This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I've been thinking a bit about the cricket categories. First, let me say that I think our categories are basically very good. Nevertheless, there are a few changes I would like to make. All of these have come up before, so won't be new to long-standing members of the project. But the discussion has usually petered out in typical Wikipedia fashion, so I wonder if this time we can reach some sort of consensus. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
... and similarly for all other countries, and ODIs as well as Tests. Generally, articles should not be in both a parent category and a child category. Although it's not completely clear-cut (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories for guidelines), I think in this case we should follow the normal rule. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The categories such as Category:English batsmen suffer from a fatal flaw: there is often no consensus which category a player belongs in. All bowlers are required to bat sometimes, and lots of batsmen also bowl a bit. There is therefore no clear division between batsmen and all-rounders, or between all-rounders and bowlers. The consequence is that many (most?) players don't use the "skill" categories at all. In addition, some all-rounders are listed as batsmen and bowlers too, and some just as all-rounders. I would do away with the whole lot.
The only question is whether wicket-keepers should stay. These don't suffer from the same problem, because it's much more certain whether a player is a wicket-keeper or not.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12#Cricketers by skill. (But no consensus about wicket-keepers, so I'm not proposing them). Please make your comments there if you want them to influence the debate! Stephen Turner ( Talk) 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the most controversial, because it survived two votes for deletion in the first half of 2005 (see Category talk:Cricket subcategories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Category:Cricket subcategories if you want to read all the arguments). But it's always annoyed me. It seems to me that its only purpose is for people who are too lazy to browse the category tree properly, and it messes up the Category: namespace. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12#Category:Cricket subcategories. Please copy your comments (or make different comments) over there. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Gene's point about the lack of a tree form is a good one, and one that has been on my mind for a while. I tried to do one last year for Trinidad-related cats ( here), but it was an awful lot of work and it's now hopelessly out of date. It's a useful visualisation tool, IMO, but it has to be updated manually. I was wondering if it might not be useful to convert the subcats cat into a tree and stick that page somewhere in here - because, quite frankly, this is useful information. In its current form it's just a pile of unsorted cats. Done properly I think it could be useful. Guettarda 13:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I started mapping out a proposed category tree yesterday at User:Ianbrown/Sandbox2 but am now too busy to continue with it because of other commitments. If anyone wants to finish it off, feel free to do so - I think it would be a handy bit of documentation to have somewhere inside WP:CRIC. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I found two categories which duplicate other categories, and I've put them up for deletion. They should be uncontroversial, but feel free to come along and support/object:
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is One-day International with both the hyphen and the capital I. The categories should be the same. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've got plenty of time on my hands at the moment, because I'm lying in bed with shingles. Which you're not meant to get when you're only 35. :-(
Anyway, I'm gradually working my way through little things that bother me... Today, I want to talk about links to the cricket portal from cricket articles. This was already on my list, but has become more pressing because Blnguyen has recently added quite a lot more.
It seems we have no consistency about how to do this. I count several different styles:
Some articles have more than one of these. 12
Is there a standard for this? Myself, I don't like the dab link. I may be influenced by the fact that I'm not a big fan of portals (yes, I'm probably in the minority on that), but it feels a bit spammy to me. Do we really need to trumpet the portal at the top of the article? I also don't like " overloading" the space used for dab links: it's confusing to use the space for different purposes, and it causes problems when we need a dab link as well. 13, 14. So that's my least favourite way.
Any other views? Or any citations of a standard?
I'll let Blnguyen know about this discussion.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made the suggestion that the article Orange Free State cricket team be merged with Eagles cricket team. What do you guys reckon? QazPlm 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC) WS
I've noticed that Rahul Dravid and Gautam Gambhir are listed under this category. As far as I can tell, they were born in Madhya Pradesh and Delhi respectively, and are not based in Mumbai or Maharashtra for any cricketing purposes. So what is the basis for classifying them as such?? ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's do away with categorisation of people based on their ethnicity. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone who know the subject please confirm if [3] and [4] are correct. I have heard that Barnes could break both ways, but don't know if he was predominantly a leg break bowler. Tintin ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the only thing that the Indian cricket team article needs before we put it up for peer review. But I find the task a little intimidating. At least to begin with, if someone could lay the building blocks, take the first step, and add a couple of generalized paragraphs. It would be good. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone use List of Test cricketers and List of ODI cricketers? I update them occasionally, but I feel that they're not very useful given that we have List of cricketers too. Last time I asked this, in December, only jguk said he used them, but he's now left us. Does anyone else care about keeping them?
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
See these very interesting edits : [5] Tintin ( talk) 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, he who was User:Ianbrown now trades as User:I@n -- I@n ≡ talk 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I noted that Jason Gillespie info table listed that he had bowled something like 14180 test overs and about 5000 ODI overs. As he in fact has bowled that many deliveries in each form of the game, I attempted to change the info box but I can't seem to be successful in this regard. Can someone kindly point me in the correct direction to how I can fic the table in the future? Cheers -- Roisterer 07:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
balls = true |
Guys,
The edit history for Ronnie Irani is very interesting. (We really should notice things like that!)
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
People might like to put Mahendra Singh Dhoni on their watchlists. It's OK at the moment, but it's attracting a lot of ... enthusiasts. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at WikiProject AFL about how to name season articles - should the year be at the start or end of the article title. Has this issue previously been discussed here? -- I@n ≡ talk 05:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to canvas votes or splinter the other discussion, I just wanted to know if this has been discussed here. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Finally I'm back! I'm sure some of you thought I had quit completing the list midway & gone, but here I am, back in business! I was on a wikibreak & could not even think about adding new articles. But now I probably will try & complete the ODI Bios list in the "near future" (ambiguity intended!). Any expansion/improvements to the created articles will be much appreciated.
Cheers & belated Happy Easter to all
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by this. Why shouldn't we sort these by last name? - brenneman {L} 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone check the problem in International_Cricket_Council. The image seems to be okay but it is not displayed properly. Tintin ( talk) 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Cricket has been proposed for demotion from featured portal status at WP:FPRC. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Our cricket awards are being discussed here. They are planning to phase out the oldest cricket bat and only keep the barnstar. Gizza Chat © 12:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I think this article has veered into POV, following the recent century. Almost half the article is about the Bangladesh tour, and the following gives the impression that he is a genius batsman
It also almost exclusively addresses events only from the Ashes onwards. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a couple of extra points:
I hope these are not controversial, but let me know if anyone objects. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform the Project that Indian Cricket Team is a Good Article Candidate. If someone can prove they are impartial and they have not made significant contributions to the article then I guess you can review the article. It's been on the list for a couple of weeks now without any comments. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what four major references say about India's admission into ICC :
Rowland Bowen, Some dates in Indian cricket, Wisden 1967 http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152361.html
Mihir Bose, A History of Indian Cricket
History of ICC, http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/1909-1963.html
Richard Cashman, Patrons, players and the crowd
According to Rowland Bowen, it is 1926; Mihir Bose has it as 1929. Sources 2, 3 and 4 talk about Indian delegates being 'invited/allowed to attend' in 1926 - reading icc-cricket.com, one may get the impression that India was admitted in 1926 (but note that there was no governing body in India till December 1928, and the BCCI president and secretary represented India at the ICC meeting in 1929), Cashman's quote hints at the opposite.
What year is one supposed to assume ? I am attempting to add some of this stuff to the early history section in Indian cricket team.
Our International Cricket Council uses 1926, but that probably came from icc-cricket.com Tintin ( talk) 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just going through some NHL player bios & noticed that many of them have name pronounciations. I think this will be extremely useful for cricket articles (especially for bios for the subcontinental players like Laxman Sivaramakrishnan). I just spent my whole afternoon recording the names of the entire List of Indian Cricketers & I'm proud to say that I have recorded all 294 of them! I tried uploading them right now but the Wikipedia servers are busy so I'll try again in a couple of hours. I have uploaded audio for a few articles like Ajit Agarkar. Please review it & tell me what you think.
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This category now has only has only 2 subcategories Category:Cricket captains and Category:Wicket-keepers. Captains is not really a skill (but was probably the logical place to have it when we had all-rounders, batsmen, bowlers etc) and "skils" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Propose to move both of them as sub-cats of Category:Cricketers and remove Category:Cricketers by skill which will simplify the category tree a bit more. Thoughts? -- I@n ≡ talk 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Whew! That's all I can say! 294 bios in all finally recorded, uploaded & linked. I've got a sore throat & aching wrist (constant mouse clicking!) but atleast the joy of having completed the job I started (I'm notoriously bad at that!). Anyway I request all Indian members to please look these up & tell me if something's wrong (Thanks Tintin for already doing so).
Cheers
Well sort of... In this article about Kallis the consistent batsman they link their article to ours concerning Standard Deviation. It was time our most valuable cricket source trusted us! Gizza Chat © 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The Inzamam-ul-Haq article has just been added with a section called "Humour". This section, although written & wikified relatively well, violates NPOV & is uncited. Certain statements though if cited probably can be added like the statement about his tiff with a spectator.
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
All of the Ranji Trophy teams now have articles. I kind of left my work half-done and today came and remembered, so I finished the rest. The best examples at the moment would be Mumbai cricket team and Baroda cricket team (which are still not that good). The Famous Players sections need a lot of filling in, because barely 20 players have so far got their names associated to their respective domestic circuit teams. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Charles Matthews writes in a post to WikiEn-l:
<blockquote>A quibble I have is that you find things like Viv Richards introduced as 'West Indian cricketer'. Well, he is; but he is Antiguan by nationality. He played for the West Indies team; and I suppose if you go back to the time of the British West Indies then there is some further discussion to be had.
Is this something that we want to look at? Viv Richards's Antiguan nationality is implicit from the article (we have 'born St John's, Antigua on 7 March 1952') but not explicitly stated. -- Nick Boalch 09:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed it because Loganberry fixed it in a page - Cricketarchive has changed the naming format of their scorecard pages. Previously the links for different classes were in different directories, now they seem to have been integrated. So links like http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/f/1/f1739.html have become dead and been changed to http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/2/2043.html . We'll have fix them as we find them. Tintin ( talk) 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Finally I got the motivation back to complete this list once & for all! Most probably by tommorow I will complete the remaining bios of Pakistan & Zimbabwe.
Cheers
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/cricket/ashes/2005/about.htm I@n ≡ talk 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or do the recent anon additions to Ntini's article smell like some kind of copyvio text dump. We could use it I guess, if it was rephrased, with the magazine style NPOV-ed out. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I've been thinking a bit about the cricket categories. First, let me say that I think our categories are basically very good. Nevertheless, there are a few changes I would like to make. All of these have come up before, so won't be new to long-standing members of the project. But the discussion has usually petered out in typical Wikipedia fashion, so I wonder if this time we can reach some sort of consensus. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
... and similarly for all other countries, and ODIs as well as Tests. Generally, articles should not be in both a parent category and a child category. Although it's not completely clear-cut (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories for guidelines), I think in this case we should follow the normal rule. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The categories such as Category:English batsmen suffer from a fatal flaw: there is often no consensus which category a player belongs in. All bowlers are required to bat sometimes, and lots of batsmen also bowl a bit. There is therefore no clear division between batsmen and all-rounders, or between all-rounders and bowlers. The consequence is that many (most?) players don't use the "skill" categories at all. In addition, some all-rounders are listed as batsmen and bowlers too, and some just as all-rounders. I would do away with the whole lot.
The only question is whether wicket-keepers should stay. These don't suffer from the same problem, because it's much more certain whether a player is a wicket-keeper or not.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12#Cricketers by skill. (But no consensus about wicket-keepers, so I'm not proposing them). Please make your comments there if you want them to influence the debate! Stephen Turner ( Talk) 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the most controversial, because it survived two votes for deletion in the first half of 2005 (see Category talk:Cricket subcategories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Category:Cricket subcategories if you want to read all the arguments). But it's always annoyed me. It seems to me that its only purpose is for people who are too lazy to browse the category tree properly, and it messes up the Category: namespace. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12#Category:Cricket subcategories. Please copy your comments (or make different comments) over there. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 11:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Gene's point about the lack of a tree form is a good one, and one that has been on my mind for a while. I tried to do one last year for Trinidad-related cats ( here), but it was an awful lot of work and it's now hopelessly out of date. It's a useful visualisation tool, IMO, but it has to be updated manually. I was wondering if it might not be useful to convert the subcats cat into a tree and stick that page somewhere in here - because, quite frankly, this is useful information. In its current form it's just a pile of unsorted cats. Done properly I think it could be useful. Guettarda 13:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I started mapping out a proposed category tree yesterday at User:Ianbrown/Sandbox2 but am now too busy to continue with it because of other commitments. If anyone wants to finish it off, feel free to do so - I think it would be a handy bit of documentation to have somewhere inside WP:CRIC. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I found two categories which duplicate other categories, and I've put them up for deletion. They should be uncontroversial, but feel free to come along and support/object:
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is One-day International with both the hyphen and the capital I. The categories should be the same. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've got plenty of time on my hands at the moment, because I'm lying in bed with shingles. Which you're not meant to get when you're only 35. :-(
Anyway, I'm gradually working my way through little things that bother me... Today, I want to talk about links to the cricket portal from cricket articles. This was already on my list, but has become more pressing because Blnguyen has recently added quite a lot more.
It seems we have no consistency about how to do this. I count several different styles:
Some articles have more than one of these. 12
Is there a standard for this? Myself, I don't like the dab link. I may be influenced by the fact that I'm not a big fan of portals (yes, I'm probably in the minority on that), but it feels a bit spammy to me. Do we really need to trumpet the portal at the top of the article? I also don't like " overloading" the space used for dab links: it's confusing to use the space for different purposes, and it causes problems when we need a dab link as well. 13, 14. So that's my least favourite way.
Any other views? Or any citations of a standard?
I'll let Blnguyen know about this discussion.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made the suggestion that the article Orange Free State cricket team be merged with Eagles cricket team. What do you guys reckon? QazPlm 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC) WS
I've noticed that Rahul Dravid and Gautam Gambhir are listed under this category. As far as I can tell, they were born in Madhya Pradesh and Delhi respectively, and are not based in Mumbai or Maharashtra for any cricketing purposes. So what is the basis for classifying them as such?? ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's do away with categorisation of people based on their ethnicity. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone who know the subject please confirm if [3] and [4] are correct. I have heard that Barnes could break both ways, but don't know if he was predominantly a leg break bowler. Tintin ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the only thing that the Indian cricket team article needs before we put it up for peer review. But I find the task a little intimidating. At least to begin with, if someone could lay the building blocks, take the first step, and add a couple of generalized paragraphs. It would be good. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone use List of Test cricketers and List of ODI cricketers? I update them occasionally, but I feel that they're not very useful given that we have List of cricketers too. Last time I asked this, in December, only jguk said he used them, but he's now left us. Does anyone else care about keeping them?
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
See these very interesting edits : [5] Tintin ( talk) 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, he who was User:Ianbrown now trades as User:I@n -- I@n ≡ talk 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I noted that Jason Gillespie info table listed that he had bowled something like 14180 test overs and about 5000 ODI overs. As he in fact has bowled that many deliveries in each form of the game, I attempted to change the info box but I can't seem to be successful in this regard. Can someone kindly point me in the correct direction to how I can fic the table in the future? Cheers -- Roisterer 07:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
balls = true |
Guys,
The edit history for Ronnie Irani is very interesting. (We really should notice things like that!)
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
People might like to put Mahendra Singh Dhoni on their watchlists. It's OK at the moment, but it's attracting a lot of ... enthusiasts. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at WikiProject AFL about how to name season articles - should the year be at the start or end of the article title. Has this issue previously been discussed here? -- I@n ≡ talk 05:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to canvas votes or splinter the other discussion, I just wanted to know if this has been discussed here. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Finally I'm back! I'm sure some of you thought I had quit completing the list midway & gone, but here I am, back in business! I was on a wikibreak & could not even think about adding new articles. But now I probably will try & complete the ODI Bios list in the "near future" (ambiguity intended!). Any expansion/improvements to the created articles will be much appreciated.
Cheers & belated Happy Easter to all
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by this. Why shouldn't we sort these by last name? - brenneman {L} 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone check the problem in International_Cricket_Council. The image seems to be okay but it is not displayed properly. Tintin ( talk) 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Cricket has been proposed for demotion from featured portal status at WP:FPRC. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Our cricket awards are being discussed here. They are planning to phase out the oldest cricket bat and only keep the barnstar. Gizza Chat © 12:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I think this article has veered into POV, following the recent century. Almost half the article is about the Bangladesh tour, and the following gives the impression that he is a genius batsman
It also almost exclusively addresses events only from the Ashes onwards. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a couple of extra points:
I hope these are not controversial, but let me know if anyone objects. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform the Project that Indian Cricket Team is a Good Article Candidate. If someone can prove they are impartial and they have not made significant contributions to the article then I guess you can review the article. It's been on the list for a couple of weeks now without any comments. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what four major references say about India's admission into ICC :
Rowland Bowen, Some dates in Indian cricket, Wisden 1967 http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152361.html
Mihir Bose, A History of Indian Cricket
History of ICC, http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/1909-1963.html
Richard Cashman, Patrons, players and the crowd
According to Rowland Bowen, it is 1926; Mihir Bose has it as 1929. Sources 2, 3 and 4 talk about Indian delegates being 'invited/allowed to attend' in 1926 - reading icc-cricket.com, one may get the impression that India was admitted in 1926 (but note that there was no governing body in India till December 1928, and the BCCI president and secretary represented India at the ICC meeting in 1929), Cashman's quote hints at the opposite.
What year is one supposed to assume ? I am attempting to add some of this stuff to the early history section in Indian cricket team.
Our International Cricket Council uses 1926, but that probably came from icc-cricket.com Tintin ( talk) 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just going through some NHL player bios & noticed that many of them have name pronounciations. I think this will be extremely useful for cricket articles (especially for bios for the subcontinental players like Laxman Sivaramakrishnan). I just spent my whole afternoon recording the names of the entire List of Indian Cricketers & I'm proud to say that I have recorded all 294 of them! I tried uploading them right now but the Wikipedia servers are busy so I'll try again in a couple of hours. I have uploaded audio for a few articles like Ajit Agarkar. Please review it & tell me what you think.
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This category now has only has only 2 subcategories Category:Cricket captains and Category:Wicket-keepers. Captains is not really a skill (but was probably the logical place to have it when we had all-rounders, batsmen, bowlers etc) and "skils" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Propose to move both of them as sub-cats of Category:Cricketers and remove Category:Cricketers by skill which will simplify the category tree a bit more. Thoughts? -- I@n ≡ talk 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Whew! That's all I can say! 294 bios in all finally recorded, uploaded & linked. I've got a sore throat & aching wrist (constant mouse clicking!) but atleast the joy of having completed the job I started (I'm notoriously bad at that!). Anyway I request all Indian members to please look these up & tell me if something's wrong (Thanks Tintin for already doing so).
Cheers
Well sort of... In this article about Kallis the consistent batsman they link their article to ours concerning Standard Deviation. It was time our most valuable cricket source trusted us! Gizza Chat © 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The Inzamam-ul-Haq article has just been added with a section called "Humour". This section, although written & wikified relatively well, violates NPOV & is uncited. Certain statements though if cited probably can be added like the statement about his tiff with a spectator.
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
All of the Ranji Trophy teams now have articles. I kind of left my work half-done and today came and remembered, so I finished the rest. The best examples at the moment would be Mumbai cricket team and Baroda cricket team (which are still not that good). The Famous Players sections need a lot of filling in, because barely 20 players have so far got their names associated to their respective domestic circuit teams. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Charles Matthews writes in a post to WikiEn-l:
<blockquote>A quibble I have is that you find things like Viv Richards introduced as 'West Indian cricketer'. Well, he is; but he is Antiguan by nationality. He played for the West Indies team; and I suppose if you go back to the time of the British West Indies then there is some further discussion to be had.
Is this something that we want to look at? Viv Richards's Antiguan nationality is implicit from the article (we have 'born St John's, Antigua on 7 March 1952') but not explicitly stated. -- Nick Boalch 09:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed it because Loganberry fixed it in a page - Cricketarchive has changed the naming format of their scorecard pages. Previously the links for different classes were in different directories, now they seem to have been integrated. So links like http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/f/1/f1739.html have become dead and been changed to http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/2/2043.html . We'll have fix them as we find them. Tintin ( talk) 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Finally I got the motivation back to complete this list once & for all! Most probably by tommorow I will complete the remaining bios of Pakistan & Zimbabwe.
Cheers
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/cricket/ashes/2005/about.htm I@n ≡ talk 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or do the recent anon additions to Ntini's article smell like some kind of copyvio text dump. We could use it I guess, if it was rephrased, with the magazine style NPOV-ed out. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)