Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Friends Provident Trophy

Can you guys see a problem with the info box on the Friends Provident Trophy article??? I've had a look at the atricle history and nobody has edited that in there, I can't seem to find a way to remove. If you look and it's gone either I've found a way or someone else has. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, the problem was with Template:Infobox cricket tournament main. Harrias ^talk 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think to check the template page! Thanks for fixing it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

David Miller

The South African David Miller made his T20 debut earlier today. Cricinfo has his name as David but the current wiki article has him down as Dave. Does anyone know which is correct? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cricinfo and CricketArchive agree on David, I'd go with that. Harrias ^talk 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved it. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth moving David Miller (cricketer) to David Miller (Dorset cricketer) and putting this new one at David Miller (cricketer). I'd say the one with an international cap just about beats the Minor Counties cricketer for notability. Harrias ^talk 16:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, there were no "what links here" issues to fix. SGGH ^ping! 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I would have done it. But, you know, I'm... lazy. Harrias ^talk 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

James Cameron (cricketer)

Zimbabwean player yet to make first-class debut, but signed for a team in 2010. If I were to create James Cameron (South African cricketer) (CA) (former Nottinghamshire CB cricketer), would anyone be averse to James Cameron (cricketer)'s page moving to James Cameron (Zimbabwean cricketer)? Do either fulfil WP:PRIME, particularly?

For that matter, Nottinghamshire CB don't have a category yet. Maybe in time when I come back to Wiki and decide to create some names (thirteen Nottinghamshire CB cricketers have just a single List A appearance, and thus their articles should be easy to knock off), I should create a category for their players.

All that said, this question is 99% theoretical. Hope all are well. Bobo. 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IP changing heights of current Indian cricketers

More eyes needed on Recent changes linked of List of Test cricketers. A hopping IP comes back and changes the heights of a few of them every now and then YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw one adding heights, didn't think much of it. It could be a modified version of our Indian Date Change vandal who goes around IP hopping and changing birth/death dates. That one's on a /17 range block right now. —SpacemanSpiff 05:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Avikarshamandal (talk · contribs) is now in on the act, see here, here and even here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Times citations

I happened to buy The Times today and noticed that they've launched a new, paid-for website. I guess that all our (and others') citation links to the old site will either no longer work or will now or shortly be paid-for.

Is there a way to automatically update the links to a wayback machine type affair? If so, I'm proposing this may be a good task for a bot. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - I don't know whether it will apply to old content or just new. They've redesigned the webpage now haven't they, in anticipation of going paid-for. Presumably the links will still work though, just point to a pay-for-content thing (any idea how much? is it a subscription or a one-off?). I imagine this will affect other projects to, so it may be that someone wiki-wide will solve the problem for us!—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cricinfo All-time XI

Do we need an article/ section for this series of cricinfo articles ? All-time XI: Pakistan--yousaf465' 06:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really notable? Have others picked up on it and reported it? --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say not an article, but mentions on each player article that they were included. SGGH ^ping! 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So let begins a vandal dream.--yousaf465' 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaargh. KP over Compton, and Jim Maxwell picked Langer and Hayden as Australia's best. How scholarly, not! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIC All-time XI

I nominate Blnguyen as our captain and rock at number 3. ALoan can be our flamboyant all-rounder at 6. The Rambling Man has a safe pair of hands - wicketkeeper (and number 7). Johnlp and Jhall1 are clearly our spin twins, as they negotiate the webs of argument with elan. Any other nominations?

I suggest myself as drinks carrier/the number 2 who scores the quick fire 40. SGGH ^ping! 11:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Johnlp and Jhall1 are clearly our spin twins". Very flattering, this. But I think you should know that my slow left-arm spin is now so slow as to be in the J. M. Barrie class. Johnlp (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would nominate Bobo as our accumulator at number one, so we have:

1. Bobo
2. SGGH
3. YellowMonkey *
4.  
5.  
6. ALoan
7. The Rambling Man +
8. Johnlp
9. Jhall1
10. Blackjack
11.  

Still looking for someone steady at 4, something a bit creative at 5, and a couple of hard grafting pacemen at 10 and 11, either that, or a pair of rabbits... Harrias ^talk 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As this is the all-time XI, I feel we must nominate BlackJack - surely for one of the quicks - often shaking up the opposition by throwing down a few bump-balls.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be up for scoring, or occasionally bringing out the tea; I can always bat in the middle-order if anyone gets called up to meet the PM during a match.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is me, the 12th man ? 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added Blackjack as our nasty quick bowler who bats at 11. Who's our solid number 4 and our flamboyant number 5? And our teasing opening bowler? --Dweller (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it yellowmonkey or is evil alter-ego in the team? 'Cause we can always recruit the other for number 4 or 5. SGGH ^ping! 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blnguyen has many phenomenal attributes, but unfortunately the laws of cricket precluded Beefy and Ian Botham from batting in the same line-up, and sadly they will catch the yello monkey in that self-same net. (Although I'm sure the wheeze must have occurred to WG Grace). --Dweller (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff to bat at No. 5, I think. Will expand our horizons beyond merely England and Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely Sam Vimes, the most famous Norwegian cricketer, must get a spot in the XI. I see him as a number 5, who can also contribute a few overs of tidy medium pace in the middle of an innings. --Roisterer (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That would push the Spaceman up to four. Further continental representation could come from the {[User:OrangeKnight|Chevalier]], an exotic left-arm reverse swinger ... ? Although perhaps Dweller could provide some old-fashioned English outswing bowling, like what won the Ashes for England in 1985. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Nom Mattingbn, the scholarly Phanto282 (author of Bradman, Kippax, I Chappell, Chuck Fleetwood Smith) Sarastro1, Tintin1107 and the famous Jguk who left in 2005 mostly. Pity about Jguk he did a great heap on the English stuff that people might not notice, mostly domestic and old cricket. I don't provide the rock, rather a wannabe candidate for the "Virender Sehwag/Neil Harvey Plain Speaking Award" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:jguk is far and away the most eminent member of WP:CRIC because he got the whole thing started and made a raft of significant contributions, especially to Test cricket coverage, until he fell out with the site (for which I entirely sympathise with him). He should be the team captain and number 1 in the order. Another one you've overlooked is User:Moondyne who has been a brilliant contributor re Australian cricket. User:Mattinbgn also. One ex-member I miss is User:Stephen Turner who was invaluable for correcting detail.

I don't see myself as a fast bowler because in my era we bowled underarm, although Tom Brett and David Harris were said to be so quick that they were actually dangerous. Harris apparently spilled more batsmen's blood than Jeff Thomson ever dreamed of. So, okay, I'll be a fast underarm bowler and, if we end up with an Aussie captain, he can call on me whenever the opposition needs six off the last ball. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Two more who should definitely be mentioned here are User:Andrew nixon, for masses of information about cricket outside the Full Member countries; and User:Loganberry who is our resident expert on all things Worcestershire. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And though it's a while since I played, I'm a left-arm spinner - usually orthodox, sometimes Chinaman. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Associate and Affiliate members, there is User:AssociateAffiliate who has additionally improved our county cricket coverage and is very good at tackling redlinks. Two modest contributors who have also done significant work are User:Harrias and User:MDCollins.

In fact, we should not be picking a team but building an American-style Hall of Fame because there have been so many good cricket contributors that we would need at least two and probably three teams to fit them all in. The NFL has a rule, however, that a player must be retired for at least 5 seasons (I think it is) before he can be elected so that might mean none of us are eligible! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's who

I think I've got most of them, how many can you guys get from left to right? No looking at the relevant scorecard!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The one in the middle looks like Phil Tufnell.....a bit. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think... Sutcliffe (obscured), Jack White, not sure who third one is, Maurice Tate (possibly), Patsy Hendren, Wally Hammond, Percy Chapman, Douglas Jardine, not sure but possibly Phil Mead, George Duckworth. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see the shadow of the 11th man on the left. I agree with Sarastro about the nine he has named (second right is Phil Mead and, given the height, the 4th man must be Maurice Tate) but the two you're missing are legends: Jack Hobbs and Harold Larwood. One of them is the third man and the other is the shadow. The third man looks as if he might be a little shorter than Sutcliffe so I'd guess that he is Larwood while Hobbs is the shadow. The game is the First Test in 1928-29 played at the old Exhibition Ground in Brisbane when a noted Australian nightwatchman made his debut. England won by a whopping 675 runs. Hendren scored 169 and Larwood took 8 wickets and 4 catches. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Another infobox question

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I don't remember the answer. I've just done Albert Bailey (cricketer) up to about as far as I want to take him. But because there is no recorded date or place of death, his infobox has him still plying his slow left-armers at the exalted age of 138. I'd like to bring his innings to a close (he must be very tired by now, and Len Braund has given up bowling from the other end), but can't remember how. Johnlp (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried something but alas. the "living" bit needs to be empty, but other than that. I tried the partial dates function. No luck. SGGH ^ping! 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it by completely removing the "living" parameter and adding the "partialdates" parameter to the infobox. – PeeJay 00:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well done. Thank you and RIP Albert. Johnlp (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. – PeeJay 00:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's another one: the infobox on Laurie Hawkins does odd things because we have a month when he died but not a precise date. Is there an easy fix for that, please? Johnlp (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not quite sure why it wasn't working. Quick tweak to the template has solved it. If anyone spots that it has broken something, please undo it and let me know.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your touch on these things is more magic than mine. Johnlp (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Magic is right! I've no idea sometimes...—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox mock-up

Cameron White
Full name	Cameron Leon White
Height	1.87 m (6 ft 2 in)
Role	Batsman
Batting style	Right-hand
Bowling style	Legbreak googly
National side	Australia
Tests	2008–{{{lasttestyear}}}
ODIs	2005–2010
Domestic teams 1999– Victoria 2006, 2007, 2010 Somerset 2007– Royal Challengers Bangalore
Source: CricketArchive, 25 May 2010

Okay gents, I've had a play around, and this is what I've come up with so far. I appreciate that it is definitely not the ideal at the moment, and there is some more technical things I think it would be nice for it to do, but at the moment I haven't worked out how to do them yet. But would something like this be the route we want to go down? I think another drop down could be added for Under-19 appearances where relevant, and obviously each drop down would only display if needed. I think for players with only domestic caps no dropping at all would be best; ie leave it much as is, but then as soon as there is a combination of both, switch to this. The coding for that isn't in there at the moment, but I don't think it would be tooo complicated to add in. As I envisage it, the drop-down would probably only initiate if a international=true or u19international=true or something like that. If anyone wants a fiddle with it, the coding is located at User:Harrias/infobox. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks really good. An idea I've had is that the basic stats for each form of the game could be shown (matches, runs , wickets, average) with the further stats in the collapsible table. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff. Couple of thoughts: 1) not sure if "competition" is needed as it is somewhat implied, 2) is it possible to have the drop down the same width as the bar with "domestic" or "international" on it? And have the contents autofit? Other than that, very nifty. Definitely a forward step. SGGH ^ping! 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of the international drop down box being set to shown if international=true - it is possible to be an international but without playing any Tests, ODIs or T20Is at senior or Under-19 level - see for a current example Arul Suppiah. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true Andrew, I hadn't thought of that! As for SGGH's comments, the width of the drop down is one of the technical things I need to sort out, ideally I'd like it looking as similar to the current layout as possible, I just need to fiddle with it more - I was chuffed enough at getting it to work period! Harrias ^talk 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks really good. I agree that the word "Competition" is not needed. I'd also like to see a domestic section giving the main teams played for and the span of years (I don't think the exact dates would be necessary). JH (talk page) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's still there, just for some reason I never had it for White. Essentially this is identical to what we already have, except for the statistics section. Harrias ^talk 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Most excellent, now just team-related colouring, backdrop of each national flag, auto-updating stats, pop up boxes and coffee machine. :D SGGH ^ping! 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Made a few fixes/changes, how is it looking now? Harrias ^talk 19:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, on a serious note, will the drop down boxes default to open or closed? SGGH ^ping! 19:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would look better if the columns lined up. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good, but I think it would be better if the Domestic Information section followed the International Information section, to match the order of the two statistics sections. (Either that, or reverse the order of the statistics sections). JH (talk page) 21:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I like this. Thanks for getting stuck in H. I agree that it would be good if the columns could be lined up or were fixed width. One thing I had problems with when making the Mark I 'box was the width not quite being wide enough to display, for example, "2008–present" in the teams played for section. I appreciate you haven't touched that at the moment, but it might be a good opportunity to make things like that work. User:ChrisCunningham did a lot of technical work on it after I'd finished, and would probably help with things again. He's into standardising infoboxes and the like.

One of the more frequent comments/questions regarding the infobox, alongside "Please can I add a load of T20 stats", is can we have some limited-overs-specific stats (run/strike rate etc). I wonder how that might best be incorporated. Instead of the Domestic/International headers/drop downs, could we have First-class and List A to allow different rows to be specified. I was going to mock up, before I looked into the technicalities of Harrias' example (needing the changing of all the stats to dommatches/intmatches format - it'll take me too long tonight!

First-class drop down

Columns - Test - First-class

Rows: Matches, Runs, Average, 100/50s, Top Score, Deliveries, Bowl avg, 5 for, 10 for, best bowling, catches/stumpings

Limited-overs

Columns - ODI, T20I, ListA, T20

Rows: Matches, Runs, Average, 100/50s, Strike Rate, Top Score, Deliveries, Bowl agv, 4 for, 5 for, best bowling, strike rate, economy rate, catches/stumpings.

Something else I'd like to incorporate (especially if every stats section needs altering/field-renaming etc.) is the catches and stumpings have separate fields; it would still display the same way, but the row header would just say catches if no stumpings are added, and if removes the need for the "/–" for non-wicketkeepers.

—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I created this to generate the discussion as much as anything else, and in that it has worked! I was worried this would go stale, and then in a few months we'd complain about it again. I went with this domestic/international format knowing it still lack the one-day stats, but because it seems the nicest compromise to me; but I can appreciate the possibility of having (in my opinion three) dropdowns for each different format. If we did go that way, I'd definitely recommend putting List A/ODI in a different dropdown to Twenty20, especially as this could facilitate inclusion of U19 stats, which I think would be quite nice. A change from this to that wouldn't be too complicated, and if MDC hasn't come up with something in the mean time, I'll have a crack this evening. Harrias ^talk 06:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead - busy day for me today! I wondered whether usage would be made easier if the fields were completely defined (testmatches = ; t20runs = ; etc) rather than int123/dom123 which would cause problems. Obviously that would fix the six (or more) types of stats but would ensure that they all went in the right place in the infobox.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, I had a choice between fiddling around with the infobox here, or having pizza, cider and watching a movie with my fiancée.. I'm afraid the infobox didn't win. No dedication some people... Harrias ^talk 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a play back and forth with this (just using previews) and I'm not having much joy at the moment, so I'll invite anyone else who thinks they might be able to work the coding etc out to have a shot at it. Harrias ^talk 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What did you watch? I'm currently half-watching Das Boot with mine. SGGH ^ping! 23:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Das Boot is good, but if you're going to watch with your fiancee, Heimat is equally Teutonic but more romantic. BTW, on the infobox stuff, my question, if we're going to kow-tow to this T20 fad, is whether we can manage something that tells me which are the most economical bowlers, such as runs per over conceded? It strikes me as at least as relevant a stat as 5wi. Johnlp (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Watched 21 that night, and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past last night. Can you guess which I had more influence in choosing? Although that said, I think GoGP was better, 21 is a poor poor version of the book. Harrias ^talk 09:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - if you check further up the thread I've suggested some fields for the longer format and the "we need money" popular formats. I would think that the same ones would apply to the genteel 50 overs and the slog-fest. Have I missed any? I'd also advocate having separate input fields for catches and stumpings - they can still be displayed on one line but it need only say "catches: 29" instead of "catches/stumpings: 29/– for non-keeps. I dread to think of the number of boxes that need converting - we haven't finished from the last lot yet!!—User:MDCollins (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Mark II - mockup

Cameron White

Personal information
Full name	Cameron Leon White
Born	(1983-08-18) 18 August 1983 Bairnsdale, Victoria, Australia
Nickname	Whitey, Bear, Bundy
Height	1.87 m (6 ft 2 in)
Batting style	Right-hand
Bowling style	Legbreak googly
Role	Batsman
International information
National side	Australia
Test debut (cap 402)	9 October 2008 v India
Last Test	6 November 2008 v India
ODI debut (cap 152)	5 October 2005 v ICC World XI
Last ODI	14 February 2010 v West Indies
Domestic team information
Years	Team
2010–present	Somerset
1999–present	Victoria
2007–present	RC Bangalore
2006–2007	Somerset
First-class statistics Test First-class Matches 4 108 Innings (not out) 7 (2) 181 (23) Runs scored 146 6,680 Batting average 29.2 42.28 100s/50s 0/0 15/31 Top score 46 260* Balls bowled 558 11,730 Runs conceded 342 6,901 Wickets 5 172 Best bowling 2/71 6/66 Bowling average 1.63 1.7 5 wickets in innings 0 2 10 wickets in match 0 1 Catches 1 101
List A statistics ODI List A Matches 62 170 Runs scored 1455 4293 Batting average 36.37 34.62 Batting strike rate 82.48 78.75 100s/50s 2/9 5/28 Top score 105 126* Balls bowled 325 3712 Wickets 12 92 Best bowling 3/5 4/15 Bowling average 28.75 35.78 4 wickets in innings 0 4 5 wickets in innnings 0 0 Bowling strike rate 27.08 40.34 Economy rate 6.36 5.32 Catches 31 76
Twenty20 statistics T20I T20 Matches 20 76 Runs scored 481 1,792 Batting average 43.72 34.46 Batting strike rate 148.45 139.45 100s/50s 0/3 2/10 Top score 85* 141* Balls bowled 24 322 Wickets 1 22 Best bowling 1/11 4/10 Bowling average 25.00 34.46 4 wickets in innings 0 1 5 wickets in innnings 0 0 Bowling strike rate 14.63 14.63 Economy rate 6.25 8.88 Catches 10 1
Source: CricketArchive, 25 May 2010

Hi, I've expanded on Harrias' mock-up. What do you think of this one? Wasn't sure about U19 matches - as we know, they don't make a player notable, so are they notable for a notable player? It would be nice if the columns lined up, but prob needs a infobox specialist for that. One other point of order, the columns are hard-coded "testmatches/fcruns/odiwickets...etc" so it makes it easier to use; this does mean that it's limited to the 6 main types (Test/FC/ODI/ListA/T20I/T20). If this is a problem, shout. I've put the Int.T20 as "it20matches" rather than "t20imatches" as it is harder to confuse with "t20matches". This doesn't display, so doesn't matter if goes against our "T20I" policy.

Comments please? —User:MDCollins (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I quite like it. Question, when there is no information in the one day or T20 columns, are they still there but empty? Or do they not appear? SGGH ^ping! 11:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully they don't appear, but haven't tried every permutation! Providing you set "fccolumns=0/listacolumns=0/t20columns=0"; they default to show all columns. Also you can set each drop down to 2 columns (int+dom) or 1 column which just gives you the domestic version. As of course all international stats get added into FC/ListA anyway, you can't have just the international stats anyway (which would be really stupidly rare, but possible for non-top-tier countries I guess).—User:MDCollins (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, at the moment the headers will still be there. Simple to fix though...later.—User:MDCollins (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I like this a lot, and it's what I was trying to do with the other one with no success yesterday! I personally would like U19 stats in there, because I think they add more information on cricketers, but it wouldn't be a huge priority. That said, we should probably work it all out now rather than have to go back and keep making edits and upgrades to this! Good work! Harrias ^talk 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's get further thoughts on U19 first but yes, finish it then roll-out (slowly, but as fast as possible!).—User:MDCollins (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the option for an "Other stats" section. Under-19 could go in there, along with ICC Trophy stats. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better if possible to integrate it into the other drop downs - there should be room (although not sure whether U19 one-day and ICC Trophy would both fit under "List A" (are they even that?)? "Other stats" might work, although the ideal rows for the U19 "Tests" and Limited overs matches would be different of course, which would suggest 2 further drop downs.

In what sort of cases do you both feel it is relevant? All players? Or just the odd ones who haven't played "full internationals" (ie. for the major teams)- the Basanta Regmi sort of Test cases <pun intended>. If that is the case, how about the option to just change the column headers (from ODI to U19 ODI for example)? Would that solve the problem without "adding" any more columns. As I said, I changed the fields from xxx1 xxx2 xxx3 to testx listax t20x etc. Would it be a problem if they stayed as they are in the mockup but there was a switch "testcolheader=U19 Test" for example to override the automatic header? That way, the extra stats can remain in the correct slots (we may need to discuss whether the headers First-class, List A and Twenty20 are appropriate though).

Any of that make sense?—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The ICC Trophy except from 2005 onwards is not List A. I think my main problem with this current proposed lay out is that we've reduced the flexibility we have in column headings. I'd much prefer the International/Domestic split in the original proposal. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's excellent. The main thing is to ensure that it has a comprehensive set of detailed instructions around items such as when and how to set parameters like the partialdates=true one mentioned in an earlier topic. I will borrow from this for the early cricketers infobox if I can, although stats are a minimal requirement there. Great stuff. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack - I thought the early cricketers infobox was supposed to be replaced by this one MK I? Is there anything in there that doesn't work in the current version, or any bits of info usually missing from early cricketers that cause unwanted stuff to appear here? The idea was to have just the 1 box as far as I can remember. Yes, instructions will be important, but it has got to be easy to work at a glance,...

... which, Andrew, is where I felt the more explicit fields help rather than a list of international 123 etc. Also, it is harder to split limited overs and the longer form unless you split it four times etc. (or run out of columns). Could you give an example of the layout you'd prefer? If there is agreement to do so, the fields can be less defined (or the headers can be switched, but that could invite a free-for-all which may not be desired, although it is flexible), that's not a problem creation wise anyway.—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Further developments (so far added only to the first-class 2-columns stats awaiting feedback), separate from the outstanding above:

• added batting innings and not outs (as we aren't so stuck for space now it auto-collapses I thought this could be valid
• this allows batting average to be auto-calculated (except at the moment it won't round to 2dp if there is a zero; 24.697 displays as 24.7 not 24.70, which is undesirable as it stands
• if CA displayed balls faced, batting strike rate could also be calculated
• commas automatically separate 1000s as per MOS:NUM
• I've put in runs conceded, to allow bowling average to be auto-calculated, plus economy rates and bowling strike rates can be auto-calculated

Let me know if this automation is useful - don't know how much input it saves though as I've needed to add in extra fields. Are they (innings faced/runs conceded etc) useful to add at this stage?

Thanks again for the comments...—User:MDCollins (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm against having too many fields. If the user wants all that much information, they should be on CI or CA, I think that the infobox should have enough to get an idea about how good the player is, what sort of role they play, but there is no need for innings, balls faced, runs conceded etc. The automation is nice, but to be honest, as you say, surely it doesn't really cut down on how much we have to input, just changes what we have to input. And I would suggest, makes it more likely to go wrong! Harrias ^talk 07:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, they can easily be taken out again if they aren't wanted.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Wight

I can see the Isle of Wight from my window, but I don't know if it's considered one of the Minor Counties? I know it has a cricket board, I've been told in a match over there last year that they want to enter a team to the Minor Counties Championship... so is it considered a Minor County? If it is, I can amend the Minor Counties article! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

...it's a county? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it is! Harrias ^talk 19:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It used to be part of Hampshire, but became a county for local government purposes a couple od decades ago. I vaguely remember the queation of IoW cricket coming up somewhere on Wikipedia before, and doing a little investigation into it as a result, but unfortunately don't recall anything more. Is it listed as a Minor County on the ECB's website? JH (talk page) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One of my favourite bits of trivia is that for half the day the Isle of Wight is the smallest county in England, and for the other half its the second smallest, due to the tides. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have mention at the ECB [1] [2] and IoW Cricket Board S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Wight CB doesn't seem to be a member of the Minor Counties Cricket Association, though it could presumably apply. Mostly county cricket follows pre-1974 boundaries (in the case of Middlesex, pre-1965) and the counties are the "historic" ones; on that basis, IoW could still be counted as part of Hampshire, and of course Hampshire played at Newport a few times and at Cowes more often (including a century by Ingleby-Mackenzie). Huntingdonshire, Rutland and Westmorland have similarly never played Minor Counties cricket as such. Johnlp (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a look on the ECB website earlier and counldn't find mention of it. It'll be one of those "watch this space" ones should they enter a team in the Championships (which I believe Newclose County Cricket Ground was constructed for this purpose). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jardine FAC

I suggest everyone have a look at this veyr interesting article by Sarastro YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Douglas Jardine/archive1 :P S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And WikiProject members aren't barred by any means from participating. Some other types of articles get 4-5 supports from project members all the time YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Uqahr

Hi, can someone keep an eye on this Pakistani editor. He thinks he has great English, but his copyedits introduce grammar errors everywhere, and he also introduces factual errors everywhere through sloppy overgeneralisations, eg Test cricket. He keeps on reverting on and on YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

-Hey User:Yellowmonkey, all can say is that you have a problem. I will not revert it, i will only revert it if you don not explain it in a proper and correct term. Next time, learn how to respect other people and do not accussed other people, if! you do not have evidence to provide, ok. You have your own opinion and i have my own opinion. Your are just jealous. Uqahr talk 04:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Uqahr, I think you have just proved YellowMonkey's point about poor spelling and grammar, there are at least 5/6 basic errors in your reply above: "all can say" instead of "all I can say", "don not" instead of "do not" or "don't", "accussed" instead of "accuse", slightly odd punctuation "other people, if! you do not"; "Your are just jealous" instead of "You are just" or "You're just". I'm sure all YM wants is for you to make better quality edits (maybe checking through what you have written before posting) and make sure all of your factual points are checked, referenced and accurate. If the use of English isn't your strong point, that is fine; it doesn't preclude you from editing. It just allows others here to check what you've done and to correct any errors that slip through. I don't think YM is jealous.—User:MDCollins (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same guy who was behind the Great Britain national cricket team and One day Internationals Teams articles which were mentioned here and here? And if my memory serves me correct, he could be the same user who was reverting the infobox on player profiles, making ODI into One Day International and so on. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but his defensiveness is getting him nowhere. He needs to relax! And stop telling us our motives for speaking with him. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

East Asia-Pacific Cricket Council

Just came across East Asia-Pacific Cricket Council, an organisation I had never heard of until now. I notice that there is a reference to an ICC East Asia-Pacific region in the references provided while most of the very few search results for the complete article title seem to have originated from wikipedia. The article's infobox refers to Tim Anderson as the EAPCC President while the text and references refer to him as Regional Development Manager of ICC EAP. Any thoughts on the article content and title? Hack (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply: If you do not know about this, please see the official website of the International Cricket Council (ICC) for further information: http://www.icc-cricket.yahoo.net Thanks, --Uqahr (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The name East Asia-Pacific Cricket Council does not appear on the ICC website[3] which leads me to question the appropriateness of the title and content. Hack (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On 5 May 2010, Andrew Faichney was appointed EAP Regional Development Manager; Tom Evans is Regional Development Officer (replacing new Hong Coach coach Charlie Burke).[4] [5] Tim Anderson was appointed from EAP RDM to ICC Development Programs Manager in 2006![6]. I would assume the title of President never existed...

Here is the ICC EAP homepage. I would assume it's correct title is ICC East Asia-Pacific development region.—User:MDCollins (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All the regional organisations, with the exception of the ACC have now been renamed as "ICC region" - so ICC Europe, ICC Africa, ICC Americas and ICC Asia Pacific. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the title be ICC East Asia-Pacific region as per this link? Hack (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks right to me, even if they always abbreviate to EAP, yeah - might as well check the other "regions" are correctly located too.—User:MDCollins (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be wrong - in my dealings with them, they're always ICC East Asia Pacific, as in their logo - "region" is superfluous. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to change it to ICC East Asia-Pacific if there are no further objections... Hack (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ajmal Shahzad's pace

Both Cricinfo and CA have him as "medium-fast", so that's what we have on his page. He isn't, though, unless the Old Trafford speed gun is overdoing it quite a lot. Apart from the first two balls of his three-over spell before tea today, the list (Cricinfo's text commentary) shows that he was never once under 86.5 mph, and in the last two overs he topped 90 mph on six occasions. I'd call that fast - but whatever it is, "medium-fast" is clearly not right. Loganberry (Talk) 14:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The sites haven't been updated. He started out as a medium-to-quick type several years ago but he has got quicker as he's got older and stronger. He's definitely fast now. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

His bowling action reminds me of Flintoff's, he was consistently over 85 mph so I see no reason why CA and CI shouldn't update it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh national cricket team

Much like the team, this article is a mess! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism is very strong in Bangladesh, so mega nationalist pov articles like that are not surprising. Every editor from that country that I've seen, including admins, insists on using "martyrs" and "freedom fighters" for their own country's soldiers, as according to them, every source in Bangladesh does the same. Here is an excerpt from Banglapedia, a "scholarly source" widely used and lifted onto WP

While holding talks, the Pakistani military junta was bringing more troops to Bangladesh and at the same time wantonly killing innocent civilians all over the country. This clearly showed that they were totally insincere about handing over power to the elected representatives of Bangladesh. No sooner the talks failed, the genocide began, with the Pakistan army's crackdown on the people of East Pakistan on the midnight of 25 March 1971. The Bengali soldiers serving in the then Pakistan Armed Forces and para militia forces declared instantly their solidarity with the people's liberation war.[7]

YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The pov is stongly nationalist, which clearly isn't appropriate for that article. It's something I've managed to keep on top of with the Afghanistan national cricket team article, which at times gets fan edits. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Navbox overload

Opinions? I can sort of accept this sort of thing on the non-test playing team pages, but it isn't like the soccer world cup where making the finals is a big deal. I'm very surprised to see that this is a direct copy of the soccer templates... and I am extremely surprised to see teams like Brazil national football team and Argentina national football team have a navbox template for each world cup finals competition that they played in, but Italy and England only have the current one. I think it's overkill, unless you could collapse them all into a single line? I don't know enough about collapsing boxes to make it work, though. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, massive overkill. Not keen at all. Harrias ^talk 12:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that just one navigation box is overkill. Isn't this what categories are for? Andrew nixon (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew. Looks ugly and duplicates the navigation provided by in-line links and categories. Johnlp (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. I see PJ has removed them from the Aussie page but they are still on all the other national team pages. I vote for them to be removed. They're as bad as those WOrld Cup squad things that appeared a few years ago. I think Sir Beef had about a dozen of those on his page. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, especially as they are the same teams all the time. Need more competition in cricket YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If they were formatted a little more compactly, they wouldn't be too bad... Hack (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there can be merit to them, but it certainly looks like overkill in many cases. I find them very useful for getting around county sides for example, listed as part of a current squad. Harrias ^talk 09:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Is it me and my ancient machine or is there something wrong with the markup symbols below the edit box? Every time I've clicked on one today, like the ndash or the reference tags, nothing changes in the edit and the screen leaps to top of page. The icons above the edit box work okay, however. Anyone else had any problems? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I;ve had this problem today and yesterday when clicking on the sig inserter below the edit box. The icon for it above the edit box doesn't always seem to be working correctly either. I think Wikipedia have broken something. I'm using IE8 as my browser. JH (talk page) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I've never noticed those before? That could make certain things far easier! Works fine for me now that I know it's there though (on Firefox). Harrias ^talk 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I normally use IE8 but I've got Firefox too so I'll switch over if it becomes annoying. I'm glad it's not my machine for once.  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It works for me, but the screen still always leaps to the top of the page. Strange. Aaroncrick ^TALK 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review (updated)

Featured article

• Douglas Jardine• review

Peer review

• Laurie Nash • review

Good article

• Roy Kilner
• Steph Davies

Updated. Harrias ^talk 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Suitable source

I reverted an IP addition of this to the external links section of Geoffrey Boycott. I'm not aware of the source and its reliability, it doesn't look too professional - and in any case would be a reference not an external link - could anyone pass their thoughts about its suitability? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you; doesn't look like it meets WP:RS to me. Harrias ^talk 09:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia article about the site. Having read it, I'm unsure as to whether it's acceptable as a reference or not. Boycott's quoted answers look authentic to me. JH (talk page) 09:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mediocre, and certainly not on GAs or higher, ie Boycott YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Batting collapses

So guys, can you remember any batting collapses worse than the one to follow?

Hampshire were 93/4 and cruising to their target of 104 against Somerset. 18 deliveries and 4 runs later they are all out for 97.

Have there been collapses worse than this one in any form of the game? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Several by England in the bad old days of the 1980s and 1990s, especially that one in the West Indies when Curtly Ambrose skittled us.

But, no, the worst of all time has to be the lowest ever team score in a first-class match when The Bs, who were actually a very good team, were all out for 6 in their 2nd innings against All-England in 1810 after holding a 1st innings lead. The scorecard tells the story. Note that The Bs in fact scored only one run as 5 were scored by their two given men and there were only 3 scoring strokes in all. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really a collapse, but a good example of throwing away a sure win came in the Argentina v Bahamas match last week. Chasing 334 to win, the Bahamas were on 332-7 from 33 overs. Three balls later, the Bahamas were all out for 333. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Sussex v Surrey in 1972? Pat Pocock seven wickets in 11 balls with five wickets for one run in the last over of the match. I remember a couple of bad one day collapses, but nothing quite like Hampshire (although I think Lancashire came close in the early 90s in the Benson and Hedges Cup against Surrey).--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was a little bit pumped last night watching that! Didn't think we had a chance, and then everything went crazy! Harrias ^talk 07:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Curtly Ambrose, 7 wickets for one run in 32 balls against Australia at the WACA in 1992/93.[8][9] It won a Test match and a series for his team. I cried into my beer ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "worse". Possibilities that come to mind are Cobden's Match, Surrey v Yorkshire in 1995 where Yorkshire needing 4 runs to win with 3 wickets left lost those wickets for 2 runs, and a Surrey v Lancs MatWest Trophy match in about 1990 when Surrey were something like 200-2 and needing another 17 runs or so in the last 4 overs or so but collapsed against Waqar and Watkinson and didn't get them. JH (talk page) 09:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That Surrey v Lancs match was in the 1993 B&H Cup and Surrey were 212/1 chasing 237 with Stewart and Thorpe cruising. A couple of quick wickets and a lot of panic later they were 230 all out [10]. _wjemather^bigissue 10:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in the details of that Surrey v Lancs match. I got home from work and turned on the TV just in time to see the collapse begin. As a Surrey fan, it was perhaps my blackest moment. One other collapse that no-one has yet mentioned, not the most extreme but certainly the most famous, occurred at The Oval in 1882. I'm sure I don't need to say any more. :) JH (talk page) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Phew! At least last nights performance isn't a stand alone! Been some major ones over the years it seems. Thanks for the reponses! Harrias, I was livid. Turned off the TV in disgrace, the most angry I've been in my years supporting the county. A season which promised so much but has been nothing short of a disaster. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It could have been a lot different if Pollard hadn't cheated by backing out of hius delivery when he was no-balled....Actually he wasn't cheating he was just taking advantage of a flaw in the laws, but still. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That incident annoyed me, it needs to be looked at. The call for no ball should have stood in my humble opinion. Don't rate Pollard anyway, he'll go off the radar in a few years. Overrated and simply a hacker of the ball. I'd prefer to watch the kind like Pietersen, Tendulkar or Lara. If as I predict Pollard will be a non-entity in a few years, perhaps he can join the West Indian Rejects XI!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How can the call for no ball stand? There was no delivery. If you say that is a delivery, then bowlers would run up and swing their arms holding the ball six times and get maidens throughout!! He's a decent stroke-player; I think he only looks like a hacker because he's always expected to come out and swing for sixes now, so can't play a slightly slower more natural game. But he probably never will get to play that because he'll always be expected to play this way. So you could be right... Harrias ^talk 19:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh... I saw the pull out as taking advantage, which as Mr.Apples2010 says, is a flaw in the laws. As a spinner, I don't usually pull out of a run-up, but if I do it is done because I am not happy with my run-up, grip or something is distracting me. That to me is fine. Pollard's was a quick reaction to being no-balled, he very nearly released the ball - therefore I see it as not being a problem which came before being no balled and simply a reaction to the umpires decision. Bowlers shouldn't be allowed to get away with it unless they have a very good reason - but then again it would be like reading the players mind as to why he pulled out. Just seemed a very suspect one yesterday... something that certainly needs to be looked at. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, you might be right. Would have been one helluva reaction time to have done it from the call. I suspect he felt something was 'off' and maybe noticed he'd overstepped. As you say, it'd be difficult to judge if it was enforced. Harrias ^talk 22:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There was almost another one in the Netherlands v Scotland Intercontinental Cup game that's just finished. Chasing 77 to win, Scotland were reduced to 6-5 and then 18-6 before the seventh wicket partnership pulled them out of the fire to win. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, 6-5. I can only see Afghanistan or Zimbabwe XI winning that tournament. Ashame Ireland haven't made their mark on the competition. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh bowled Zimbabwe out for 44 last year... [11] Aaroncrick ^TALK 01:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

I suppose it was inevitable but someone has used an item on the Twitter site as a citation for a statement in a cricket-related article. Are these assorted ramblings considered verifiable or should they be dismissed as hearsay?

The article in question is John Woodcock (cricket writer) and it contains a statement that the subject's grandfather was born before the Battle of Waterloo. Apart from anything else, so what? But the point is that the given citation is Stephen Fry on Twitter about a year ago.

Personally, I would say "surely not", but what does everyone else think and does one of the admins know about any relevant rulings or guidelines? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say the only time it can be used would be when discussing specifically something that has been said there. Ie when Phillip Hughes used Twitter to inform the world he wasn't in the Aussie team. In cases like this there are likely to be other RS that can be used, but the original post can be used. In almost all other cases I can't see it be useful. For one thing, it is unmoderated content, it hasn't gone through any process before being published. I accept that the same can be said about some newspapers, but they can be held more accountable for such errors. Stephen Fry etc, can make things up, screw around with people and whatever they want! Harrias ^talk 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to do the math on that one. If his grandfather was lets say, born in 1814. That is 112 years before Woodcock was born. Seems rather implausible. Even when he was 50 it would be 1864, still 62 years before Woodcock was born. Meh, seems far fetched??? And other than seeing Jimmy and Swanny have comical arguments, I wouldn't use it as a citation. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's hearsay: unverified chitchat and not germane to Woodcock's notability. Mind you, it ought to be possible to verify it some other way. It's not that far-fetched: lots of ageing Victorians had second families after the death of a wife in middle age and a remarriage. Johnlp (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Twitter isn't peer reviewed so no, unless it is to cite something straight from the horse's mouth. But if the latter, it might be rather pointless as a mainstream publication is probably going to pick it up anyway, eg Lalit Modi, or some guy announcing a marriage or wedding YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Fry isn't a reliable source no matter how awesome he is, he isn't peer reviewed and so on. Twitter comments that have attracted third party (i.e. non-twitter) attention (like Swann) could be RS to the fact that they were made. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from the article and summarised by reference to WT:CRIC that the source is unacceptable. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob Taylor (cricketer)

He is coming along, we march slowly to FA or GA status on every England player in the 1979 World Cup! Boycs and Willis are GA currently. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any photos? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Category: Borsetshire cricket captains

An editor is proposing to merge all the Category:cricket captains, e.g Category:Somerset cricket captains, back into the cricketer categories e.g Category:Somerset cricketers from which they were originally demerged. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_15#Cricket_captains and I've already been in to oppose. Perhaps others might care to join me. Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just replied to the nom, but am leaning towards agreeing with him here, not sure though. To clarify, at the moment he is only proposing to do so for the English FC team captains categories, not every "cricket captain" cat. As far as I can tell, these categories don't exist for the non-English FC domestic teams, only the international ones (which are incorrectly titled (Fooian not Foo), but that's for another CfD). What he'll propose after learning that all the international teams are categorized by captain too, I don't know yet.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In light of the information provided by MDCollins and other concerns, I've withdrawn the nomination for now. I'd like to encourage Wikiproject members and those who post at them to remember to make their notices of XfDs "opinion-neutral" to avoid running afoul of WP:CANVASS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS should be ignored. All WP:CANVASS does is stifle and limit discussion to those who are "in the know" I would encourage all editors to make their opinion known about any issue however they see fit while remaining within WP:CIVIL. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah—except that canvassing can and does often result in community blocks being imposed. If you have no problem with that, of course you can do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes sir, you're living proof that policy is de facto optional. All the checkusers and arbitrators know that you are a reincarnation of a banned user. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tinfoil sometimes attracts microwaves, you know. (WP:CANVASS is not a policy, in any case, it's just a behavioural guideline. I'm sure you know that though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only used to suppress people from the underdog faction anyway. In any case, CFD is rigged so it wouldn't have mattered if there was actually consensus to keep. MAybe this might change if a certain suspected sockpuppeteer gets busted YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK if I cite your comment at Wikipedia:List of cabals#CfD Cabal? It seems particularly insightful on the matter, if not authoritative. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If it could possibly make your gigantic ego and sense of self-worth even bigger, then go right ahead son. You might think that you are a very important person being able to control categories, but it is all very pathetic, the activity of a pawn. It's the article writers and pov-pushers that can influence adn brainwash the majority of the world who are stupid, not a meaningless label. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I might admit to canvassing if there was any evidence that I was any good at it. But as the only person who went into this after me seems to disagree with me, then I'd say there was no great harm done, nor any great good either. Much of the rest of this I really don't understand, and am weighing up whether I should try to or not. Perhaps another day... Johnlp (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're all as confused as you. It appears that someone peed in someone else's coco-pops this morning. Or else someone is nursing a major grudge for some perceived slight. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think I’m going to try to understand this thing about Categories for Deletion (CfD), and there certainly seem to be people around who will be able to correct me if I’m mistaken.

If I spot something is up for CfD (unlikely, but it happens), I can do one of three things:

• I can ignore it.

• I can respond to the CfD note on the CfD page, stating whether I support or I object.

• I can come on to this discussion page and post a note to the effect that there is a CfD going on and put a link to it.

If I do the third of these, and I say which way I’m “voting” on the CfD, then this counts as canvassing, and I and possibly the whole project who read this note can be blocked or censured or something. Or perhaps not, because canvassing doesn’t seem actually to be “illegal”, just “against the spirit”. Either way, after a spot of “canvassing”, the discussion at CfD is ruled (by whom?) to be “tainted” and it gets stopped.

Oddly, if I do the third of these and make no comment in my remarks on this page about my voting intention, people can still follow the link back to the CfD, where they’ll see how I voted: but that’s OK, because it’s not canvassing. But directly I, or anyone else, open a discussion on this page about this CfD, then the shout of “Canvassing” goes up, the CfD is considered tainted and discussion stops.

Am I doing all right so far?

If this is all correct so far, then, were I to be a cynical person (which I’m of course not), then I might infer some or all of the following:

• That this system gives primacy about discussion on these matters to the CfD pages, rather than to those WikiProjects where there are people who actually know about the categories that are up for deletion

• That any discussion on a WikiProject talk page that contains any views is judged as canvassing and automatically “taints” that CfD

• That there seems to be no system for automatically alerting WikiProjects that categories relevant to their work might be up for deletion

• That if anyone steps out of line on this process of who may discuss what and where (as I seem to have done) then the discussion is arbitrarily halted whatever the state of the debate and the arguments that have been put forward at CfD

• That a new CfD can be started at any time and by anyone without reference to any previous discussion or its participants

• That the whole process relies to an unhealthy degree on someone like me just happening to notice that a particular category is up for deletion

• That people who regularly patrol CfD pages have an undue influence over which categories are retained and which are deleted and have no responsibility for informing WikiProject members who actually know about and use these categories.

Maybe I’ve got all of this wrong, and I’d be happy for someone to correct me. But it does seem to me that the system is opaque and unhelpful. The proper place for cricket discussions should surely be the cricket discussion page, not some obscure backwater that is in danger of being populated largely by filing clerks. And that should be true for cricket categories as well as for any other cricket-related matter. Johnlp (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy which may (or may not) be of use. At WP:FLRC (where we review featured lists for delisting), there's an obligation to notify "interested parties" (usually the relevant wikiproject and all major editors) that a review of an existing featured list is going on. Perhaps, simplistically, when a category is listed for deletion, all relevant projects should be notified as a matter of courtesy? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's fine for you to report that a CfD has been started. It's also fine for you to say which way you are "voting". It is not fine, however, for you to suggest that other people should "vote" the same way. That is canvassing. – PeeJay 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole saga is ridiculous and illustrates one of the worst aspects of this site, namely the ludicrous CfD process. Johnlp did nothing wrong at all. He simply advised this project of a relevant motion and stated his own position. The rest of us don't have to agree with him if we choose to take part and, indeed, User:MDCollins did not entirely do so. What the admins here should do is work towards getting rid of the clique that has inhabited CFD for as long as I can remember and replace it with a process whereby common sense prevails with the emphasis on project consensus. After all, who better to decide about cricket categories than WP:CRIC? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking devils advocate for a moment, I suspect one could also argue "who worse that WP:CRIC to rule on cricket categories" S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my comment caused such upset to the members of this Wikiproject. My intent was not to discourage participation at Cfd or to discourage others from encouraging participation at Cfd—it was merely to highlight the fact that (in my opinion, which is derived from WP:CANVASS) it would be best if encouragement to participate at Cfd is opinion neutral on the merits of any particular case. I see others disagree with that approach, which of course any one is entitled to do if they are willing to live with the consequences of carrying it out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all getting rather silly. Incidentally, I didn't take Johnlp's message to mean 'There are CfD people messing up the categories, join me in opposing'. I genuinely thought he meant 'There is a CfD discussion going on, I disagree with it, but could other people take a look'...knowing full well that all of us at WP:CRIC have individual minds, and don't always agree, but have a reasonable debate and hopefully get something done, not that we are some sort of collective who all vote on a three line whip; I therefore stated my views (knowing that I was in danger of breaking Dweller's Law...!). I also take John's point in his summary that anyone of us could have clicked through to the discussion and see how he !voted anyway so it doesn't really make much difference.

What would seem sensible now (if it doesn't break any hidden CfD protocols and technicalities) is that now the issue has been raised, we have a discussion here at WT:CRIC about whether categories for domestic club captains are worthwhile and necessary, and if so, do we standardise them across the project rather than just the English clubs, or if we should just delete the English ones and be done with it. If the latter is the case, surely nothing would stop us all giving our individual support in any CfD that arose (having previously agreed that was what was necessary)?

—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What you suggest as the way forward would be fine—an ideal approach, in fact. I was not meaning to increase the level of silliness, I just wanted to apologise for apparently upsetting some users, which caused a small degree of disruption here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks G O'F - I was thinking about the length of the thread really - going nowhere - rather than you're latest reply anyway.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But hang on a minute. Before we go off and have our nice chat about this specific category/categories (which indeed we should do), can someone answer the wider issue I raised, which is why CfD seems to operate as something external to the discussions that go on here and appears to claim primacy over discussion on matters where this forum has significant knowledge, to the point of refusing to discuss if any discussion has taken place here? User:The Rambling Man's suggestion above struck me as apposite and would be helpful as a starting-point: it might at least open up CfD to more scrutiny. I'm sorry if some people find these concerns "silly", but I'm afraid I disagree with them. I think WP proceeds by consensus and values knowledge: this kind of practice seems to infer that some consensusses think themselves better than others and that knowledge is only marginally relevant. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry John - didn't mean to imply that your concerns are silly. Far from it, we keep noticing issues with CfD, such as the ones Andrew has noted below because people don't get informed in join the discussion. However, I don't think we are going to get very far on this talk page, with only one "active CfD member" participating. I think bringing this up at WT:CfD might get somewhere, although I've got a feeling that it has been debated before (not that it should stop us trying to revisit the issue.—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just point out that I think a few of your premises are false. No forum "refus[es] to discuss [an issue] if any discussion has taken place here". Discussions to formalise category name changes or deletions take place at Cfd, but of course that doesn't mean pre- or post-discussion can't take place here or anywhere else. Cfd is also open to all and anyone can participate there and many do, and there is no one monolithic "Cfd viewpoint" controlled by a Cfd mind that views itself as somehow having the views you ascribe to it. The sole point of my comment was that once a Cfd is underway, it's inappropriate (again, in my view) to encourage users to vote in any particular way. That's just derived from WP:CANVASS, and is nothing the "Cfd mind" came up with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem a lot of people have with CfD is their constant need to disambiguate where there is no ambiguity - for example the ridiculous Victoria cricketers one from a couple of years ago, and the equally ridiculous MCC cricketers one from a few months ago. There is also the, what seems to me, strange situation where even if no one other than the nominator has voted, the CfD is passed and carried out - even more likely considering that relevant parties are not informed. Indeed, the first time many of us become aware that a CfD has had an impact on a category we use a lot is when we log in in the morning and see a stream of dozens upon dozens of bot edits on our watchlists. The process needs to be looked at seriously. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with that is add categories to your watchlist and then participate in Cfd when they get nominated for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as easy a way, probably easier, since it wouldn't involve lots of people having to add lots of different categories to their watchlists, would be for those active at CfD to know what WikiProjects there are and to inform people active in those projects through pages such as these. It would also in my view be the courteous way. Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be "easier" for you, since it shifts the burden, but it's not easier for those nominating the category, of course. I always prefer self-help. If you are concerned about an issue, rely on yourself to track it, not others. If you rely on others you'll constantly be wondering if others are competent in what they are doing and whether they are doing what they should. It's almost guaranteed that others won't do things in the way you desire. Also, it's not always clear which WikiProjects should be notified. For an essay on this, see User:Kbdank71/Wikiproject_notification. In any case, this isssue is not going to be resolved here (besides being an incorrect forum for such a discussion) so in the meantime, if you care about a category, the most reliable way to stay abreast of any developments is to add it to your watchlist. It also has the satisfying benefit of doing something for yourself as opposed to making you feel like you want to bitch at others after the fact for them not doing something you wish they had done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can see how hard it might be to know to inform the Cricket project when the category is about cricket players. Oh I see - you don't know whether you might need to inform this project or the insect project. Perhaps some CFD style pointless disambiguation is needed to help you? Andrew nixon (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking more broadly and my comments were not meant to be limited to cricket players categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this discussion a couple of months ago? Either ways this is not unique to the cricket WP, we now have cities and towns categories renamed as "populated places", because apparently city and/or town are too ambiguous. I think the standard response we get from these is "don't bitch because I decide a category is useless and don't think the Wikiproject's opinion matters anyway". This issue is unlikely to get anywhere, so IMO, a simpler alternative is to create lists and list them in the "see also" section, and entirely do away with the category wall at the bottom. Of course, lists go to AfDs, where they generally get sorted under the Wikiproject anyway, so John et al wouldn't have to come here to canvass. —SpacemanSpiff 13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people. I'm glad I'm a member of this WikiProject, because from what I have seen here on more than one occasion, anyone that does something we don't like slightly gets lambasted and made to feel like they shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. I'm ashamed of the insults and complete lack of courtesy offered by the vast majority of members, and sincerely hope that they don't act like this in real life. Good Ol’factory does his bit on Wikipedia, and I'm sure he does it with the best of intentions and to the best of his ability, as we all strive to do. Just because we don't like what he is doing, doesn't mean we should dislike him, or have a right to insult him. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. JH (talk page) 09:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Friends Provident Trophy seasons

I've now completed all remaining Gillette Cup/NatWest Trophy/Cheltenham & Gloucester Trophy seasons. If anyone can spare some time to make sure there are no errors and correct any there are. Thanks AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

List of New Zealand Test Wicket-keepers

Hi all, according to the Template:Cricket in New Zealand there is no List of New Zealand Test wicket-keepers. Is this something that the project would like to see created? I don't have any sources, or any real knowledge of the subject to do it justice as I am a very part time contributor to this project (occasional clean up only), so I'm just posting here in case any one is keen to create it. No pressure, of course. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I looked at this briefly but, due to laziness, discovered there was no convenient CricInfo table :P S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There a few of those lists we dont yet have. I cobbled the Aussie one together from personal knowledge and some research. I don't recall copying it from anything published online. –Moondyne 03:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

–Moondyne 03:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a great idea. I've made a start on the big one, List of English Test wicket-keepers‎, but there's a long way to go. I'll add to it gradually but any help will be welcome. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take West Indies. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There we go, List of West Indian Test wicket-keepers. I can't get the FC team links right but I've got to go out unfortunately.

I added a few more. Johnlp (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This query and others like it might be useful. The-Pope (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In case people don't know - you can quickly go from one team to another by changing the 'team=' part of the URL (=1 for England, =2 for Australia etc.) Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to say that these lists should be at List of England Test wicketkeepers etc for reasons we keep going over (keepers for England, not from England). If nobody objects, I'll get these ones moved now while you're starting on them.—User:MDCollins (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack.—User:MDCollins (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Foo cricketers" rationalisation and clean-up

• Foo cricketers clean up

I have prepared a collection of links (Lists of/Categories) that need correcting from "...Fooian cricketers..." to "...Foo cricketers..." to match our convention here. Can you all check through and point out an errors/discrepancies/points for discussion, and have a look in the various categories to ensure I haven't missed anything?

A quick summary: Articles/Lists/Cats should be in the form "List of England Test cricketers" (not "List of English Test cricketers" as the scope of the article is Test cricketers playing for England, not cricketers from England.

There are a couple of sections for further discussion. I have included a list of the domestic captains Lists alluded to in the previous withdrawn CfD. Are these necessary? There are also sub-categories for certain International captains (Zimbabwe, India) by Test/ODI/Youth etc, whereas other countries tend to just have a generic captaincy category.

Please check through, make corrections, add things. Probably best if any discussion is here though. Thanks, —User:MDCollins (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:CricketWatch

I was just thinking of ways to keep track of wholesale changes (Category discussions for example) by using the Related Changes tool. This can probably be done via use of the Project talk-page banners. I came across {{CricketWatch}} which seems a simpler version of {{WikiProject Cricket}}. Basically the text is the same without the class assessment material. Is this necessary, or can we convert them all to the more comprehensive banner? —User:MDCollins (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian Cricket WAGs

I've prodded it, but had to bring it to people's attention. Certainly a new experience in unencyclopedic articles for me YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think people could get more unencyclopedic, but it seems they can! Although, google imaging some, Mitchell Johnson has a good taste in women. His chick is fit!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how they've worked the husband of a female cricketer into the article as an honorary WAG. I'm surprised the article has lasted two months tbh... Hack (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I only found it after the author linked to his article from Watson's page. The link for his wife leads to the WAG article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The ball

Hey, what happens to the ball overnight during a test match? Always wondered, does the umpire or referee have it? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Law 5.2 states that the ball is under the control of the umpires throughout the match. The playing conditions for Test matches and the Intercontinental Cup clarify it a little more as "The umpires shall retain possession of the match ball(s) throughout the duration of the match when play is not actually taking place... and shall retain possession of it at the fall of a wicket, a drinks interval, or any other disruption in play." So they retain possession of it, but whether that means it is left overnight in the umpires room at the ground or if they take it from the ground and sleep with it, I don't know. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I imagine Simon Taufel and Billy Bowden, sleeping in a shared hotel room in two single beds, with the ball on a pedestal on the middle bedside table. They stare at it lovingly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I worry about you. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's their friend. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Locked in umpires' room whenever they are not with it, I understand. That includes lunch and tea. I wonder how often a ball gets lost while it is in the umpires' care? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

National Flags

I noticed that the flags used in many cricketing articles are the current flags for the country concerned, something which, strictly speaking, is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Flags that spring to mind are the unoffical Australian per-1901 flag, the two South African flags: 1910-1926 and 1926-1995 and so on. It is also suggested that for purposes of cricket, the West Indies Cricket Board's flag be deemed a "national" flag. This is in line with Wikipedia policies. Any comments, or would this be stirring up a hornets nest? Martinvl (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you are saying, could you give some specific articles and usages as example of when you say the right and wrong usage is? Harrias ^talk 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An example is List of Test cricket hat-tricks - the flag associated with Fred Spofforth is AUS. I am suggesting that it should be the Australian Federation Flag - the unoffical pre-1901 Australia flag. Other examples are pre-1947 India and pre-1994 South Africa. Martinvl (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty good example of why all this flag stuff is a bit daft. Question: what do the flags in this list denote? Answer: they denote the nationality (or the cricket team) of the person. Question: do the flags denote the time period that the person played cricket in? Answer: no (or at least not in any other instance here). Question: Is the old Australian Federation flag instantly recognisable as an Australian flag to those with only a passing knowledge of flaggery? Answer: no (or at least not to me). So basically by using this pre-1901 flag you're giving me a symbol I don't recognise that pertains to an attribute (playing pre-1901) that isn't available to all other players in the table, rather than an instantly recognisable symbol used elsewhere in the same list? I think realistically there are two alternatives: no flags at all, or recognisable ones that are consistent within the table for the teams played for. What think others? Johnlp (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to be one of the no-flags at all brigade, particularly if they end up being squabbles/unrecognisable, or simply pointless. In recording a hat-trick, does it matter whether he was playing for Aus, Eng, WI or Nepal? Not really. Useful maybe you want to know how many of one nationality have recorded the feat in question but there are probably other ways of doing this. In the cited example, the actual flags are completely pointless, especially being a sortable table. Not least because (on my screen at least), they contribute to a pointless line-wrap and the WI flags are missing.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of interest/extension, I've just look at a handful of the squad tables in the English Counties and they seem to use flags only in the "nationality" column - denoting cricketing nationality (i.e. there is no supporting ENG/AUS/ZIM type text). Surely this breaks the general accessibility guidelines, not least that which says "Accompany flags with country names" (MOSFLAG). Are they necessary?—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the response, I withdraw my original suggestion except my comments regarding the West Indies. Martinvl (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The WI cricket flag is used as a "national flag" except that it is copyright, so can only be used on the West Indies cricket team page under fair-use, not elsewhere. Harrias ^talk 12:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On the pre-1901 Australian articles, you could legitimately use the Union Flag... Hack (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We did agree to change all these wrong flags but never got round to it, mainly I suspect because we were waiting for a bot to present itself to either switch the flag or go to the modern infobox with no flag YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Another infobox possibility

I was giving this problem some more thought, and I've come up with another possible solution. I can predict that possibly this one won't get much support, but I think it's better to put it out there anyway! So far, we've been trying to cram more and more information into these infoboxes, so we can fit Test, ODI, T20I, First-class, List A and Twenty20, and anything else we can think of into the box, with all kinds of statistics. Which is all well and good, except that already we have pages like Jahid Ahmed where the box is a lot bigger than the content itself. Obviously a fair counter argument is that pages shouldn't be that short and as a WikiProject our goal is to eliminate all suck articles by expanding them. But that simply isn't all that realistic.

So, I controversially wondered what would happen if we shortened the infobox instead. Now, I've rather gone for it with this, and I suspect even if this gains support we'll add some stuff back in (batting and bowling averages for example!) However, I've come up with a few mock ups.

Existing page	Mock up page
Cameron White	User:Harrias/Cameron White
Damien Wright	User:Harrias/Damien Wright
Jahid Ahmed	User:Harrias/Jahid Ahmed

Now, I hear you all yelling "But all those statistics that we love!" But fear not. Although not currently part of my mock-up articles (it's 1am, gimme a break!), I propose adding a statistics section at the bottom of the page. This is the larger of the snags, as a number of members of this project don't seem keen on any such tables at the bottoms of pages. However, my proposal is that similar to how Ice Hockey players (see Simon Gagné, Mike Richards etc etc) have a table of career statistics, we can have such a table for cricket stats. This would list 'all the pertinent stats from Cricinfo / CricketArchive, (preferably the latter) without having to omit economy for List A matches for example. It would prevent the infobox getting huge and unruly. (Although I came up with an infobox with dropdowns and the such, I don't really like the idea of them; especially for page and image formatting!)

Right, so... thoughts? *prepares himself* Harrias ^talk 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it, good work! I have often thought that the infobox stats could do with a bit of trimming but I wasn't sure which bits should go. I think the averages should be in there though. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong support for this change. Infoboxes are designed to provide a snapshot of the key information not a comprehensive listing of detailed and specific information. "Less is more" should be the rule with infoboxes. I would leave the infoboxes as presented here by Harrias without adding anything back in. While I have no objections to adding the more detailed information in a template at the bottom of the article (preferably one than can be auto-hidden) I think we should remember that our primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not an almanac or a statistical compendium. Personally, I could live with a simple link to CA/CI and leave out all the detail (other than that referred to in the text of course). See the rather neat baseball box at Armando Galarraga (a man more unlucky than the English football team). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm just commenting for now while I sit on the fence for a bit! This is interesting. You are right in saying for the mass of statistics, that may well be better off leaving to CA (it's a hell of a lot less updating to do too). I'm not sure we need a statistics section as that won't really solve the problems faced by a long infobox. As Mattingbgn said, this is an encyclopaedia, not Wisden. One thing to point out is that don't forget the FA/List A stats include the international ones, so possibly putting them under the "domestic" header might be misleading. Also, for the international section, personally I'd leave out the different dates for Test/ODI/T20I and instead have a general start-finish date/national team in the format of the domestic ones. This would be easier to work for the 2 nationality players too. The previous plans pretty much stalled through lack of input/a handful of editors commenting without enough agreement for consensus. I wonder how far this could go.

Would it be practicable to have an infobox where by default most of the rows were hidden, but could be revealed by clicking on a Show link? That would seem to give the best of both worlds. JH (talk page) 09:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what we had before I think (see Archive 68). My problem with that would be the fact that when you expand it, it changes the format of the page, which for articles with images / tables / quotes, could mess things around a fair bit. And as Mattingbn points out, the infobox should be more of a snapshot than a comprehensive profile. Some article probably have more content in the box than in the actual body of the article!! Harrias ^talk 12:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On baseball: it's interesting how batting stats are not listed for pitchers. I know in the American league the pitchers don't usually bat. But the National league pitcher Tim Lincecum bats and his stats are not shown. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but with cricket these days almost everyone bats. There are still a few 'rabbits' (Chris Martin and Charl Willoughby spring to mind!) but they are rarer and rarer. Harrias ^talk 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well with modern bats, flat pitches and roped fields... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that having the squad numbers next to a player's teams was a bit pointless. Does anyone else agree that they are not needed? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I've found them reasonably useful in the past when trying to identify players at County games where the scorecard / announcer hasn't been very useful. Harrias ^talk 17:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't tend to affect the layout other than filling some blank space, so I say, why not. If they took up an unnecessary row, fair enough. Pretty harmless.

Fair enough, to me it just looks a bit messy sometimes. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

County Ground Names

A user called MusicMagic95 has moved a number of cricket ground articles so that they bear the "official" ground names including the sponsor name, even though cricket followers (and scorecards in the media) hardly ever use them. I've moved The Brit Oval back to The Oval, and left a note on his Talk page telling him why I've done so. He has also moved County Cricket Ground, Chelmsford to The Ford County Ground. a name which whilst it might reflect the current sponsorship, I had never previously heard of. As well as the question of familiarity, some county clubs change their ground's sponsor very frequently, so that using the "official" name would mean we'd always be changing articles' names. He's made alterations to List of cricket grounds in England and Wales to reflect his changes, so that article gives an overview of what he has done. JH (talk page) 17:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you. Nuff said. Harrias ^talk 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Chelmsford too. And the Riverside. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So how do we feel about the SWALEC Stadium then? Johnlp (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Swalec should be reverted to Sophia Gardens on the same principle as above. Swalec is a limited term name (to 2018) and they may well revert at the end of that time. I think we should always use the basic/underlying/default name of the venue but the article lead should emphasise that a sponsored name is in current use. What do others think? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong support for me for reverting back to Sophia Gardens. FWIW, all Australian sports grounds are listed at their generic - rather than commercial names - such as Stadium Australia (officially titled ANZ Stadium) and York Park (currently known as Aurora Stadium). One ground is even listed at its nickname The Gabba rather than its official name of Brisbane Cricket Ground. We even have one article listed at the very vanilla name of Melbourne Rectangular Stadium where no generic non-sponsor name exists! This policy was agreed upon by Australian editors for the very same reason as above - frequent change of sponsors leading to confusion. Wikipedia is under no obligation to assist advertisers and we should use the neutral, generic, long term and familiar name (with redirects from current sponsors names) where possible. Now, lets talk about moving Victorian Bushrangers back to Victoria cricket team ... :) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Now, lets talk about moving Victorian Bushrangers back to Victoria cricket team ..." - yes, that practice has always unsettled me slightly.—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What about SuperSport Park and Sahara Stadium Kingsmead? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. How many of these are there? Johnlp (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say revert them back to Centurion Park and Kingsmead but the local WikiProjects may have other ideas too. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And personally, I'd revert the Australian team articles too! Harrias ^talk 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Kingsmead article has a logo in the infobox. I think it's horrid, but what do others feel? Johnlp (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC) PS I've moved the Kingsmead disambiguation page to a new title of Kingsmead (disambiguation) but need an admin to move the cricket ground to be the main Kingsmead article. Johnlp (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that sponsors names should not be used for the title of articles on teams or ground. If the name becomes common usage we could just set up a redirect from the "Sponsored" name to the "Unsponsored" article title. As Mattinbgn noted above, this has been already done for a number of Aus stadiums. As for the Vic Bushrangers, at least it is not the DEC Vic Bushrangers. As for Kingsmead, could I suggest that the Sahara Stadium Kingsmead be moved to "Kingsmead (cricket ground)", with a redirect from Sahara Stadium and keeping the disambig page that Johnlp setup at Kingsmead? Cheers Matt5AU (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of being bold and mostly agreeing with the last contributor, I've moved it to Kingsmead cricket ground, Durban, which has the extra merit of including the place name in its title as well. I'll make sure the redirects work properly and then turn my attention to Centurion. Johnlp (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember we had a similar discussion somwhere about the Cardiff ground somewhere last year. Unfortuentely the consensus was to rename it as SWALEC Stadium. I strongly support the re-naming the articles to their former non-sponsered names. Aaroncrick ^TALK 20:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion in April 2009 regarding a proposed move from SWALEC Stadium back to Sophia Gardens is Talk:SWALEC Stadium#Requested move. It was closed as "do not move" but to my eyes, "no consensus" would equally have been a valid conclusion. I would think that a re-opening of that discussion may provide a different result if anyone wishes to do so.—User:MDCollins (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, as a result of that discussion, somebody created Sophia Gardens (with a redirect from Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground. A summary of said article appears to be "Sophia Gardens is a public park in Cardiff, next to the Taff, that houses Glamorgan CCC, the Welsh Institute for Sport, an exhibition area and a car park".—User:MDCollins (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Johnlp that the title should include the town or city. I recently moved The Circle (cricket ground) to The Circle, Kingston-upon-Hull for the obvious reason that the former could be anywhere. Having said that, it is nowhere now because they built the KC stadium on top of it but never mind. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Victorian Bushrangers

"Now, lets talk about moving Victorian Bushrangers back to Victoria cricket team ..." said Mattinbgn above and I agree with him except that I wonder if the doings of the Victorian team should come under the state association article? The English county clubs are, I suppose, more definite entities than the Aussie state associations and so we have Yorkshire County Cricket Club and not Yorkshire Whatevers. I've often wondered if we should equate Victoria State Association with YCCC? Any thoughts? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. As an Englishman, I'm not really familiar with the State Association - is that a separate team akin to the Cricket Boards in the UK, or do you mean "Cricket Victoria" - which presumably was once at Victorian Cricket Association (which our American friends would think sounds like cricket played in the Victorian era. If Cricket Victoria (the administration) is separate from the Bushrangers, I see no reason why Cricket Victoria and Victoria cricket team cannot both exist quite happily. Unless you propose that Cricket Victoria is merged into V cricket team...- in which case an Aussie specialist will be able to give better input than me.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The administration of cricket in Australia is very strictly hierarchial, building from club level to association level to state association level to the peak body - Cricket Australia. The state associations' main role is to administer all organised cricket in that state. This includes:

• General administration and co-ordination of all levels of cricket in the state
• Directly running the "premier cricket" club competition in that state - in this case Victorian Premier Cricket
• Selecting and administering the representative team of the association - in this case Victoria cricket team. The Victoria cricket team is only representing Victoria indirectly - it is formally the representative team of Cricket Victoria

While it would be quite legitimate to roll these three separate roles into the one Cricket Victoria article, if all were developed as they should be they would all require splitting out again at some time in the future.

It is also important to remember that the "Victoria cricket team" is not a club in its own right, it is a representative selection of players in the Victorian Premier Cricket competition. Players, including foreign imports, seeking selection in the Victoria team must be registered with a member club that is in effect their "club" (this may have changed in the KFC Big Bash era). Hence Shane Warne's actual registered club side was, throughout his entire career, St Kilda Cricket Club, a member of the Victorian Premier Cricket competition, although he would have hardly played a match with them from 1992 onwards. The Victoria cricket team is not a club side in the same way as Lancashire County Cricket Club is a club. No sure any of this helps but hopefully it provides a bit of clarity-- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say leave them separate as the state assocn also does things such as collecting money and funding upgrades of district grounds, makes the rules for district cricket teams and oversees their mergers and so forth. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

University match

Oxford piling on the runs in the University match - 611-5 in the first innings, which I think is a record. Michael Taylor - "pick" of the bowlers with 4-161 - is one of my colleagues at CricketEurope - one of our statisticians. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

They must be batting on an absolute pavement, Cambridge 104/0. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a yummy pitch, a number 8 like me sounds like they'd enjoy themselves on that one. Being an all-rounder, I wouldn't look forward to bowling on it though! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidently the Oxford captain knew the previous record, as he declared when it had been beaten by one run. JH (talk page) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fowler's match

It is the centenary of the remarkable Eton v Harrow match held on 7 and 8 July 1910. The article is largely based on a couple of articles on Cricinfo and some contemporaneous newspaper reports, plus bits of biographies, but further contributions to this new article would be most welcome. -- Testing times (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Boycs pub

A couple of people have added the following to Geoff Boycott

He remains the only living English cricketer to have had a Pub named after him - the '"Sir" Geoffrey Boycott O.B.E.', Westown Dewsbury.<ref>http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/151101.html</ref>

Although the source does concur that the pub exists, it does not say it is the only one, it just does not mention any others named after living people:

Other pubs noted by Major Bible as being named after players include two Dr. W. G. Graces (in London and Chesterfield), The Spofforth in Liverpool, The Larwood in Mansfield, and a bar called Sobers (which may be an elaborate pun) in Derby.

Might not be a big deal, but I don't know whether the fact that there is such a pub is even notable anyway. I can't find a source that states that he has been recognised as the only living player with a pub named after him, and that this is thought significant. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems impossible to know for sure whether he is truly the only living English cricketer to have a pub named after him, but it's sufficiently unusual to I think be worth noting. I'd suggest rewording it to: "He is one of the few cricketers to have had a pub named after him - the '"Sir" Geoffrey Boycott O.B.E.', Westown Dewsbury." JH (talk page) 08:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the pub changed it's name a few years ago and it's now called "The Park Hotel", although last time I was in the vicinity, the windows still had the old name. I've never been in as it's a little ... erm ... shabby. So it's a bit academic now anyway! And I don't think it was ever particularly notable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And I just noticed that they've got the place wrong. Westown is in New Zealand. There is no page for Westtown (Dewsbury), where the pub is. It's not worth changing, though, if the sentence is going to be taken out.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oldest first-class cricketer

Does anyone know who old the oldest living first-class cricketer is and whether that person has an article? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Eric Tindill has to be close. The oldest ever (probably) was Jim Hutchinson. Johnlp (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sid Ward was born 5 August, 1907, and played several games with Tindill. He may also have played football for the Waterside club that won the Chatham Cup three years running in 1938-40. This blog post indicates he was still alive last year (though it mistakenly states he was then 102). He does not appear to have an article on Wikipedia. —Raven42 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Hutchinson's record is in danger. What is it about these long-lived New Zealanders? Johnlp (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created the article on Syd Ward, it's pretty basic and merely a start. If anyone can expand it with new information and references, that would be great! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Cade

I have just created a page for the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire cricketer Adrian Cade. His Cricinfo page says he has played 4 List-A matches, while his CricketArchive page says he has played 3. I trust CA far more as a statistical source than CI, just a case of verifying which is correct. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to did Jon play his only only list a match] or did Uncle Adrian play in his 4th in that 2001 match?

Bangladesh v England

Thought it may be about to end, is the Bangladesh v England record the longest time a team has gone unbeaten against another team in all formats? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I believe that win came in their 21st encounter. I've just checked England v NZ, and New Zealand's first Test win against England was in something like the 50th match, after almost fifty years of trying. Since ODIs only came in towards the end of that period, even if they had already won an ODI the total number of matches before a win couldn't have been much less than fifty. JH (talk page) 18:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Slight embarrassment seeing as what was pretty much a Sussex 3rd XI defeated them ease. Poor shot selection and one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen for ages done for England this time. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Worst umpiring decision? (I was at the ground so didn't really get to judge them too closely). Harrias ^talk 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

? Collingwood smashed one and was given not out; however, he smiled when given out lbw when he hit it later on. Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How did England play? For all this talk I see about Bangladesh improving, every time I've followed CI text or had TV coverage of some game, the other teams appear to be pretty lethargic and lazy with a lot of lazy fielding, and often in a Test the bigger team wakes up after a day of rank complacency and disrespect and rolls back the Bangla gains in a session. I wonder if as they creep up to NZ level whether the others will simply start being switched on. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I follow Bangladesh as my favourite side and I do think they have improved. They just need to piece together the puzzle. They are not close to the New Zealand level yet; however, Tamim has the potential to be as good a player as Sehwag in 4 or 5 years. The bowling needs a lot of work; though, they look at lot better with Mortaza in. Shakib is a very good bowler, but Razzak is rubbish. I can see them being very competitive at home, but still struggling away for many more years. Aaroncrick ^TALK 05:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"the other teams appear to be pretty lethargic and lazy with a lot of lazy fielding" about sums up England's performance in the field. But it was still an encouraging performance from Bangladesh. JH (talk page) 09:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

On their day, Ireland would still match them. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We could find that out on Thursday/Friday JP (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

List of cricket grounds in England and Wales

I have been having a play around with the last on my sandbox and included all grounds which have hosted major cricket matches, apart from the Welsh counties - I'm getting there! I think there are some things I could do to improve it, such as subdividing the counties into first-class, Minor and others. Other improvements would be to make collapsible boxes, which I can't do for the life of me! I would also list all of the major teams that have used that ground and period for which they used it: County Ground | Southampton | Hampshire (1885-2000). Any suggestions and reviews of what I've got so are would be most welcome! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so much a comment on the list itself, but the articles listed in it, which it looks like you are also creating as you go along. Try to look outside cricketing sources to see if you're painting a full picture of the ground. Sonning Lane for example is also the home of one of the top hockey clubs in the country, and has hosted a number of hockey internationals. Just having had a very quick skim through the list, similar remarks could also be made about Lancashire's outground in Southport (though this is still a redlink), Aigburth cricket ground, though the hockey clubs (Southport HC and Liverpool Sefton HC) associated with these don't play at the same level as Reading, and I'm not sure if there are artificial pitches on site at these venues, meaning that while it may still be the home of the club, matches are now more often played elsewhere. Just for balance Clarence Park, St Albans currently makes virtually no mention of cricket. I've remarked on similar problems with articles about actual cricketers before, there does seem to be a tendency to go for the nice readily available statistical info, and not look any further, resulting in a rather one sided picture. David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I sourced it from CricketArchive's list of venues by county, just a process of going through and seeing which has held a major cricket match. Some of the articles don't make a mention of the grounds, on some of these I have added a section on the relevant page, which can be expanded later, such as Sherborne School. If I come across any which host sports like hockey, I'll be sure to pass it onto the relevant project, I have no idea about that sport, at school I got sent off more than I scored! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was probably it - historically there's a big overlap between hockey and cricket venues. Modern hockey developed largely amongst club cricketers in Middlesex looking for something to do in the off season - until the advent of water based artificial pitches hockey balls were basically cricket balls painted white - and if you look a the ball specs for each game you'll find that in terms of diameter and weight they're still essentially the same. Most cricket grounds could fit two hockey pitches, one either side of the square (I've even played and umpired hockey at the Kensington Oval). There's no problem with using the cricket sources to define your list, but do try taking a look at local papers, which will now usually have some sort of online presence to see if anything else happens on a ground. One problem is WP:HOCKEY deals with the game on ice, and there's never been enough critical mass to get a (field) hockey project going.

One other point I noticed on Sonning Lane, saying that a ground was established in the year you can first find matches recorded is unlikely to be accurate, the local club may well have played there for some time before the first county games. David Underdown (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a pain in the arse, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK counties) shouldn't the list be organised by current administrative county rather than historic county? Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I half-wondered about that too, but I think really they are organised by which county cricket club plays there, which on the whole takes the old boundaries (though Bristol could be listed as both Somerset and Gloucestershire of course). If this point is made clear, then I think this objection falls away. David Underdown (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bristol should be listed as both counties, of course, as both played there, on different grounds on different sides of the city. More to the point, how does one treat Burton-upon-Trent, which has never been in Derbyshire? Johnlp (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Somerset have played five home matches (as well as one away match) at the Recreation Ground, Torquay, Devon too. Harrias ^talk 17:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris Broad

Watch out for Gavaskarism essays YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cricket and Baseball

There's an interesting piece by Scyld Berry in today's Telegraph on the relationship between cricket and baseball. Apparently the earliest known mention of baseball comes from Shere in Surrey, less than ten miles from Guildford, from where we have the first definite mention of cricket (and both places are less than ten miles from my home). JH (talk page) 09:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to see the exhibition mentioned in the article today. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cricket category at CfD

Please add comments here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Heath

I was tidying up a stub article on a Conservative MP, Arthur Heath, and he turns out to have also been a cricketer. Cricket isn't my thing, so I'm not sure if the very brief mention I've made there of his cricketing career fits the bill.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of cricket could take a look at the article and tweak as appropriate.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little for it. Did a bit of everything, did Heath. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work, and very prompt. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Always worth sticking this sort of chap through the search engine of the London Gazette. he had a long career with the Staffordshire Yeomanry, and I also turned up an obit in The Times. David Underdown (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually use the Gazette, and dunno why I skipped it there ... but my local library doesn't give me online access to The Times archive, and the combination of those two has allowed you to do a really good expansion. Good work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Murali retiring

If Sri Lanka win 2-0 or more, they become World #1. So he might as well stay on for another two matches! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominated Murali's 800 at WP:ITN/C

Obviously Murali is attracting a lot of interest at the moment, we need to keep an eye on it, if it gets silly look at semi-protection/pending revisions.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have it in pending changes regardless. Always going to attract drive-by vandalism ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've requested pending.—User:MDCollins (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined at the moment ("not enough disruption atm", but it's being watched.—User:MDCollins (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Warne was the better bowler, the stats and circumstances speak for themselves in his favour. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has some interesting comparisons: Murali v Warne. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Somerset (cricketer)

The line "Though hailing from Chatham, Kent, Somerset moved to Sussex" gave me a headache to write! I wonder how many players have played for the team of their surname. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The best I can do is Derek Taylor (cricketer) who had the middle name Somerset and played for Somerset. That line reminds me of that scene in the second Naked Gun film -

Lt. Frank Drebin: Hector Savage. From Detroit. Ex-boxer. His real name was Joey Chicago.

Ed Hocken: Oh, yeah. He fought under the name of Kid Minneapolis.

Nordberg: I saw Kid Minneapolis fight once. In Cincinnati.

Lt. Frank Drebin: No you're thinking of Kid New York. He fought out of Philly.

Ed Hocken: He was killed in the ring in Houston. By Tex Colorado. You know, the Arizona Assassin.

Nordberg: Yeah, from Dakota. I don't remember it was North or South.

Lt. Frank Drebin: North. South Dakota was his brother. From West Virginia.

Ed Hocken: You sure know your boxing.

Lt. Frank Drebin: All I know is never bet on the white guy. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got one! Kenneth Scotland played one first-class match for Scotland against Ireland in 1958. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Derek John Somerset Taylor played for Surrey and Somerset, but his twin brother Michael Norman Somerset Taylor played for Nottinghamshire and Hampshire, while Jack Hampshire played for Yorkshire and Derbyshire, though Nick Derbyshire played for Essex and Lancashire. Fortunately Oswald Lancashire played for Lancashire too, but then Walter Lancashire let the side down by playing for Hampshire... Johnlp (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The South African Jon Kent played for Scotland, there's still time for Kent to sign him up - he's only 31. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On a related theme, Ian Buxton played at Buxton about a dozen times. But Edward Sheffield never played north of Chesterfield and Roy Sheffield played at Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Scarborough, but never at Sheffield. Johnlp (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Special:Recentchangeslinked/List of Test cricketers

Need more eyes on this as there have been plenty of vandalism edits lasting the best part of a day or more YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Handsome Doug on the main page

Jardine on the main page as TFA. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CricketWatch

See Template:CricketRecentChanges. –Moondyne 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ISixes Cricket

I have a faint recollection only. Seems it was a rival to Hong Kong International Cricket Sixes which didn't get off the ground in 2008. Needs some referencing and background from someone who knows a bit more about it. Or is just non-notable? –Moondyne 08:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[12] Warne's brother was involved. –Moondyne 08:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cricket attendances

User:Karyasuman seems intent on adding attendance figures to the {{Test match}} templates for the 2010–11 Ashes series. Since attendance figures are rarely released for cricket matches, I think this is a dangerous can of worms to open just for one series. Furthermore, since the matches are played across five days, with separate tickets for each day, it is entirely likely that numbers will be duplicated, and the figures given would not be an accurate reflection of the number of people who actually watched each match. Therefore, I would like to ask for others' opinions regarding the addition of attendance figures to cricket match summaries. – PeeJay 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need to have attendance figures in the template. If attendance figures are announced, and they turn out to be abnormally good or abnormally poor, then they can be mentioned in the text. JH (talk page) 17:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have minded if we had the info first and if the entry didn't appear if there was no text to go in it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cricket people if it contains the template {{WikiProject Cricket}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wally Hammond FAC

Needs more eyes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fowler's match

Great new article.

If someone would like to add one of those mini scoreboard thingies to it, it would enhance it. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Question, is the match notable for any reasons outside of Fowler's own performance? I can foresee someone demanding a merge.... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's famous amongst those with a knowledge of cricket history for the remarkable turn-around in fortunes, one of the most remarkable in a biggish match and almost entirely down to one man (or boy!), and they would instantly know which match "Fowler's Match" referred to. Back when the match was played, Eton v Harrow was one of the "big" annual matches, capable of drawing large crowds to Lord's, as the article points out. I would have thought that what Wisden and The Spectator said, as quoted in the article, would be enough to establish notability for Fowler's Match. It certainly seems far more notable than, say, Bert Bloggs who played one f-c match for Blankshire in 1886. (Excellent article, BTW. Well done to the author.) JH (talk page) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia has articles on single plays in American Football matches, I hardly think anyone could justifiably complain! Andrew nixon (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

True --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad people like it. I think the sources demonstrate its notability. I also suspect the older cricket writers - Neville Cardus, perhaps - will have more to say on the subject. Apparently Winston Churchill favoured Lord Alexander of Tunis because he played in the match! There is an interesting (although reversed) prefiguring of the match in Chapter 12 of Horace Annesley Vachell 1905's book The Hill.[13]

Anyway, I have now returned to my hobby horse from about a year ago (link, link) of Test umpires. Kantilal Kanjee was apparently the first non-white umpire in first-class cricket in South Africa. Arani Jayaprakash stood at the bowler's end when Anil Kumble took his 10-for. Krishna Hariharan umpired just two Test matches, in which Bangladesh was beaten within 3 and 4 days respectively. Gamini Silva was a policeman. Evan Watkin ... ah, well; I give up on him, he does not seem to have done or been associated with anything interesting at all. But there are still dozens of redlinked Test umpires: Clyde Cumberbatch, Pilloo Reporter, Peter Manuel, Cecil Kippins, Eric Lee Kow, ..., and some atrocious stubs, Lloyd Barker, Cyril Mitchley, Brian Aldridge, B. C. Cooray, Kevan Barbour... -- Testing times (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Evan Watkin did umpire what I believe was the last ever Cricket Max international. Scorecard. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric Tindill

Eric Tindill has died about 100 days short of his 100th birthday, which still makes him the oldest Test cricketer of all time. Am I right in thinking Norman Gordon is now the only surviving pre-Second World War Test cricketer? He's certainly now the oldest, and due to be 99 later this week. Johnlp (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a long obituary in today's Daily Telegraph, which should be available on the paper's web site. JH (talk page) 08:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/sport-obituaries/7923030/Eric-Tindill.html David Underdown (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a crack at him, and Eric Hill (fascinating war record; and interesting parallels between parts of the Daily Telegraph's obituary and our article written by Johnlp last October). No article yet on the oldest living All Black, Maurice McHugh. Of the other "double All Blacks", the articles on the other Test cricketers, George Dickinson and Curly Page, and Brian McKechnie, are pretty poor.

Sam Loxton seems to be the oldest living Australian Test cricketer (seemingly not mentioned in the featured article on him), Reg Simpson is the oldest Englishman, and Andy Ganteaume the second oldest West Indian.[14] I wonder who are the oldest from Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh ... -- Testing times (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess John Traicos would be the eldest Zimbabwean. --Roisterer (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Loxton is certainly the oldest Australian, following the death of Ron Hamence earlier this year. He is about 9 months older than Arthur Morris. Interesting that List of oldest Test cricketers does not have a table of the oldest living player by country. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, yes. I went to the List of oldest Test cricketers searching for exactly that. --Roisterer (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Would take a guess that Enamul Haque (44) would be the oldest Bangladeshi Test cricketer. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

List of ODI international records

I have nominated List of One Day International cricket records for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Articles at review

Featured article

• Montague Druitt • review

Peer review

• Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927 • Wikipedia:Peer review/Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927/archive1
• Laurie Nash • Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurie Nash/archive1

Good article

• Steph Davies
• Izzy Westbury
• Harvey family
• Merv Harvey
• Ray Harvey
• Mick Harvey (umpire)

Articles at review (updated)

Good article

• Steph Davies
• Ray Harvey

Nev1 at RFA

our resident Lancs CCC expert is as RFA YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a couple of months late on this

Here I am checking my watchlist and I discover that several first-class cricketer articles have been deleted. Could someone please cast an eye over these?

• A. Devapriya (ca)
• K. de Silva (ca)
• N. Fernando (ca)
• N. Kumara (ca)

I think part of the problem is, because they are players for Kandy Youth Cricket Club, it looked to the PROD-der that they were youth fixtures, whereas they were actually first-class cricketers. If anyone could cast an eye and see that it would be okay for me to reinstall them, that would be awesome. I know they do pass guidelines, but as long as someone else has seen this before I do anything silly...

Thank you in advance, everyone. I will attempt to poke my head in occasionally. Bobo. 18:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

First one certainly, but the rest are all those annoying 1 FC match players from the early 1990s - they would be super super stubs. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe these articles would be better served by a list, as was suggested here a few months back. —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the list is on this page, if anyone wishes to copy it through, but it seems a bit weird to write a list of players while all along we've been championing the guideline of "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire"... it seems that all of the hard work to write articles on even minor cricketers - one of the most impressive aspects on the depth of cricket coverage in Wikipedia - would be served merely by a list. Am I wrong to find it sad that things appear to have changed? Bobo. 10:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one am with Bobo on this and will continue to create articles on cricketers of little (but just sufficient) renown whenever I have the time. Johnlp (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlton Athletic F.C. 7–6 Huddersfield Town F.C.

Slightly off piste here, but I was surprised to see that at least three of the players in this match were also first-class cricketers - Ken Taylor (Huddersfield Town; and Yorkshire and England), and Stuart Leary and Derek Ufton (both Charlton and Kent). It seems slightly less remarkable for people like Eric Tindill, where there is a shallower pool of talent. I suppose someone like Ian Botham is a recent example of a good all-round sportsman, although he obviously concentrated on the cricket rather than the football.

I should have known there would be an article listing these multi-talented sportspeople - List of English cricket and football players. Presumably the list of double professionals (in football and cricket) is rather long? List of multi-sport athletes is dominated by American football and baseball. -- Testing times (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the more interesting cricket players do have played another sport at the highest level would be George Wright, who remains the only man to play both first-class cricket and Major League Baseball. I keep meaning to add something on his cricket career to his article, but never get round to it. His brother Harry also played for the US national side as well as playing MLB, but never played a first-class match. Both are in the baseball hall of fame. If anyone fancies having a go at expanding the cricket coverage in their articles, I wrote an article on the two for CricketEurope a while back. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the list would be rather long. It's become less common over the last forty years or so, as the football season has become so long - ewspecially when you add pre-season training - that football clubs now want their players for practically the whole year. JH (talk page) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox cricketer template

There are a few articles not using the {{Infobox cricketer}} template and are currently using their own thing. Anyone interested in helping to convert them.

A cricket barnstar to the user who fixes the most! And barnstars to the next top two! :D S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget all of the others using standard but deprecated templates!—User:MDCollins (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the list to WP:CRIC/requested infoboxes so as not to clog up the edit history of this page. Plenty of work to be done!—User:MDCollins (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Update - about 30 of the rogue articles have now been fixed by SG, MrApples and myself, a little under half-way.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen v Players 2010 match / Chance to Shine

A new editor called Crinfo (talk · contribs) has run into some problems with his new articles.

I think I agree that Gentlemen v Players 2010 match is not notable - not at all in the same category as the Gentlemen v Players matches of old.

His article on Chance to Shine was speedily deleted without much ado. I was on the cusp of improving the very stubby article when it disappeared, but I saved my version anyway. I am not entirely sure if there are any specific notability guidelines for charities or charitable appeals, but I think it is notable on general principles, and there are decent sources. Any comments before my version gets swept away too? -- Testing times (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: Gentlemen v Players 2010 match can go; Chance to Shine should stay. Re Testing times' request to undelete Crinfo's version: I see no reason to do so - the new version owes nothing to the old and in any case Crinfo's version could have been deleted as a copyvio from the bottom of this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 game is nothing to do with the old Gentlemen v Players series as the distinction between amateurs and professionals was abolished after the 1962 season. In any case, the subject does not comply with WP:CRIN as one of the teams can in no way be termed a first-class side while the other team was a hotch-potch of current and former players. It was an exhibition match and nothing more. It should be speedily deleted per the proposal and any attempts to incorporate it into the Gentlemen v Players should be resisted. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Of course the match was nothing more than an exhibition, but I think a very short mention should be made of it in the Gentlemen v Players article. Maybe just one or two sentences saying that an attempt was made to revive the Gentlemen v Players match in 2010. – PeeJay 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You could add a couple of lines in a kind of epilogue, although you could fall foul of the no trivia rule. The problem is that Crinfo has been trying to make out that the 2010 match is a direct continuation and actual resurrection of the former series, even claiming that the fixture was not abolished. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that at most the 2010 match would be worth a short footnote. It was just one of dozens of charity matches that are played every season, no more notable than many of the others, and it was not seen as important enough for its score to be archived by CricketArchive. JH (talk page) 08:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed speedy deletion of the match article failed on a technicality so I've moved it to the full AfD which you can find here. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Another new editor, Csh24 (talk · contribs), has made some changes to the Gentlemen v Players article as well as doing some strange things to the AfD. Might be worth keeping an eye on this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that it's the same person under a different name. He just reverted your own reversion of his earlier - plain incorrect - edit to G v P. I've reverted back again, but I expect that he'll try again. JH (talk page) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The D'Oliveira affair

We don't seem to have an article on this, and it isn't covered adequately in the biographical artle on Basil D'Oliveira himself, which is pretty short even if you consider him purely as a player. I guess that most of us prefer to write about cricket rather than politics, but the lack of an article seems a serious omission. Unfortunately I don't feel that I have the time to write a substantial article from scratch myself. Obviously it is an article where one would have to be very careful not to let POV intrude. JH (talk page) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

An important article, for sure. I already asked this question a few years ago... If somebody starts this one, I could be able to contribuate (I've already included some material about it on fr:Basil D'Oliveira). I've got a few books covering it (Oborne's best seller as well as Murray & Merrett's Caught Behind and Williams' Cricket and Race). Unfortunately I hardly know how to introduce it. OrangeKnight (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got Boycott's viewpoint! :D --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Some 1924 English cricketers

Here's Arthur Gilligan and two others I can't identify. They played in three matches at the W.A.C.A. ground between 18 - 27 October 1924. The English team included: H Sutcliffe, JB (Jack) Hobbs, AP Freeman, EH (Patsy) Hendren, FE Woolley, WW (Dodger) Whysall, APF (Percy) Chapman, R Kilner, JW Hearne, MW Tate, JWHT Douglas, AER Gilligan (Captain), A Sandham, H Strudwick, RK Tyldesley.

Knowing how hard it is to get PD photos sometimes, I thought I'd post here in case they were useful to someone. They can be uploaded and tagged {{PD-Australia}}. –Moondyne 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The second one should be Andrew Sandham. The third one looks very much like Maurice Tate, except that the pipe looks a bit too casual for a pro. Tintin 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Tate for the third one, two... There are two other unidentified players on the second page of photographs. OrangeKnight (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tintin is right about the first two: definitely Sandham and Tate. The other two are Dick Tyldesley (left) and Herbert Strudwick. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

50 FAs

Montague Druitt a while ago was the 50th YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

Do you think he would make A-class? Been sitting doing little for ages :( --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton and Sarastro1 would know about Tykes YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Grounds needing locations

Plenty of them, but the first one i've just made is proving difficult to locate: Manor Ground, Bexhill-on-Sea. I've found Bexhill Manor, the home of the de la Warr's, but can't see any obvious place the ground could have occupied, being last used in 1965. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Under 19 Cricket

What's the way we generally refer to Under 19 Cricket in articles. I've seen U19, U-19, U/19, Under-19... I've noticed the ICC tend now to consistently use U19 ([15]), though here I can't tell which is preferred! Looking at the following pages, you can see that it's not even consistent within one article - Afghanistan U-19 cricket team, 2010 Under19 Cricket World Cup, Under 19 Cricket World Cup. I know it's not a major issue but it seems a bit daft to have all these variants.

I was wanting to create a few articles but first wanted to check which way to go about it. I think it would be better to stick with U19 or U-19 throughout (as it's a widely recognised abbreviation) but perhaps using Under 19 in the opening introduction line of the article. Any thoughts? Waterhogboy (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right: we're inconsistent. But as far as I know no one has created many articles in this area so this is your chance not just to do some usefully creative work, but also to set the style for us. My preference would be for a hyphenated version (Under-19 and U-19) since there's no room then for confusion: "Under 19 Tests have been decided in the final over of the match" versus "Under-19 Tests have been decided in the final over of the match". But please feel free to disagree. Johnlp (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No that sounds good, and having more of a look, it does seem that the hyphenated version is used more here, so I'm happy to go through and make that consistant. However, what should be the system for using the abbreviated U-19 over Under-19? Waterhogboy (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Full-out at first mention, abbreviated thereafter: that's a fairly usual rule. But best is to do whatever sounds right and seems clearest. Johnlp (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll get underway with that then. I'll abbreviate to U-19 in titles as well unless anyone thinks that's not a good idea. Waterhogboy (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to stick to "under-19" in article titles, with "under" all in lower case. This is the preferred style at WP:FOOTY too. – PeeJay 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyphenation is cool with me too - I'm not sure about the titles; just to clarify PeeJay, you propose 2010 under-19 Cricket World Cup and New Zealand under-19 cricket team (although we have FOO national cricket team, so should it be India under-19 national cricket team?)—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case a competition's name, we should follow the style the organisers use for that competition. If the ICC capitalises "Under-19" in "Under-19 Cricket World Cup", then of course we should do the same. – PeeJay 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

not sure about that argument as they never tend to be consistent, and often goes with whoever designed the graphic! I like the idea of us being consistent about it (and have no problem with "under-19" personally) except that it looks a little odd when every other word in the title is capitalised, an example being 2010 Under-19 Cricket World Cup. But that's not me being consistent either!—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right; organisers are often quite inconsistent. I'm definitely in favour of using lower case in the national team article titles though. – PeeJay 22:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that some/all of the page names have been moved to xxx U-19 yyy. I think this is the worst solution as it isn't obvious to everyone what U means. Should be Under-19 in my opinion. The-Pope (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, particularly in the prose sections of articles. Harrias ^talk 07:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. –Moondyne 07:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer upper case. Suggest (to go into style guide on project page):

• Under-19 cricket: In article titles and the first instance within an article, capitalise, hyphenate and don't abbreviate. eg "India Under-19 cricket team. Subsequent mentions within the article may optionally use the abbreviated form: "India U-19 team"

–Moondyne 07:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that. Harrias ^talk 07:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So Under-19 it is for the titles. I'll get on to sorting that. I'm also going to add ICC into the Under-19 World Cup article titles to be consitent with the ICC site and also all the other cricket competitions named that way such as ICC World Cricket League... unless of course anyone objects... Waterhogboy (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

English cricket grounds

I have complied a list of all cricket grounds in England and Wales which have held first-class, List-A or Twenty20 matches. Feel free to go through the many, many redlinks which exist on the page. I've started on the Minor Counties and at the time of writing this have completed up to Pembrokeshire. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Working up from the bottom, I've now completed all but one of the Minor Counties grounds. Now, onto th----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)e first-class counties. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Your energy is impressive, but can I make a plea to put the name of the town where these grounds are into the article title, please? Many of these grounds are unrecognisable without, as was noted a few weeks ago by someone else with regard to the Rutland Recreation Ground, which isn't in Rutland. Johnlp (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in adding the place names to the article titles. The article title should match the ground's common name. Any abnormalities regarding its location should be mentioned in the article's lead section. – PeeJay 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay, article names are not the place to introduce information on their location. Wikipedia policy in the form of WP:AT is pretty clear on that. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Johnlp on this, not surprisingly given that it was me who raised the point in the first place. Surely the prime purpose of an article's title is to make it easy to find the article? Most cricket fans would refer to the Scarborough ground simply as "Scarborough", for instance, and wouldn't be aware that its official name is North Marine Road. If they search for the ground on Wikipedia they are most likely to enter "Scarborough cricket ground" (perhaps with all words capitalised). I would argue that the ground's "common name" is in fact "Scarborough cricket ground", even if it's not its official name. At the very least, I feel that there should always be a redirect from "place-name cricket ground" to the corresponding article. JH (talk page) 08:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Common Name" section of WP:AT says specifically: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." The sources for these articles are www.cricketarchive.com, which uses the place names alongside the ground name (where the ground doesn't include the place), and www.cricinfo.com which puts the place in a subhead (which is there even where there is no further information about the ground). WP:AT's top three criteria for article naming are "recognizability", which is defined as how informed people would know the article they'd reached was indeed about that subject; "naturalness", which is how readers would naturally search for an article; and "precision". I don't see how having an article entitled Rutland Recreation Ground, let alone Municipal Ground, conforms to any of these. Johnlp (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be completely unnecessary on the list page to have the location after the ground name. Take the Victoria Ground, Leeds. It would seem to repeat itself it it said Victoria Ground, Leeds | Leeds. Also on the naming front, a redirect such as Scarborough Cricket Ground works perfectly, while maintaining the actual name of the ground. A redirect would be the very least, as I think it clutters the title too much to put Blah Cricket Ground, Blah... unless there are multiples of the same name, not worth it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely not necessary for the list page. It's the article titles that bother me, where we ought surely to be thinking of reader convenience and utility. Johnlp (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed up to Yorkshire. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the location of the ground is advantageous, especially for the minor grounds (Test venues are probably sufficiently well-known not to need this), or for grounds with ambiguity - we do this anyway with "County Ground, xxx" for example. The example given above that prompted me to think about this was Scarborough; The Scarborough cricket ground redirect is in place which is fine, but North Marine Road is obviously taken from the street the ground is on - and therefore assumes common name. Ok, so North Marine Road (the street) isn't notable in itself, but there are some notable streets that have articles on wiki, I wondered if there are other grounds that take the location as the name such as in this instance. To me [[North Marine Road, Scarborough]] would to me seem to be the common name. Maybe a case by case basis rather than a prescriptive rule? Just some musings for the melting pot anyway.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to lean now to what MDCollins proposes, a case by case basis seems a logical suggestion. I'd be in favour of that. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If the name is ambiguous, i.e. other places (or indeed cricket grounds) use the same name, then of course the location should be added. Otherwise, the plain name of the ground should suffice. – PeeJay 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I recently moved St George's Road (Cricket Ground) to St George's Road Cricket Ground, Harrogate because of this very ambiguity. I suppose the original name of the title did include "cricket ground", which helps but, quite honestly, St George's Road could be anywhere in the English-speaking world. When it was a first-class ground, it was nearly always called simply "Harrogate" whereas Park Avenue in Bradford was mostly known as "Park Avenue". I think that unless the title makes it obvious where the ground is (e.g., Melbourne Cricket Ground), the name of the town must follow the name of the ground as per the Harrogate example. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But if the ground's name is not ambiguous, then there is no need to add its location. – PeeJay 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

North Marine Road is very ambiguous. I have just put this to the test in a phone call with a keen cricket follower who did not know that it is the name of the ground at Scarborough, even though he has been there. To him it has always been Scarborough Cricket Ground. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity is based on whether the subject may be confused with another subject on Wikipedia, not whether the subject is immediately identifiable from the title. If "North Marine Road" is the name of the ground in Scarborough, then that is the name that the article should be given. "North Marine Road, Scarborough" would just be redundant. – PeeJay 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity is the wrong term in that case. My mistake. It is more around the title of the article failing to provide enough information as North Marine Road could be anywhere. For example, if someone was looking through the category for Yorkshire grounds, they would not see Scarborough. The title of an article must be useful for the reader who is learning about a subject. The title should be North Marine Road, Scarborough for the benefit of the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. My point entirely. Think of the reader. I think a useful additional point suggested above is also to have a redirect from "Scarborough cricket ground" and perhaps also in the Scarborough article to ensure that there's a link to the ground article. Probably with Scarborough these things are already there, but it won't always be the case. Johnlp (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And the title was in any case wrong because the cricket ground is not called North Marine Road: it is called North Marine Road Ground. I've moved the article to North Marine Road Ground, Scarborough per the titles used by CricketArchive and CricInfo. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have started a discussion on Talk:2010_ICC_World_Twenty20, however, I would assume that there is already a set consensus on WP:CRICKET regarding this issue.

As an encyclopedia, I do not believe that match time is important to note on matches that have already been played - this would seem to violate WP:NOTNEWS and others...it's truly non-encyclopedic information.

a) is there consensus, and b) if consensus is to include it, why? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there has been no discussion on this, but existing practice (whether right or wrong) is probably to include this if the templates allow it. As SpacemanSpiff suggested at the talk page in question, there may be some merit in allowing it to determine whether or not it was a day/day-night/floodlit game, but I'm not convinced that a time (in local time zone) actually does this particularly well. It probably is too trivial, but without checking, I would suggest that current practice in other sports would also include the information, 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP being a case in point.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Most sports don't include time after the fact ... probably shouldn't before the fact (games like baseball and hockey wouldn't anyway). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In a competition where two or more matches are played on the same day, including the time can be quite beneficial. Knowing which teams play first can lend added context to the result of a match. I say we keep the times added. – PeeJay 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

...but how would that then apply to test matches over multiple days? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Which could have different start times on different days! Andrew nixon (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about Template:Limited overs matches, not Template:Test match... – PeeJay 23:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about consistency overall ... the times that were added to the 2010_ICC_World_Twenty20 article were not done via a template. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. They were added to the {{Limited overs matches}} templates as a new parameter, weren't they? – PeeJay 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they were manually added to the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. But they were added to the {{Limited overs matches}} templates included in the article. Keep up. – PeeJay 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Keep up"? Nice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

World's longest cricket marathon

Please keep an eye on World's longest cricket marathon. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Been wondering what the record was. I played at Cricket Club des Ormes once! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

English cricket grounds: Progress update

Completed up to and including Northamptonshire. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Completed up to and including Leicestershire. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletions - Belgium

On a whim, three years ago, I created articles about several Belgian cricketers, two of whom, Christopher Stone and Naveed Abdul, have been proposed for deletion. I'm uncertain as to how things have changed recently in terms of international cricketers from continental European countries, and, if someone says "no", then that's not such a big worry - but, according to the current letter of notability, are these cricketers, and others which have not been mentioned within Category:Belgian cricketers, notable? At the time I saw myself as just filling an unplugged hole, but if there is no need for these articles, then please inform me as such.

Hope everyone is well. Bobo. 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Going off my interpretation of the current notability guidelines, he is notable having played official limited overs internationals. Others may have a different interpretation, which is why I proposed rewriting them a while back, which few people seem interested in doing. Joe Bloggs who played one first-class match for Lord Snooty's XI against Players Whose Surname Begins with B (a real first-class team, by the way) in 1827 is notable without question though. (sarcasm intended) Andrew nixon (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point Andrew, and have some sympathy. However, the structure of cricket (Test, ODI, T20I, FC, LA, T20) makes classification of matches simple and easy to understand. More importantly, it also provides a great deal of information on these formats that is reasonably simply sourced (CI, CA the easiest). Because of this, any matches which fall outside of that remit become marginalised. Meaning that yes, in my eyes, Joe Bloggs played in a more important match than Naveed Abdul and Christopher Stone. I'm not saying my opinion is right, and I don't have an objection in principle to this pair (and others) having articles. The difficulty in my eyes comes in the sourcing. To that end, I would suggest the players would have to meet general notability to warrant articles. Harrias ^talk 17:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

England v Pakistan, 4th Test Lord's

Seems match fixing has reared its ugly face again: Match-fixer pockets £150k as he rigs England Test at Lord's — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssociateAffiliate (talk • contribs)

(seperate from the poster above) Hi, I saw the stories (Yes, I'm a cricket fan in the US, and no, I'm not an ex-pat, or etcetera).. and added a section to the Pakistani cricket team in England in 2010 article about the allegations, video, and arrest of a man as a result of the allegations. This will probably need its own article at some point, as more details emerge.. also, I noticed that there's no article on "Spot fixing", which would be separate from match fixing (the result of a match), but would (in this case) be for when the first no-ball was bowled, or when the ball would first go out of bounds during a football match. Any ideas on what should be done with these two things? SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Have Pakistan bowled an excessive number of no balls? There are only two things wrong with their team that I can see: they are mostly very inexperienced and they need to work on their fielding. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At risk of falling amiss of the rules (shouldn't be a forum for discussion of, just to explain), the number of no-balls is at issue, the timing is. You can wager on all kinds of things like "When will the first no-ball be bowled?". (I remember hearing that there was something similar in english footy, the wager was when would the ball go out of bounds first... SirFozzie (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an excessive number, no. But one of their bowlers (I'd better not name him) on several occasions on Friday was over the line by a foot or so rather than by just an inch or two, drawing comment from the Sky commentators, although of course they didn't suspect that it was deliberate. That would be consistent with spot betting on when in his spell he would bowl no-balls. If the Pakistan team were made aware of the allegations yesterday, they could be excused for being a bit distracted or demoralised and batting so poorly. It almost seems as though there is a curse on the final Test of an England v Pakistan series! JH (talk page) 07:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the TV coverage this morning, they weren't informed until they came off the pitch yesterday evening. Mind you, the Sunday Times says up to seven players may be involved, so it may not have been exactly news to some. Johnlp (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a Pakistan tour of England end without any incident? 2006 it was the forfeited match, 2001 the steward who got trampled at Headingley after a pitch invasion and 1992 it was ball tampering accusations. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we know the names of the seven? Amir, K. Akmal, Butt and Asif are all out in the open, leaves 3 more. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - we also maintain Betting controversies in cricket which may be a better location for a more detailed setting out of the broader issue than the tour article. While there are no major concerns with the content now, it may also need watching to ensure nothing gets out of hand there. See also Spot-fixing for more on the current events. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Betting controversies in cricket would be the best place for a more detailed discussion. However, having looked at that article for the first time, it could do with improvement. At present it's very thin, and it doesn't set the problem into any sort of historical context. The reader would think that there had never been a problem prior to about 1999, when in fact betting on the game and attempts to fix matches are almost as old as the game itself. Admittedly there was a long period from about the mid 19th to late 20th cenuries when, as far as we know, it wasn't a problem. JH (talk page) 09:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

With the new bits (about three players having their cell phones seized as part of the investigation, and three more arrests on money laundering charges).. should we stub the Betting allegations section in the tour article, and creating a new article, say at "Spot-fixing Allegations in Pakistan tour of England, 2010"? I really wish they had given it a catchy name, that's a mouthful :P SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy has been created, not sure it is any catchier! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan scandal

More revelations in tomorrows NOTW here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Category "Minor counties cricketers"

I see that someone is "fixing" instances of the category "Minor Counties cricketers" to "Minor counties cricketers" per "CfD using AWB", I never saw that CfD, and if I had I would have opposed it. The change seems to be based on a misunderstaning, since the category is presumably for players who have appeared for the Minor Counties representative side rather than for cricketers who have appeared for a minor county. JH (talk page) 09:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. User:Harrias has started a discussion at Category talk:Minor counties cricketers. But whether any of the people who populate CfD actually listen is a discussion we've had before in this forum. Johnlp (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always presumed it is for players who have appeared for the combined representative side as opposed to individual counties. On that it should be Category:Minor Counties cricketers AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think half the problem is that the main article is Minor counties of English and Welsh cricket, because it is about the more generic topic, rather about the representative team. The cat probably needs a bit of a better intro to explain that it about a particular team, not minor counties in general - or is it about anyone who's played for a team in the minor counties - or only those to have played for the Minor Counties representative team? I have notified both the editor who raised the speedy (who I think that, apart from not checking here first, did nothing wrong, given the main article title and the lack of a lede in the cat) and also the editor who deleted the cat under CSD#C1, without waiting for the 4 days of being empty delay to expire.The-Pope (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the category ought to have a lead making clear what it is for. JH (talk page) 10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AssociateAffiliate added a description of what the category is for, and I have proposed renaming it back to what it was before! Harrias ^talk 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)