Talk:List of highest individual scores in One Day International cricket

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

106.51.65.94 (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want changing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

264 score needs to be edited from rohit patel to Rohit Sharma 103.48.91.111 (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Last good version has been restored. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

171.49.212.10 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

rohith patel was wrong rohith sharma 264

See above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Add Rohit Sharma 208 on dec 13 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.117.86 (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Already done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

111.68.108.194 (talk) 11:21, 20 July 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. Kpgjhpjm 11:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

Add Fakhar Zaman's score of 210 against Zimbabwe.

Fakhar Zaman 210* 156 balls 24 Fours 5 Sixes 134.62 Strike Rate

https://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricket-scorecard/20183/zim-vs-pak-4th-odi-pakistan-tour-of-zimbabwe-2018 Saransh.sinha (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Danski454 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

Referring to the list of highest individual score in ODI, Fakhar Zaman, at position 5, was NOT OUT, so please add asterisk to his score figure of 210* Zmmajk (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Danski454 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove women's stats from this page?

I don't agree with joining the men's and women's records into one ODI table.

They are different formats and should be separated.

@Dey_subrata

There's already This page that includes many stats on the women's game and if need be someone could create a similar page for Highest Individual scores in Women's ODIs.

DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@DiamondIIIXX: I can understand your concern. But no need of different article for women as the format and rules are totally same for both sexes, secondly itS just highest score pages similarly other articles are too made in the same way considering both the male and female palyers which is more acceptable to community. Thirdly this articles is very interesting as in this case the highest individual scorer and 200 runs breaker was a female player, so historically its very important to put the female players stats in this articles and the summary actually gives a chronological story of how the records were formed. So I think the article is totally fine and by all rules and policies of wikipedia. Dey subrata (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with including Women's scores on this page, but I would keep them as separate lists. Are there any sources out there which merge the 2 into one list or anyother WP article in other sports that do the same? Spike 'em (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: No, but if you see the numbers of scores, its just three. Will it be wise to keep a separate table. Rather I think we can put a symbol or colour for woman scores. Because in the present form the table shows the scores in the descending order. Dey subrata (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: Women's cricket uses shorter boundaries so it is not "totally same for both sexes" as you said. I think there should be separate lists for women. Kiwichris (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving references

@Gog the Mild: Need archiving here. Dey subrata (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Need archiving in this article. Dey subrata (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: You are a copyeditor here, so can you please take little time, to see if anything wrong in the lead, like grammatical or any other thing related to prose. Nominated the article for FL so asking, though I checked several times, but may be you can have a check atleast once. Dey subrata (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: need archiving. Dey subrata (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was affirmative. Dey subrata (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

There is a clear overlap between this article and List of One Day International cricket double centuries. I'm unsure which is the best location, but I think it is relatively uncontroversial to merge the two. I would be interested in input on how this should be done; should the cut-off for inclusion in List of highest individual scores in ODIs be upped to 200, and the other deleted, or some other solution? Harrias ^talk 09:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The other article accounts for "200" runs only. Thus my suggestions would be making the 200 score in bold would be more than enough along with putting "keys" to describe bold as double centuries. As all other aspects are taken in account like of world Cup matches. Dey subrata (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd support merging the two articles and setting a cut off limit for the main table(s) at 200 runs - the 180 limit seems pretty arbitrary. It would be helpful to find some way to use less colour/symbols to make things a touch clearer as well. Not sure if it's better to put both women's and men's scores together in the same table or not.

Whilst we're at it, I'd cut out the numbers of 4s and 6s and the strike rate from the table altogether - they're essentially statistical synthesis. If there is a significant point that can be made about the statistic this should be added as a footnote to focus the table on the title of the article. The progression part could use some prose to go along with it as well in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

4s and 6s are always integral part of Batting records, most importantly, centuries. For centuries or career runs, 4s and 6s are always included along with strike rate, which shows how the century is scored. Secondly, all other list are maintained in the similar manner, for example- List of Cricket World Cup centuries, List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket, List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International cricket. Dey subrata (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, really, they're not an integral part of any batting record in my view. They may be included in the lists that have been created here but that doesn't mean that they should be. It's statistical cruft that distracts from the purpose of the list and simply makes the list more likely to fall foul of NOTSTATS. Just because stats fans have added columns to lists it doesn't mean that they're necessary. I suppose I could use the fact that 6s didn't really exist as a scoring option at one point to justify that opinion if I chose to, or that scorecards that don't record that information might be significant - say in a list showing the progression of the highest first-class score. But that's by the by - it's simply statistical cruft and the more of that we get rid of the more useful our list articles will be in my opinion.

From a practical point of view the tables in this article are really cramped in my browser window just now. At times, similar articles have tables which are simply too wide for any browser window I regularly use. And in every case necessary information is always displayed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And, by the way, that information is really not always recorded. Nowhere close to it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

6s and 4s are real statistics (boundaries are facts not cruft) not manufactured statistics. No of 6s and 4s in a century shows how much runs in that century are scored from boundaries. Its a very important components of centuries and indeed a integral part of centuries or any scores. Even records are there for most career 6S and 4s. So calling such records which are credited to players, as cruft, is not a good idea. My browser absolutely fine with it and all wikipedia lists, I don't feel any problem. Thats a personal problem, I don't know which browser you are using. If it were the case, most lists of cricket and football which are created in similar manners, everyone would have faced problems in similar manner. Nothing wrong in the table width, its problem with your browser, a personal problem for sure. And "that information is really not always recorded"....I am afraid, we are talking about cricket. 4s and 6s are not recorded !! It will be a joke, if we say its not recorded. The important thing is why are we discussing this here, its for merging not for discussion of what to be included or not. Dey subrata (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way we are talking about merger, whether the statistics in the other article incorporated in this article or not, which in present form includes all. Thus is all set for the merger. Dey subrata (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• As everyone is agreeing on merging the articles, I am closing the discussion for merger and other discussion can be done with a new thread. Dey subrata (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving references

Gog the Mild, need few archiving here. Dey subrata (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Tiebreaking

Previously, when Saeed Anwar was in 10th place on the men's table, he had 194 runs and a strike rate of 132.87 but was placed below Charles Coventry (also with 194 runs, but a lower strike rate of 124.35), presumably because Coventry was not out. Now however, Ishan Kishan is placed above Fakhar Zaman due to a higher strike rate despite Fakhar being not out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.141.229 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)