teams? Or recognise the present achievement of Afghanistan - which might have to be revisited when they play more matches.JRGp (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for update

Can the amount of wickets taken for James Anderson be increased from 575 to 580 as per http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93276.html Kandaris (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll do at the end of the current Test, as these figures are likely to change further Spike 'em (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done (with plenty of other updates) Spike 'em (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to actual matches or series

By my count, 29 of the 57 tables on this page relate to specific Test matches or specific series. I find it unbelievable that those tables don't link to those actual matches/series. For example, the second table on the page could have an extra column added as follows:

Margin	Teams	Venue	Season	Match
Innings and 579 runs	England (903–7 d) beat Australia (201 & 123)	The Oval, London	1938	5th Test
Innings and 360 runs	Australia (652–7 d) beat South Africa (159 & 133)	New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg	2001–02	1st Test
Innings and 336 runs	West Indies (614–5 d) beat India (124 & 154)	Eden Gardens, Kolkata	1958–59	3rd Test
Innings and 332 runs	Australia (645) beat England (141 & 172)	Brisbane Cricket Ground	1946–47	1st Test
Innings and 324 runs	Pakistan (643) beat New Zealand (73 & 246)	Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore	2002	1st Test
Last updated: 25 November 2019

I would like to see if there's consensus that the links to the actual matches/series should be added in? Obviously, as there's a lot of tables to update, this isn't something that can be done in one go, so for a while there would be some tables that link to the specific matches and some that don't. Thanks. Mmitchell10 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Table formats

As per WP:BRD, I have reverted all the recent changes to the table formats: they have been like this for years and needs consensus to change them. Spike 'em (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the rollback as you just beat me to it. The new entries weren't "significant team and individual records" but mostly what I would call trivia. Also numerous grammatical errors had been introduced. Moondyne (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how you can say that the changes introduced are trivial?

1. Fastest to a particular milestone or the fact that incorporating width makes the table look really wide when it can be reduced? 2. Is adding a start date to a match not correct?or making the table sortable not ok as per your highness? 3. When victories can be recorded why can't defeats be recorded? 4. Same goes with series wins and defeats? 5. Highest successful chases are recorrded but highest scored in 4th innings are ignored? 6. Had changed from old usage cricinon to cr yet you removed it. 7. When a player's name is given, the team name has to be separated. However, you find that to be trivial.

In short thank God you are not a PhD holder or something else this sort of page would have received an F.

Remember this is Wikipedia which allows users to edit. Dont be a dictator who can't understand simple changes.

As far as grammatical errors are concerned, they could have been edited. Ankurc.17 (talk)

Remember this is Wikipedia which allows users to edit. Dont be a dictator who can't understand simple changes. And wikipedia also allows other editors to undo those changes if they don't agree with them. I don't agree with your table format changing, so have brought it here for discussion. To make these changes you now need to gain consensus that they make the article better. Spike 'em (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure quite what In short thank God you are not a PhD holder or something else this sort of page would have received an F. is meant to mean, but this list is currently a featured one, and has been through a review of format / structure before. You need to show why your changes make it better, and not worse (which would possibly lead to a loss of featured status). Spike 'em (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You never bothered to explain how adding more info to a page is bad? None of the so-called lists were kept and only records top-5 as much as possible was kept. Thank you for wasting my time and efforts in helping improving this page. Your ego is too big to see that. Ankurc.17 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

you changed the format of pretty much every individual table and the only way I could see of undoing was to revert all your changes. I am more than willing to discuss the other tables you would like to add, but just because you'd like to add them does not mean that they should or will be kept. Spike 'em (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

So you are ok with adding new stats but to keep the older table formats?? Ankurc.17 (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If yes, then i would need to revert your edit to get my copy back.. Make the changes in table formats and re copy them. Then you can decide if or all the new tables added are to be kept or moved. Hope that's ok. Ankurc.17 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I would consider new tables on a case-by-case basis. I don't think all of them are relevant (like the highest 4th innings for example). Just because a record exists and is sourced doesn't mean it needs to be added here (WP:IINFO / WP:NOTMIRROR). Rather than reverting back, you can edit old versions of the page to get the content you have added that was then removed (to save cluttering up the edit history). Spike 'em (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes done.

• Added dates to older tables
• Segregates Team and Player into two different columns
• Captain and wicket -keeper innings have been kept in a different section
• New stats added.

Ankurc.17 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am going to revert this again. You have split / added columns in the tables again, which is what I am complaining about. Please create a sandbox version of this and we can discuss rather than revert warring. Your edits are too wide ranging to be able to assess / amend in one go. Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Ankurc.17/sandbox Ankurc.17 (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to access it? Ankurc.17 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Link

Yes. You seem to have changed quite a bit of properly formatted stuff (e.g. added a load of Camel Cased headings), and I don't think half the new tables add much. I don't think highest innings as keeper is worth keeping, for example. If we are to switch to separate flags / teams / players (which there are good arguments for) then the player's name should always come first, then his team, then the opponent (if appropriate). I would also get rid of most of the merged cells which you have added recently, anything outside the first 2 columns make the table difficult to take in. Spike 'em (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I will get ride of the camel headings and switch the tables in form of Player, Team and then opponent. Will update you once that is done. Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please check. Ankurc.17 (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I started amending a few formatting issues, but I've noticed you still have loads of headings where you've changed either the spelling or capitalisation, where it was correct before. I still think you have added too many new tables too. Spike 'em (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What new tables? I have tried to keep it to as much as the norm across different pages as possible. Anyways if you dont want to use it let me know... Ankurc.17 (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Most pairs, best innings strike rate, best innings economy are all new, to mention a few. Spike 'em (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, so can't new things be added? Isn't it about improving articles? My reason for adding was to cover both sides of stats. If we are focussing on centureies et al then ducks were also included. Same with worst figures and best economies. Ankurc.17 (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to new tables on principle, but some of the ones you want to add are minor records that no-one ever mentions. Just because a record exists, it does not mean it needs to be listed here, as per WP:IINFO. Spike 'em (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And I agree thay there are too many batting records listed too. Spike 'em (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In short all my time and efforts wasted. Thanks Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You are free to do as much or little editing as you want, but there is no guarantee that any editor's work will remain. I'm sure there are plenty of edits that I have made that have now been reverted / superseded. Your versions still has a number of changes to titles that go against the MOS (particularly the Camel Casing). I also think you are introducing too many new tables which are of little interest. I think this article should be a template for all the other ones rather than having any table that someone has added to any of the others. I am happy to continue discussing this, but you need to WP:AGF and stop the insults and stroppy comments. Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Spike 'em, Ankurc.17. Just thought I would add a comment to this discussion. Spike 'em is correct that agreeing to contribute to Wikipedia gives no guarantee that an editor's edits will be retained in the article, nor that any discussion on a talk page will result in the edits being discussed being retained. No editor owns an article per WP:OWN but all edits are subject to consensus WP:CONSENSUS. Spike 'em gave ample warning that edits by Ankurc.17 may not be acceptable. I like stats and obscure records are fun to hear when listening to a cricket match but again Spike 'em has an acceptable view; just because a stat or other piece of information exists and it can be backed up with a reliable source doesn't mean it should be included. Although according to WP:LISTN specific entries in a list do not need to be notable if the list is notable, editors can use their judgement to limit which entries are included. Because your additions have been objected to in this case you need to make the case why a specific stat is of interest. Providing a reliable source about a stat's status in sports discourse would be a good place to start. Convince other editors of why a stat is of interest to other readers and you will be closer to gaining consensus. Finally I agree with Spike 'em please follow WP:CIVIL in your exchanges with other editors, you'll find it makes other editors more open to considering or reconsidering what you are arguing for. Robynthehode (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Apartheid Era South African flag

Really enjoyed the effort that was put into the page, however I question to use of the apartheid era flag for some of the South African entries. I do understand the era the entries are trying to represent, however it’s use is not politically correct (nor legally allowed in South Africa). Liveshnaidoo (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Liveshnaidoo:. There are a number of points to make. One: Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSOR. Therefore content should not follow political correctness but reliable sources WP:RS. Second: Whether the use of the flag is legally allowed or not is irrelevant for the same reason of censorship. Third: It is important that readers aren't misled. The SA cricket team played under the aparteid flag and therefore its use is justified because it is true and supported by sources. This can be seen as a positive thing because the use of the aparteid flag reminds readers that there was a time when South Africa was a nation under aparteid which limited the chances of or banned the participation of all (male) adults who were good enough to play for their country. Robynthehode (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Robynthehode's points, this in not really the place to discuss this: it is a question for the wider WP:HV, WP:WPFT and WP:ZA projects. If any changes were to be made, would need to involve {{Country data South Africa}}, which stores the flag data. Spike 'em (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Highest Test averaage

The record, removing qualifications, is (at least until his second Test), now held by Kyle Mayers, who has an average of 250.00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.218.55 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Minimum denominators for rate records

> As of March 2021, the most successful team in Test cricket, in terms of both wins and win percentage, is Australia, having won 393 of their 830 Tests (47.24%).

Strictly speaking, this statement was only true for 8 days in March 2021 (from March 6 to March 14); before March 6 Afghanistan had won 2 of their 4 tests, and after March 14 they'd won 3 of their 6 tests.

Of course, Australia's winning percentage is, in some sense, the more relevant stat, but there should possibly be some minimum denominator for rate stats.

73.63.168.111 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

In highest individual batting average, add Marnus Labuschagne. Manakuteck2912 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Batting Averages Update

Harry Brook currently has a batting average of 62.15 after 20 innings and should now be listed as the male batter with the 2nd highest average after Bradman.

Note: This is now listed on the espncricinfo page which is listed as the reference and should be updated. MattPAFC (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)