Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 → Archive 70

Frank Vigar

Got quite an article going, but it needs non-playing days info and I can't find the sources. SGGH ping! 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Great article. Really in-depth for a non-Test player where info might be scarce. Sam Loxton talks about the Essex match and said that Bradman hit some Essex bowler for consecutive boundaries and the second (maybe third and more) all went in the exact same direction and allegedly landed directly on top of the dent in the fence made by the first hit. Sounds as though it might be an old wives' tale, but is this the same bowler? Also in an Invincibles doco made by Mike Coward for the 50 yr anniv in 1998, Bill Brown said that when Bradman came into bat there was some left arm slow bowler "quite slow", and that Bradman charged down the pitch 3-4 times straight away, got to them on the full and knocked them away for fours and then said "What does this fellow do Bill, does he turn them much?" I wonder if these anecdotes are all about the same guy but got turned apocryphal. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The bowler seems much more likely to have been Eric Price. Price was slow left-arm, as specified by Brown, while Vigar bowled right-arm leg-breaks. Also Price went for close to eight an over in that match, while Vigar was comparatively economical and from his figures looks to have been Essex's best bowler. (I'm assuming that we are talking about the 1948 match.) So I suspect that in his Cricinfo profile, where they talk about an expensive over they may have mixed him up with Price. With Vigar's figures being 13-1-66-2 there's barely room for such an expensive over. JH (talk page) 08:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For outside cricket, someone might have to get their hands on some ECCC official history books I would think. Also, what do people think of the date fields in the refs being set to 1950 etc. I would have thought there isn't a date for the specific CA page being published, and it wasn't published on the net in the 1950s. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is something I have had to think about. I ended up dating them to the last day of the match, seeing as that is when the information was published, if not the page - which isn't dated. SGGH ping! 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not all that keen on that idea myself. As an example of why not, say I found an interesting scorecard entry in John Major's More than a Game. That information might well have been around for 200 years, but I wouldn't give its publication date as such: I'd use the publication date of the book. Citations link to a specific source, not to a specific parcel of information, and for that reason I don't think giving dates as though the source itself were published in 1947 or whenever is appropriate. (You'll note that I never give publication dates, only access dates, when linking to CA cards in articles I write.) I'd be interested to hear whether I'm marching out of step with everyone else here: it wouldn't be the first time! Loganberry (Talk) 11:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Good article! On a slightly un-related point regarding the footnotes, there is currently a debate regarding the use of YYYY-MM-DD in footnotes - I see that you have two styles of dates present within the same references. To my mind, these should probably be standardised (as an English player I would go for DD MMMM YYYY throughout the article, but that is just my preference. See the RFC and the preamble.—MDCollins (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been using month-day in my publication dates, and not sure what Wiki does automatically for me in terms of retrieval dates. SGGH ping! 10:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Also you could have used the oracle match performance list over and over, as most of the stuff cited doesn't go into details like partnerships which aren't in teh main oracle list, which has batsman's runs, team scores, and O/M/R/W YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Checked Fingo where I got the five fours from for use in Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Fingo says it was Price, who is SLA. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've still got a number of sources (other than cricinfo) that say it was Vigar. Should we change the article to reflect that there is some source confusion? Rather than choose which version to include? SGGH ping! 11:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty earlier of altering Vigar's article to remove the claim that it was him, since it seemed very doubtful. However since then I've found a piece by Arlott saying that it was Vigar. It's not conclusive, as the article was written many years after the event, and also I don't know if Arlott was actually at the match. It's possible that once one writer told the story and said that Vigar was the victim other writers used it subsequently. Best would be if we could find a contemporary newspaper report of the match. Failing that, the 1949 Wisden report of the match might mention it. However its reports of matches other than Tests are normally very short, so there might not have been room. If it was Vigar, then when you take away that one over his remaining overs were remarkably economical in the context of a match where overall Australia scored at 6 runs per over. JH (talk page) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Failing that, the 1949 Wisden report of the match might mention it." It doesn't. Johnlp (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Times' report of the 721 says Bradman twice scored 20 off one over so perhaps he hit both Price and Vigar for five boundaries in an over. In this interview, Sam Loxton indicates the story YM mentioned (hitting four balls in a row to the same place) was off the bowling of Vigar. There’s various references that indicate the repeated hitting of the wall was off the bowling of Vigar. That would leave the coming down the pitch and hitting fours off five consecutive deliveries to Price. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, JH, you only removed it from the lead. There is a paragraph in the article dedicated to it, which also contains all the other sources I have thus far found to verify it if it helps. SGGH ping! 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions. First, not too important, why do the CricketArchive references state the date of the match instead of saying "match scorecard" (or whatever) which is much more explanatory to the reader? Second, very important, why is there so much detail about so many individual matches to the extent that I think it breaches section 2.9 of WP:NOT, particularly point 3, in that for the most part the text consists of a mass of statistics.
I think the article needs reworking to concentrate on Vigar as man and player in that order, even if it means drastically reducing the size of the article (and there is nothing wrong with a short article). There is far too much detail about one match after another and after another. It is in parts unreadable because it is too much for even a cricket fan like me to take in, let alone a reader who knows little about the game.
As I am forever saying, the reader comes first. Lost our way on this one, I'm afraid. ----Jack | talk page 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The reason that there is a lot of statistical information is because that is all the information we have. I would find it completely contradictory to what Wikipedia is about if we remove information from the article. The solution is to add other information as we find sources, not remove existing information - what would we replace it with? I think you are being a bit overly dramatic - with no offence intended. SGGH ping! 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In the mean time, what is consensus regarding Vigar's alleged over to Bradman? Do we think it was him or Price, and either or, do will keep in the article that it is often attributed to Vigar anyway? SGGH ping! 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If there is doubt, leave it out. The harm caused by including an erroneous bit of information is much more than leaving it out altogether. 59.92.71.181 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm rather with Jack on this, though as it's been done, I wouldn't take anything out. Rather it needs some context adding to it: a comment here and there from the Wisden reports, for instance, would help readability. It is at present very much the stats in a verbal format and rather difficult to read: I suspect if I wanted to know more about Vigar, I'd find the cricketarchive stats pretty similar in digestability. Perhaps I'll try to go through some Wisdens to add some context if you think that would be useful. I'm conscious, though, that the article is already more than 3,000 words long and that our IP address friend who adds to the "To Do" list at the top of this page has thrown several other Essex cricketers of similar prominence to Vigar into that huge list recently (Bear, Evans, Horsfall...). If we had 500 words apiece on six of them I'd be happier than adding more words to this one. Johnlp (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC) PS I've started on Michael Bear from this list on the basis that if I'm going to grumble, I might try to be constructive too. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the statistics need to be summarised per season with a special mention of any match in which he did well or something unusual occurred. Instead of itemising what he scored in this match and then this one and then that one, provide a mini-review of his season performances including, for example, his best score was in this game and his best bowling in that game. A comparison with other biographies that follow this approach would help. By the way, it is not "completely contradictory to what Wikipedia is about if we remove information from the article" because that is editing and it is exactly what WP is about. We edit articles to improve readability for the readers and that is the whole point of WP:NOT. ----Jack | talk page 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

County Championship & List of County Championship winners

As some of you may have seen, I have created List of County Championship winners to give more details on the winner of the County Championship each season. It also lists the highest run scorer, and leading wicket taker. Following a comment from JH, I am looking for input on what we should leave on the County Championship page. For the moment, after looking at other competitions pages, I have completely removed the list from the competition page, and provided a link to the List I have created. I would be perfectly happy for all, or some of the list to be reinstated, but am not sure what would be best. Originally I thought something along the lines of the last 10 winners would be most useful, with the link to the List providing the rest. But the last 10 winners is already on the page in the Promotion/Relegation section. Comments? Harrias (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest adding some stats, such as which team has won the County Championship the most times, most consecutive wins, etc. – PeeJay 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Very useful article. Two suggestions : (a) Is it possible to add another table that lists the position of every team in each season ? (b) Some sources also list the unofficial champions prior to 1890. Can we have another table for them too ? Tintin 10:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't the table in your suggestion (a) be massive? Surely that's why we have individual articles for each County Championship season (or, at least, we should!). – PeeJay 10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(a) We'll have to use small fonts. I have seen the table in books. (b) This would make it very easy to compare the performances of teams in a quick glance. The individual team articles don't have it, and there are < 10 articles currently on individual seasons. Tintin 10:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Using small fonts is a bad idea, per WP:ACCESS. I suggest that we simply create the required articles, rather than create an unnecessarily huge table. – PeeJay 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay; such a table would be unwieldy. I am planning on working on the individual seasons articles, something I think AMBerry is also working on. In addition, there is also Kent County Cricket Club seasons, (also for Derbyshire and Durham), these can be created for all counties to also cover what you are asking for possibly? English cricket is still very under-represented on Wikipedia, give us a chance to create the articles! Harrias (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...After experimenting a bit, I agree that this article will become too unwieldy if we include that. But I have found a single county championship table very useful in practice. Don't think a separate article just for this isn't a solution either. Tintin 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not that we're creating the separate articles just for this, though. The articles were already being created, and in so doing, they are slowly providing us with a solution to the problem you suggested. – PeeJay 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There are basic articles on every cricket season in the format 1957 English cricket season and so on. Some of these have more detail than others. Johnlp (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I think that the YYYY English cricket season articles should contain a summary of all cricket played in that season, divided into sub-articles such as YYYY County Championship, YYYY Pro40 season, YYYY Twenty20 Cup, etc. – PeeJay 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate list is a good idea and I think you should maintain its present scope whereby you list the winners from 1890 and then summarise the number of wins per team. Don't add anything else or it will grow out of context. I've made some changes to the history section because certain facts were incorrect: e.g., MCC did not "recognise" it in 1895 but actually hosted the December 1889 meeting and was involved right from the start. In addition, the article as it was did not clarify that it is about the official championship only. In its day, the unofficial version was just as important except that it was, well, unofficial. I would just add that you should seek more credible sources than CricInfo which is unreliable for historical material. Good article, though. ----Jack | talk page 03:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, my eventual aim is to get this to Featured List status, which I don't think should be too hard, given the amount of history and information available. The Cricinfo sources were simply because it seemed a good place to start from while I got the list, and some bare bones history up there. Harrias (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag

List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag is in FLC. Please leave reviews. Its been in FLC before but failed because of a lack of reviews. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Zimbabwean national cricket captains at FLRC

I have nominated List of Zimbabwean national cricket captains for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Cheetah (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As a result of this I had a look around and following some links, eg to the general team page etc. How come these articles are so evasive and just say "political problems" without saying what it is, ie Mugabe, and expelling/attacking/killing white people, therefore the vast majority of leading cricketers, some of whom are farmers and got chased off, left. There aren't ZANU-PF or ZCU apologists editing these articles are there? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

India women's cricket team

I'm planning to take List of India women Test cricketers to FLC, and as part of some feedback I've received so far, I've been asked to include info on the following:

  1. When the team turned pro (or not)
  2. Selection process for the team

For the love of God, I haven't been able to find a single source for either of these two points and am hoping that someone from here might be able to help? For the second bit, I've found a very casual mention of "North zone selector for the women's team", which leads me to believe that the selection process is the same as that of the men's team, but that's pure conjecture.

Also, I welcome any other suggestions for improvement prior to FLC. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Source evaluation

Could people pass their views on this source [1]? I haven't come across it before and would appreciate someone in the known passing judgement on its reliability. SGGH ping! 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is weak on biographical material because the author hasn't had time to concentrate on that. All the information on matches was copied from the works of Ashley-Cooper, Buckley, Haygarth and Waghorn, plus a few more. This has been checked and found to have been accurately copied except for typos that the author keeps correcting. Where the author puts forward his own views, he is probably talking out of his hat, our knowledge of 18th century cricket being so limited, but you can't write a history without expressing a few honest opinions. The non-cricket historical material may be a distraction to some or it may be insufficient to others, but it tries to set the scene. The photo of the Allman Brothers Band is a good one, though. ----Jack | talk page 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
But, having seen CricInfo's appalling "profile" of David Harris per this diff and this talk page topic, shouldn't you be asking someone in the know to pass judgment on the reliability of CricInfo? ----Jack | talk page 19:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Uwe-Karl Birkenstock

This player made his debut yesterday in South Africa. His name is given by Cricinfo as Uwe Birkenstock, and by Cricket Archive as Uwe-Karl Birkenstock. Personally I'm more prone to believe the latter, but if anyone believes his article should be at the former, please move the page as appropriate.

Either way, I will include a redirect on the Uwe Birkenstock page. Bobo. 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would try to find a South African newspaper online that covered the match and see what they said, then whichever form outnumbers the other is the "most common" SGGH ping! 09:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Uwe-Karl is his given full name, but everyone knows him as and calls him Uwe. I also edited his second name, which is incorrect on the cricketarchive website. LovesDolphins (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cricket templates

Hi, I have created a couple of season templates for the English cricket season and international matches in 2003. I would appreciate it if someone could add missing series/tournaments that are deemed notable and also start creating other missing templates (there are currently only English templates back for 2003 and 2009). Thanks. 03md 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eight-a-side cricket

I've tried without luck to find a reference in the cricket pages to the Super Eight format that was briefly popular in the late 1990s. Just wondering if there should be something, perhaps in Short form cricket...Hack (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gagandeep Singh

Profile. Notable? Under-19 Indian cricketer shot dead. No first-class appearances, however. SGGH ping! 10:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIN he would have to have appeared in first-class, ListA or major Twenty20 cricket to qualify as notable. A pity, but I think not. ----Jack | talk page 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As I suspected. SGGH ping! 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The murder itself might render him notable, regardless of his influence as a player. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

List of India women Test cricketers is currently a featured list candidate. Please comment here. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Squad Format for County Cricket Clubs

After Junius00's edits to Somerset CCC and Sussex CCC, significantly changing the format of the squad tables, it made me realise that currently all squad tables (or virtually all) are completely different. I believe that it would look far better if we unified them all (certainly within County Cricket, if not all club sides). Personally, my preference is for those used by Lancashire CCC and Kent CCC. Anyone else got any views? Harrias (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we should have a standard for county club articles in terms of layout and structure. We have tried to achieve this in the past: e.g., putting the honours just after the lead as per Playfair's style; keeping things in a chronological order; and using standard section formats as per your suggestion. As a card-carrying Yorkie, I'm loath to give credit to what happens over t'frontier but I have to agree that the Lancashire squad table is very good (and so are their players, he says grudgingly). ----Jack | talk page 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we definitely need to incorporate a squad number column into the squad tables. – PeeJay 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost article

Hello, everyone! I'd like to do a report on this WikiProject for an upcoming edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Are there any members here who are familiar with the history and workings of the project and who would be willing to answer a few questions? Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd better get Lindsay Hassett done before this gets printed then, I suppose YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to answer? I'll do it if nobody else wants to. I wasn't around then, a few months late, but wasn't cricket the first portal on Wikipedia? I think Sam Vimes, Jguk, Stephen just made it in mainspace and then after that they created a new namespace for it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FACs

These are open Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hampshire County Cricket Club/archive1

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hampshire CCC one is (fortunately) snowing. The 5th Test one is progressing okay thus far. SGGH ping! 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image size

At this FLC discussion, I was asked to reduce the size of the flag image. However, the image size was a fixed 280px on {{Infobox women's national cricket team}}. I tried to use the format on {{Infobox rugby team}} to make image size an option, but it did not work, so I reverted and changed the image size to 175px. This makes most of the transcluded infoboxes look better, but the Australia and England teams have a photograph and that IMO would benefit from the larger size. Can someone in the know fix this to make image size an option? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

John Taylor (cricketer, born 1937)

Hi all. A user has moved this page to John Taylor (English cricketer) — however, the Yorkshire cricketer notwithstanding, we have articles written about John Taylor (cricketer, born 1849) and John Taylor (cricketer, born 1923), which would also fit under this general title of English cricketer. Another is yet to be written, at John Taylor (cricketer, born 1819), but this will be got to eventually.

Anyone got any suggestions? The last thing I want to do is wheel-war this thing. Bobo. 08:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just move it back to where it was before. Your reasons for keeping the article where it was are completely valid, so if the other guy kicks up a stink about it, just explain your reasons. If he still doesn't accept it, report him for disruption. – PeeJay 09:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I will do so, thank you for.. sticking up for me. ;) I may write John Taylor (cricketer, born 1819) first, before I do anything, though, plus I'm in the middle of reorganizing my own user-space. I will get to it. Bobo. 09:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the user moved it back again once he realised there were other English cricketers by that name. SGGH ping! 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes yes, I received a good-natured reply on his User talk page - everything seems fine. This certainly isn't a problematic situation — and the Administrator in question is a well-intentioned fellow. Bobo. 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Cricket World Cup records FLRC

I have nominated List of Cricket World Cup records for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

First-class cricketer up for deletion

Hi all. A user has placed former Kandy Cricket Club player C. Siriwardene (stats) up for deletion here. If people could take a look before I do, this would be very handy. Thank you. Bobo. 05:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Laurie Nash GAN

Eyes on this would be appreciated as the author has needed to go on a wikibreak YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Should surely be reviewed soon? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A month is nothing. GAN must be one of the most back logged things on Wiki. We should all go and review one article from there! SGGH ping! 14:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Given men?

I noticed a lot of historical cricket articles mention "given men" -- what is that? Is it a player given by another team so they don't forfeit? --AW (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the early days of cricket, matches were often the subject of big wagers, and it was therefore desirable that the two sides should be perceived as being of roughly equal strength. "Given men" were players who did not normally play for a particular side, but were included for a particular fixture to strengthen them. I suppose it's similar in concept to handicapping in modern-day horse racing, where in all but the most prsstigious races horses carry different weights in an attempt to equalise their chances, again to encourage betting. Perhaps we should have an article about the term "given men"? JH (talk page) 09:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, as it's not really explained anywhere else and sounds pretty interesting. --AW (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good explanation by JH and I've added it to List of cricket terms#G, although an article would be a good idea too. In the 1770s, there is a stark contrast between the two star bowlers of the time Thomas Brett and Lumpy Stevens in that Brett is not known to have played for anyone other than Hambledon/Hampshire whereas Stevens, of Chertsey/Surrey, was a prolific given man who played for anyone and everyone, including Hambledon. ----Jack | talk page 04:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Alan Brodrick, 2nd Viscount Midleton

Can someone please fix the infobox in this article. Tryde (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting one. It seems that if partialdates= is left blank and the exact numeric dates of birth and death are input, the mechanism which calculates age at death causes a formatting problem in that everything "slides" to the left, leaving a whitespace area on the right. If you set the field as true and enter months in text, it all looks okay but you don't get age at death, which I think is superfluous in any case. I've done a temporary fix in Brodrick and will look at the program in due course. ----Jack | talk page 04:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't even know we had an Template:Infobox Early Cricketer - is there anything extra there that means it can't be migrated to the standard 'box at the moment? If not, it should be listed on the main project page in the templates section...—MDCollins (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only difference in the infoboxes (which I'm working on patching) is that the career statistics header doesn't disappear when the stats columns are set to zero. There's a slight issue with the display of the source when not linked, but that can be easily fixed. If I can solve the "career stats" issue, would you have any objection to merging the infoboxes back again? Ever since Thumperward cleaned up the syntax, the column widths aren't quite right, but I'm sure with a nudge he could re-look at that. By doing this, the partial dates bug won't apply.—MDCollins (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The early cricketer box was devised to exclude statistics which are irrelevant to players who were active to 1825. The box has been in use for 18 months and it works very well when it isn't subject to column width problems. On balance, I think my temporary fix does the job as all that is lost is the person's age at death, which is just another pointless statistic. I've added the box to the main project page as requested.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Oh, and New Labour too.  ;-) ----Jack | talk page 07:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My ambition

I have decided to set myself a little Wikipedia aim for 2010. I'm going to try to get as many of the England players from the 1979 cricket world cup to FA status as I can.

I've been writing on Boycott for ages, and gave Gower some though a while a go. Wish me luck! SGGH ping! 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. GA even? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
They only had 13 and no coach/manager? Anyway, something to tell Kirill about if/when he comes back YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from one guy, they all played 30+ Tests, so there won't be any ones that can be picked off quickly :( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Boycott is hopefully not too far from FA, and Gower would jump to a B class with a little domestic cricket work and some images. It'll get done eventually. SGGH ping! 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Because the tournament was being played in England, they probably felt that a manager was unnecessary. JH (talk page) 09:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel like starting Bob Willis first. SGGH ping! 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If people want to write a FT on 1950s English teams/players, the Ashes series from 48 and the ones that Philipjelley wrote can be mined for reused, very productively, as he descrbed the 54-55 series in great detail, as well as the 58-59 one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob Willis is doing okay, all the way down to the "1979-1980" section I have got going, below that I haven't touched yet. SGGH ping! 11:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cricket in the Great War

Having working recently on a number of cricketers whose careers have been affected by the two World Wars, I have taken an interest in the pair of articles relating to this. For the moment, I am concentrating on the Great War, as I do, after all, have to start somewhere. With relation to this, I wanted to get people opinion on the best way to list the losses. I have split it currently into Test, First-class and additional losses. I appreciate in terms of human life lost they are all equal, but from a cricket point of view (which is what most people reading this article will be looking from) the Test cricketers do generally have more prominence and so forth. However, I still think at the moment that the list is difficult to read down, especially if the reader is looking for someone in particular. I am tempted to either use a subheading, or embolden the name:

Leonard Moon

Claude Newberry

  • Private Claude Newberry died 1 August 1916 aged 27, and is buried at the Delville Wood Cemetry, Somme, France. He played four Tests for South Africa in 1913 and 1914.
  • Private Claude Newberry died 1 August 1916 aged 27, and is buried at the Delville Wood Cemetry, Somme, France. He played four Tests for South Africa in 1913 and 1914.

Any preferences, alternatives or general comments? Harrias (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My first thought is that if the other one is called Cricket in World War II should this not be called Cricket in World War I? Oh, and I think WPMOS would be against using the horizontal division lines. SGGH ping! 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The horizontal divisions are just to split up my two examples here, couldn't think how else best to do it. A table would probably have worked better.. I agree with the name, especially as Great War redirects to World War I. Harrias (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an argument that the "correct" Commonwealth English is First World War, which was the term used in all the official histories. World War I was original the Americna usage, though this distinction is increasingly breaking down. Parts fo the present article seem very close paraphrases of sources like the National Army Museum piece on cricket and war (linked form external links) and the CWGC leaflet on cricketers. A revamp is probably needed to avoid copyvio. A lot of the stuff in the lead (that about WG Grace for example) probably really belongs in its own section. David Underdown (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's a mess, and most, if not all of it will need rewriting. All I've really had a look at so far is the list of cricketers, and the paras in the lead that I inline cited to the Cricinfo article. A lot of what is in the lead at the moment will move into its own section(s) I think. Harrias (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking over it again, it occurs to me that with the exception of the mention of a couple of players who were killed, and the ANZACs at Gallipoli, it's really pretty much "English Cricket in teh Great War". Did the war have direct impact on domestic cricket elsewhere, the CWGC leaflet mentions the end of inter-island competition in the West Indies, what about Australia etc. Even section names like "Overseas" are potentially problematic from this point of view, perhaps "At the Front" might be better? David Underdown (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Julien Fountain?

The article on the name Julian included, in its list of people, a redlink for Julien Fountain, English cricket coach. An editor removed this name from the list as "nn". I leave it to you cricket mavens to decide if he should be added to the list of articles wanted; if he's notable enough for an article, his name should also be restored to the Julian article. JamesMLane t c 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He's possibly notable for playing for the Great Britain national baseball team.[2]Hack (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he has on occasion coached the West Indian tean, which probably makes him notable for his cricket-related activities.[3] JH (talk page) 11:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First-class players lists - progress so far

Just ten more Pakistani teams' rosters to save now, thus: (bracketed number refers to number of first-class games as of when I last checked their Cricket Archive first-class match list)

  • Faisalabad (210) (saved, still to import)
  • Peshawar (233) (saved, still to import)
  • Karachi Whites (236) (saved, still to import)
  • United Bank Limited (236) (saved, still to import)
  • Rawalpindi (291) (saved, still to import)
  • Punjab (314) (saved, still to import)
  • Habib Bank Limited (337) (saved, still to import)
  • Pakistan International Airlines (355) (saved, still to import)
  • Railways (490) (inc. Indian Railways) (yet to save or import)
  • Hyderabad (508) (saved, still to import)

My saved list (Pakistani teams, players lists saved, but not yet imported) reads thus:

  • Sind (74) (done)
  • Pakistan Automobiles Corporation (85) (done)
  • Muslim Commercial Bank (96) (done)
  • Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (113) (done)
  • Pakistan Customs (123) (done)
  • Multan (173)
  • Lahore City (174)

Just seven more Indian teams to save, if you include Services, which incorporates both Pakistani Services and Indian Services. Not sure how I'm going to deal with that one..:

  • Baroda (329) (done)
  • Hyderabad (508) (saved, still to import)
  • Railways (490) (inc. P. Railways and I. Railways) (yet to save or import)
  • Rajasthan (265) (saved, still to import)
  • Services (276) (inc. I. Services and P. Services) (yet to save or import)
  • Tamil Nadu (276) (saved, still to import)
  • Uttar Pradesh (279) (saved, still to import)

Just keeping people updated on my to-do list. I think this is all accurate. Hope everyone is doing well. Bobo. 05:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob Willis

For anyone in the know, the article could use more information on the context of his selection both as Warwickshire and as England captain. Also any other context to his career outside the figures and what I've already got from supporting sources would be useful. It's coming a long nicely, got from 1983 onwards to go. SGGH ping! 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Also needs more on commentary. SGGH ping! 10:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Doings at ANI

At first, though I was mistaken, I thought the topic immediately above was introduced by a former WP:CRIC member who was recently blocked for making puerile outbursts. He has since re-emerged in another guise and the insults mentioned include one a couple of days ago on the user page of Nev1. Please be aware of this in case of more actions of this kind on cricket-related articles. ----Jack | talk page 14:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the permanent link. Hopefully he'll get bored. Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This is unfortunately to have a full-sclae brawl over a tag. Every article can do with improvement YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Bit of a shame really. Did some good work. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with a citation?

Some time ago, I wrote in the article on Tom Hayward: Surrey won the County Championship in his final season. Hayward had the rare honour for a professional of the time of captaining the side for six matches in August... It's now been flagged after "rare" with "citation needec", which is fair enough. The trouble is that it's one of those things which, though clearly true (in 1914 all 17 counties' appointed captains would have been amateurs as a matter of course), it's not that easy to find an appropriate citation for. Can anyone suggest something which would do the job? JH (talk page) 22:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it, as you say I think "rare" does need citing. I shall have a look for some citation for you. SGGH ping! 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we have "To Leicestershire's Ewart Astill belongs the honour of being the first professional captain appointed by his county Committee for a full season" from The players: a social history of the professional cricketer - Page 247 and "England's first professional captain, Len Hutton, on their books" from Amateurs and professionals in post-war British sport‎ - Page 51, so if you have both of them it might be nearby. Legends of Cricket does not mention the captaincy. Extensive Google, Google Books and JSTOR searches reveal nothing mentioning it, I'm afraid. However if you can find a cite that says "in 1914 all 17 counties' appointed captains would have been amateurs as a matter of course" I think that would suffice to cite it being "rare". SGGH ping! 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I've bow found another reference to Astill that's a little more precise, and will cite that. JH (talk page) 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some open FLC/FLRC/GANs etc etc


WP:GAN
Sam Loxton, Alastair Cook, Laurie Nash, Lindsay Hassett, Tim Paine, Australian cricket team in England in 1948

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we intending to create similar lists for leading run-scorers/wicket-takers? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well that could be quite easy if the article is already a GA/FA as the info on the notable centuries can be recycled. I wonder if McCabe's 6 Test centuries are enough, three of them were all time great innings. Hmm, with those tour articles, has anyone created a list of Test centuries in a certain series?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't find any. I think the tables below a long article are a bit silly and should be moved to another article if it's GA/FA. I suppose If you have enough to write about. No ones done Bradman yet! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You can farm a lot out of Bradman, Harvey, Clem Hill, Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe as many of their famous centuries are described in the prose. Although people might complain about the pre-WWII greats with only 6-8 100s. Same for every other FA/GA biog I guess. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And another FLC - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of India women ODI cricketers/archive1 -SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. ;) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK ????

That in early 2006, there were less than 100 FLs and that WP:CRIC accounted for about 20% of them [4] YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a sold effort! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hello folks. I'm trying to preserve the featured status of List of Cricket World Cup records and one of the major gripes was lack of precise referencing. I've done my best to get the details of each claim but I'm missing a couple. If anyone can eek them out of Cricinfo or otherwise, I'd be extremely grateful:

  1. Most consecutive centuries
  2. Most consecutive fifties
  3. Ground which has hosted most/2nd most World Cup matches.

Plus, any other help on sorting out some of the WP:OR in the prose would be good too...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Now just to hack that OR down... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm a ruthless OR hacker. SGGH ping! 13:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Then consider yourself in receipt of a VIP invitation to hack away... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Women's County Championship

Okay okay, let's see if I can get this one under my belt.

Women's County Championship teams

Berkshire Women Cheshire Women Derbyshire Women Devon Women Durham Women
East Anglia Women East Midlands Women Essex Women Hampshire Women Hertfordshire Women
Kent Women Lancashire and Cheshire Women Lancashire Women Middlesex Women Northumberland Women
Nottinghamshire Women Somerset Women Staffordshire Women Surrey Women Surrey Women Second XI
Sussex Women Sussex Women Second XI Thames Valley Women Wales Women Warwickshire Women
West Midlands Women West Women Wiltshire Women Worcestershire Women Yorkshire Women
Yorkshire Women Second XI        

The competition appeared to slim itself out over the 2004 and 2005 seasons. As of 2008, it appears there are nine divisions, including five subdivisions of Division Five, none of which have the matches marked as wa - while the other four do. I have been careful not to include these teams’ names in the list.

If it's okay with everyone else, I can make lists for each of these Women's teams, being careful of course to only count those matches listed as wa and not including those marked wmisc (most of which for the higher divisions are all the ones not marked as matches of the Women's County Championship).

As there are nearly 1700 (at last count) Women's List A matches to go through, this seems a task much more suited to going horizontally than vertically.

If anyone sees an obvious flaw in the plan, please feel free to tell me - I'm sure there's likely to be something my brain has overlooked. Bobo. 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has come up with any immediate objections, I will see what I can do as a starting point. Bobo. 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Blackjack

Blackjack has nobly edited thousands of articles. However, in line with the precepts of historical research it must be pointed out, as it has been in the past, that he frequently references sources he himself has compiled and published on the web. Within these works which are essentially lists compiled from several secondary sources, are unsubstantiated claims about the origins of cricket and a few assertions, perhaps accidentally, written in such a way that suggest they are either the result of blackjacks own PRIMARY research or are cribbed from other established reference books. In strictly research terms this is more a little unsatisfactory albeit that blackjack has created many excellent inserts to the project. It is interesting that blackjack is often critical of others referencing when his own is, in one sense, non-existant. ~~ Dr A Tillmann~~

I'm not aware of anything being pointed out in the past, so may I ask what has prompted this (ie: why now, is there a particular event that has triggered this), and could you provide some examples of where BlackJack refers to sources that he has written himself? Anything that is considered a reliable source can be used on Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
How tedious. I suggest this saga is moved to my talk page where I can devote space to it without it disrupting the business of WP:CRIC and boring everyone else to distraction. My answer to the first mail is already there. ----Jack | talk page 10:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Having read what you've written there, I can't see that you've done anything wrong. JH (talk page) 11:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the references to Bj's lists of classification of matches and the text appended to that (His work on 1800- etc on Cricket). The text is dubious historically and not a reliable source. His match list is his own and whilst it has 99 percent congruity with the 'official' lists (from which it is cribbed) - there are, or have been variations. The refs should be published works of credibility not one's own lists and speculations. The ACS, cricketarchive, Bowen et al have a track record and met with the approval and provenance of the cricket 'academic' fraternity. I haven't time to go into precise detail but the first para of Bj's Classification of Matches(link from several of his edits) proves this point, at least to my satisfaction. Bj is very quick to, well slag others off. Anything he edits, whilst usually sound, does carry a health warning. It is not used by the mainstream cricket historian, of that I can assure you completely. ==Dr A Tillmann== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.17.237 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved "Dr Tillman's" second post to my own talk page and will continue this discussion there as it concerns me directly and not WP:CRIC although I will add to this topic in due course to summarise. I think that's fair enough. ----Jack | talk page 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually he does have a point about the 1800-15 English seasons so I've amended those by making Scores & Biographies the essential citation for the individual matches. My mistake, but easily rectified. ----Jack | talk page 19:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Jack's response

I've moved "Dr Tillman's" second post back to this page to set a few facts straight. I think it is safe to assume that he is a member of the ACS, from which I resigned in 2007 and have never been forgiven by certain people. These include one who sent an anonymous letter to my wife, possibly Tillman himself, whereas I have always dealt openly by e-mail. Even on here, although I use a childhood nickname, it is no secret that I am called John Leach and I am the author of a certain internet site that is about early cricket history.

You will note that I am accused of "cribbing" my matchlist from another source, presumably the ACS. By the way, there is no such thing as an "official list" of first-class matches played prior to the ICC ruling on first-class status in 1947.

I would refer you to a couple of links that are relevant to Tillman's point above re the track record of the ACS and CricketArchive. No one is saying they do not have a track record. First, there is this page from the ACS site re its Early Cricket Project. As you can see, it is a list of matches played in the year 1730 (this is one example; there is one page per year from 1697 to 1850 in all). You will note that each entry has a source (e.g., Waghorn) and a contributor and that for every one of the 1730 matches, the contributor is someone called JL. If you look at any page up to 1800, you will see that JL contributed some 90%-plus of the matches in this list. For confirmation of who JL is, see this page.

The second link is a contributors page on CricketArchive and you will see the same name there almost dead centre. But what did this intrepid contributor contribute to CricketArchive? Well, he wrote up in textfiles virtually all the scorecards and other match entries that the site has published up to and including the 1800 season. The proprietors of CA will readily acknowledge that.

All of this material that the ACS and CA have published came from my site having been compiled from a detailed study of Buckley, Haygarth, Waghorn, etc. Admittedly, my classification page is a later document but I used the same material augmented by a further study of Haygarth re 1801 to 1825.

It would be wrong of me to say that the ACS and CA "cribbed" my material because I did willingly provide it to them, but it is utterly and completely wrong of "Dr Tillman" to assert that I cribbed anything from the ACS. So, if my material is dubious and not a reliable source, what is the ACS doing by having it on their own site? Not only that, they have published articles written by me in their quarterly journal and on their website. The Cricket Society, whose secretary invited me to contribute to them, has also published my material. Please note that this edit carries a health warning. ----Jack | talk page 06:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you answer my question for yourself. You have transcribed works from the standard texts on the subject with Britcher, due to unavailability, being a late entrant. Have you been through the contemporary newspapers etc a la McCann?
You have done a good job of close reading and transcribing the standard works. Your textual suppositions regarding the origins of cricket etc, have no research basis. It is worth remembering that a lot of cricketarchive has been transcribed from source materials ie:scorebooks, as was much of Haygarth. Have you found any new sources, any New scores - no, you have found scores in the aforementioned books and made a case for their inclusion in the ongoing list. Many of the scores post 1800 can be found in newspapers and therein lies the contextual material for their inclusion in this list or another. With pre 1799 it is a matter of detailed research into existing materials, some of which is online incidentally, through the ATHENS portal.
Your material was published in the ACS Journalto stimulate interest in pre 1800 cricket. It did leading to the WP. The response to your work was mainly critical, your response to that was to send unpleasent emails and to resign from the ACS! Dr A Tilmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.13.90 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite a bit to answer here. I've been away for three days so apologies for not replying sooner. Apologies also for the post on here about source books to be used for HCCC, which I've just rediscovered and, as I thought, has been taken out of context, though it is my fault for not explaining what I meant. We have a guideline called WP:UNDUE on the site and my reason for disagreeing with the person who was insisting on two books being used was because of that guideline. His insistence might deter the editor from using other sources. I don't actually care what other sources are used as long as it is a wide range.
I'll try to deal with all your other points and then I have something else to say myself.
I have no access to the works of Britcher and have seen only a list produced by another person, apart from those scorecards which are on CA. Have I been through the contemporary newspapers? No, I don't have time and why should I? My work is essentially a consolidation of the works of Buckley, Waghorn, Haygarth, etc. in a single volume. Why should I spend time going through old newspapers when Buckley & Co. have already done it? As I said elsewhere, most writers get their information from other books and that is what I have done. I have not claimed to do anything else but, if you think I need to clarify this in my work, please tell me where and I will probably take it on board.
My "textual suppositions regarding the origins of cricket, etc." have an analysis base. You are confusing research with analysis. I have presented my analysis of the origin of cricket based on the available facts that have already been researched. If new data comes to light, I will re-analyse and may even draw a different conclusion. I am not a researcher, I am an analyst. The two roles are significantly different.
Why is it so important to you that new scores must be found? I repeat that I am not a researcher. My task was to analyse the existing data and draw conclusions, which is what the vast majority of writers do, especially if they are analysts like myself.
What is the ATHENS portal and how is it accessed? I'm sure a few people on here would be interested in that.
For the umpteenth time, my resignation from the ACS was due to the waste of my time in trying to get its committee to address the issue about first-class cricket in the 18th century and to progress the early cricket project mentioned above. I decided I would be better off going it alone.
And as for sending unpleasant e-mails, I received a number of very unpleasant messages myself and some of my comments were made in retaliation. The most unpleasant of all was not even addressed to me but to my wife and it was anonymous, just as you are being anonymous now. I may have said things in e-mails that I shouldn't and if I have overstepped the mark then I apologise for that. If there is anything on my site that actually offends anyone, rather than something which you and your chums merely disagree with, I will remove it. But apologies should be forthcoming to me as well as from me and in particular from the individual who sent that nasty and cowardly letter to my wife, which is far worse than anything I might have written on an e-mail in the heat of the moment (and always in my own name).
You wrote above something about me tending to "slag people off". Okay, if I have created that impression, I apologise for it. But your posts on here have included words like "dubious", "unreliable", "cribbed", "health warning" and yet you have not given one specific example to justify your use of that sort of terminology. You no doubt think you are being constructive but in fact you are generalising and that in itself amounts to slagging me off. Please give me some examples of text in my work which are factually wrong, not just opinions of mine that you disagree with. I always welcome any feedback that is constructive.
Finally, I think this whole ridiculous saga has gone on too long. I thought it had finished, but then I come on here last weekend and find a whole topic devoted to me which could have been handled via a question on my own talk page. I'm sure the members of WP:CRIC must be sick of the whole thing. I suggest that you drop me a line as you have done in the past and we'll work something out that will maybe move things forward around our mutual interest in early cricket. And the invitation to you to join Wikipedia still stands. It's time to stop dragging up past differences and move forward. ----Jack | talk page 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
By Athens portal, I expect our anon contributor is referring to Athens (access and identity management service), and has in mind the collections of 17th, 18th and 19th century newspapers recently put online by the British Library (and possibly also the archives of The Times). I beleive some of these may also via local libraries. David Underdown (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, David. I'll look at this. ----Jack | talk page 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_64&oldid=1137387639"