Talk:List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar

Default sort

Right now, the list is by default shown in the decreasing order of the century score, like 248* is the first row and so on. I presume, this format is followed per another featured list List of Test cricket triple centuries. However, I suggest we change this to the chronological order, like the 1st Test century (scored in 1990) appearing as the first row and the latest Test century (as of now it is the 39th one, scored in Jan 2008) appearing as the last row in the table. The list is not meant to be the list of highest scores by Sachin Tendulkar.

Also, with this way, going forward, the future centuries will get their places in an order instead of inserting in between the rows based on how many runs scored. Thoughts? - KNM ^Talk 01:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A good suggestion indeed with the fact that future centuries will get their places after searching for the the right spot. But, I feel that there are many such instances on wikipedia where new entries are searched for placing them within articles. For instances, if a GA gets passed, the reviewer needs to search for the appropriate section/subsection and place the article (again alphabetically). Similarly, I feel it will be a futile exercise; and searching for a right position to insert any future centuries is definitely not an arduous task, isn't it? :)

If the idea is for a temporal search of the centuries, the sort feature can be used to pinpoint the location of the new entry within the table. Overall, though this list is not meant to be a list of highest scores, the highest scores are usually prominent, aren't they? My feeling: It will be a tiresome exercise with not much to gain. Do you think so too now?

Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes Mspraveen. The list looks perfect now, imo.

However, there appears to be a problem with the references. When I click on the numbers in first column, the corresponding reference is not appearing. I am not sure whether its happening just for me or for all others. - KNM ^Talk 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Solution I think is to number each century and put the references in a notes column which is unsortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done something... hopefully everything is fine now. - KNM ^Talk 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ODI centuries

This section is irrelevant in the article. The title indicates only "Test cricket centuries". So this section has to be moved into a new page or the name of the article must be changed -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is discussed at the FLC and as per consensus, ODI centuries were thought of being added. Currently, the lead section is to be re-written and will be done so in the next 12-15 hours. Then, the page will be moved to a new page/name changed. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New Name

Now that, this page is going to contain both the lists of Test Centuries and ODI Centuries, what would be the best name for the article?

• List of cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar ?

OR

• List of International cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar ?

OR something else? - KNM ^Talk 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar (lower case "i") was the suggestion at the FLC discussion, and I agree with that. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Frankly mixing test and non-test centuries is much like combining oil & water. They are diametrically different in their nature ie length of game, type of play & so on. They should both be listed...but in a separate category. Of most import is the statistic (in tests) denoting the number of 100s (perhaps 50s also)compared to total amount of innings...or a century every (number) innings. Its the critical factor that links new & more experienced, present & past etc. I have seen it in Wikipedia but it is almost hidden. I also feel a special article on the topic of Bradman versus Tendulkar is merited. There is no doubt either are head & shoulders above their peers, but rich analysis needs to elicit a valuable contribution. Christopher Rochester cjrochesteroptusnet.com.au

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.153.7 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

match number

New column may be opened; wherein at which match He scored the century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.194.167 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of date

The sentences "His centuries have come in 29 different cricket grounds with 23 of them being scored in venues outside India." and "He has scored 17 ODI centuries in home grounds and 28 centuries in away or neutral venues." are both long out of date. --88.111.34.23 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, thanks for keeping us up to date but it'd be MUCH easier for you to make these changes rather than let us guess exactly what's wrong and how you know it's wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained why I don't wish to make the changes myself. I fail to see what the big problem is, if you can't be bothered to check the lead for out of date statements then you can always leave the task for someone else to do. --88.111.34.23 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are akin to a cryptic crossword. I missed the bit where you said you didn't wish to make the changes yourself as well. At least now you've finally conceded to adding comments to the talkpage rather than (1) just adding the template or (2) leaving nebulous comments in an edit summary. If you really want the articles to be updated and don't want to do it yourself then at least leave comprehensive notes on the talkpage as to what you think is wrong it the article. It's not about not being "bothered", it's about the fact that you've "detected" an issue but then keep it secret from us. This is a Wiki so we work together, okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the template notifying editors (and readers) was approriate, clearly not. I then wrote, as precisely as I could, in the edit summary the out of date sections, I thought that would suffice but clearly not. I really didn't expect that I would have to guide you by the hand as you made the changes, but evidently that was the case. I will bare this experience in mind when I next place the template. Thank you. --88.111.34.23 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see {{sofixit}}. In addition, making this comment and then editing in this manner (ordering coercing other users to fix things without any intention of helping out yourself) is considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

When on earth did I order anybody to do anything? I added the template to notify users who are interested in improving the article and to warn readers that the information was out of date. If you don't wish to do the necessary work, then don't, I'm not forcing you. On the sofixit issue perhaps you should practice what you preach [1] [2], the level of hypocrisy is astounding. --88.111.56.211 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The position of FL director means that it would be virtually impossible to fix all the errors in all the lists. All Dabomb87 has done is point people in the direction that there are disambiguations to fix, which are easily found using the toolbox. What you've done in your various IP forms, is to slap the update template on pages and, in most cases, not actually said what requires updating. This is unhelpful in the extreme. I'm not sure why you retired if you now simply want to return to "not contribute to Wikipedia in a completely constructive manner". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not present red herrings. The reason I do not always fix dabs myself is that sometimes I am not an expert on the subject material and I may not know where to re-direct the link to. Anyway, I'll concede that "ordering" was strong, and I have struck that phrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier it's very easy to see the article(s) were out of date, I don't understand why there's a need to castigate me for simply confirming the obvious by adding a template. As I've shown if people remove the template and ask for reasons then I'm fine with explaining why. Whatever way you wish to spin it there really is no difference between my 'slapping on templates' and Dabomb 'pointing people in the right direction', neither act is 'completely constructive'. Two further points misleading points: Dabomb was making his DAB comments prior to his directorship so there's no need to bring that up and my 'various IP forms' are no fault of my own. --88.111.57.159 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No but the various IP forms are your own choice since you have an account here that is dormant. And as for "very easy to see" that articles were out of date, not at all. The template itself suggests that you should say why you have added it on the article talkpage. People shouldn't have to come begging to your various IPs for information, you should let the community know why an article is in need of updating if you are so bothered that you add the template. It's really very straightforward. Please try to help and avoid your aim to "not contribute to Wikipedia in a completely constructive manner". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Dabomb offering people the suggestion that "dabs" exist and need to be fixed is quite specific and would assist an editor in locating problems with a list very quickly, especially with the toolbox provided at FLC for locating dabs. In one session of your IP edits, you tagged four articles without an edit summary and without any suggestion as to how to fix the issues which you clearly were aware of but chose not to share. Which, after all, is the essence of a Wiki, to ability to work as a community. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When Tendulkar has 46 ODI centuries and the lead states 17 centuries were at home and 28 away from home it's not difficult to see the lead is out of date, are you seriously suggesting otherwise? "People shouldn't have to come begging to your various IPs for information?" what a joke, when did anybody have to beg me for information? If you look at the Sehwag list you would see Abeer.ag removed the template because he felt the article was up-to-date so I added it back and supplied the reasons in the edit summary, neither me and I doubt Abeer.ag had a problem with that situation. My friend you've made a mountain out of a very insignificant molehill. --88.111.57.159 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair example of something that's easy to fix, but you clearly did more than that, for instance checking where various cricketers ranked in order of their own countries centurions. The fact that you've done this and then not fixed it, but instead just "hit-and-run" with a template is a waste of your time and doesn't assist fellow Wikipedians in fixing your issues with the list. We have to "come to your various IPs" because you refuse to use your account and you keep getting assigned new IPs. If we can't see quickly what's wrong with a list, then the obvious first step is to ask the templater. You shouldn't have to expect editors to remove a template before you generously supply us with your reasoning. Your edits are disruptive if, as you claim yourself, are attempting to "not contribute to Wikipedia in a completely constructive manner". And adding maintenance templates to featured material without explanation is certainly not making a mountain out of a molehill as well you know with all your experience on this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually check for the rank of countries centurions until I added the detailed edit summary, I thought it best to detail everything in one go. Nobody has come to my IPs though? and I really don't see the difference in using an account or not in that regard. If you think the article is up to date then isn't the natural thing to remove the template? and is it really that difficult? My edits aren't completely constructive but if you take a look at any FLC/FAC and you'll see easy-to-fix comments from people who are simply wanting the nominator to jump through hoops to get the star, what I've done is no worse. So in future it's best to leave featured material out of date in case I dare step on the toes of overly sensitive editors. --88.111.57.159 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, in future it's best to do what the template you're adding suggests, and that's note on the talkpage what needs updating. That's pretty obvious for someone with your experience here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And who started this thread? --88.111.57.159 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after being asked, despite you adding templates which clearly state "Please see the talk page for more information." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"God of Cricket"

Honestly, whoever squeezes such words in an otherwise fine article is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. I have removed that phrase.

Punter18 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Most test centuries

Jacques Kallis has more test centuries than Ricky Ponting currently. So I have corrected the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medvarcity2 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

It is strange that the dates in the first table are in day first format while those in the second table are in month first format. Any particular reason? Keith D (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No reason, surprised I hadn't noticed that, so I've fixed it. Thanks for the spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see lists appearing on the main page. Keith D (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Other centuries

Can someone include the list of the other first class and List A centuries by Sachin with details like score, team, opponent, venue, date etc., either by expanding the scope of this article or as a separate article ?
Anish Viswa 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This list is only for "international centuries". Since FC and List A are not international-level cricket, they shouldn't be included. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can some having the info start a new article covering the list of all FC and List A hundreds by Sachin?
Anish Viswa 08:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

@Nitishkumartn: you should stop making disruptive edits to the article. I've copy-edited the article to reflect the current status of his career. But you seem to revert my edit without any explanation. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar. 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/20131022191811/http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/sports/cricket/20080126-0.html to http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/sports/cricket/20080126-0.html

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) 22:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar. 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/20080212102018/http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=1%3Borderby%3Dbatted_score%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings to http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=1%3Borderby%3Dbatted_score%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220210911/http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=2%3Borderby%3Dbatted_score%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings to http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=2%3Borderby%3Dbatted_score%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings

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) 03:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)