![]() | English cricket matches to 1725 is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of English cricket matches to 1725. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to @ PresN: for the following:
Will take these on board and see if I can improve the article. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a good summary but as you may be aware, the term first class cricket cannot apply. It did not apply then. In History we should apply the terms in use. If we refer to later classifications, they must be 'first class' rather than first class. As you know I believe IMPORTANT to be the only valid term and can call on Keith Warsop for support. First class is an obsession of Bailey and Griffiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.0.85 ( talk) 11:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | English cricket matches to 1725 is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of English cricket matches to 1725. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to @ PresN: for the following:
Will take these on board and see if I can improve the article. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a good summary but as you may be aware, the term first class cricket cannot apply. It did not apply then. In History we should apply the terms in use. If we refer to later classifications, they must be 'first class' rather than first class. As you know I believe IMPORTANT to be the only valid term and can call on Keith Warsop for support. First class is an obsession of Bailey and Griffiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.0.85 ( talk) 11:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)