![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Strewth - that was quick work - well done!
jguk 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - you've done a terrific job to get them all listed. Now for the real work - writing biogs for them all! I'll help with the early ones when I have the time. MulgaBill 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made a tiny start - disambiguating a few - I'm using the style Bill Bloggs (cricketer)|Bill Bloggs - unless anyone has a better idea. (I know, I know, Bill Bloggs never played for Australia - he was West Indian wasn't he?) MulgaBill 21:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
392 cricketers. Blue links:
MulgaBill changed Alec Bannerman to Alick Bannerman (and moved the associated article). But Cricinfo calls him Alec. Is Cricinfo wrong? Stephen Turner 10:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it was Alick. What do CricketArchive and the Wisden of the day say? jguk 23:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit made by User:Rogerthat when he updated the stats for just three of the players. I think we need to update all the stats at once, and the date at the top, otherwise we won't know what's up to date when.
Nevertheless, we do have a significant problem here. Updating all the stats is just too onerous. Do we have any solution to this?
Stephen Turner 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I can do it programmatically (and have done so). This has dropped the "-" in the career indicating a current player, though. I've run my eye over it, it looks accurate but check it out. And do the Cricinfo links look a little messy? -- Paul 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think caution is needed when using nicknames and diminutives. Bill Lawry and Norm O'Neill are probably OK, but not 'Tup' Scott, 'Tibby' Cotter, or 'Garth' McKenzie. Or should we be consistent and have articles for "Tugga" Waugh, "Tubby" Taylor, and "Pigeon" McGrath?? Let's not, eh! MulgaBill 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I remember raising this sometime before but I don't remember looking back at it for an answer. What would people if the list looked like this?:
Cap | Name | Debut | Matches | Final | Specialty |
1 | Charles Bannerman [1] | March 15 1877 | 3 | January 4 1879 | Batsman |
2 | Jack Blackham [2] | March 15 1877 | 35 | December 20 1894 |
Batsman Wicket-keeper |
3 | Bransby Cooper [3] | March 15 1877 | 1 | March 15 1877 | Batsman |
4 | Tom Garrett [4] | March 15 1877 | 19 | February 15 1888 | All-rounder |
5 | Dave Gregory [5] | March 15 1877 | 3 | January 4 1879 | Batsman |
6 | Ned Gregory [6] | March 15 1877 | 1 | March 15 1877 | Batsman |
7 | John Hodges [7] | March 15 1877 | 2 | April 4 1877 | Bowler |
8 | Tom Horan [8] | March 15 1877 | 15 | March 25 1885 | Batsman |
9 | Tom Kendall [9] | March 15 1877 | 2 | April 4 1877 | All-rounder |
10 | Billy Midwinter [10] | March 15 1877 | 12 | March 1 1887 | Batsman |
11 | Nat Thomson [11] | March 15 1877 | 2 | April 4 1887 | Batsman |
12 | Thomas Kelly [12] | March 31 1877 | 2 | January 4 1889 | Batsman |
13 | Billy Murdoch [13] | March 31 1877 | 2 | January 4 1889 | Batsman |
Is it usual in Australia to describe a cricketer's active Test career as xxxx-2008 - for example: 1999-2008 for Brett Lee - even when the cricketer is still getting picked? In the UK (and other places, I am sure), it would be more common to write xxxx- with no second year, so Brett Lee becomes simply 1999-. Otherwise there is no distinguishing between players who are still active and players who have retired in 2008. I would have just changed it, but I thought this could be a local difference so thought to consult on the matter first. - Estesark ( talk) 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does the list of players have the correct number (405) while the category says 399 have played test cricket for Australia? I checked the list and all the links are blue. I'm assuming there must be 6 players who don't have "Australian Test Cricketers" as a category, is there an easier way to check then going through all 405? Paulyt ( talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on "Edit this page" and couldn't see it. i musn't have looked too well. Thanks for the quick reply. Paulyt ( talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's right at the top lol Paulyt ( talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've highlighted the names of current players to be bold to bring this table into line with other Australian cricket tables. I've also removed the end-year for current players. -- Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Australia Test cricketers. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi - this is a fascinating page I just happened across here. The only thing is, I'm guessing there's some kind of XML or Excel database behind it, anyway, the numbers aren't numeric, if that makes sense. In other words, they're just standard text. Which means, among other things, the columns are left-justified, whereas numbers are usually right-justified. More significantly, if you try to sort ascending or descending you get funny results, for example 1200 will rank higher than 11000. It's still a nice interesting page. Cheers, Tonyglaser ( talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Tony
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Strewth - that was quick work - well done!
jguk 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - you've done a terrific job to get them all listed. Now for the real work - writing biogs for them all! I'll help with the early ones when I have the time. MulgaBill 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made a tiny start - disambiguating a few - I'm using the style Bill Bloggs (cricketer)|Bill Bloggs - unless anyone has a better idea. (I know, I know, Bill Bloggs never played for Australia - he was West Indian wasn't he?) MulgaBill 21:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
392 cricketers. Blue links:
MulgaBill changed Alec Bannerman to Alick Bannerman (and moved the associated article). But Cricinfo calls him Alec. Is Cricinfo wrong? Stephen Turner 10:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it was Alick. What do CricketArchive and the Wisden of the day say? jguk 23:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit made by User:Rogerthat when he updated the stats for just three of the players. I think we need to update all the stats at once, and the date at the top, otherwise we won't know what's up to date when.
Nevertheless, we do have a significant problem here. Updating all the stats is just too onerous. Do we have any solution to this?
Stephen Turner 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I can do it programmatically (and have done so). This has dropped the "-" in the career indicating a current player, though. I've run my eye over it, it looks accurate but check it out. And do the Cricinfo links look a little messy? -- Paul 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think caution is needed when using nicknames and diminutives. Bill Lawry and Norm O'Neill are probably OK, but not 'Tup' Scott, 'Tibby' Cotter, or 'Garth' McKenzie. Or should we be consistent and have articles for "Tugga" Waugh, "Tubby" Taylor, and "Pigeon" McGrath?? Let's not, eh! MulgaBill 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I remember raising this sometime before but I don't remember looking back at it for an answer. What would people if the list looked like this?:
Cap | Name | Debut | Matches | Final | Specialty |
1 | Charles Bannerman [1] | March 15 1877 | 3 | January 4 1879 | Batsman |
2 | Jack Blackham [2] | March 15 1877 | 35 | December 20 1894 |
Batsman Wicket-keeper |
3 | Bransby Cooper [3] | March 15 1877 | 1 | March 15 1877 | Batsman |
4 | Tom Garrett [4] | March 15 1877 | 19 | February 15 1888 | All-rounder |
5 | Dave Gregory [5] | March 15 1877 | 3 | January 4 1879 | Batsman |
6 | Ned Gregory [6] | March 15 1877 | 1 | March 15 1877 | Batsman |
7 | John Hodges [7] | March 15 1877 | 2 | April 4 1877 | Bowler |
8 | Tom Horan [8] | March 15 1877 | 15 | March 25 1885 | Batsman |
9 | Tom Kendall [9] | March 15 1877 | 2 | April 4 1877 | All-rounder |
10 | Billy Midwinter [10] | March 15 1877 | 12 | March 1 1887 | Batsman |
11 | Nat Thomson [11] | March 15 1877 | 2 | April 4 1887 | Batsman |
12 | Thomas Kelly [12] | March 31 1877 | 2 | January 4 1889 | Batsman |
13 | Billy Murdoch [13] | March 31 1877 | 2 | January 4 1889 | Batsman |
Is it usual in Australia to describe a cricketer's active Test career as xxxx-2008 - for example: 1999-2008 for Brett Lee - even when the cricketer is still getting picked? In the UK (and other places, I am sure), it would be more common to write xxxx- with no second year, so Brett Lee becomes simply 1999-. Otherwise there is no distinguishing between players who are still active and players who have retired in 2008. I would have just changed it, but I thought this could be a local difference so thought to consult on the matter first. - Estesark ( talk) 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does the list of players have the correct number (405) while the category says 399 have played test cricket for Australia? I checked the list and all the links are blue. I'm assuming there must be 6 players who don't have "Australian Test Cricketers" as a category, is there an easier way to check then going through all 405? Paulyt ( talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on "Edit this page" and couldn't see it. i musn't have looked too well. Thanks for the quick reply. Paulyt ( talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's right at the top lol Paulyt ( talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've highlighted the names of current players to be bold to bring this table into line with other Australian cricket tables. I've also removed the end-year for current players. -- Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Australia Test cricketers. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi - this is a fascinating page I just happened across here. The only thing is, I'm guessing there's some kind of XML or Excel database behind it, anyway, the numbers aren't numeric, if that makes sense. In other words, they're just standard text. Which means, among other things, the columns are left-justified, whereas numbers are usually right-justified. More significantly, if you try to sort ascending or descending you get funny results, for example 1200 will rank higher than 11000. It's still a nice interesting page. Cheers, Tonyglaser ( talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Tony