Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

New articles at review

Peer review
Featured article
Featured list
Good article

YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... notable?

Thinking of prodding David Bates (groundsman). I think he'd need to pass WP:BIO and I can't spot that he does. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd wondered about him. Oddly there was (maybe still is) a rather prominent mention of him in the Northamptonshire CCC article, as if he was crucial to its long and occasionally distinguished history. Johnlp (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Lol. On the basis of Dweller's law, I'll prod the bio. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain national cricket team

Could somebody take a look at Great Britain national cricket team? Do the three lions actually represent the Scottish Saltires? Woogee (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article needs deleting if you ask me - there is no Great Britain national cricket team, nor has there ever been. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree: should be deleted. It's pretty arguable whether GB is a nation, as well; I thought it was the largest of the British Isles and the larger bit of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And even if you argue (correctly) that we're the reigning world champions (ever since the Paris Olympics of 1900), the team that won the accolade then wasn't really representing GB as such. Johnlp (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe make it into a redirect to England cricket team, as it's a topic that someone unfamiliar with cricket might try typing in. JH (talk page) 10:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Not even worth doing a redirect. As Andrew said, there is no and has never been a Great Britain cricket team. Needs deleting. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Prod'd, but probably AfDable. SGGH ping! 16:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Britain national cricket team. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooops: while I was filling in the AFD forum using Twinkle, it was tagged for PROD. Not sure what to do now. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think AfD superceeds PROD, as something can be AfDed while prodded. SGGH ping! 16:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If the PRODder is happy to unPROD it, then AFD may be a better route because it provides a more permanent form of deletion. AFD and PROD both take 7 days, so PROD is no quicker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One day Internationals Teams

What I think is the same person who created Great Britain national cricket team has also created this article: One day Internationals Teams. I'm not sure where to start with what is wrong with this article - it includes only 12 of the 22 teams to have played ODIs plus one team that doesn't actually exist, it gives one home ground for each of the 13, and two of the flags are completely wrong. AfD or speedy? Andrew nixon (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The user's talk page, if it is the same person, is a catalogue of disapproval and warnings: the cumulative effect is actually rather amusing, because here's someone who patently isn't listening. I think speedy this one, but be prepared for the likelihood that it won't make much difference and that something else unnecessary or unsatisfactory will be created very soon. Johnlp (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Foster Robinson, Gloucestershire captain

Who he? --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stub created. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bowlers of two types

I just thought I'd drop a note to say that there is a CFD discussion on renaming to Category:Canadian bowlers to reflect the fact that it refers to players of bowls, rather to cricketers. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13#Category:Canadian_bowlers.

That discussion is probably of no significance to this project, but it prompted me to do a search for other categories of bowlers, and I found only one for cricket bowlers: Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers.

The categories for players of bowls are in Category:Bowls players, and all follow that format. However, for the avoidance of ambiguity, it would be better to rename Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers to something more specific, such as Category:United Arab Emirati cricket bowlers. However, it's the only one of its sort, so should be kept or deleted? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would delete it. Too few articles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why there needs to be sub-articles. Every bowler can bat, every batsman can bowl (a little). There should exist only "United Arab Emirati cricketers" or "Canadian cricketers". SGGH ping! 16:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There could be subcats for types of bowlers (leg-spinners etc) as that's a binding factor that strong, but I don't see the need for a master cat of bowlers as that would be at least an 80-90% overlap with the cricketer cat. And the sub cats shouldn't be divvied up by team either, they should only exist at the cricket level. —SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
But is Ricky Ponting going in the category "off spinner"? What about Andrew Strauss, he would go in "relatively innocuous medium-slow pace bowler". Likewise, is Monty Panesar a "right hand batsman"? I don't mean to sound flippant, but I can foresee a few problems. SGGH ping! 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with you on the possibility of problems, that's why I said could, not should. However if one is looking at a leg-spinner's page, it's likely to want to go to another leg-spinner's page and the category could be helpful. But again, I agree that it can be filled with pages that shouldn't really be there. No clear answer. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I don't mean to quash the idea, just being devils advocate. SGGH ping! 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
And anyway, Monty Panesar is left-handed. Johnlp (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete it. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious notability

I think we can all remember the debate about Basanta Regmi a few weeks ago, which had no consensus and was thus kept (much to my delight!). Well, these cricketers should be easier for us to make our minds up about on the issue of dubious notability, or as I see it none whatsoever. But still, don't want to go tagging for deletion without having a general consensus to do so.

The following cricketers all refer to the Finland and in my opinion fail WP:CRIC and WP:ATH.

AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of them have played in European Championship matches, which are official limited overs internationals (the old ECC Trophy/Affiliates Championship/Representative championship aren't), so are notable according to the current wording of WP:CRIN, but the whole group of them is filled with original research and they are poorly referenced. Thurling almost certainly never played for Notts Forest. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I created all of these articles (though, mercifully for me, I didn't include the portion about Scott Thurling). I found myself adding most of them for having played in the European Championships, and, while I don't desperately recall, simply felt it right to "fill in the gaps", as it were. I'm certain I bunched these together on my Sandbox when I was making lists of players of individual nationalities, and I guess I added them all in one fell swoop.
Naturally I would be sad to see any of the articles I created deleted, but if some are generally more notable than others, I won't feel too dispirited. Bobo. 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep any who played in the European Champs. Who's left? --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP Progress 14/03

Date Unreferenced BLPs % done
24 Jan 355 0%
31 Jan 301 15%
7 Feb 281 21%
14 Feb 242 32%
21 Feb 221 38%
28 Feb 147 59%
7 Mar 124 65%
14 Mar 59 83%

One last push should finish these off this week! Harrias (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done chaps. Sorry, I've not been helping much, but I mostly edit from a computer that can't access the cricket stats sites (in case you hadn't noticed) and the rump of articles that are left pretty much need that to work out / demonstrate notability. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done indeed. A fantastic effort that. FYI, User:DASHBot is now doing a daily automated update at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket articles/Unreferenced BLPs, so you actually have 67 to do! Hopefully the bot will tick away every day without too much drama. The new uBLP list page should be watchlisted by a few of us, and displayed prominently on various project pages to ensure that the number doesn't creep back up again.The-Pope (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognized Content

Came across a bot that automatically updates a page with recognized content, and set us one up at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Recognized content. It's a manually run bot, so only runs about once a week at the moment, but it's definitely more reliable than us remembering to update stuff all the time! We can alter what is on there; at the moment I think I've put more or less everything, but we don't necessarily need to have all the DYKs for example. Harrias (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's good that it tracks the failed GAs/FAs as well YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The FT seems to be missing. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, but I think it's because the banner wasn't on the topic talk page. I've added it now and we'll see if it gets updates in the next sweep! Harrias (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Marshall - photos

Does anyone have or know of any pictures we can use for Malcolm Marshalls article? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for "notable players" at Left-arm orthodox spin

I have grabbed this question (which had just become an ANI thread though IMO unnecessary) and put it to you. Should there be stricter criteria for "notable"? It has spawned from a discussion about a Bangladeshi player but it begs bigger questions. Do we have a guideline/consensus to stop such debates from arising? Please hop over to the talk page to give an opinion. Cheers SGGH ping! 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just generally, the rankings, although imprefect could be used, if an average, or total time above "700" was used, rather than the peak rating YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article

I have created a new article - List of Test Match Cricket Centuries at The Basin Reserve. I wasn't sure about the introduction so I just stole it from The Basin Reserve Page. Also I don't know how to add photos. Thoughts? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few changes but only minor ones. Take a look now to see how images are used. SGGH ping! 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to the original question, but out of curiosity, should titles be "Test March Cricket Centuries" or "Test Cricket Centuries"? —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say List of Test cricket centuries at the Basin Reserve Harrias (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that that sounds better. I can't find a way of changing the title though. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If we are decided on that title, one can move the article. Give me a shout. SGGH ping! 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks everyone, I've renamed it. I wonder if it will need to be added to soon... Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable club?

Just noticed this at WP:DYK, and I'm pretty sure it fails WP:CRIN, but thought I'd check here for opinions before submitting it for deletion. Wilbrahams Cricket Club don't play in an ECB Premier League, and as far as I can tell don't have a particularly notable history. They are undoubtedly old, but I'm not sure that in itself is enough. My dad is old after all... Harrias (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they're as notable as my cricket club, which isn't very notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside from that, on the DYK point, I think the article fails the 1,500 character minimum for a DYK article. I'll check. – ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does, only 876 characters of readable prose. Be that as it may, shouldn't the article be PRODded or sent to Afd? – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It'll never sneak past teh prose checkers YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They're so non notable that they don't even have any scorecards on CricketArchive, and that has scorecards from some league's third XI competitions. So yeah, non notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

More rubbish by Hilditch

North out, Steve Smith in, please YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No way —Aaroncrick (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
With Aaron here. While North has not been up to scratch (of course he is 40* at the time of writing) what exactly has Smith done to deserve a Test cap? (Other than being born in Sydney of course ...) -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Let him mature a bit more; he's only 20 for goodness sake. Don't get me started on his bowling. I'm sure that Katich could bowl better if he was coached by Warnie ... —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like monkey and guru greg are outnumbered. Well Neil Harvey only played for 1.5 seasons before getting in; FC average of 60 (albeit in a dozen games) yes his bowling isn't good enough (unless something changed against SA) but NZ can't bat properly and neither will Pakistan sans Y&Y. And North although he did well in Joburg his selection was very lucky. Yes he made centuries twice in England but Australia had already taken the lead by the time the fourth wicket was down, they were miles ahead. Hodge is hated by the selectors, and Klinger won't get selected even if he averages 90 because the Australian selectors want counterattacking batsmen. They could move Katich or Watson down to bring in Jaques or Rogers, but they won't. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

IPL more relentless spam than ever?

I didn't see IPL last year but has the advertising become even more incessant. They have an ad on the TV scorebaord in the middle of the over and the commentators shut up when the camera zooms into the board and the ad is played at full volume. Also they have more junk; in addition to the "DLF maximum" they also have a "??? time-out" and some other "??? catch". When are they going to say "Hero Honda hat-trick" and "Ford Fiesta Four" or something..... The relentless tele-spamming is really getting to me, not to mention spending all their time panning to celebs in the crowd, and the cheerleading commentary, saying that every play is top-class and ignoring full tosses. How did KKR manage to win two matches..... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I must admit I quite agree, it is incessant to the point of being ridiculous, and I think it is (marginally) worse than last year. However, I've got to give credit to ITV4 in the UK, who now cut away from the match during those annoying mid-over adverts and show us either their web address or details of the upcoming games... it's better than the adverts are anyway.
While I'm on the topic of ITV4's coverage, there's something about the young Indian woman they've got presenting it that annoys me, and I can't figure out what... — AMBerry (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't get this year's package because I got sick of hearing "DLF maximum" every time someone hit a six (in fact, I don't think the words six or sixer were ever used by the commentators). I'm guess the young lady in question is Mandira Bedi? This is what T20 is about, according to her.—SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you. Turned the TV off after Rudi's boxing style intro. “Scorers are u ready? Umpire Tiffin are u ready? Fielding captain are u ready? Batsmen are you ready?. That was enough for me. Jevansen (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is Mandira Bedi. Apparently she was dropped from the Indian telecast and therefore moved to grace your ITV screens. Luckily I don't get to see either of the two in the US! —SpacemanSpiff 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes I too had enough DLF maximums. Cricket has to have a certain sense of decorum! SGGH ping! 09:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you how pleased I am that I've never seen an IPL game. I don't know what it is about it, but it depresses me even more than the incessant rise of 20/20 and the dreadful mess that's become of West Indies and Zimbabwe in recent years. Although not as much as the Stanford aberration. Thank the stars that man was a crook, because he was killing cricket even as the cricket world hailed him for saving it. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

IPL is the only cricket competition that many people around the world can watch live, legally and for free (through YouTube). If the ICC or the national boards could have as much ideas to promote their own competitions as the IPL organizers have, we may have other opportunities, but I doubt that they'll do the same in the near future. OrangeKnight (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous, even the toss has a named sponsor now, and the captains were all praising 10 minutes of singing in the opening ceremony as earth-shattering etc. Just 20 guys jumping on a wooden board. The worst thing is the easy brainwashing by the corporate juggernaut. And it seems to have affected the random hapless Indian who doesn't normally follow cricket per Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Cricket:_IPL they are saying that IPL is better than the WC and should be on wiki's front page; half the players are Indian quota players and barely FC standard. Some of the Indian "pacers" in the IPL bowl and 110-115kph with 50% full tosses, wides, half-volleys, long hops etc; the Australian/NZ women bowl at 120kph with accurate yorkers when the T20 was on TV. Some R Sathish bowled about 3 consec 110 kph fullies and Y Pathan in that "amazing innings" off 100 from 37.... so many boundaries from full tosses.... McCabe, Harvey, Trumper, Hammond and Compton would have been no match for 110 kph fullies, no doubt about it lol. Hopefully this spam does not make it onto the front page of WP:ITN!!! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay here it is; I don't think you guys here are a big fan of Indian Premier League. Tried to read your post and tried to understand your reasons behind it and the conclusion I've found that you guys haven't watched it carefully. IPL is not a spam or something crap. IPL is different form of game. I guess all you guys here haven't seen much of T20 cricket because the two biggest countries which started t20 Australia and England have their own domestic T20 tournaments. Even if IPL is called DLF IPL ( with the name of sponsor) Australian domestic T20 tournament is called KFC Twenty20 bash (with the name of sponsor). Why don't you have problem with that??? IPL is not spam its just cricket with more spices, even the hardcore fans of Cricket from all over the world have appreciated the concept of Indian Premier League.

The person who is calling T20 the killing of cricket is none but a pessimistic person as T20 is not killing the Test Cricket its only making the cricket more dynamic. T20 is a revolution and when some revolution happens many people can't digest it.

Now getting back to IPL; it is the only tournament that calls all the best players of world at one place and asks them to exchange talent. County does it but in different way. County is I admit more simple, easy to go through but more political as it lacks transparency but as long as it is serving Cricket it is the best Domestic Cricket. In the same way IPL is; in different form of game. After all where would you now see Adam Gilchrist and Mathew Hadden one of the best Opening duos playing against each other. IPL calls the players from all over the world with the consent of the national boards of countries. It is the best talent exchange as a newbie Yusuf Abdullah from SA would never get a chance to play with veteran Anil Kumble or Zaheer Khan would never get a chance to play under Jonty Rhodes. IPL is innovative, it is dynamic, I admit it has some showbiz but if you are a real cricket fan you can watch some of world's best cricketers performing their best. Nitish.game (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New articles at review

Peer review
Featured article
Featured list
Good article

YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another new article!

Just created this: List of Test cricket centuries at The WACA Ground. I wrote some stuff on there myself this time so there may well be a few errors in it. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, so are we just going to have Test centuries not ones for ODIs? What about creating a cat eventually? —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to fix the table when you use the sort options as it goes a bit wild? =S —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I've undone the table change. Good job on the other tweaks though. Adding number of balls sounds like a good idea too. I was just going to do test centuries, I'm not sure if ODIs would have to go on a seperate page. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the SCG at the moment, it's taking a lot longer! Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the FL reviewers would want a sortable table so it might help it we can get a FL regular to comment on how to format the tables correctly. —Aaroncrick (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Merging cells always makes things tricky. I had to remove all the merged cells from List of Philadelphia Flyers players to get that to sort properly. I'll have a play in my sandbox at some point and see what I can do. Harrias (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou, my play-around didn't work too well. —Aaroncrick (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If you call it "List of international centuries" you could have Test and ODI in one article. Or would it be too long? SGGH ping! 13:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
For the WACA it would only be an additional 19 so that sounds ok. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: List of International cricket centuries at The WACA Ground Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions: Normally our century lists include the innings, so a column with the innings and a reference to the CA or CI scorecard might be helpful at the end. For sorting to work the rowspans will need to be removed and the dates etc would have to repeat in each row. Also, it might be worthwhile adding these lists to {{International cricket centuries}} with a new section for grounds. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to make it sortable: List of international cricket centuries at The Basin Reserve. Do you think the team of the century scorer should go into a different column? The way it is at the moment you cannot sort by team. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Per WP:MOSFLAG, you shouldn't label players purely with flags anyway. Harrias talk 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks. I think it looks a lot better now. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree; sorry if I sounded a bit snappy with the MOS comment. To improve the sortability of the dates try using {{dts|format=dmy|1974|December|11}} to display 11 December 1974. It will then sort by year, then month, then day, rather than at the moment sorting by day, then month, then year. Harrias talk 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great work Apples. The SCG list just goes to show how rapidly and ridiculously the conditions have been altered in favour of the batsmen, per the boom in centuries in the last 10 years. But the WACA and Basin Reserve have not for some reason.... But I think a list of the other Australian grounds will show a big boom as well YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have completly finished the SCG now. What is the deal with the new article template at the top, can it be removed by anyone? Also might it be a good idea to seperate the grounds into different countries in the template at the bottom? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag is auto added if you use the article wizard. Not sure if the creator should remove the tag, but if you create as a new page instead of doing it through the wizard, the tag will not be added. I've removed it from this one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Test cricketers

and some other lists of articles need RC patrolling on RCs linked; with Jpeeling gone, vandalism is lasting long time on the weekends and British daytime YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct? I'm guessing not, but I couldn't find evidence one way or the other on CI. —SpacemanSpiff 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes and no. His grandfather came from Kashmir, and Kabir spent some of his youth there. See this article. Harrias talk 08:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there then, I really wish these reports would at least say where in Kashmir. I'll leave it as is, if anyone has a better informed opinion they can remove/replace the cat. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lalit Modi

Eyes might be needed. I'm getting the impression that many IPL/Modi supporters just see IPL as equivalent to one of those Asian weddings where being the most lavish etc etc counts the most in proving one's superiority YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting about death of Ron Hamence

Cricinfo said Invincibles were in 1948 and "Adelaide Now" and Deccan Herald, the sponsors of the Deccan Chargers have copied it in incorrectly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually The Deccan Chronicle owns the chargers, not the Herald. —SpacemanSpiff 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Full form or abbreviation?

In Template:Infobox cricketer biography, is it necessary to write the full form of 'Test cricket', 'One Day Internationals', 'First-class cricket', 'List A cricket', or abbreviations are ok like 'Test', 'ODI', 'FC', 'LA'. Some random IP user is making edits to some articles like Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and says that this is the proper British English writing forms and changing to full form. Need your views on this.--Managerarc(talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The abbreviations should be good enough IMO, they are all linked anyway and very very common usage. The only one that may merit a full form is "List A" instead of "LA" as that I believe is not commonly used (at least not in the subcontinent). —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe in "List-A" and "One Day" or "One Day International" for the parts where it discusses debut and last match, however the statistics part (the columns) should be LA/OD, ODI, Test, FC, T20 etc. SGGH ping! 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi - point him towards the template guidelines. As Spaceman says, as long as they are linked, the short form is to be used (in the statistics), and in actual fact is necessary otherwise the infobox has width issues. With the 4 column box, Test, ODI, FC, and List A works best (List A fits and as it is the less obvious one I tend to use it); For the 2-3 column version, the abbreviations are not always necessary. Claiming "british writing forms" is pretty stupid. Expanding the date ranges as in some of his edits to 2002, 2003, 2004 etc is just wrong.—MDCollins (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another first-class cricketer up for deletion

George Blackmore, former cricketer for the Europeans and Kent, up for debate. His article is here, his AfD page is here, and his stats are here (CA) and here (CI).

Hope everyone is well. Bobo. 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Category for discussion at Commons

See commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/03/Category:Cricket players. –Moondyne 03:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Super Fours

Does anyone know if these are put together on a regional basis, random mixing up by selectors from year to year, or the palyers can just sign up wherever they want? Also of the women's counties, only Kent have an article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the teams are selected by the England selectors. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hwange Country Club

Needs some help from you guys, I reckon. I forget why it is on my watchlist. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this ground really notable? It hasn't hosted any full international matches, first-class matches, List A matches or Twenty20 matches. Harrias talk 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I would argue it is non-notable, as per the above. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Have PRODed the article. Harrias talk 09:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely minor but have you seen this re its alternate name? ----Jack | talk page 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIN needs revision

The above case of George Blackmore has raised a few interesting points. The main one is that WP:CRIN may need to be revised, even though most of it was written by me. On reflection, I have to ask what exactly is "notable" about someone who played a handful of first-class matches? What exactly is notable about anyone who ever played in limited overs, especially the Twenty20 rubbish?

As the site is so fond of lists, why not populate some lists of first-class cricketers with the meagre details of those who made a few appearances instead of individual articles, especially as those articles tend to be stubs and orphans. I, as one of the worst offenders, have seen the futility of that. Having said that, see List of early English cricketers to 1786 which contains basic information about numerous players who made a couple of appearances and do not have an individual article. A standard?

Any thoughts? ----Jack | talk page 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts come to mind.
  1. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles that are what I like to call "super stubs" with only 1 FC appearance, lets say, shouldn't perhaps be discounted in light of future expansion. Particularly about lower level cricket matches (not notable enough on their own, but notable information for a subject which passes the current CRIN.)
  2. Having FC, LA or T20 experience is a quantitative assessment criteria, most other forms would be too subjective I feel "A few appearances" is a bit vague, and if we left it to, say, three appearances, well that's just back to quantitative assessment again. I cam see the arguments that appear when we have "list of notable off-spinners" appearing on such articles.
  3. I know T20 has its detractors, but given its impact around the world I think being against it as an inclusion criteria would make a lot of notable players non-notables, particularly in the future.

Just some thoughts that come to mind. I'm in no way admonishing your suggestions, merely advocating devilry. :) SGGH ping! 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mkativerata makes a good point at that AfD though: FC cricket was not always professional like it is today (professionalism that forms the basis of players of FC cricket's notability per WP:ATHLETE) as it was at one time an amateur or semi-professional thing. SGGH ping! 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well salary shouldn't be a criteria of notability, else a person in the top 10 in swimming or track cycling would be nn but for their govt scholarship YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with BlackJack. It is very hard to defend WP:CRIN at some AfD discussions when the only source for the article is a scorecard or two at CricketArchive. I think the "list" option with a redirect to the list for very early players and players with very limited sources is a worthwhile endeavour. This may also apply to some of the minor county players in English List A tournaments including the somewhat infamous autobiographic Gareth White article!
In fact, the only thing I can disagree with in the above is the use of value judgements about the relative worth of different forms of the game in determining notability. I do not particularly enjoy limited overs cricket (although I prefer the brief 20 over form more than the bloated and pedestrian 50 over version) but my views are not important. Availability of sources and compliance with WP:ATHLETE are the important considerations. Certainly it would be hard to argue that a person who has played the one match in the KFC Big Bash in front of 30,000 people is any less notable than a player who has played the one match in a Sheffield Shield match in front of a crowd consisting of the scorers, the groundstaff and (maybe) the players' wives and girlfriends! -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it could apply as a precedent but the position in List of early English cricketers to 1786 is that players with one or two appearances don't have a standalone article unless they acquired notability beyond those appearances. Okay, I accept that T20 and LO is going to be equated with FC for notability purposes, especially going forward. I like Mattinbgn's point about "a scorecard or two at CricketArchive". As you say, the number of sources is important and one thing I have tried to do with the early players is try to establish other sources besides the merely statistical. I would propose that if a player is only known via a scorecard, he is what User:Rnickel refers to as a bit-part player or an "extra". ----Jack | talk page 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

<ec> These AfDs seem to be coming up quite a bit at the moment (remembering in particular Basanta Regmi (AfD)). What I like about the current guidelines is that it is definite and non-subjective. It is clear cut. Maybe on the wrong sides of battle lines for some, but it does provide clarification on what is a very grey area. By saying that, I am in no way advocating that the current set-up is the best, nor that I would (necessarily) argue that 1 List A drubbing in the NatWest trophy (or whatever guise) for a minor county against a major one should meet notability. The Basanta Regmi argument was whether a match for Nepal against another country counted as a full international, even though the match was no where near List A. I opted for deletion, going by our current guidelines (as that is why they were put in place), even though I said I would support a (well-devised) revision, with full-consensus, of WP:CRIN.
As for "super-stubs" (I think "sub-stubs" would be better), yes WP:CRIN advocates inclusion, but as we've seen "Mr X played one FC match in 1764 for so-and-so village"+infobox is about the limit. A well-devised table which could include the stats horizontally for which they could be redirected would be an excellent solution to this problem, providing they could all be grouped in a logical way. That wouldn't really work for the Basanta Regmi-types, where full information can be found (mostly at U19 level) to make a "full-stub", but if we are considering a revision of WP:CRIN, it probably needs to be a full one.—MDCollins (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Merging content to lists, there's nothing that prevents us from doing so, with or without an AfD. However, if we apply the "scorecard" rule, we will also be eliminating potential notables as SGGH opined above. Many of the women cricketers, have nothing except scorecards and CI/CA profiles available easily, despite having played over a dozen or two games for the national teams. As it is we don't recognize Belinda Clark as the first double-century scorer in ODI cricket, but if we go the list route, a good chunk of these players who deserve articles wouldn't have them. Keeping the notability criteria as-is but discussing lists here would be my preference. —SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The ICC has a list of what it regards as "official cricket" at this link. It clearly defines all official internationals and it has a good list of what is regarded as first-class in each of the ten ICC full members, and whilst it doesn't go into as much detail for List A and Twenty20 cricket, I think we can certainly use it as a basis for any future rewrite of WP:CRIN.

Whatever happens though, we can't have the situation we currently have, where people argue that (the following names are made up) Frederick Harrington-Smythe, who played one first-class match for Lord Snooty's XI in 1827 is worthy of an article, whilst players who have played more than 20 official internationals aren't worthy of an article. Andrew nixon (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The official list is interesting but it doesn't answer the old question of how to classify matches played before the definition was made. We can only go on what the sources indicate on the understanding that, while the sources are verifiable, none are official in terms of any match's status.
Your Lord Snooty example encapsulates the current problem with WP:CRIN. My proposal is that the early cricketers list sets a precedent in that bit-part extras should go into a list of this kind but not have a standalone article unless a source indicates that they have additional notability: e.g., Sir Horatio Mann made just a couple or so known appearances but he has enormous importance as a major patron during the sport's formative years. The same precedent would be easily applicable to someone who made a single Sunday League appearance. ----Jack | talk page 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sometimes felt it's a little ridiculous for players who have played a single f-c match without distinguishing themselves to have an article. But I think the advantage of having a definite guideline means that we should stick with that, as it's hard to see what other truly objective guideline would be practical (requiring three matches, say, would be artitrary). I think the "professional league" thing is a bit of a red herring when it comes to cricket, where some of the greatest players have been amateurs. One wouldn't want to exclude a player such as Frank Cobden, who played only for Cambridge University and MCC, and hence never in a professional league, but was the hero of one of cricket's most famous matches (at least as far as those of us interested in the game's history are concerned). JH (talk page) 10:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A player like Cobden would easily pass the "additional notability" test because he is mentioned in numerous sources and is not just a name on a scorecard; besides, his feat in the 1870 match was exceptional. I think Cobden and his ilk pass WP:ATH because of its second criterion: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". The University Match, GvP and most MCC matches have always been first-class fixtures, so the amateurs involved have been taking part at the highest amateur level. ----Jack | talk page 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
While sometimes vague, I do think there only needs to be minor tweaking with WP:CRIC. Providing the player has played at least 1 first-class/List-A/T20 match then they are notable. Non-Test/ODI cricketers are more of a grey area, but at the end of the day we are a type of cricket archive, so providing they have played the above then they are notable. How many players who have played 1 of the above articles created? Not many, so not worth fussing over. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm like User:Mdcollins1984 and User:Jhall1. I'm relatively happy with the clear-cut-ness of the present CRIN, and with the fact that there are hundreds of obscure-but-notable cricketers who qualify but won't ever have more than a stub article, if that. We're not paper, and I don't think it matters too much. But aside from the pre-definition problem, where I'd always defer to Jack's knowledge, a couple of other areas do concern me: one a little, the other a lot.
The big one is the point raised by the Basanta Regmi deletion case, which highlighted the inadequacy and anomalies of the present limited definition at CRIN, and after which we really should have amended CRIN to avoid another such instance. The point is that CRIN relates reasonably well to historic cricket between, say, 1890 and 1990, but is wobbly before and after these dates, latterly because of the worldwide explosion in venues, teams and types.
My smaller worry is that we define people as "cricketers" when, in many cases, that cricket career formed a very small part of their total lives: you can get around that to a degree by the phraseology - "Samuel Beckett was a playwright who also played first-class cricket for..." rather than "Samuel Beckett was a first-class cricketer who played...". Because cricket is so well-served by cricketarchive and cricinfo, and other aspects of lives often aren't so well-served, we're at times in danger of emphasising something that the subject of the article might not recognise as significant, let alone notable. Johnlp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The smaller worry has long been a concern of mine too, When the article for William Worsley was first created, for instance, you'd hardly have known that there was anything more to him than cricket. Even now, the lead paragraph still only covers his cricket.Even consulting Wisden obituaries isn't always much help, as they tend to concentrate on the cricket to the near exclusion of everything else. But of course the Akmanmack is specifically for cricketers, rather than being a general encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. JH (talk page) 22:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't previously seen the Basanta Regmi deletion case and I agree with Johnlp that it does highlight a significant problem with CRIN because, within it, the status of international teams is a grey area. I wrote the section called "Clubs and teams" but it is domestic stuff that was aimed at classifying minor English club sides in particular. In the "Individuals" section, this statement does not help much at all: "The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971". The problem is that, strictly speaking, a limited overs international is defined by the ICC as one between teams of LOI/ODI status and there are only 16 of these at present.

Given that six countries with ODI status are all ICC Associate Members, and it seems inconsistent (typical ICC) that the rest of the Associates are excluded, I think CRIN should be amended to include any international match involving two teams representing Full or Associate Members. This would presumably put Mr Regmi above the line and make him notable in terms of his many international appearances. I would also amend major cricket to include these internationals: remember that "major cricket" is a completely unofficial term and has no definition which would exclude an international between, say, Nepal and Germany.

I suppose we ought to take a view about tournaments such as the World Cricket League but I think if we lower the line to a level just below Associate Member, that will solve the problem.

I notice the Regmi AfD made reference to the case of James Rice and, although I created the Rice stub (it isn't an article), it is players like this that are the basis of my original question above. Rice did play first-class cricket but he is only a name on three scorecards and I haven't seen anything else about him, although I suspect, from an earlier usage of the name Rice, that he is a pseudonym used by Thomas Assheton Smith II. Conspiracy theory! Rice definitely meets CRIN because he was involved in major cricket even if it is argued that the term "first-class cricket" should not apply so early. The point is what else can be said about him other than churning out the statistics of four matches (three major and one minor) which are included in S&B? ----Jack | talk page 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

ICC World Twenty20: Questions

Hello everybody,

I'm in the process of expending the articles related to this competition on fr.WP, but I have a few questions. On en.WP, we have a separate article for each edition for the male's event and for the women's one. The men's event has the title "ICC World Twenty20". I would be okay with that if we were speaking about the World Cup: the men's and women's events are clearly separated, and the men's event is clearly much more famous/notable than the other one. But, as for the World Twenty20, I think that the ICC try to promote it as ONE event (have a look here for exemple) including a men's competition and a women's competition, a little bit like the Olympics, for instance. If you agree with this assertion, we should have a global article "20xx ICC World Twenty20" dealing with BOTH competitions, and, if needed, two specific articles "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Men's competition" and "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Women's competition" (except, obviously, for the 2007 event). Moreover, the main article ICC World Twenty20 would contain complete sections about the women's competition. If you don't agree, an article ICC Women's World Twenty20 is badly needed. Waiting for your answers, OrangeKnight (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think seperate articles work fine, as although they are Twenty20 events, they are different events - if you see where I'm coming from. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review

Featured article
Featured list
Good article

Harrias talk 16:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Some of you saw the latest gripping instalment in the User:Richard Daft saga earlier. It is very clear from comments last time and again today that we are all sick and tired of this disruption. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and have removed the content in accordance with WP:BLOCK as the person is involved (yet again) in block evasion. I have put a notice on his latest talk page and reported the incident to WP:ANI. I suggest that this sets a precedent which we can all follow whenever there is a recurrance. ----Jack | talk page 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur entirely; the section below was a horrid mess of accusations and the opposite of a bunch of our policies (WP:AGF, WP:TROLL, WP:SOCKPUPPET), so I've blanked it. I've got no stakes in any kind of dispute, have never heard of the user, nor have I seen his edits to the mainspace, but this dispute being held here is silly: this is the forum for discussing improvement for cricket articles, not for fostering arguments that only get worse and worse over potential sockpuppetry. We'll get nowhere just by holding some messy argument here as opposed to in channels where people can actually take an honest look at the situation.
Was just about to suggest you post at WP:SSP, but I see you've already done that. Not sure if that's the right format (no experience in that kinda thing) but certainly you've made the right kind of move in this situation, despite his claims of harassment. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be submitted using the buttons towards the top and filled out correctly with evidence provided by diffs ideally. SGGH ping! 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Thanks for your help with this problem (again). I've used the SSP process as designed and left a message on the talk page of Rosebank2. ----Jack | talk page 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets trying to ruin the project

It relates to the ongoing dispute between BlackJack and the IPs and known socks. In my ignorance I asked what the problem was between them, got an answer and am now it appears the new frontline for the disrupter to wage his war. I have started a suspected sockpuppet thingy here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The admin who looks after that page, User:Spitfire, seems to be overworked at present but I've written to him to ask if he can possibly expedite the Daft case. The attack on AA was especially reprehensible. We really must summarily remove or revert anything that Daft puts on a cricket page from now on. ----Jack | talk page 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So its fine for BJ to wage war on this page but apparently no one else. I was asked a question and gave a polite response and got an abusive reply. Note too the level of abuse BJ has been laying at various peoples door without provocation. He sent me a post saying if I played ball I could play WP yet simultaeneous he was writing abusive posts elsewhere. My aim has always been to remove factual errors from the site. BJ perpertrates so many it is hardly surprising I have reverted some of his edits. Those of his followers who don't see that - well, the real historians, me about six others who've attempted to rectify laughable errors, we do at least have the real facts at our finger tips. As I've said before - Any reasonably informed cricket historian considers From Lads to Lords a questionable affair - some have been far more vitriolic. No doubt BJ will revert this. He reverts anything that opposes his position as WP's greatest cod historian. Any new editor is immediately Richard Daft. In fact six people have been tarred with BJ's brush. It is now not possible to log on and make any constructive suggestions unless one is a member of the dozen or so geniuses on this project.88.108.10.215 (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you want to discuss things, however, register a username so that we can be more sure that we are talking to only one person.The-Pope (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to revert inaccurate information then do so using references to back it up. Bitching with other users isn't going to get that done is it. The options are simple: Contribute or get lost. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
These "real historians" include the "distinguished" Keith Warsop who is a member of the ACS, which is itself a small and largely unknown statistical society with about 1000 members (see the article). It self-publishes various statistical stuff, some of which is quite good and some of which is not so good, for the benefit of its members; though admittedly a few items do find their way into the wider market, but they are hardly best-sellers. I did a search for this distinguished cricket historian Mr Warsop on Google and, apart from one purely ACS reference, all I can find is someone who wrote a book about Notts County in the 1980s. It may be the same man, I don't know, but I think that is football, not cricket.
If he does have the "real facts" at his fingertips, can we please see them, backed up by verifiable sources other than the ACS quarterly journal which regularly includes gems such as "List of left-handed batsmen who...." As I have said to him, if he will use the site in a positive and constructive way to improve its content, he is welcome. Unfortunately, he persistently attacks me because of some petty grievance or other from the past, when I was in the ACS, or he deliberately disrupts articles and talk pages to make his WP:POINT. As such, he is not welcome.
By the way, I don't claim that LTL is anything special (it was actually a fun project) but I have received a number of messages from people who read it and enjoyed it. And, would you believe it, some of them are ACS members. ----Jack | talk page 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we see a straightforward lie. BJ knows full well who Keith Warsop is and in fact has referenced him as 'the distinguished historian'. He has exchanged letters with Keith regarding pre 1800 cricket. ACS has 1500 members and has sold over 120,000 publications with 130,000 going to members. The Minor Counties Histories have sold 8000 copies alone whilst the pre 1900 match scores sold out. (About 40,000 copies) In fact I spoke to Keith yesterday about this. It was Keith who first discovered the Britcher book and compiled the first list of pre-1800 matches. Don't tell lies John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.4.232 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I don't know who he is: in fact, I explained that he is a member of the ACS, so where is the lie? In your little world, it is probably difficult to appreciate that no one in this world has heard of Mr Warsop and few have even heard of the ACS. I do not deny that he did some good work on the Britcher stuff but it was within the ACS. But another writer has published Britcher so are you saying Mr Warsop has had his credit stolen? If you are going to call him distinguished (notable, if you like) and thereby put him on the same level as Arlott, Altham, Webber, Simon Rae, etc., we need to see some wider evidence, which I looked for in Google. Several people have compiled lists of matches since the research was FIRST done by Messrs Waghorn and Ashley-Cooper; and then more comprehensively by Mr Buckley (note that I speak here about matches with no surviving scorecard; therefore mostly pre-S&B). Mr Warsop's list from 1772 to 1800 was very similar to mine and to those proposed by other people. If he wants to claim all the credit, or if you want to claim it for him, go ahead. When I have used the word "distinguished" it was to quote you, as anyone on here can see.
Your figures about the ACS contrast with the article on here which says it has 1000 members and I think that came from an ACS source. If you know better, let's have a verifiable source for your statistics and we'll amend the article.
One final time. Why don't you stop making a fool of yourself by carrying on a pointless vendetta over some petty grievance from years ago and use this site constructively? One positive thing that emerges from your generally negative postings is that you seem to have a lot of useful material at your disposal. You must like WP as you visit so often, so why not make good use of it and endeavour to improve its content? Or are you only here to make a WP:POINT and be a WP:TROLL? As I've said before, the ball's in your court. ----Jack | talk page 07:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Although it was immediately kicked into touch by the admin involved, this item was posted yesterday on the arbitration requests page.

Since you are all members of my fiefdom and have been admitted by my power into the elect (sic), I question if you do me sufficient honour? From now on, when you post on this page, you will begin with the words "Hail Jack".

Actually, I think the funniest thing in the whole ridiculous piece is the suggestion that there is a "serious cricket history community". Why not have a bit of fun too with their hobby?

When I was working on my book, which is essentially a matchlist derived from many sources, I actually stopped using a list published by the ACS because it contained so many errors and duplications that I found it unreliable. I relied mainly on the likes of G B Buckley and F S Ashley-Cooper for my information and, apart from typos, I'm satisfied that the match details are fundamentally correct. I checked some of them against primary sources when I had the time. Where I expressed a personal opinion, however, others are entitled to have a different opinion: that applies to historians like Arlott too and not just amateurs like me. You will note that, in all of the "risible" nonsense we have seen from Mr Daft/Fieldgoalunit/HughGal/Rosebank, there has never been a suggestion of one single specific error of content, although details have been requested. If he can point to one statement and say that is wrong because, for example, Buckley wrote such-and-such, then I'll take it on board, but all we ever get is that the small clique in the ACS have a monopoly of wisdom (because they are so serious) and anyone else (including Harry Altham and Roy Webber, incidentally, as he has actually said so) must be talking rubbish.

If some of his posts like this arbitration one were not so bloody hilarious, it would all be rather sad. Hail me! ----Jack | talk page 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

All hail Jack! Andrew nixon (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, if consensus is that your work is a suitable source, then consensus is! SGGH ping! 10:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain Cricket

Seemingly a very pointless article; Great Britain Cricket starts by stating there isn't a Great Britain cricket team! Don't know if speedy or a prod would be appropriate here? Just a regular AfD maybe? Any thoughts? Harrias talk 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've speedied it as recreation of deleted material per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Britain national cricket team. SGGH ping! 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Good thinking that man. This is why I have little desire to adminship! Harrias talk 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There's also clearly some ducky sockage going on between the two accounts that created the original and then this new version. Almost identical name and identical article creation, however it's not worth acting upon without evidence that disruption will continue, IMO. SGGH ping! 13:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

National cricket stadium

Is this encyclopaedic? I'm not sure if even the subject is true, and the inclusion criteria seem to be the editors own opinions. The only "references" given are external links to the home page of each stadium. This is the same account that created the above GB cricket team articles. Does this stand or is it OR/own opinion? SGGH ping! 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably qualifies for G3 IMO, clearly the concept doesn't exist in India and I can't think it does elsewhere either. If not a snow close AfD would be good. —SpacemanSpiff 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly WP:OR. Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National cricket stadium. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say no. Most cricketing nations do not have a national stadium to which they keep to. Ireland on the List-A currently play at 3-4 grounds ect, so I support deletion. We have a List of Test cricket grounds article, so maybe a page of stadia that have hosted ODI's should be started one day? Meh... just an idea. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mendesa, with his associate/alternate account User:Amar Mendes and his IPs 78.109.14.129 and 78.109.14.130 aren't having a good run with their articles at the moment. SGGH ping! 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just PRODded one club ground that doesn't even have a pitch. I haven't looked at the other articles, a couple that I saw were converted to redirects by others, but I think there are more articles that need a look. —SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
His contributions (and those by what I suspect are his alternate identities) to our international forum at CricketEurope are always worth a read. (link) The GB national team idea was proposed recently at our forum by someone called "Ryan", and he compared the "reunification" of the England/Wales and Scotland teams into a GB team to the reunification of the East Germany and West Germany football teams - really. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, his posts are quite amusing. Why is the fool constantly going on about some bizzare notion of a Great Britain cricket team??? Never has been one and never will, fool! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Clarke better than Shaun Marsh and Hodge at T20??

So says Hilditch. I have to disagree YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you here, but it is a little awkward to drop the skipper/Test skipper-in-waiting. Personally I would make White skipper of the team but I can understand why that would be awkward. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree. —Aaroncrick (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You guys do know that Wikipedia is not a forum, right? This page is for discussion of articles covered by WP:CRIC. – PeeJay 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel some minor comment on some cricket-related issues is not unreasonable. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz is permitted, the very occasional non-article related comment here can stand, no? Or does it all have to be about work ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this has been happening since the project was initiated. Have a look through the archives. —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I just want to know what Hilditch must have done to YellowMonkey? Refuse to be photographed one day in the nets? I just hope that this decision is as fruitful as his last rubbish decision. ;+) The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've filed an ANI thread about YM's POV.... :P SGGH ping! 16:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh I did take a picture of Hilditch. Not very good from 25m away, but there YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April fools???

On the CricketEurope site there is this article regarding the 2019 World Cup. I had initially included it as a reference for the Cricket in Afghanistan page, but then I remembered what day it is. So does anyone think it is a serious article or an April fools joke? If it is a joke I won't want to put it in the article! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, convincing. I think it almost had me until the last line: "but it would not be surprising if the 2027 event were to be co-hosted by the USA and China." , the tone of which suggests maybe it is a rouse. Assuming it is only on CE and not on CI I think they are pulling legs.—MDCollins (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I never read that far, but when after putting the info on the Cricket in Afghanistan article I went back and read the whole article, then it struck me... 1st April and it's on about holding a tournament across an entire ocean. I could possibly believe Zimbabwe, UAE and Afghanistan as that could possibly work... but the 2027 bit is so not believable. I kept the information about new grounds being constructed in those cities, because I know they're building international standard facilities, like here.

As it is April fools day, you could be forgiven for thinking this scorecard was an April fools if you had no idea about the two teams involved: AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

1 April 2010
United Arab Emirates 
510/5 (50 overs)
v
 Bhutan
73 all out (32.2 overs)
It was an April fools day joke, but I'm sure my colleague who wrote it will be glad it almost convinced people! The UAE v Bhutan result isn't a joke though, and is the new record for the highest score in an official international one-day match. Papua New Guinea have a higher score in an unofficial match against New Caledonia though. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Although if the ICC was strict on teams who used expats then the UAE would struggle to field a decent team. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Image question

If I have an image of Sir Everton Weekes dating from the 1950 WI tour of England (scanned from a booklet), what licence could I use for it? --Roisterer (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Less clear on this one, but I'm reasonably sure that photos from that time in England remain under copyright, so you wouldn't be able to upload it under any license. Harrias talk 12:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, not quite the answer I was after but thanks anyway. --Roisterer (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Image question - 2 in one day!

Some advice needed guys. I have created the article on Andrew Wingfield Digby and have found a picture of him here. The copyright part of the St Andrew's Church, Oxford website can be found here.

My question is, can I upload his image to commons and if so under what licence? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading WP:NFCI, I would say no. Specifically under section 12 of unacceptable use of fair-use images: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. Harrias talk 12:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No fair use on Commons, and the pictures there can be used in a commercial purpose, which is clearly forbidden by the St Andrew's Church's website. OrangeKnight (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback :D AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Scorecards on wikipedia

Following the discussions above, and those made at Talk:England cricket team against Pakistan in UAE in 2009–10, I am looking for a consensus on how these should be displayed. At the moment, there isn't a 100% consistency on how they are done, with some users, including myself and PeeJay using piped links with initials, ie PD Collingwood, while others prefer to use the full name, ie Paul Collingwood. Similarly, for the number of overs bowled by an individual bowler, some put [4] and other (4 overs). The other difference I have seen on some occasions is that some users will only list the top player from each team, so one bat and one bowler from each side, while others will put the top two or three from each side.

Although I currently use piped initials, I do feel there is an argument for using full names. While Cricinfo and CricketArchive and all traditional cricket scorecards use them, they are generally viewed by cricket fans. However, Wikipedia will often be viewed by those who have nothing more than a passing interest in cricket, and for them such initials as IJL Trott and LRPL Taylor may not be immediately obvious, but they may not really want to click or hover to find out who it is. Having the full names would seem to be far more informative. Do we just use initials because that's the way it is done? To a casual observer is DS Smith Devon or Dwayne?

Similarly with [4] rather than (4 overs). Obviously [4] takes up less space, but is that really necessary? (4 overs) is far clearer, and is immediately obvious what it means, rather than [4], which to a first time observer may make little or no sense.

Finally, the number of players. Personally on this one, I prefer only the top player from each team, with the exception of when two players have identical stats, in which case they both have to be listed. As more players get added, the scorecard gets messier and messier, especially when equal numbers aren't added from each side.

Well, that's my tupenny's worth! Harrias (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the format is different on different articles. I generally prefer the (4 overs) which is more clear and there is much space available for this input. For the number of players, I think it should be 2 bowlers, 2 batsmen for an ODI and one for a Test as it lists 2 innings of score. Regarding the name of the cricketer, I strongly feel that the major(familiar) part of the name has to be listed, Sachin Tendulkar but not SR Tendulkar, as the fans are mostly unaware of the middle names of the players. However for long names as of Laxman, VVS Laxman is fine. The name of the player must be mostly listed in accordance with the title of the player's article. Piped links can be misleading as there are so many cricketers with the same or similar last name, Michael Hussey, David Hussey;Irfan Pathan, Yusuf Pathan; Kevin Pietersen, Alviro Petersen; listing them as MEK Hussey, DJ Hussey; IK Pathan, YK Pathan; KP Pietersen, AN Petersen doesn't make much sense to the fans and viewers of the articles unless they visit the respective article. -- WorLD8115(TalK) 09:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer initials, perhaps for no better reason than that I'm a traditionalist. But if someone is really unsure of who the player is, or is desparate to know their first name, it's surely not to much to ask that they should hover over the link. Also changing all the old-style scorecards to the new style would be a huge undertaking, and I think that having one consistent style is a good thing. JH (talk page) 09:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hovering over the links displays the article only to Wikipedians who have enabled the option in Special:My Preferences. However, most people who add, update or view the scores are IP users and some do not have a Wiki account. Displaying the names will provide direct information and there is no confusion regarding the players as the first name is displayed. -- WorLD8115(TalK) 11:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hovering over the links displays the article only to Wikipedians who have enabled the option in Special:My Preferences." That's not quite true. If you hover over a link, you will see where it points to in your browser's status bar, which - assuming you haven't disabled it - should be displayed by default at the bottom of your browser window.
Anyway, I do prefer initials for the same reason as JH; I'm a traditionalist and that's the format used by Cricinfo and CricketArchive, the two biggest cricket stats sites on the internet. Obviously Pakistani names (and others) should use full names as that's how they are typically noted, but there shouldn't be any problem with using initials for Australian, English, Indian, New Zealand, South African or West Indian players, unless two players on the same team have the same surname and initials (I've never heard of that happening, btw). – PeeJay 12:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
But these aren't traditional scorecards, so are hardly comparable to what appears on Cricinfo or CricketArchive. If there's space, it's only logical that full names are used and any ambiguity is removed. --79.71.131.20 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I personally prefer using the full name. For a casual fan, or those who don't follow the game, Dwayne Smith and Devon Smith can cause confusion if only their initials are shown. Can anyone here tell who's who in the following without having to hover over or click on the links: DR Smith & DS Smith?
Also, I prefer (4 overs) over [4] due to the fact that it is far clearer and causes less confusion, and also that (4 overs) does not take up that much space.
I personally prefer 1 batsman and one bowler per innings, but if there are extraordinary circumstances, such as 2 batsman scoring centuries and the rest scoring less than 20, two batsman would be preferred.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have no problem with using Initials for names, as one can easily find out who the player is by clicking on the link or even hovering the mouse over it. As far as the number of overs bowled by an individual bowler is concerned, I think if we use (4 overs) for a bowler then we should also use (36 balls) for a batsman.. So my suggestion is to use [4] for bowlers and (36) for batsmen, coz any person who follows cricket can easily understand what it means.. As for the number of players, I feel there should be top 'two' batsmen and top 'two' bowlers included.... Secondly, one more thing I would like to ask is that in some of the articles like 2009 ICC World Twenty20, the country flag has been used in the Result column, where as in some of the recent articles it is not or have been changed to without flag.. So what is the correct format? Flag or without Flag, I personally think using flag looks much better and professional than without flag. Please include this in the discussion as well. Thanks — --Managerarc (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer using full names, mostly for some of the reasons mentioned above about people knowing who they are. We might know who SK Warne is or KP Pietersen but maybe someone as mentioned with a passing interest might not. I think ?/? (10 overs) is more informative than [10] which could leave those who don't know that overs are used thinking wtf! I do it on scorecards involving lesser nations (See: 2010 ICC World Cricket League Division Five, 2010 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier and 2009 ACC Twenty20 Cup as examples) so people from those nations if reading can understand the method of scoring better. Also I'm more in favor of having the top player from each side mentioned instead of 2 or 3, which just crams up scorecards. It should be a summary, so as brief as possible, but equally needs to be as understandable as possible to people who don't follow the game. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, a lot of replies so far, so to split the discussion up and make it easier to summarise, I'll create subsections and put who (as I understand it) leans each way.

Full name / Initial

Full names


Initials

[4] / (4 overs)

[4]
  • Harrias
  • Managerarc
  • PeeJay - If we use (x) to represent balls faced by a batsman, why can't we use [x] to show overs bowled by a bowler?
(4 overs)

Number of batsmen/bowlers per team

1
2
Whatever appropriate
  • Well the Laxman/Dravid in Eden Gardens springs to mind, but were there instances of three big centuries? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • When a team scores 603/2 declared, including any bowlers at all is daft and with four centurions we'd then not wish to be constrained by the number of batsmen. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What about a slightly different way of looking at it: example, 1 of each as a basic (reaching minimum 50 runs/2 wickets), but all centuries and all 4+ wicket hauls—MDCollins (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Would be good to have a recommended number in the Style guide, but acceptance that it can be expanded to cover situations were there are additional notable performances. Matt5AU (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I support.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of flags to record result

Managerarc would like to see flags used in the result, ie  England won by 10 wickets. Harrias (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I also lend my support for the use of flags.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Using flags looks best. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer it without flags, I just feel it looks neater not to have flags everywhere, just in a single case in the |teamn= field of the template. — AMBerry (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think in the results section we shouldn't use flags. It's not necessary to use one flag two time in one scorecard. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think use of flags looks good and would also like to see the flag in the Player of the Series which can be listed as
Graeme Smith ( South Africa) instead of Graeme Smith (South Africa).-- WorLD8115(TalK) 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe WP:FLAG says that we shouldn't, but I've not reviewed that for a long time and I can't grit my teeth to do so this early in the morning. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG doesn't specifically address this, only that it shouldn't be used for sportsplayer's nationality. That said, I don't see what benefit they serve, so I'm a no.—MDCollins (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The flags are already included immediately to the left of where the result is shown, so I don't see the point in using the flags. – PeeJay 13:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How to record all out

When a team is bowled out, for example for 118, do we denote that by just saying 118 (followed by the overs) or 118 all out (followed by the overs).

26 February
Scorecard
New Zealand 
118 (20 overs)
v
Australia won by 6 wickets
Westpac Stadium, Wellington, New Zealand

VS

26 February
Scorecard
New Zealand 
118 all out (20 overs)
v
Australia won by 6 wickets
Westpac Stadium, Wellington, New Zealand

Blackhole77 talk | contrib 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

118 (20 overs) is, I believe, simple enough. It's also the norm elsewhere. SGGH ping! 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer all out, places more emphasis on the fact a team was all out, again for the benefit of those not familiar with cricket scorecards. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Also prefer all out for completeness. — AMBerry (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should use 118 all out (20 overs) only if the source use it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there is no need for all out as it is quite clear -- WorLD8115(TalK) 04:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

<-All out is unambiguous. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To include "all out" seems to me to be adding unnexessary clutter. There shouldn't be any ambiguity, as when a side isn't all out the number of wickets that fell will always be shown. It would also make Wikipedia scorecards different from those appearing in all other media, for no good reason. JH (talk page) 10:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd use it. As far as I have seen, most sources do use it, CI and CA put it in a different place (under the batsman): (all out, 110 overs); Picking a random media website (BBC), summarises a match as "Zimbabwe 105 all out (19.5 overs) bt West Indies 79-7 (20 ovs) by 26 runs". Maybe this is a regional issue, but I'd use it to help all readers, not just cricket lovers.—MDCollins (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with JH. If a side isn't all out, the number of wickets is shown, so why do we need to explicitly say "all out"? – PeeJay 13:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with MdCollins. —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Most popular format so far

26 February
Scorecard
England 
531/2 (50.0 overs)
v
 Australia
12 (23.1 overs)
Lionel Palairet 278* (158)
Don Bradman 1/98 (10 overs)
Stuart MacGill 11 (54)
Sammy Woods 8/3 (5.1 overs)
England won by 519 runs
County Ground, Taunton, England
Umpires: Billy Bowden (NZ) and Dickie Bird (Eng)
Player of the match: Lionel Palairet (Eng)

In special occasions more than one batsman or bowler can be listed, but generally just one of each from each side. There is currently no consensus on whether to list "12 (23.1 overs)" or "12 all out (23.1 overs)". Harrias (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying "all out" is unnecessary, per my comments above. So is this discussion over now? Is this the format that will be implemented from now on? – PeeJay 23:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we concluded this discussion now? Can changes be made? – PeeJay 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say so; if anyone had any major complaints about making this the norm, I would assume they'd have spoken up by now. Harrias talk 21:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Very good. I have now made the appropriate changes to Template:Limited Overs Matches/doc and Template:Test match/doc. – PeeJay 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see why umpires nationalities need to be listed, they're neutral after all and there's always cases like Bill Alley, Peter Wight, Shujauddin Siddiqi etc where nationality is not straightforward. --88.111.62.145 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This probably stems from the time when umpires weren't all neutral; it can be useful on historical scorecards to know who is the "home" umpire and who is "away/neutral".
I meant neutral in the conventional sense of the word, most umpires pre-2002 were neutral even if they weren't 'neutral'. --88.111.38.144 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to go back to the all out issue, but no consensus means just that. At the moment the doc favours the 100 (24 overs) format. By my rough totting up of !votes below splits the issue right down the middle.—MDCollins (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of all out

  • AssociateAffliate
  • AMBerry
  • Dweller
  • MDCollins
  • Aaroncrick

Exclusion

  • SGGH
  • World8115
  • JH
  • PeeJay
  • Harrias

Depends on the source

  • Armbrust

—MDCollins (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm against the use of it, it seems pretty intuitive. But then, I would say that; I know what it means! Harrias talk 18:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIN revision (2), and notification of a WP:ATHLETE discussion

Hi everyone.

I've just seen (via WP:FOOTY) that there is an RFC on the wording of WP:ATHLETE pretty much along the same lines as we've been discussion above. Is a one-time performance in a certain league enough or does the wording need tightening. If anyone wants to summarize our view and comment it might be a good idea. It looks like heading for "no consensus" at the moment, although there are several interested parties and WikiProjects interested in throwing some ideas around.

The RFC is here.

—MDCollins (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class cricket articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate discussion

This is a legitimate discussion about the validity of a major source on this project. It is valid and pertient. If you think not then you are simply compounding the error. It is not for one editor to decide what should be on here because BJ is their mate. n respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.2.72 (talk)

"Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more".
Excellent. If the match references are reliable then the site is reliable. The whole purpose of the site is to consolidate all match references to 1787 (as he says, they were formerly distributed across several books) and he says above that this has been done reliably so there is nothing more to be said.
End of discussion. Right, folks, carry on. Business as usual. Archive this in a few days. ----Jack | talk page 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the text you right that is the problem. A big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.45.241 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have in fact reverted my comment because in the two reports at WT:RS they have told you to take it up here. Why they have done that, I cannot for a second fathom. I have half a mind to inform them that this is not the right place because a) Blackjack operates with us here so it's not exactly a neutral venue, and b) they are the RS people. But hey, what do I know? :) --SGGH ping! 13:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have asked at the ANI and RS/N boards for the issue to not be brought back here for the above reasons. Ideally, a neutral arbiter from the RS area will assess the source without the IP or Jack actually commenting (unless asked). If it comes back here, we get nowhere. --SGGH ping! 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether this is the right place or the wrong place to discuss this, this does seem to keep recurring as a topic on this talk page and I for one am fed up with its repetition and the accompanying backbiting. So let me, after a long day in the office which may affect my coherence, try to move it on. If only to try to stop it from coming here time and time again.
The difficulty which Dr Tillmann (or the various 88.... people, whether there are several of them or only one) identify is that an external source cited in some articles that have been primarily written by BJ is a work that appears to have been written by BJ himself (and which I think he does not deny is his). The external "work" seems to have two parts to it: a statistical record of early cricket matches, derived from and collated from other sources, which doesn't seem to be much disputed as to accuracy or sourcing; and a commentary on that record, where there is dispute as to the tone/content/interpretation.
These two parts seem to me to be separate and distinctive: the first part is verifiable and attributable by ploughing, as BJ seems to have done, through the accepted and published sources for scorecards/reports from early matches (and other distinguished cricket historians have also done, I'm sure); the second part is apparently less verifiable, more speculative, more interpretative and evidently more contentious.
I know too little about this period of cricket to make any judgement about the second part of this. But the articles on WP that BJ has created and edited (to the great benefit of the cricket project) about early cricket and early cricketers seem to me to be very largely based on the verifiable and statistical part of the external source, and to be largely free from the potentially tendentious material that may be elsewhere in that external source. In essence, if the BJ external work wasn't there and available, we'd be able to support the vast bulk of these articles by going to the original sources that BJ consulted for his external work.
Perhaps there are other articles in which my lack of knowledge does not enable me to spot easily where BJ's external editorialising (or whatever it is) has influenced the content. But please, Dr Tillmann (and friends), tell us which specific articles these are. Most of BJ's early cricket articles seem to me to be impeccable, in that they cover individual cricketers, the matches they played, their (often scanty) biographical and career details, and not much else, all of which is derived (sometimes at second hand through BJ's external collation work) from published works that appear to be pretty much universally accepted.
To condemn everything that BJ has done on WP seems to me to be unreasonable unless you are willing to bring evidence to back your blanket assertions. But equally, if you have material that would improve some specific articles within WP, or if you dispute interpretation or fact within some specific articles, then please do us the service of becoming real contributor(s) to what is, after all, a collaborative project. Perhaps you could give us a list of the articles you see as problematic: at least then we'd know where to start.
We've had several weeks of this skirmishing around the edges of the problem and sniping from the sides. I for one am finding this tedious and irritating. It's time to put up, or shut up. Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely spot on. Thank you, John. For my part, all I want to do on WP is write or improve articles but I constantly have to waste time defending myself against these attacks which are focused on talk pages where other people might take notice and move things in a direction that would be to my, and our, disadvantage. I would like to ignore him (and it is a him, not a them) but the structure of the site is such that people like this can do a lot of damage, unless checked, simply by misleading well-meaning members.
I have asked many times for specific examples of articles that he considers to be "wrong" but the most we ever see is a piece of trivia here or a trite comment there, always done with a lack of care that invites immediate re-editing even when what he has written is actually useful information.
I have openly confirmed many times that LTL is my site written exclusively by me but with inputs from other people whose names are in the gratitude section. The match references are its basis and, although there may still be a hitherto unspotted error or omission here or there, they have been checked and double-checked by knowledgeable and capable people against the earlier secondary sources that you mention. As for the narrative and the additional essays and biographies, these are essentially as you say a commentary and when any writer produces a commentary he incorporates his own views about what did or might have happened. I do say in my preface that the analysis is mine and mine alone unless stated otherwise. If a reader doesn't agree with me, does he ignore me or does he spend an inordinate amount of time disrupting an internet site and calling its members "mental" (i.e., see this)?
My general policy re using LTL on here has been to add it to an article's external links section as "additional reading". I do this because the typical WP reader is unlikely to have copies of Buckley or Ashley-Cooper to hand, given that they are quite rare books. If LTL is used in an inline citation, it is because there is nothing else I can cite and it is necessary to impart the information so as not to lose context or leave a gap. We have been through this before sometime last year and, after one person said there was nothing wrong with that approach, the discussion ended.
I completely agree that Dr Tillmann should put up or shut up. ----Jack | talk page 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'm pleased to say that the reliability discussion is taking place at WP:RS as SGGH requested, so hopefully "Dr Tillmann" will go there now and leave this page alone. ----Jack | talk page 07:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIN – proposed wording change

Further to the topic above and with specific reference to the point raised by Johnlp about international matches, I suggest a rewording of the second paragraph of WP:CRIN to read as follows with the addition of one new sentence:

"The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any major domestic competition. For this purpose, a limited overs international is defined as any international match involving two teams representing countries that are Full or Associate Members of the ICC. Major domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Major domestic limited overs competitions include all ListA matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc."

We need to be clear that embracing all Associate Member international matches will greatly increase the scope of our notability criteria. It may be that some of you prefer to impose a limitation according to certain levels of competition; some of you may prefer an even broader scope by inclusion of Affiliate Members. Could we please discuss and try to achieve a consensus? ----Jack | talk page 09:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it excludes high ranking affiliate members, notably Afghanistan, and also Oman, who are in WCL Division 2, which has List A status. There's a chance that those two will meet in the semi-finals or final of the ACC Trophy next month - is a player in that match notable, if he has no major appearances? It also over represents low performing Associate members, such as Israel or Gibraltar, who are currently ranked below eight affiliate nations.
I'd propose a cut off based on WCL division and regional tournament division. The most recent WCL5 tournament included three teams with first-class matches under their belt, and one that played in the most recent World Twenty20 Qualifier, so that seems as good a place as any to place the cut off point. As for regional tournaments, the top divisions could theoretically include ODI matches (the 2006 and 2008 European Division One and the 2006 Americas Division One did), so that seems the correct place to place the regional cut-off. The ACC Trophy before 2008 didn't have a divisional structure, so we may have to limit that to the last eight of the tournaments.
The question is what we'd do with the ICC Trophy tournaments before the WCL started - the 2005 tournament has List A status, so that's not a problem. Our current cut-off is playing in the final, so I'd suggest extending that to the quarter final/Super 8s stage. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I should of course mention that we should include a clause similar to what we currently have indicating that just because a player doesn't match the criteria, it doesn't mean he can't have an article - for example, Shamazuddin Khan, who played at low levels for Germany, wouldn't meet my proposed criteria, but he does have the distinction of being the first player to score a double century in an international limited overs match, (see my article for the others who beat Tendulkar) which clearly gives him notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Jack's solution looks good to me, and thank you for acting on this (as I said upstairs, we really should have done this after the Basanta Regmi case, but it is, in any event, only a few weeks). My only change, for completeness, would be to add within it a link that would take a prospective user quickly to a list of who's a Full or Associate Member so anyone new coming in would be able to see at a glance whether the criteria were being adhered to. This may greatly increase the scope, but I don't see massive pressure to create vast numbers of articles from these associate member nations, and if that happens, then WP is big enough to handle it. I think there's a strong case for the line being clear wherever it is drawn and based on current status of match participants, not their actual playing strength: you could probably argue, for example, that Staffordshire in the 1920s with Sydney Barnes were stronger than the Worcestershire sides of the time, but that doesn't alter their actual status. To draw a line that isn't supported by some external criterion is, in my view, taking us close to OR. Johnlp (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of points on Jack's suggest/Andrew's comments — presumably players of associate (possibly affiliate matches) must count for notability only after the Associate status was granted - players who played before this don't count? Andrew mentions Oman in Division 2 (having List A status) - obviously matches under this would qualify under List A, rather than the Associate/Affiliate criterion so that should work around that issue.—MDCollins (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

By saying "major FC" are you omitting people if they made a one or a few appearances only, in stand-alone tour matches against foreign teams that don't count for competition points, or things like one-off matches for Tasmania before they were in SS YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, YM. No, the above is just one paragraph but the full explanation of major players is spread over three or four paragraphs and makes full allowance for pre-SS and pre-CC players. ----Jack | talk page 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I defer to Andrew on this as he is our subject expert re Associate and Affiliate Members and the WCL. I think Andrew should decide on the wording to move things forward and, as with anything in CRIN, we can tweak it in due course if it is deemed necessary. ----Jack | talk page 06:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

2016 ICC World Twenty20

Do we really need an article about something that (knowing the ICC) may happen in around 6 years, at an unknown venue? Harrias talk 11:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I think two future tournaments (2012 and 2014 (which is lacking in information also) is enough.—MDCollins (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I don't recall the ICC announcing any World Twenty20s past 2010, but I don't mind being proved wrong. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I prodded it, correctly I hope! After that, I'm not sure what goes on! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Either the notice gets removed and we have to take it to AfD, or after a week (or 10 days, I forget) it magically disappears. By which I mean some nice admin comes along and gets rid of it. Harrias talk 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Sidebottom

Can someone else have a look at this, I've undone (and recently rolled back) edits by an anonymous editor adding a section about him being a Warrington Wolves fan. In my opinion, completely non-notable, but as it keeps getting altered back (slowly, so 3RR isn't an issue), I thought it best if someone could either back me up, or tell me I'm being stupid. Harrias talk 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's completely unsourced so treat it as a WP:BLP issue - a Yorkshireman being linked with a Lancashire rugby league team could well be regarded as derogatory (and I speak as one who comes form teh west of the Pennines). The text also seems to be there in part to set up a comparison with the hair style of Matt King, which since King seems to sport a shaven head would appear to be completely false. David Underdown (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't even considered the Lancs/Yorks thing, it's all the north to me! As for the hair comparison, I simply hadn't looked any further into it, I obviously assume good faith too much! Harrias talk 16:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Ponsford on the main page

Well done to Mattinbgn YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe a celebratory "w00t" is in order. SGGH ping! 10:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Batting order (cricket)

Another case of the "notable, says who?" condition of the list under "notable openers". I propose either removing it, or finding a Wisden (or similar) list of great openers and attributing it "according to Wisden" or including the top ten players in terms of highest average at one or two. SGGH ping! 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps replace it with the top ten of this list. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I;ve just found this at Leicestershire CCC:

{{Famous players}} - useful! SGGH ping! 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that tag been added by someone to Surrey CCC too. When time permits, I'm hoping to replace the existing notable players list in the Surrey article by one based on objective criteria. The three criteris for notability that I came up with were that the players included should have played in at least 20 Tests, or have been a Wisden Cricketer of the Year, or have captained the side to at least three County Championship titles. I was originally going to include players with most runs, wickets, dismissals and appearances for the county, but there are already lists of those in the article's Records section. 80.177.217.234 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
As for the notable openers list, the worst thing about it is that two of the entries - Tendulkar and Mark Waugh - have mainly batted at three or four. One way of deriving a list of the mst notable openers might be to take all the openers included in the project's Key Biographies. (Incidentally, 80.177.217.234 was me - I was logged out without noticing.) JH (talk page) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Well if the disclaimer ODI is put there it shouyld be fine YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Sidwell

I notice in the recently updated summary that SGGH says Sidwell was dismissed whilst being on the train. Was he in fact on the train or was he stuck on a platform somewhere listening to the usual insincere regrets that the thing has been delayed by 48 minutes? Perhaps he was on the bog having eaten a British Rail sandwich? ----Jack | talk page 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting question Jack - won't be a BR sandwich though, too early for that. Maybe Southern Railway sandwiches...—MDCollins (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, that rules out the sandwich, then. Southern Railways had a good reputation. Perhaps it was Sidwell's own fault after all: did he get on a train bound for St John's Wood tube station instead of one bound for Oval tube station? ----Jack | talk page 09:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Downer

In March an IP user expanded the article on Harry Downer to claim he was dead. The date put in was 31 December 1999, which I am 100% sure is made-up or blatant vandalism. Downer would be 94 now (the oldest surviving Hampshire cricketer I think) and no cricket sites have a date of death for him. Would anyone be able to confirm this for me? Pretty sure old Harry is still with us though... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review

Featured article
Featured list
Good article
  • none at the moment

YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Allan Rae

Is Allan Rae the composer really more famous than West Indies' Allan Rae? A user has moved the latter (to Allan Rae (cricketer)) to create the article on the former on the page "Allan Rae" a few days ago with this comment: "make way for article on more well known composer". Shouldn't Allan Rae should be a disambiguation page? OrangeKnight (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say not, although the prose on the cricketer is rather thin. I don't think a move 'to make way' was merited, but maybe a disambig page would be the best compromise.—MDCollins (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the best way to proceed? Should I open a WP:RM discussion or a just drop a message on Allan Rae's talk page to start with? OrangeKnight (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Done - see Allan Rae, Allan Rae (cricketer) and Allan Rae (composer) - with as much consultation as was done before the first move! -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! OrangeKnight (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox recent cricketer now open for discussion. It does not appear to be too controversial.

Now if we could get rid of {{Infobox historic cricketer}}, {{Cricketer Infobox}}, {{Infobox cricketer}} and {{Infobox Old Cricketer}} ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All but {{Cricketer Infobox}} are now orphaned and joined to the discussion. I will work on {{Cricketer Infobox}} next, and it should be ready to go soon. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You've been doing great work. Thanks. JH (talk page) 21:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. Great work Plastikspork...—MDCollins (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have now orphaned {{Cricketer Infobox}} and joined it to the discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate discussion

This is a legitimate discussion about the validity of a major source on this project. It is valid and pertient. If you think not then you are simply compounding the error. It is not for one editor to decide what should be on here because BJ is their mate. n respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.2.72 (talk)

"Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more".
Excellent. If the match references are reliable then the site is reliable. The whole purpose of the site is to consolidate all match references to 1787 (as he says, they were formerly distributed across several books) and he says above that this has been done reliably so there is nothing more to be said.
End of discussion. Right, folks, carry on. Business as usual. Archive this in a few days. ----Jack | talk page 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the text you right that is the problem. A big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.45.241 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have in fact reverted my comment because in the two reports at WT:RS they have told you to take it up here. Why they have done that, I cannot for a second fathom. I have half a mind to inform them that this is not the right place because a) Blackjack operates with us here so it's not exactly a neutral venue, and b) they are the RS people. But hey, what do I know? :) --SGGH ping! 13:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have asked at the ANI and RS/N boards for the issue to not be brought back here for the above reasons. Ideally, a neutral arbiter from the RS area will assess the source without the IP or Jack actually commenting (unless asked). If it comes back here, we get nowhere. --SGGH ping! 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether this is the right place or the wrong place to discuss this, this does seem to keep recurring as a topic on this talk page and I for one am fed up with its repetition and the accompanying backbiting. So let me, after a long day in the office which may affect my coherence, try to move it on. If only to try to stop it from coming here time and time again.
The difficulty which Dr Tillmann (or the various 88.... people, whether there are several of them or only one) identify is that an external source cited in some articles that have been primarily written by BJ is a work that appears to have been written by BJ himself (and which I think he does not deny is his). The external "work" seems to have two parts to it: a statistical record of early cricket matches, derived from and collated from other sources, which doesn't seem to be much disputed as to accuracy or sourcing; and a commentary on that record, where there is dispute as to the tone/content/interpretation.
These two parts seem to me to be separate and distinctive: the first part is verifiable and attributable by ploughing, as BJ seems to have done, through the accepted and published sources for scorecards/reports from early matches (and other distinguished cricket historians have also done, I'm sure); the second part is apparently less verifiable, more speculative, more interpretative and evidently more contentious.
I know too little about this period of cricket to make any judgement about the second part of this. But the articles on WP that BJ has created and edited (to the great benefit of the cricket project) about early cricket and early cricketers seem to me to be very largely based on the verifiable and statistical part of the external source, and to be largely free from the potentially tendentious material that may be elsewhere in that external source. In essence, if the BJ external work wasn't there and available, we'd be able to support the vast bulk of these articles by going to the original sources that BJ consulted for his external work.
Perhaps there are other articles in which my lack of knowledge does not enable me to spot easily where BJ's external editorialising (or whatever it is) has influenced the content. But please, Dr Tillmann (and friends), tell us which specific articles these are. Most of BJ's early cricket articles seem to me to be impeccable, in that they cover individual cricketers, the matches they played, their (often scanty) biographical and career details, and not much else, all of which is derived (sometimes at second hand through BJ's external collation work) from published works that appear to be pretty much universally accepted.
To condemn everything that BJ has done on WP seems to me to be unreasonable unless you are willing to bring evidence to back your blanket assertions. But equally, if you have material that would improve some specific articles within WP, or if you dispute interpretation or fact within some specific articles, then please do us the service of becoming real contributor(s) to what is, after all, a collaborative project. Perhaps you could give us a list of the articles you see as problematic: at least then we'd know where to start.
We've had several weeks of this skirmishing around the edges of the problem and sniping from the sides. I for one am finding this tedious and irritating. It's time to put up, or shut up. Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely spot on. Thank you, John. For my part, all I want to do on WP is write or improve articles but I constantly have to waste time defending myself against these attacks which are focused on talk pages where other people might take notice and move things in a direction that would be to my, and our, disadvantage. I would like to ignore him (and it is a him, not a them) but the structure of the site is such that people like this can do a lot of damage, unless checked, simply by misleading well-meaning members.
I have asked many times for specific examples of articles that he considers to be "wrong" but the most we ever see is a piece of trivia here or a trite comment there, always done with a lack of care that invites immediate re-editing even when what he has written is actually useful information.
I have openly confirmed many times that LTL is my site written exclusively by me but with inputs from other people whose names are in the gratitude section. The match references are its basis and, although there may still be a hitherto unspotted error or omission here or there, they have been checked and double-checked by knowledgeable and capable people against the earlier secondary sources that you mention. As for the narrative and the additional essays and biographies, these are essentially as you say a commentary and when any writer produces a commentary he incorporates his own views about what did or might have happened. I do say in my preface that the analysis is mine and mine alone unless stated otherwise. If a reader doesn't agree with me, does he ignore me or does he spend an inordinate amount of time disrupting an internet site and calling its members "mental" (i.e., see this)?
My general policy re using LTL on here has been to add it to an article's external links section as "additional reading". I do this because the typical WP reader is unlikely to have copies of Buckley or Ashley-Cooper to hand, given that they are quite rare books. If LTL is used in an inline citation, it is because there is nothing else I can cite and it is necessary to impart the information so as not to lose context or leave a gap. We have been through this before sometime last year and, after one person said there was nothing wrong with that approach, the discussion ended.
I completely agree that Dr Tillmann should put up or shut up. ----Jack | talk page 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'm pleased to say that the reliability discussion is taking place at WP:RS as SGGH requested, so hopefully "Dr Tillmann" will go there now and leave this page alone. ----Jack | talk page 07:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

At last

At long last, an independent admin has taken note of the problems we have had with the ACS troll and has banned his IP range, not just a specific address, for one month. As I understand it, he cannot now access WP unless he uses a computer in another area. I would say that this establishes a precedent and that, if he reappears and tries to make trouble again, any of the admins here should be able to extend the ban. I have tried to reason with him but it is a waste of time. He is here to make trouble and that is it. I think the final straw was his totally unacceptable taunt on AA's talk page, which he later described as being "temperate". I despair.

I'm afraid it is my presence here which has brought this volcanic ash down on all your heads and I'm very sorry it has happened.

Back to the cricket. Yorkshire for the title, methinks. Now how many will that be? ----Jack | talk page 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that we've got some positive action on this. As for the cricket, since it's shaping up to be a nice summer I think it's going to be hard to stop Durham. Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yorkshire v Durham at Headingley a week on Tuesday, Nev.  ;-) ----Jack | talk page 19:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

County Cricket Club secretaries/chief execs

We're down to the last few of the cricket unreferenced BLPs, and three of the remaining identified problem articles concern former or present secretaries of Middlesex County Cricket Club, while a fourth is a former president of the club. None of these people played cricket at first-class or List A level, and two of the three secretaries were in post for only a short time (the other is the current secretary/chief exec, who has been in post since 1997). A further Middlesex CCC secretary of similarly short duration isn't in the Unreffed BLPs list, but crops up in the list you get by clicking on the [[Category: Secretaries of Middlesex CCC]] link.

Do we have a view about the notability (or otherwise) of these kinds of people? We have a cricket administrators category, and I can see that some county secretaries (eg Vockins, Ryder, Jimmy James) are good candidates for notability in this category, while others (eg Lister) qualify anyway because they were once players. But the short-term people? I'm happy to be persuaded either way. Johnlp (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Would be inclined to say that any secretary or chief executuve of a first-class county club was notable, at least in the days before some counties had chairmen as well. They are responsible for the day-to-day running of the club and, at least in the past, some seem to have wielded a lot of power. JH (talk page) 08:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting one because some secretaries got themselves into the news while others quietly got on with the job. I would say that they were notable as they were running the club. What do other sports projects do with similar functions? ----Jack | talk page 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Doug Bollinger

Hi all, can we please have some more eyes on Doug Bollinger. An IP keeps adding unsourced and irrelevant (and probably false) information about Bollinger wearing a wig. Previous attempts at getting the IP blocked have been unsuccessful for reasons I don't understand. Thus can a few editors please add it to your watch list and watch for vandalism. The article needs lots of work, obviously, but I don't think this editors contributions are what we are looking for. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll block him. Seems like List of Test cricketers isn't updated to include Bolly so when I do a RC scan on that everyday it doesn't turn up. Pity, I'll lock it as well. I lock liberally if there's a clown, so I colunteer for any of it. To the best of my knowledge, his head has been re-turfed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, YM, I appreciate your help. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Lalit Modi

Needs eyes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Imran Khan

See this change from using Khan to Imran. I think it's correct. Aaroncrick TALK 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:LASTNAME --Managerarc(talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Being bold

This is a ticklish subject around here and I am sorry to bring it up again, but I think it's necessary. BlackJack, for whose work and energy on early cricket most of us have enormous admiration, bordering on awe, has now retired from WP. A major irritation for the sometimes named, sometimes IP-addressed, people who've been coming on here and arguing with Jack has been some of the commentary and speculation parts of Jack's website book, From Lads to Lord's (LTL); the statistical record of 18th century matches in Jack's book is not (much) disputed. But in a fairly wide-ranging debate on the WP:RS/Noticeboard, now archived, specific places where LTL differs from, for example, Cricketarchive have been identified. And in particular, Jack's nomination of a "Champion County" in 18th century seasons appears to have no identifiable backing apart from a section within or adjacent to LTL. As that section of LTL in which Jack made these assertions about county champions has now been removed from Jack's external site, the citations supporting this view are in any cases dead links.

In these circumstances, I am proposing, gently over the next few days, removing these links and the material that depends upon them. I am not removing links to Jack's work, LTL, where that appears to be an accessible and readible confirmation of other material in these articles: just the contentious stuff that now has no references will go. I've done a couple in the 1730 English cricket season and 1731 English cricket season articles where you can see what I've taken out. If you think I'm being too bold and too harsh here, then shout: I certainly don't want to airbrush Jack's contribution out of the site, and it's evident that most of what he contributed was above board and should be supported. But where the links no longer work, and where the material that depends on those links can't be substantiated by any other means, I think it has to go. Johnlp (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one think that Jack would understand the differences between published work and Wikipedia, and would feel no ill will against people who have to work within Wikipedia's limited constraints - and I mean that in a complimentary manner towards Jack's work and all published sources. SGGH ping! 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll carry on. Gently. Johnlp (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire cricketers

See also: Category:Hampshire cricketers

Phew! I make that make 918 known players who have represented a Hampshire team of some sort in first-class/List-A/T20 cricket. If you spot any that are missing, feel free to add them. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Can you please highlight any single game players so that they can be easily deleted? </sarcasm> Seriously, nice work.The-Pope (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, there are probably at least 200! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

First-class cricketers on PROD

All have a single first-class appearance, all currently have PROD tags. I'm currently very inactive here, so I might forget to remove them all if I don't come back here occasionally and look. Please forgive me for passing the buck, but it's very likely I won't come back here to look for at least a week.

Thank you, all. Hope everyone is well. Bobo. 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are these the new BLPPRODs? SGGH ping! 17:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been gone for so long I was unaware there was such thing! Embarrassing. No no, these look like just regular PRODs. Bobo. 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've undone a few of the prods and left the tagging editor a note. --Dweller (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the tagging editor's reasoning seems to be that most of these people were associated with only one event, per WP:ONEVENT. Not seen this one before. Johnlp (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting argument; actually quite a valid one. If it was a major event etc, ONEEVENT doesn't apply. A minor action in a minor event......
Perhaps we should finish our debating of WP:CRIN.—MDCollins (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
We should indeed. I'm fairly happy with the current line that's drawn beneath first-class and List A cricketers who've played in a single match and think they fit WP:ATHLETE in its current format. But I'm sympathetic to a view that says international players who don't qualify under that ruling mean the ruling should be amended (the Basanta Regmi dilemma), though I don't know enough about this part of cricket to know where the new line should be drawn. What I would urge is that it has to be fairly clear-cut so people like me who don't really know can apply it easily. Over to Andrew Nixon for a proposal that we can discuss? Or anyone else with a strong view? Johnlp (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you start a new section below and ask a bot not notify the talk pages of all Cric members. --Dweller (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:MDCollins/Honours board batting and List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground

Hi,

Can anyone else see the similarities between User:MDCollins/Honours board batting (incomplete in my sandbox) and List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground, created a couple of days ago? Is this sandbox 'theft' by User:Mr.Apples2010 or an unfortunate coincidence?

Anyway, which of the two table formats are most useful? I'm not convinced that the flags are necessary here (see WP:FLAGS), especially as we've eliminated them from most of our articles.

—MDCollins (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly; it isn't sandbox theft, as he has been creating a large number of these type of pages, and this is just the most recent in the line of them. As for which is the most useful... *shrugs* Harrias talk 09:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
He's created 20 such lists, this being the 19th one, I would say that there isn't any foul play here. The format is consistent with pretty much all the lists on the nav bar (stadium and cricketers), so if it needs changing, there's a lot of lists to change (including quite a lot of FLs). —SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes just an unfortunate coincidence. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries; my fault for not finishing it!!—MDCollins (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Francis Compton

I'm going through some of the pre-county club Hampshire players and I have come across a player called Francis Compton. The person on the bluelink has the same name and the same year of birth. The cricketer can be found here and here. The article on the person has his date of death as 1915 whereas the pre-existing article has his date of death as 1918.

Make also makes me think this is the cricketer is his political career, where he was a Member of Parliament for South Hampshire and later the New Forest. Now looking at the year of birth and his connection to Hampshire, could it be suffice to say this is the cricketing Francis Compton?

What I have done is added the cricketing information to the pre-existing article (this can always be removed later) while sources as found, it is the different date of death which is giving me some doubt. Some help would be much appreciated. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at The Times obituary of Compton from 25 October 1915 (p. 10), it states he was "a considerable athlete in his earlier days, and a devoted cricketer and tennis player." Seems likely he was one and the same. --Roisterer (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Twenty20 International centuries?

Now that we've had the fourth Twenty20 International century, does anyone else think that a list of centuries scored in Twenty20 Internationals would be a good idea? It may not have many entries right now, but I'm sure we could make a proper list out of it and it is only ever going to grow. Anyone up for making it? – PeeJay 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that four is enough to justify a list? I wouldn't oppose such a page, but maybe wait and see for the rest of the tournament first? Harrias talk 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Just from the featured list perspective, we look for (an arbitrary) ten entries in most cases. That doesn't mean a list of four shouldn't become an article, however. Maybe, though, it's worth waiting for the next ton or four (one of which is imminent as the Windies destroy England....). The 2010 T20I WC may well lend us a handy half a dozen 100s... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Lets not even discuss T20 given that foolish D/L result! SGGH ping! 22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
One team scores at 9.5 and the other only has to do 10 for 6 overs?? Rubbish YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Who cares, England lost :) Aaroncrick TALK 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a ridiculous system for T20. There'll be uproar if a final or semi-final is affected in a similar way. Harrias talk 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What I don't get is how the original reason for restricting Duckworth/Lewis to 20 overs in one-day games was that it wasn't as accurate under 20 overs. So why is it used in Twenty20. And while we're at it, why do they need to have Super Overs in the group stages? What's wrong with a tie? The funny thing is, bookies are actually accepting bets on ties in group stage matches! Andrew nixon (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I also don't understand how they did the D/L calculations. Are they based on the same ones they did for 50 Over cricket? If so, they're fatally flawed. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Dweller, it is my understanding that D/L calculations are based on the same ones for one-day cricket. That is of course totally flawed when T20 is a faster tempo and an easier scoring game. To decide a 191 run chase like last night was stupid. I noticed in a T20 last year which was decided by D/L that it made little sense in relation to the tempo of the scoring rate. Dumb ruling in T20. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the calculations are based on previous T20 internationals, but that because the format has only been going a few years the database is still smaller than would be desirable. At least, that was what my newspaper said this morning. JH (talk page) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks chaps. However they've done the sums... they're wrong. But it's still not as bad as the old rain rule. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clydesdale Bank 40 / Unicorns cricket team

Has been created, I was surprised that it didn't exist already but I did search for a while for it! SGGH ping! 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't found it. I created Unicorns cricket team too (the "extra" team in the competitions), made up of jobbing ex-pros and youngsters. PeeJay has proposed a renaming to Unicorns (cricket team). I'm not sure; I thought the convention (not in England, which uses CCC, or Aus (which has the pyjama-format name for an article title) used that format, rather than the parenthical disambiguitor. The teams in SA certainly did (e.g. Western Province cricket team, Boland cricket team, although I see they have merged. If that isn't our convention, that's fine but could someone else see what they think as being the creator I probably have a biased opinion (but I'm not that bothered)!

There are also a couple of queries on Talk:Unicorns cricket team if anyone can help.—MDCollins (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what a dumb name.... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder what the point was... (I'll get my coat!)—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!

[1] – I know the South Africans aren't particularly good at women's cricket, but Deandra Dottin hit a 38 ball century, and is at the moment still going on 106* with an amazing 9 sixes! Harrias talk 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the highest score in all T20 internationals by someone coming in lower than one drop. —SpacemanSpiff 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
ended 112 from 45. SGGH ping! 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that South Africa will manage to chase this. Not sure South Africa will manage to chase Dottin's score alone. Pity the game isn't televised really. I wonder if they'll have limitted highlights later.. Harrias talk 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
How did Aus beat Eng? I'm learned now lol [not] YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
How did Eng W get bumped?? Amazing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

From the pre-seeding of the Super8s, it seems as though the four strongest (on form) teams have landed in the same group YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

IPL on WP:ITN/C

Some newly converted Indian cricket fans are saying it's the best in the world... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, IP what? --Dweller (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
L. Harrias talk 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Never heard of it. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan

Just wanted to get some thoughts on the article for the cricketer/coach/umpire/referee Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan. While I realise this is his full name, it is rarely used in full in English. Hack (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a tricky article name. At least Venkat and Umpire Venkat redirect there.—User:MDCollins (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, it should be S. Venkataraghavan, as that's really how he's known. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The TV used to partially shorten it to Srinivas Venkataraghavan, although the commentators just say Venkat YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Twenty20 stats in infobox of cricketers

Hi! What about including the T20 stats in the infobox for the cricketers, now that the World T20 Championship is taking place in the Carribeans. பரிதிமதி (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and consensus has always had it that the priority should be as follows: Test, ODI, First-class, List A, Twenty20 Internationals, List A Twenty20, ICC Trophy, Under-19 Test, Under-19 ODI. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would be in favour of including the T20 stats too. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I was trying (as an experiment) to make a 6-column stats box, but it is difficult to do in the space available and I ran out of knowledge; Test, ODI, FC and List A do have priority as Andrew said. If someone hasn't played in one of those (e.g. Test), filling the remaining column with T20Ietc.—MDCollins (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with including T20I stats, but we can't really afford for the infobox to be much wider than it is, nor the columns much narrower. I think there could definitely be an argument for some players having T20I listed ahead of say 1 Test appearance, but for the majority of cricketers, it's not really practical. Long term though, this is something that is more and more likely to be a relevant and necessary stat, so it may be worth putting some serious effort into overcoming it. Harrias talk 19:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be there, perhaps two sets of coloums one above the other? International above (where current ones are) then domestic below? SGGH ping! 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty damn long for a lot of cricketers anyway! Harrias talk 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to include T20I or T20 at some stage, it might be worth thinking what stats are actually the most relevant: some thought that runs per over for a bowler or runs per balls faced for a batsman may often be more revealing in this form than some of the more conventional averages or achievements of other forms of cricket. Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that it needs extra rows; some for the longer format (e.g. 10 wickets in match); some for the shorter (strike rate) etc. As Harrias said, it's pretty damn long!—MDCollins (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the domestic stats collapsible? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe.—MDCollins (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Something like this perhaps? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
and for a bonus point...whose record is it? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ooh! I like that. Nice idea to put the different competitions vertically. Do you think you could do a mock up integration (Ross Taylor perhaps? ;-) ) with Template:Infobox cricketer (for ease starting with the default switch columns=4)? This idea would make the competition stats different (strike rate for T20 etc) too.—MDCollins (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to do that. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Career Statistics
Wow, I had no clue that Taylor's Test record was so impressive, a hundred every three matches is pretty good. I think with MdCollins and associates' infobox skills this drop down stuff could be made quick professional-looking. SGGH ping! 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Just quickly, I think those stats on Taylor's page are wrong. Cricinfo lists that he only has 5 Test centuries from 25 matches and 3 ODI centuries, not 6. I suspect it has been vandalised. See here: [2]. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the stats on Taylor's article. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neil Dexter

Does anyone know if he's England-qualified (yet? always has been? not yet?)

I'm increasingly of the opinion he's knocking at the door for international recognition, but our article isn't clear for which team. As a Saffer, he'd fit in well to team England. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way he could have always been eligible for England under ICC rules would be if he was born in England or Wales, there being no such thing as English/Welsh citizenship. He's been playing in England for nearly five years now, so provided he's spent 183 days in each of the last four years in England or Wales he is eligible under ICC rules, with the ECB putting the added restriction of a British or Irish passport on top of the ICC rules. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of Clarkey!

48 runs @ 12.00. SR 70. Bring in Shaun Marsh. An Indian-style political selection YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming of cricket ground articles

Looking at Category:Cricket grounds in England, many of the names of the grounds are very obscure. For all but the most famous grounds, it seems to me that the title of an article should tell you where the ground is located, and preferably have a DEFAULTSORT on the name of the town as well. For example, who would have guessed that the Rutland Recreation Ground is not in the county of Rutland at all, but is in Ilkeston in Derbyshire. Surely something like "Rutland Recreation Ground (Ilkeston)" would be a better title? And I nearly created an article entitled "Blackheath Cricket Ground", before discovering that all that was needed was a redirect to Rectory Field. If there is a consensus, I might do some moving of articles to give them better titles. JH (talk page) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. I think the name of the article should be the name of the ground, and a location only added for disambiguation, for example with 'County Ground'. Harrias talk 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But that can be very inconvenient if one is looking to see if an article on a particular ground exists and, as will often happen, one knows the town where it's located but not the precise name. For instance, I knew that Derbyshire used to play at Ilkeston, but it would never have occurred to me to look for "Rutland Recreation Ground", which I don't recall ever hearing of. The purpose of an article title is surely to make it easy to find the article that you are looking for. JH (talk page) 20:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree with your disagreement - I can see no good reason to go against established naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm mostly with User:Jhall1 here, and actually created a redirect at Rutland Recreation Ground, Ilkeston a few days ago to get around some of the difficulty. Some of the other cricket ground names already include the town. Some, such as Clarence Park, Weston-super-Mare, are needed because there are quite a few Clarence Parks around the world, not all used for cricket; others, such as Johnson Park, Yeovil, are helpful because these are pretty obscure venues and links to them (from, for instance, articles about towns) aren't always that good. An interesting test case might be Agricultural Showgrounds, which doesn't (yet) exist, but which flummoxes even Google: it is, to my mind, more identifiable as Agricultural Showgrounds, Frome, the venue of Gimblett's debut heroics. We really should try to think of the reader, not just the purist WP line. Johnlp (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think pages like that as redirects is not only fine, but a good idea, but the article itself should really be at the name of the ground in my opinion. I think. Oh, I don't know! Harrias talk 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that, say, "Rutland Recreation Ground, Ilkeston" is just as much the name of the ground as ""Rutland Recreation Ground" is. But since there clearly isn't a consensus, I won't do any moves. JH (talk page) 08:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You know what, I think you're probably right. Harrias talk 09:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jhall1 and Johnlp. Naming conventions are there to help, not hinder. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I clearly haven't achieved the consensus that I was expecting. Only four people have expressed an opinion, and of those User:Ukexpat is against the idea. It seems that were I to go ahead I might well find someone moving the articles back again on the grounds that the new names were not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Though I think that their view would be misguided, I'm not going to proceed if what I do is likely to be undone. JH (talk page) 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

International notability

There's been a few AFDs on international cricketers who have played at the lower levels of the game recently, and it has been suggested that some sort of criteria need to be established to decide who is and isn't notable when it comes to international cricket. After having a think about it, I've come up with a proposal, detailed on one of my user sub-pages here. I've tried to make it so that only players with a significant number of matches are included for those who have played below "major cricket" level. Any comments/suggestions for alteration are most welcome - I've not put too much effort into the wording or layout, so feel free to edit that! Once it's been thrashed out here, we can add it to WP:CRIN. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think something like that will help; it should be also mentioned somewhere that any non-international player who reaches Group B is notable.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the case of international players only, but your point is taken. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I could see that! Just thought it could be expanded to a full WP:CRIN guideline really...once we've agreed the details...—User:MDCollins (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Like this? Forgive the silly formatting and alignment, off to an exam! But we could work on it. It could even be a drop down from the project tag for quick reference. SGGH ping! 11:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of a flowchart, though that doesn't quite meet my proposal. I'll have a go myself later today. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, apologies. I did it very quickly before an exam! Feel free to fiddle with it how you wish. :) SGGH ping! 18:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Shoaib Malik

As Shoaib Malik is going to play for Lancashire in the T20 Cup (assuming his visa goes through fine) I thought I'd take a look at his article. That was a bit of a shock; surely we shouldn't have controversy sections? Any controversy can be integrated into the rest of the article rather than given such prominence. Anyway, I've had a go at rewriting parts of the article. The guy's had a long an eventful career, so there's only so much I can do in a day. It's still got chunks missing and it's patchy – for example the stuff on Gloucestershire is probably complete, but there's almost nothing on his domestic career in Pakistan – but I've trimmed a lot of unimportant stuff am looking for input from folks here. It would be great if anyone can help with the article as it's getting a lot of attention at the moment, almost certainly due to his recent marriage. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Johnlp (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Laurie Nash at Peer Review

I've finally got around to listing Laurie Nash at Peer Review. Pleased to get any feedback. Cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Foo national cricket captains

Hi, I've been looking at List of English national cricket captains and was thinking that going with our existing consensus on other articles, that this (and related international captain lists) should be List of England national cricket captains. Was going to execute/propose a move, but best check here first. —User:MDCollins (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, makes sense. SGGH ping! 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, makes sense. Harrias talk 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. But if we have the "England" do we need the "national" as well? --JH (talk page) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You could argue that for England national cricket team really couldn't you...—User:MDCollins (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Which redirects to England cricket team incidentally. What with it being the England and Wales cricket team.. Harrias talk 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Whaaaaaat???? I thought we had consistency here? Obviously not. Someone put me out of my mind and tell me we didn't decide (for whatever strange reason) to have Foo national cricket team for all international sides save West Indies cricket team and UAE cricket team (both not being nations)?—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely UAE is a nation (and is at United Arab Emirates national cricket team? In much the same way as the United States of America is? As for why it isn't at England national cricket team, I assumed it was because it included Wales, but I don't know for sure? Ireland isn't either, but I assume that's because it includes Northern Ireland? Harrias talk 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad memory; it wasn't UAE. here (from Archive 30) was where consensus was agreed. Still not sure why England was left untouched (there was a suspicion of no consensus, but just reading it through, I think it could have been moved). Dweller and Cream147 expressed the Wales issue, so that's probably why it was left as England cricket team. West Indies and Ireland (North+South) were also rightly left without "national". I don't really see the need to revisit this at the moment, at the time all the other sports used "national" and I assume they still do. Incidentally, I !voted for dropping the national in that debate (2007)! Unless anyone wants to think about this again, I think we can safely move the captains to equate to the form of the team article. Yes?—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup. There are times when inconsistency needs to bow to logic and accuracy. --Dweller (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a move for all of the "List of fooian national cricket captains" (found in Category:Cricket captains); along with List of Tasmanian cricket captains which is the only non-international list I've found. Would somebody check I've got them right, and haven't forgotten any?

I have suggested a change in the suggested name for List of American national cricket captains. Other than that it all looks good to go. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - well spotted. I've changed the request to List of United States national cricket captains for now.—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole bunch of "Category:Fooian cricket captains" that I believe should be move to "Category:Foo national(?) cricket captains" as we don't tend to make categories for captains from Foo, only captains of Foo. Else KP should be in Category:South African cricket captains as it exists at the moment. Thoughts? —User:MDCollins (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the general principal but I would wait for approval on the article name changes first. The crew at CfD are just as likely to take the whole name discussion in a direction that may be completely unexpected and out of left field. It would be good to show demonstrated consensus for the naming protocol developed here first on the chance that discussion there takes a distinctly wayward track. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I must be a dunce, but what is 'foo' incidentally? SGGH ping! 12:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You're not a dunce, it's just a generic placeholder, foobar, using mainly in computer programming etc, to mean a range of variables; a bit like the algebraic x and y.—User:MDCollins (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

More important than Wikipedia

England WIN! SGGH ping! 18:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Woop! - we shouldn't really do this, and I'm sure our antipodean friends won't appreciate it but hey, what the hell!!! We've won a shiny trophy - even if it isn't proper cricket...!—User:MDCollins (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
And it only took us a few South Africans and Irish players to make it happen! Harrias talk 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the English here would be a little chirpy :) Well played England, far and away the best team in the tournament. Enjoy it while it lasts, England's ritual humiliation in Ashes series in Australia is only 6 months away! :) -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought Australia were the better team over the course of the entire tournament; it just happened that England were the better side on the day. Still, I'm not complaining! – PeeJay 22:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Finally! After all those years of trying and we win something! But, my beloved Hampshire side lose again :( AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No, aside from the hiccup against Ireland, England played a much smarter and creative brand of cricket than the Australian team, who relied on brute force. When Plan A did not work for Australia, they had no real Plan B. Australia also carried passengers (i.e. Clarke, M, Warner, D) while the England team seemed much more even across the field. I support the ECB's right (obligation?) to pick the best team they can amongst all those who qualify for selection, so complaints about the SAn contingent would be weak. But, it must be heartbreaking for Irish cricket fans to see Eoin Morgan posing with an England flag. Still, he seemed happy enough in the picture. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Tiger O'Reilly might roll out of his grave. Australia didn't deserve to win with only ten men YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

England won something at cricket? What? I must've missed it. --Dweller (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob Taylor (cricketer)‎

The next one in my little side project, coming along okay. SGGH ping! 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope his unexpected international comeback, when he had to fill in during a Test match that he was leading a supporters tour to. --Roisterer (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia - World Twenty20 champions!

Congratulations to the Australian team, beating their traditional rivals in the final. A great effort to defend what seemed to be an inadequate total. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

....yeah... SGGH ping! 14:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah!!!. And only one of our players wasn't actually born in Australia! The-Pope (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So we are the only country to have our players in both winning teams. Tintin 03:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Bopara was born in England. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Any Sri Lankan experts here?

Hi everyone,

Any Sri Lankan cricket experts around? I was writing Chris Brown (cricketer) the other day who CricketArchive has down as having played for Badureliya Sports Club. This was red-linked, and User:AssociateAffiliate rightly found Badureliya Cricket Club and linked to that. I had a look at that article which uses B. Cricket Club throughout, but has one reference cited which refers to B. Sports Club. There is however a not-very-exiciting CricInfo link to B. CC. I assume that the club usually goes by the name of B. Sport Club (where cricket is presumably only one sport).

This Cricinfo article confuses things nicely with the following

"In another close game Badureliya CC stunned Chilaw Marians, winning by 19 runs at Badureliya Sports Club."

The hyperlink points to the scorecard with the heading "Tier A: Badureliya Sports Club v Chilaw Marians Cricket Club".

Would I be justified in moving Badureliya Cricket Club to Badureliya Sports Club?

—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A search on CricketArchive for "Badureliya" reveals only scorecards for Badureliya Sports Club, so that should be the name of the article as far as I'm concerned. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Was just about to saw almost exactly the same as Mr Nixon. Sports Club for me. Harrias talk 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have it noted down here as Badureliya Sports Club, as per Cricket Archive. A good 31 names to have a go at, if anyone's interested in knocking off some redlinks.
Hope everyone is well. Sorry I don't hang out here as much as I used to. 86.128.1.44 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (Lazy Bobo)

Cricket and Baseball

There's currently an exhibition at Lord's called "Swinging Away: How Cricket and Baseball Connect". There's a fascinating illustrated interview with the curator of the exhibition on the BBC's website, here. JH (talk page) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The image of Bart King's bowling action is a fascinating (and if it's from the CC Morris Cricket Library, probably out of copyright) picture that would go just perfect in his article, and probably in Comparison between cricket and baseball too. I'm off to the exhibition in July, just after going to Guernsey for Division Two of the European Championship. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The picture of Babe Ruth with the cricket bat is a gem too! The MCC press release is here. Being a big fan of his, I'm quite interested in the Bart King memorabilia. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Are any of them CC or PD? SGGH ping! 19:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If I understand things correctly, any photos of Bart King actually playing are now in the public domain. The photo of King at the batting crease in his article was actually scanned by someone at the CC Morris Library and e-mailed to a Wikipedia user. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

List of xxx captains - update - Help please!

Hi,

We've had an oppose to the proposal above re: the captains list articles. Could some of you take a look? Apparently "List of England cricket captains" is grammatically incorrect - well maybe it's ones like "List of Australia national cricket captains".

He prefers "List of Australia's national cricket captains":

" The only way to make it work would be to make the countries possessive ex: "List of XXXXXXX's cricket captains". If you don't want the apostrophe S you will have to use the singular for a country's national (Kenyan, Irish, etc)."

I'm not sure this is correct, but it could do with some more support anyway. I guess if we are really pedantic it should be "List of Australia national cricket team captains", but that seems a bit OTT.

Talk:List of English national cricket captains#Requested move —User:MDCollins (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense on stilts. It is the England national football team, not the English national football team. It is the List of England national football team captains not the List of English national football team captain, to provide some examples from other sports. You can captain the England cricket team without being English (see Mike Denness) so using the adjectival forms are out. not to mention going against well established precedent for sporting teams. I agree with you about the use of the word "team" being OTT but I fear you may have to concede - I doubt you will get past the pedants at CfD as it is. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - can you precis that and add it to the !debate?! Cheers.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, one I've noticed a few times, we have South African U-19 cricket team et al. I dislike that in all kinds of ways. Shouldn't it be something more along the lines of South Africa national Under 19's cricket team, as per South Africa national women's cricket team? Harrias talk 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - there's a lot similar to that that needs sorting, but one thing at a time (at least we'll have some related precedence to point to) - hopefully!—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_67&oldid=1149992950"