Talk:Steve Smith (cricketer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

This is my first Wikipedia edit, so apologies if my syntax is off!

Under Personal Life / Business Interests section, you should add in Steve's startup angel investments: "Koala, Snappr, ServX, BulkMRO, SuprDaily, Playment, Startmate17"

These are listed in this Startup Investor List / Angels tab / row 199 Lightningsmily (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done He is notable as a cricket player, not as a business investor. the above have no relevance to this article. I've also removed parts of you r talk that may be considered spam / promotional Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018

In the 2018 tour of South Africa section, a sentence incorrectly says that Cameron Bancroft is a bowler.

"and the young Australia bowler, Cameron Bancroft, who followed his captain's advice."

Change bowler to batsman, because Cameron Bancroft is not a bowler Hugh weeks (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out Melcous (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Tour of South Africa 2018

The controversy is going to be a big part of this section, but it is still an article on a cricketer s the cricket should also be mentioned. There were two tests before the ball tampering incident, and information about them should be mentioned first. BLP and NPOV still apply and an important part of that is WP:BALASP. AIRcorn (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)  Done AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Dear Wikipedia I need to edit Wikipedia page Steve Smith as information is wrong. I will not add any ball tampering information. Thankyou Sam198273645 (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell us what you want to do. AIRcorn (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ball tampering controversy

I think there should be a paragraph written about the ball tampering controversy so the readers can navigate easily. By paragraph I mean with a separate heading.--Donkey335 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There may be need for a article at some point, but for now this is sufficient. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about a separate article, but a heading in the article named Controversies.--Donkey335 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't usually do that to biographies of living people. It might acceptable to put a descriptive heading of "Ball Tampering" next to the 2018 heading at some point though. AIRcorn (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As per this conversation, please stop creating a "Controversies" section Spike 'em (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

Steve Smith is No longer on the IPL (He should be removed from the IPL team on his bio) AnushPatel (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Stats section

Is there any reason to include the stats section, per this edit? I think it's a classic case of WP:NOTSTATS. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to include them. I've also removed the tables of stats in the rest of the article per the RfC at the cricket project and will do some work on the other stats and tables which are clogging up the article with too many subheadings. I won't be able to add many references to them but it'll be a start. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I thought the RfC determined they shouldn't be included without any context. Unless those tables are being used to illustrate some point about Smith's career development supported by well-sourced prose I don't think they should be there. TripleRoryFan (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both. The IP who kept re-adding them used the rationale that similar info is contained on Virat Kohli's page, so it must be included here. However, I see that's been addressed on his bio too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, Lugnuts and Blue Square Thing, that user is on deleting spree right now, is that legit consensus? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see their contributions right now (stupid work filter!), but I'll check later. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Classicwiki: They seem legitimate per the RfC which can be found at this direct link. I'd have probably gone further and removed the lists of centuries etc... without context as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That RfC said there was no consensus to remove from existing articles. How linked to the article do the tables have to be: if the major performances are mentioned in the body of the article in the interminable "and then he scored 23 runs and then he took two wickets" section is that valid? Why do "List of Test Centuries by A N Other" exist if it is not to split out from the individual player articles? I saw on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan that there is allegedly a cut-off of 25 centuries before such a list is created, does that mean there is a jump from no list of centuries anywhere to being a list article once this limit is reached? WP:NOTSTATS does not mean No Stats. Spike 'em (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the gist of the closure summary as "if there is context, they're OK, but if there isn't they're (probably) not". Tables as such are reasonable to have in article, but only if there is some kind of context to support their inclusion - i.e. some prose to summarise them or provide context to them. If tables have context then, in most cases, I'm perfectly happy with them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Classicwiki:@Spike 'em:@TripleRoryFan:@Blue Square Thing:@Lugnuts: A user is mass-removing "indiscriminate statistical data" from cricket-related articles[1][2], claiming there is a ruling by the Cricket WikiProject. Looking into it, I've found no such ruling and there is no consensus to remove statistical data that are not just unexplained info. I think the user is acting against consensus and should be reverted. What do you think? WP:NOTSTATS states that "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." I think those articles comply with the mentioned policy and the content shouldn't have been removed. KingAndGod 18:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My reading of the RfC was that there was no consensus to remove from existing articles, and have my concerns about it too. I even have suspicions that there is some SOCKing going on. The editor seems to be bulk removing anything they see as stats. Spike 'em (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it depends. I've just spent five minutes working on Faoud Bacchus (one of the examples above) to see if I could include the information which had been removed. I have, but frankly I think relying on scorecards tends towards OR and reliance on primary sources - I've tagged the article to show this and to suggest that it needs other sources as well. There is a whole pile of stuff that is reliant on statistics only in that article - which, in my view, becomes an increased problem when tables are thrown in for the sake of it.

In the case of Bacchus I certainly don't think the table added anything and I'm not even sure that it's desirable to include the fragment I've added about motm awards.

In the other case - Elias Sunny - I see absolutely no reason why the information which was in tables can't be included in the text. In some ways it already is, although the article needs a lot of work anyway.

So, it depends. There may be other cases where it is more appropriate to leave tables in. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

e2a: @KingAndGod: I've done some emergency fixes on Sunny and taken the primary source reference from the table and moved it into the text. To be honest there's very little else that was possible to move from the two tables - it was either already in the text or doesn't need adding. I'm sure that there are cases where tables are better - I'd be interested to see some examples where larger tables have been removed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't look into their edits much but from a glance it seemed like they were removing legitimate content. I think the content should be restored so I'm seeking consensus here to see what others have to say. KingAndGod 07:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to the socking comments, the registered user states on their user page they are from South Africa, while the IP account using the same edit summaries is located in Nepal. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spike 'em:@TripleRoryFan:@Blue Square Thing:@Lugnuts:@KingAndGod:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket should work quickly to designate consensus so that information can be restored or let go. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 08:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I setup the orignal RfC that dragged on for two months or more, before it was closed. There's already a consensus from that that ended with "However, swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia". I'm not about to re-hash another RfC now. Editors are more than welcome to change tables into prose, as they see fit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Protea caffra claims to be departing [3], though it does not resolve the question of whether the removal is reverted. The RfC said there was no consensus on removing content from existing articles, so my opinion is that all PC's removal work should be reverted. There still needs to be agreement on what stats are acceptable or how much context is needed for tables (as the closing comment quoted by Lugnuts is still vague enough to cause problems). Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind them all being reverted - so long as there's not been further work done on articles that would seem a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. There are a variety of grounds for doing so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted their mass-removal per this discussion here. KingAndGod 17:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Classicwiki:@Spike 'em:@TripleRoryFan:@Blue Square Thing:@Lugnuts:@KingAndGod:Adding a link to this conversation, appending it to this discussion for reference.- ක - (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

2 SOCKs blocked this morning. I do worry about Jack's sanity sometimes. Spike 'em (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regrading the statistics column

Why don't we just maintain the International Records column along with the T20 matches column because International Cricket + T20 Domestic leagues are the widely played by most International cricketers. Still if you want to keep FC and LIST A along with that then make it 6 columns of statistics. Please! Gunjan Kayarkar (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gunjan Kayarkar, As per Template:Infobox cricketer#Stats there will be only four columns. If you want to change please start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I read those rules. Didn't know about them before today. Thanks for showing that 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Gunjan Kayarkar