![]() | 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Can someone please take a look at the comments at Talk:Tom Wills Tintin ( talk) 10:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Rait claims to have created these pics on the page. Is it OK to take people's logo and presumedly someone's copyrighted photo and stick them together to make a new image? If indeed he did create them? Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a bit of a hiatus on the Quiz - neither the person who gave the right answer to the last question ( Dingbatdan) nor the person who set the question ( Deville) is around to set a new question. The previous setter was QazPlm, if he is around.
Anyway, this is by way of a gentle reminder to other editors that the Quiz exists :)-- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I just came across the article 15-104, which appears to be a cricket article with a nonsense title. I'm at a loss as to what to do with it, can someone take a look? Oldelpaso 10:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, per this AfD, I moved the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this today: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. It's a tool that the Version 1 Editorial Team uses to assess the quality and importance of certain pages, and it appears that quite a few Wikiprojects are using it to do individual assessments on pages that relate to their topics. Would it be useful if we started to do something like this on the Cricket Wikiproject? -- mdmanser 08:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've pretty much set up everything now, with the templates for all instructions from the Australian Wikiproject. Basically, everything you need to know is here, but keep in mind that the Wikiproject Cricket template I've used here is different to the existing one. I've also changed the WikiProject Cricket template slightly so it now fits in with the new system.
How do I do this? I'm thinking in particular about the Zimbabwe cricket team and the (wonderfully quirky) Ted Alletson articles. -- Dweller 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sure there used to be a minor counties cricket team actually called Minor Counties, which was for the counties so minor they weren't even minor counties (a kind of "combined minor minor counties" team), not utterly dissimilar to the "Wales Minor Counties" side. Is my recollection correct? I have found some cricketers who apparently played for Minor Counties, but Minor Counties is just a redirect to an article about minor counties cricket. TheGrappler 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Crico has written a number of quite good articles at Cricket Rating Systems and individual rating systems articles which have been added to category:Cricket awards and rankings (see Special:Contributions/Crico). I've never heard of a number of these ranking systems and individually, the articles might be hard to justify keeping as they are not well known or used. However, as a set they paint an interesting picture of the difficulty of ranking cricket teams and I would therefore argue for their retention if nominated for deletion. User:Tychocat has made some useful suggestions at Talk:Herman's Cricket Ratings. What do others think? -- I@n ≡ talk 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the England captaincy box over from Michael Vaughan's page to Andrew Flintoff's. See their talk pages for an expalnation of why, and tell me your opinion on the matter. Istartfires 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Go Captain Freddie!!! Ahem. Yes, I quite agree (obviously), it seems like the right thing to do! :-) Istartfires 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of changing it on the England team page - have a look and see if you think it needs to be changed anywhere else - maybe the articles themselves? Istartfires 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm forced to disagree with you. The ECB released a statement just this morning confirming that Strauss is merely the stand-in captain, i.e. deputising for Flintoff, not Vaughan. I reiterate: to all intents and purposes, Flintoff IS the England captain for AT LEAST the next six months, including, need I mention, the Ashes? The ECB clearly regard him as such, so why shouldn't an encyclopedia? Istartfires 09:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was a quantifiable fact, in that it's not been done formally yet. However, you must concede that Flintoff is the de facto captain, if not quite the de jure captain just yet. That said, he essentailly will be next thursday - is there any point changing it back in the meantime? Do so if you wish, but I think it's a bit pedantic. Perhaps an explanatory note on Flintoff's, Vaughan's, and the team's page would suffice? Something along the lines of the debate outlined above. Maybe Staruss deserves a mention too - I think he's doing a fine job personally, and he clearly relishes the challenge. Istartfires 10:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Now indeed sir. It is truly a sad day for all cricket lovers. Put Strauss in instead, I don't care any more. Istartfires.
Following the recent discussion about the categories (now archived), I've made the changes that we had consensus on around the skills and forms categories. I've left women's cricket on the root level as requested. The history and country categories are now working well.
By the way, I decided against the proposed admin & governance category as no one supported it and a couple were doubtful about it, so I think the consensus there is "forget it", unless anyone else wants to reiterate it. -- Jack 12:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please handle the issue about George Ulyett's picture that is mentioned at User talk:Jguk Tintin ( talk) 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, since we have lists of cricket in film and television, cricket in fiction, and cricket poetry, does anyone think we could have a list of cricket songs? I'm inspired by the recent article in Cricinfo, and I'm sure there's more songs out there related to cricket (I can think of some). I'm not sure it's worth a separate article though - I'd want to include it as a section in cricket in film and television, which I'd rename cricket in popular media or something. - dmmaus 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In keeping with consensus in the recent categories discussion above, I've made changes to the history structure to relocate stray articles to specific categories and to relate the history sub-categories to the geographic ones.
For example, 1726 English cricket season is in category:English cricket in the 18th Century which is a specific sub-category of the sub-generic category:History of English cricket. That category is a child of two parents, one historic and one geographical — category:History of cricket and category:Cricket in England respectively.
You will note that category:History of cricket is a main category of the root category:Cricket itself and that it also contains category:History of Australian cricket and category:History of Test cricket.
category:Cricket in England is part of category:Cricket by country and this includes category:Cricket in Australia which follows a similar pattern in that it leads to category:History of Australian cricket which is being developed as per its English counterpart. At present it has one sub-cat category:Australian cricket in the Golden Age and this has some season stubs and a seasonal template as per the equivalent English category.
Obviously, the intention is to develop the other countries using the same structure.
I hope you can follow the above but it's best to navigate the hyperlinks and you'll see what's going on. Can anyone make any additional suggestions? -- Jack 10:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The categories concerned are:
I apologise if this has been discussed before, but I'm not in favour of these, and I don't think that there was consensus for these new categories. IMO The era breaks are arbitrary and serve no purpose except to introduce another layer of categorisation for readers to have to wade through. Terms such as "Golden Age" are POV and innapropriate for categorisation. Navigation between articles would be better done by use of a template such as (for example): {{ English cricket seasons 1969 - 2000}}. The articles currently in these categories should move up one level to History of <countryname> cricket. The previous discussion was confusing as several other issues were discussed in the same thread. -- I@n 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Consensus was based on the handful who bothered to make any comment at all. If people do not comment, their views cannot be known and so are not taken into account. The term "Golden Age of Cricket" is universally used throughout cricket literature from Cardus onwards to represent the period from about 1890 until 1914: there is nothing POV in that. As for categorisation, Wikipedia guidelines are in favour of categories and sub-categories and also of multiple approaches (e.g., via history and geography) to an article. There are such templates in use within both articles and categories: they were originally designed by User:jguk. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully support Jack's changes and I was under the impression that the consensus was there for him to do it. The situation with the history categories was hopeless with stuff dumped in one category and no evidence of a structure, apart from the English seasons. Now we have astructure that can be built upon and that works. I tried finding articles via both the country and history routes and the whole thing is seamless. It works. It ain't broke. It is going to house hundreds of articles one day. Don't try and fix it.
As for your POV statement re the Golden Age, why then do I have a book by David Frith called History of Cricket in the Golden Age? Even Wisden uses the term. It is not POV but accepted terminology in as much as Test Cricket is used as a term for international cricket.
I think this discussion should cease immediately as there is no justification or usage in making further changes to the history categories apart from populating them with lots and lots of articles, all of which will fit nicely into the present lovely framework.
Lets just forget this and live in the house that Jack built! -- GeorgeWilliams 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the structure is spot on and it complies with Wikipedia:Categorization especially as it provides more than one route to the article. I've tried George's test of navigating by both routes to a particular article and it works. However, I think there is a valid issue around the names but it is not a POV issue: it is do with exactitude. I'm afraid I would even change "18th Century" and "19th Century" because, if you look at them, the delimiter is not 1800 but Bonaparte! I think that each of the categories should be renamed to, for example, category:English cricket to 1815, category:English cricket from 1969 to 2000, category:English cricket from 2001. I vote someone should nominate the names for change but the structure should be retained and built upon. It's articles that are needed, especially re non-English history. -- AlbertMW 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All this is fair comment. I'm glad some of you are happy with the structure and I would strongly recommend working with that at least until such time as we get many more historical articles in. It is difficult to judge it at present with so few articles, other than the old English seasons. As for the titles, yes I concede that they are inexact and so I propose to rename them all in line with Albert's proposal. Unless there are any objections to the rename I will put this forward to the CfD on Sat 5 August and quote this article for reference, so if you wish to add to the consensus view please do so. Thanks to all for your interest. --
BlackJack |
talk page 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[This subheading helps me but feel free to delete it. -- P64 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC))]
This is a model showing a revised categories proposal. The root is category:Cricket and its level 1 sub-cats are the collection on the left plus category:Cricket by country and category:History of cricket. Concentrating on these two, you can see that they each have a set of level 2 sub-cats by country, so we have category:Cricket in England on the country side and category:History of English cricket on the history side.
Each of these level 2 categories by country is likely to develop a number of level 3 sub-cats such as clubs, grounds, competitions, etc. under country and clubs, events, general histories, etc. under history.
I propose that at level 3 under country, each country should have a full collection of season records. So, for England, there would be articles for every season since the 16th century held under category:English cricket seasons. For Australia, there would be articles for every season since the 1850s under category:Australian cricket seasons. In each case, the seasons category would be reached via both the country and history routes.
I also propose that we give special attention to tours and quite a few articles about tours have been written already. Again at level 3, I would have categories on the country side called category:Overseas cricket tours in X and on the history side called category:X cricket tours overseas. Each of these articles would therefore have two homes: hence 1961 Australian cricket tour of England would be in both category:Overseas cricket tours in England and in category:Australian cricket tours overseas.
This model puts all the season articles into single categories by country and not by era, though tours are treated separately as I think they should be, especially as there seems to be an interest in creating tour articles. But the model also anticipates huge growth, which is inevitable given the enormous scope and scale of cricket history, and will therefore prevent the level 1 and level 2 categories becoming cluttered. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket which has just been relisted as no-one has bothered to vote. -- I@n 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
List of Ashes series — here -- I@n 07:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
See the last line of Hat-trick#Cricket. Is there something called a batsman's hattrick ? Tintin ( talk) 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Garrywarne has been adding an external link to this page which contains nothing but a copy-paste of the CI article. Stephen and myself have repeatedly removed it and warned him with little effect. Some admin needs to interfere if he adds it again. Tintin ( talk) 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Cricket_lore and place your comments if you are interested in keeping this category. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[from Talk:Australian cricket team]
wouldn't the Cricket Australia logo be more appropriate to the top of this page? Why is there just an Australian flag?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.166.156 ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you all know, after a bit of a tussle, I've succeeded in getting the astonishing Mr Fry into the very short list of people accepted into the list of Polymaths.
He's currently one of about a dozen people accepted... and he's flying the flag for cricket!
-- Dweller 10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The list of notable fielders has been defunct since February. That's six months.
I think we'd all agree it should be an important addition to the Wikipedia.
I'm not sure how you find criteria. One suggested is where players were selected as much for their fielding prowess as anything else. I'd disagree. Derek Randall, for example, was picked for his batting. He was also renowned as a great fielder.
What about Viv Richards? As a youngster, he was outstanding as a fielder, but it would be bonkers to allege that he was picked for that!
Anyone got a good idea to break the impasse? -- Dweller 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we please, please, please stop the idiotic and utterly incorrect practice of titling articles re players with some POV nickname that the guy may or may not have had at some point in his dressing room trials and tribulations? Seriously.
A couple of months ago I was looking for info re the famous Lancashire and England captain of the 19th century, Albert Nielsen Hornby (to quote his full name), better known to the whole of cricket's literature as A N Hornby, or, to quote Francis Thompson, as "O my Hornby". I couldn't find him so I thought: "Well, that's a new article we need" and set about creating one.
And then I found "Monkey" Hornby.
Which was promptly redirected.
For a start, "Monkey" was a nickname that Hornby had at school and in his early years in cricket. It came about because he was exceptionally agile and incidentally played rugby for England as well as cricket. But after he became captain of Lancashire, his nickname was "The Boss". Every single cricket book I have ever seen calls him "A N Hornby", so why is he called by his adolescent nickname on here? Some people label such drivel as "unencyclopaedic". I call it "infantile".
A few days ago, I was doing something on the 1961 Aussie tour of England and couldn't find Graham McKenzie. Why? Because he was known in the dressing room as "Garth". That has also been redirected. You will not find a single reference anywhere in cricket books to "Garth McKenzie", though thousands to Graham McKenzie.
If the nickname artists are right, then why haven't we got Fiery Fred, Typhoon Tyson, The Big Ship, Lol Larwood, George Statham, Beefy Botham, Gilly Grace and so on?
Taking Botham as a good example, his "Beefy" sobriquet arose quite late in his career. I have a magazine from the late seventies featuring an interview with Tony Greig who more than once refers to Botham as "Both"! And it is a fact that Botham was referred to as "Both" for many years after he first got into Test cricket. So is he The Both, Beefy Botham or plain old Ian Botham?
Gilly Grace? Absolutely. But it would never do to call him that on here, would it?
Please let us drop these silly nicknames once and for all. -- BlackJack | talk page 18:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree 99 per cent with you, and particularly dislike Shrimp Leveson Gower, which seems about as uncomplimentary a soubriquet as "Monkey" (and should have a hyphen in the surname, too). The 1 per cent that doesn't agree is reserved for Tiger Smith, who is pretty unrecognisable as Ernest Smith and even as E.J. Smith. But there should be nothing here that a robust redirect system won't be able to handle. Johnlp 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Indians cricketers list have a few where a nickname that is very different from the real first name appears in the title - Vinoo Mankad, Shute Banerjee, Montu Banerjee, Jenni Irani, Nana Joshi, Buck Divecha, Bal Dani, and Bapu Nadkarni. The difficult calls were Irani, who I knew very little about, and Divecha (but who appears as Buck in the first line of Wisden obit and in the title of the CI page). Joshi was called Nana to distinguish him from another P. G. Joshi who was his contemporary and was known as Sham Joshi. Would like to hear if anyone has comments or different opinions. Tintin ( talk) 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a review of this article, which was at one time the only history article we had, but which now looks out of place as more specific histories have been and are being written. Virtually everything in the article up to the 19th century exists elsewhere, but in greater detail and with a wider scope, so about half of the article is redundant. Material about the later periods could be made into new articles.
The big problem with an article like this is that the scope is too wide and if we develop this instead of handling history by means of period, place and event articles, we are going to create something that is too huge to handle.
I haven't studied it in detail yet but my first thoughts are that it should be completely broken up and reduced to an introductory topic only. The template box which lists linkages to the rest of the historical portfolio is very useful.
Incidentally, a lot of the early history in the article is wrong both factually and by important omission, so it needs a substantial revision in any case!
Has anyone any ideas or suggestions? -- BlackJack | talk page 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Done it. I've effectively provided a short overview of each major topic within each key period (usually by centuries) and given linkages to the specific articles where these exist. I'll keep an eye on it and add other linkages over time: we are very short of 19th century articles, I notice.
Why focus more on modern cricket? I don't understand that view at all. We are talking about the history of a sport which, in terms of "first-class" matches alone, goes back over 300 years. Nearly all its key developments (apart from one-day cricket) took place up to 1890. Modern cricket has actually very little to offer in terms of history. -- BlackJack | talk page 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an important topic to Wikiproject Cricket and I hope that it can be featured soon. I'm suggesting the following changes based on what happens in WP:FAC.
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is now very good indeed and you personally, Jack, should take a lot of the credit for that. Johnlp 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Great article. Touches everything that is important. Tintin ( talk) 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that User:Burnside1980 ( contribs) has been creating a lot of articles on obscure first-class cricketers. All first-class cricketers automatically meet our notability requirements, but I still find it strange. At the very least, the articles need serious cleaning up.
He's also been unlinking a lot of redlinks, which is definitely the wrong thing to do.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't particularly a new problem, but it may be worth mentioning again, especially for those (such as me!) who like to write biographical articles for less famous players. I've been vaguely looking through players from non-Test/ODI nations in the 2005 ICC Trophy, having discovered that unlike earlier tournaments this had List A status, meaning that there are players from unlikely countries (not least Oman!) who, in theory at least, qualify for articles. But as a slightly less obscure example, there's Nandikishore Patel of Uganda:
The CA profile page seems to be a simple mistake since his FC career dates are mentioned on the same page, but the other two results are clearly irreconcilable - especially as CricketArchive has Patel scoring 74 on his first-class debut against Namibia while Cricinfo claims he made a pair in his only f-c match (presumably this one against Kenya). I have to follow an existing reference (no original research), but here they disagree fundamentally.
It seems that there are two possibilities: either that Cricinfo is right, and that CA has conflated the figures of two Patels; or that CA is right, and that CI have omitted three-quarters of Patel's f-c matches. I'd be inclined to go with the CA scorecards, and say that he has played four f-c games, but would I be right to do so? Loganberry ( Talk) 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Of CA's four first class matches ( http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/78/78884/First-Class_Matches.html), CI attributes 3 to 'N Kishore' and the fourth ( http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OTHERS/ICC-CONT/SCORECARDS/KENYA_UGAN_ICC-CONT_22-24APR2005.html ) to N Patel. Going by circumstantial evidence CA is correct and CI is wrong. Tintin ( talk) 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I find cricinfo very unreliable for biographical and historical material. They don't edit their work properly, IMHO. CricketArchive I find very good on the whole with only minor errors of detail. -- BlackJack | talk page 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone help out with improving this article on the former Surrey and Middlesex cricketer? -- Dweller 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There are some more pertinent comments on Image:Cricket fielding positions2.svg on Talk:Fielding (cricket). One day this image will be finished :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That SMG named him Rohan Jaivishwa Gavaskar is a famous story but CI and CA has him as Rohan Sunil Gavaskar. What happened to the Jaivishwa part ? Tintin ( talk) 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or is there a need to keep an eye on this? There seems to be massive POV and also I wonder if he pasted them in from a profile off some website. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Our West Indies specialist Deville has kindly offered himself up for scrutiny at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deville. Participants may wish to pass by there and leave a mark. -- I@n 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to anybody out there, since Dweller was apparently previously unaware (expressed in the above arena) that there are admins within the cricket project who are available for administrative tasks.
So there are 19 18 admins, so 16.8% opf registered members are admins. This is quite high I think.
Blnguyen |
rant-line 01:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Add Raven4x4x. There is also ALoan who has not listed himself among the participants. Tintin ( talk) 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see this move. Comments ? I have always found him name as George Hirst. Tintin ( talk) 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw this too and was confused, as I'd not heard this before. The author claims to have got this direct from Headingley. I've found nothing to support it in any of my books so far. But I'll keep looking. Johnlp 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
: This is ridiculous. Some teenage girl in the ticket office probably looked in a players' register and said: "Oh, yes, he was definitely George Herbert". We'd better move Fred to Frederick Sewards Trueman then. You won't find any source that says he was George Herbert Hirst unless it is being deliberately formal and is using his full name in that context. He was George Hirst to everyone. --
BlackJack |
talk page 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I've expanded and reffed these two bios in the last two days and put them up for nomination at Template talk:did you know for inclusion on the front page (if selected) WP:DYK. If selected, they will probably get featured in the next 3-4 days. Seeing as these two players are current players and also will be playing ODIs for India against Sri Lanka in the next few days, I'm guessing it will probably attract some vandalism or POV edits in response to upcoming results, so could people consider putting them on their watchlist for a while? Also to make sure that it doesn't get excluded from DYK because someone dropped by and put POV into it. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I was making some bios for some Bermudian ODI cricketers, and it occurred to me that an appropriate infobox template would be one which lists ODIs and first-class stats. I was sure such a template existed and remembered once seeing it, but I can find no mention of it on the project page. I was going to make one myself, but I figured that if it didn't exist by now, there might be a good reason not to make it; and if it existed already, that's a really good reason not to make it...:) So, two questions: 1] does such a template exist? 2] If not, is there a good reason not to make one? One good reason to make such a template is that most cricketers from (e.g.) Bermuda will likely not play in any Tests, so the standard infoboxes will always have many empty boxes. -- Deville ( Talk) 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshurtree just made an edit to Michael Vaughan which involves putting all the stats on a subpage, Michael Vaughan/info, and the template including them from there. What do people think about that? My inclination is to leave all the stats on the main page, otherwise it's too subtle for editors. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Just been looking through the category:Cricket grounds and I see we don't have a category:Cricket grounds in Ireland or any articles about them. Does anyone have ready material to knock up a couple of stubs and create a sub-cat? Remember that Northern Ireland and the Republic are combined in a cricket sense, as they are in rugby. -- BlackJack | talk page 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The following cricket category is up for delete or keep as you choose. Please contribute at:
--
BlackJack |
talk page 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Forget it. Nomination withdrawn as the category is part of a buildings and construction study so it is relevant to that if not to cricket. --
BlackJack |
talk page 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on all Pakistan related pages. People have already started adding match reports. Tintin ( talk) 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that if you go back to the original 1744 code of the Laws of Cricket, you will find that the umpire's decision was final then and it is still final today. Or is it? -- BlackJack | talk page 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sally the n power girl, she's fantastic! Speedboy Salesman [[User talk: Speedboy Salesman]] 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
She's the one who the n power ball guys try to chat up everytime there is a commercial break. Speedboy Salesman [[User talk: Speedboy Salesman] 13:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there should be an article! I don't know enough about her. The article would be like 3 lines long Speedboy Salesman | talk page 12:00 07 September 2006 (UTC)
Jguk is up and running again!!!! Blnguyen | rant-line 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to the excellent wikipedia cricket pages, and can't find an article on racism or accusations of racism in cricket... would be interesting; such accusations seem to come up a lot, especially during test controversies (e.g. recent comments by Shaharyar Khan implying Hair is racist). Is there such an article? If not do you guys think it would be a good idea to have one (I don't have the knowlege to create one)? Russ 07:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been academic books written on the subject so an article would certainly be possible. A wider approach, offering pages on the social history of cricket, which would address racism as well as other issues, would, in my opinion, be more interesting. Personally, I learnt much more about the social history of England through reading Derek Birley's well-known book than I ever learnt at school. jguk 12:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Where an infobox has a section for the date of a player's last appearance, is that the first or last day of his final match? I've been assuming the latter - ie his last appearance as a f-c (or Test, or whatever) player, even if he wasn't actually on the field - but I thought it worth checking. Loganberry ( Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many of you are aware that there are new parser functions for use in templates. The switch function could be hugely useful for the problem of having to update several articles when a statistic changes.
So far i've just created the new construct for Michael Vaughan as an example. The top of the page just references Template:Infobox Cricketer alt with no parameters. All the statistics are stored at Michael Vaughan/info. Now if you want to add Michael Vaughan to some random list of cricketers along with the number of tests hes played you would add {{:Michael Vaughan/info|tests}} instead of the old manual method. This would automaticly be updated whenever someone updates the info page.
The Parser Functions are currently available on a trial basis. So a small scale role out may be an idea until it is confirmed that they're permenent.
I hope you understand the muddled mess i've just written. Perhaps someone who does could describe the system in a more ledgeable manner. josh ( talk) 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is clear that we have a difference of opinion about Wikipedia editing and where it should go. So i'm going to stop now before we get bogged down in wikiethics. We could either go to the village pump to get opinions there or simply wait to see how switches get used and if this usage gets deemed appropriate or not.
Meanwhile, I think the Infobox could be simplyfied by using templates to eliminate the need to enter the abbreviation, flag and personification of a country in the parameters. The flag is easy. Instead of the current code you would add [[Image:Flag of {{{country}}}.svg]]. The other two require templates with a standard form. For example, Eng would be stored in a template called Template:England abbr or similar. I've droped a note on Wikipedia talk:Country referencing templates to find out if such templates already exist. josh ( talk) 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To what extent has anyone attempted to automate any of these? If so, where did you get the data from? Could some bot do everything, or is that too optimistic?
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above artile has just been deleted for being a copyvio. Could someone please re-write it? I can access the deleted version and re-add the infobox and the cats as and when a non-copyright infringing article is put in place - just ping me once it is done. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We have articles about all the current county clubs, though most if not all are still stubs. I'm wondering about creating additional articles for the counties that played first-class cricket before their clubs were founded. This will apply to several counties: Sussex aka Brighton; Yorkshire aka Sheffield; Notts aka Nottingham; Lancashire aka Manchester cricket team; Essex aka Hornchurch; Middlesex; Hampshire; Kent; Surrey; Berkshire; Norfolk and Leicestershire all were involved in first-class cricket at county team level before any formal county club was organised.
I don't think it is appropriate to add the relevant material to the club article so in addition to, for example, Sussex County Cricket Club, we also need something about Sussex cricket up to 1839 when the club was founded. The main use for such an article would be as an xref from all the historical articles where that county's team is mentioned. Some of these go right back to the early 18th century.
I'm proposing to call it, same example, County cricket in Sussex with an xref to the county club article. Has anyone got any alternative ideas for a naming convention? Or any other ideas re approach? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
(importing some of my own comments from Old County Teams into this subsection)
pro sports in North America. For baseball in North America, all professional records are organized on league-season basis, back to 1871, and earlier professional records are not organized. No one counts non-league games, although for fifty years some of those deprecated "exhibition games" were (a) strong matches on the field or (b) important sources of income for players. Other pro team sports follow baseball.
college sports. In the U.S., I believe, Jack's question pertains (within Wikipedia, no original research) only to university teams. I guess the same is true in England: universities control and cover the debts today, where the students were once responsible? Oxford University Cricket Club (now there's a stub); Cambridge University Boat Club (1828); Dublin University Football Club (1854) -- P64 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[Wisden's] "substantial reorganisation" probably means business form but that may be replicated for the university sports clubs. I'll try to find out whether Sport History academics have covered this phenomenon in general. -- P64 20:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all of it, unfortunately, but a lot of the feature articles and obituaries from old editions are up on the Cricinfo site. In particular, "Dates in Cricket History" may be useful. An author isn't credited, but I think it's by Rowland Bowen.
JH 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to separate out this question from User:P64 - Back to old teams in old counties: Do reference books and databases generally distinguish between Sussex CCC teams and earlier "representative" teams in Sussex county; between Glamorgan CCC teams and earlier teams in Glamorgan county? Or do the reference works list first-class matches played for Sussex in the 1830s and 1840s identically and sum them in one player-team record?
This is not easy to answer because the county name is freely used and you can read an account which talks about the 1830s and the 1840s and about "Sussex" in both decades. But Sussex CCC was founded in 1839 so there is a difference (at least in terms of legal existence). I believe most people in their minds tend to subjugate the club and think only in terms of the county.
There is an additional problem around the age of the source you are reading. Many older books adopted the now outdated view that first-class cricket began in 1864 and so, as far as they were concerned, Sussex CCC was "not first-class" until then, let alone Sussex County.
But I believe the trend nowadays is to see things in continuous terms and "sweep up" the county club in passing. Thus, the Sussex team that was proclaimed "Champion County" in the 1820s is to all intents and purposes the same one as Sussex CCC two decades later. If you take a famous player like William Lillywhite who played for both Sussex County and Sussex CCC from 1825 until 1853 and look at his record on Cricket Archive you will see that he has a continuous first-class record. This is a modern source which reflects the trend I mentioned.
How that translates into a treatment of pre-club county teams vis-a-vis county clubs, I'm still uncertain. It might well come down to a practical consideration like size of article! -- BlackJack | talk page 07:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This is so big that many of its sub-categories have disappeared from the top and can only be found if you go to the appropriate letter of the alphabet. This is poor in presentation terms. Is it a problem with Wikipedia generally or something specific to this category? -- BlackJack | talk page 08:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I was not sure if everyone involved in this project kept an eye on Deletion Sorting/Cricket, so I thought I would post here too. The above mentioned article is at AfD. It would be great if someone could improve the article or merge it in a relevant place. - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 18:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What do people think of this diff? Obviously, it needs rewriting at a minimum, because it sounds like self-promotion at the moment. But it seems too minor to me to appear in the main Cricket article at all. I haven't reverted it, because I wonder if it's bigger in other parts of the world, particularly Australia. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted it, because there are no links or references and the names don't bring anything up on a Google search (well, actually, they do, but nothing that makes me believe it!) I'll leave a note on the author's page so if it turns out that I'm wrong, they can come back. Johnlp 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Above is today's featured picture on the Main Page. -- I@n 01:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Further to the discussions above, I've made a start on tying up the histories of the first-class county clubs with those of the earlier teams that represented the counties. See Sussex cricket team and Sussex County Cricket Club for the first treatment. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well done, Jack. I think that's excellent. You've left room to add more detail in the historic article without over-balancing the CCC article with too much prehistory. Johnlp 20:43, 30 August 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Can someone please take a look at the comments at Talk:Tom Wills Tintin ( talk) 10:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Rait claims to have created these pics on the page. Is it OK to take people's logo and presumedly someone's copyrighted photo and stick them together to make a new image? If indeed he did create them? Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a bit of a hiatus on the Quiz - neither the person who gave the right answer to the last question ( Dingbatdan) nor the person who set the question ( Deville) is around to set a new question. The previous setter was QazPlm, if he is around.
Anyway, this is by way of a gentle reminder to other editors that the Quiz exists :)-- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I just came across the article 15-104, which appears to be a cricket article with a nonsense title. I'm at a loss as to what to do with it, can someone take a look? Oldelpaso 10:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, per this AfD, I moved the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this today: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. It's a tool that the Version 1 Editorial Team uses to assess the quality and importance of certain pages, and it appears that quite a few Wikiprojects are using it to do individual assessments on pages that relate to their topics. Would it be useful if we started to do something like this on the Cricket Wikiproject? -- mdmanser 08:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've pretty much set up everything now, with the templates for all instructions from the Australian Wikiproject. Basically, everything you need to know is here, but keep in mind that the Wikiproject Cricket template I've used here is different to the existing one. I've also changed the WikiProject Cricket template slightly so it now fits in with the new system.
How do I do this? I'm thinking in particular about the Zimbabwe cricket team and the (wonderfully quirky) Ted Alletson articles. -- Dweller 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sure there used to be a minor counties cricket team actually called Minor Counties, which was for the counties so minor they weren't even minor counties (a kind of "combined minor minor counties" team), not utterly dissimilar to the "Wales Minor Counties" side. Is my recollection correct? I have found some cricketers who apparently played for Minor Counties, but Minor Counties is just a redirect to an article about minor counties cricket. TheGrappler 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Crico has written a number of quite good articles at Cricket Rating Systems and individual rating systems articles which have been added to category:Cricket awards and rankings (see Special:Contributions/Crico). I've never heard of a number of these ranking systems and individually, the articles might be hard to justify keeping as they are not well known or used. However, as a set they paint an interesting picture of the difficulty of ranking cricket teams and I would therefore argue for their retention if nominated for deletion. User:Tychocat has made some useful suggestions at Talk:Herman's Cricket Ratings. What do others think? -- I@n ≡ talk 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the England captaincy box over from Michael Vaughan's page to Andrew Flintoff's. See their talk pages for an expalnation of why, and tell me your opinion on the matter. Istartfires 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Go Captain Freddie!!! Ahem. Yes, I quite agree (obviously), it seems like the right thing to do! :-) Istartfires 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of changing it on the England team page - have a look and see if you think it needs to be changed anywhere else - maybe the articles themselves? Istartfires 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm forced to disagree with you. The ECB released a statement just this morning confirming that Strauss is merely the stand-in captain, i.e. deputising for Flintoff, not Vaughan. I reiterate: to all intents and purposes, Flintoff IS the England captain for AT LEAST the next six months, including, need I mention, the Ashes? The ECB clearly regard him as such, so why shouldn't an encyclopedia? Istartfires 09:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was a quantifiable fact, in that it's not been done formally yet. However, you must concede that Flintoff is the de facto captain, if not quite the de jure captain just yet. That said, he essentailly will be next thursday - is there any point changing it back in the meantime? Do so if you wish, but I think it's a bit pedantic. Perhaps an explanatory note on Flintoff's, Vaughan's, and the team's page would suffice? Something along the lines of the debate outlined above. Maybe Staruss deserves a mention too - I think he's doing a fine job personally, and he clearly relishes the challenge. Istartfires 10:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Now indeed sir. It is truly a sad day for all cricket lovers. Put Strauss in instead, I don't care any more. Istartfires.
Following the recent discussion about the categories (now archived), I've made the changes that we had consensus on around the skills and forms categories. I've left women's cricket on the root level as requested. The history and country categories are now working well.
By the way, I decided against the proposed admin & governance category as no one supported it and a couple were doubtful about it, so I think the consensus there is "forget it", unless anyone else wants to reiterate it. -- Jack 12:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please handle the issue about George Ulyett's picture that is mentioned at User talk:Jguk Tintin ( talk) 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, since we have lists of cricket in film and television, cricket in fiction, and cricket poetry, does anyone think we could have a list of cricket songs? I'm inspired by the recent article in Cricinfo, and I'm sure there's more songs out there related to cricket (I can think of some). I'm not sure it's worth a separate article though - I'd want to include it as a section in cricket in film and television, which I'd rename cricket in popular media or something. - dmmaus 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In keeping with consensus in the recent categories discussion above, I've made changes to the history structure to relocate stray articles to specific categories and to relate the history sub-categories to the geographic ones.
For example, 1726 English cricket season is in category:English cricket in the 18th Century which is a specific sub-category of the sub-generic category:History of English cricket. That category is a child of two parents, one historic and one geographical — category:History of cricket and category:Cricket in England respectively.
You will note that category:History of cricket is a main category of the root category:Cricket itself and that it also contains category:History of Australian cricket and category:History of Test cricket.
category:Cricket in England is part of category:Cricket by country and this includes category:Cricket in Australia which follows a similar pattern in that it leads to category:History of Australian cricket which is being developed as per its English counterpart. At present it has one sub-cat category:Australian cricket in the Golden Age and this has some season stubs and a seasonal template as per the equivalent English category.
Obviously, the intention is to develop the other countries using the same structure.
I hope you can follow the above but it's best to navigate the hyperlinks and you'll see what's going on. Can anyone make any additional suggestions? -- Jack 10:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The categories concerned are:
I apologise if this has been discussed before, but I'm not in favour of these, and I don't think that there was consensus for these new categories. IMO The era breaks are arbitrary and serve no purpose except to introduce another layer of categorisation for readers to have to wade through. Terms such as "Golden Age" are POV and innapropriate for categorisation. Navigation between articles would be better done by use of a template such as (for example): {{ English cricket seasons 1969 - 2000}}. The articles currently in these categories should move up one level to History of <countryname> cricket. The previous discussion was confusing as several other issues were discussed in the same thread. -- I@n 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Consensus was based on the handful who bothered to make any comment at all. If people do not comment, their views cannot be known and so are not taken into account. The term "Golden Age of Cricket" is universally used throughout cricket literature from Cardus onwards to represent the period from about 1890 until 1914: there is nothing POV in that. As for categorisation, Wikipedia guidelines are in favour of categories and sub-categories and also of multiple approaches (e.g., via history and geography) to an article. There are such templates in use within both articles and categories: they were originally designed by User:jguk. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully support Jack's changes and I was under the impression that the consensus was there for him to do it. The situation with the history categories was hopeless with stuff dumped in one category and no evidence of a structure, apart from the English seasons. Now we have astructure that can be built upon and that works. I tried finding articles via both the country and history routes and the whole thing is seamless. It works. It ain't broke. It is going to house hundreds of articles one day. Don't try and fix it.
As for your POV statement re the Golden Age, why then do I have a book by David Frith called History of Cricket in the Golden Age? Even Wisden uses the term. It is not POV but accepted terminology in as much as Test Cricket is used as a term for international cricket.
I think this discussion should cease immediately as there is no justification or usage in making further changes to the history categories apart from populating them with lots and lots of articles, all of which will fit nicely into the present lovely framework.
Lets just forget this and live in the house that Jack built! -- GeorgeWilliams 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the structure is spot on and it complies with Wikipedia:Categorization especially as it provides more than one route to the article. I've tried George's test of navigating by both routes to a particular article and it works. However, I think there is a valid issue around the names but it is not a POV issue: it is do with exactitude. I'm afraid I would even change "18th Century" and "19th Century" because, if you look at them, the delimiter is not 1800 but Bonaparte! I think that each of the categories should be renamed to, for example, category:English cricket to 1815, category:English cricket from 1969 to 2000, category:English cricket from 2001. I vote someone should nominate the names for change but the structure should be retained and built upon. It's articles that are needed, especially re non-English history. -- AlbertMW 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All this is fair comment. I'm glad some of you are happy with the structure and I would strongly recommend working with that at least until such time as we get many more historical articles in. It is difficult to judge it at present with so few articles, other than the old English seasons. As for the titles, yes I concede that they are inexact and so I propose to rename them all in line with Albert's proposal. Unless there are any objections to the rename I will put this forward to the CfD on Sat 5 August and quote this article for reference, so if you wish to add to the consensus view please do so. Thanks to all for your interest. --
BlackJack |
talk page 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[This subheading helps me but feel free to delete it. -- P64 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC))]
This is a model showing a revised categories proposal. The root is category:Cricket and its level 1 sub-cats are the collection on the left plus category:Cricket by country and category:History of cricket. Concentrating on these two, you can see that they each have a set of level 2 sub-cats by country, so we have category:Cricket in England on the country side and category:History of English cricket on the history side.
Each of these level 2 categories by country is likely to develop a number of level 3 sub-cats such as clubs, grounds, competitions, etc. under country and clubs, events, general histories, etc. under history.
I propose that at level 3 under country, each country should have a full collection of season records. So, for England, there would be articles for every season since the 16th century held under category:English cricket seasons. For Australia, there would be articles for every season since the 1850s under category:Australian cricket seasons. In each case, the seasons category would be reached via both the country and history routes.
I also propose that we give special attention to tours and quite a few articles about tours have been written already. Again at level 3, I would have categories on the country side called category:Overseas cricket tours in X and on the history side called category:X cricket tours overseas. Each of these articles would therefore have two homes: hence 1961 Australian cricket tour of England would be in both category:Overseas cricket tours in England and in category:Australian cricket tours overseas.
This model puts all the season articles into single categories by country and not by era, though tours are treated separately as I think they should be, especially as there seems to be an interest in creating tour articles. But the model also anticipates huge growth, which is inevitable given the enormous scope and scale of cricket history, and will therefore prevent the level 1 and level 2 categories becoming cluttered. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket which has just been relisted as no-one has bothered to vote. -- I@n 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
List of Ashes series — here -- I@n 07:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
See the last line of Hat-trick#Cricket. Is there something called a batsman's hattrick ? Tintin ( talk) 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Garrywarne has been adding an external link to this page which contains nothing but a copy-paste of the CI article. Stephen and myself have repeatedly removed it and warned him with little effect. Some admin needs to interfere if he adds it again. Tintin ( talk) 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Cricket_lore and place your comments if you are interested in keeping this category. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[from Talk:Australian cricket team]
wouldn't the Cricket Australia logo be more appropriate to the top of this page? Why is there just an Australian flag?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.166.156 ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you all know, after a bit of a tussle, I've succeeded in getting the astonishing Mr Fry into the very short list of people accepted into the list of Polymaths.
He's currently one of about a dozen people accepted... and he's flying the flag for cricket!
-- Dweller 10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The list of notable fielders has been defunct since February. That's six months.
I think we'd all agree it should be an important addition to the Wikipedia.
I'm not sure how you find criteria. One suggested is where players were selected as much for their fielding prowess as anything else. I'd disagree. Derek Randall, for example, was picked for his batting. He was also renowned as a great fielder.
What about Viv Richards? As a youngster, he was outstanding as a fielder, but it would be bonkers to allege that he was picked for that!
Anyone got a good idea to break the impasse? -- Dweller 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we please, please, please stop the idiotic and utterly incorrect practice of titling articles re players with some POV nickname that the guy may or may not have had at some point in his dressing room trials and tribulations? Seriously.
A couple of months ago I was looking for info re the famous Lancashire and England captain of the 19th century, Albert Nielsen Hornby (to quote his full name), better known to the whole of cricket's literature as A N Hornby, or, to quote Francis Thompson, as "O my Hornby". I couldn't find him so I thought: "Well, that's a new article we need" and set about creating one.
And then I found "Monkey" Hornby.
Which was promptly redirected.
For a start, "Monkey" was a nickname that Hornby had at school and in his early years in cricket. It came about because he was exceptionally agile and incidentally played rugby for England as well as cricket. But after he became captain of Lancashire, his nickname was "The Boss". Every single cricket book I have ever seen calls him "A N Hornby", so why is he called by his adolescent nickname on here? Some people label such drivel as "unencyclopaedic". I call it "infantile".
A few days ago, I was doing something on the 1961 Aussie tour of England and couldn't find Graham McKenzie. Why? Because he was known in the dressing room as "Garth". That has also been redirected. You will not find a single reference anywhere in cricket books to "Garth McKenzie", though thousands to Graham McKenzie.
If the nickname artists are right, then why haven't we got Fiery Fred, Typhoon Tyson, The Big Ship, Lol Larwood, George Statham, Beefy Botham, Gilly Grace and so on?
Taking Botham as a good example, his "Beefy" sobriquet arose quite late in his career. I have a magazine from the late seventies featuring an interview with Tony Greig who more than once refers to Botham as "Both"! And it is a fact that Botham was referred to as "Both" for many years after he first got into Test cricket. So is he The Both, Beefy Botham or plain old Ian Botham?
Gilly Grace? Absolutely. But it would never do to call him that on here, would it?
Please let us drop these silly nicknames once and for all. -- BlackJack | talk page 18:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree 99 per cent with you, and particularly dislike Shrimp Leveson Gower, which seems about as uncomplimentary a soubriquet as "Monkey" (and should have a hyphen in the surname, too). The 1 per cent that doesn't agree is reserved for Tiger Smith, who is pretty unrecognisable as Ernest Smith and even as E.J. Smith. But there should be nothing here that a robust redirect system won't be able to handle. Johnlp 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Indians cricketers list have a few where a nickname that is very different from the real first name appears in the title - Vinoo Mankad, Shute Banerjee, Montu Banerjee, Jenni Irani, Nana Joshi, Buck Divecha, Bal Dani, and Bapu Nadkarni. The difficult calls were Irani, who I knew very little about, and Divecha (but who appears as Buck in the first line of Wisden obit and in the title of the CI page). Joshi was called Nana to distinguish him from another P. G. Joshi who was his contemporary and was known as Sham Joshi. Would like to hear if anyone has comments or different opinions. Tintin ( talk) 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a review of this article, which was at one time the only history article we had, but which now looks out of place as more specific histories have been and are being written. Virtually everything in the article up to the 19th century exists elsewhere, but in greater detail and with a wider scope, so about half of the article is redundant. Material about the later periods could be made into new articles.
The big problem with an article like this is that the scope is too wide and if we develop this instead of handling history by means of period, place and event articles, we are going to create something that is too huge to handle.
I haven't studied it in detail yet but my first thoughts are that it should be completely broken up and reduced to an introductory topic only. The template box which lists linkages to the rest of the historical portfolio is very useful.
Incidentally, a lot of the early history in the article is wrong both factually and by important omission, so it needs a substantial revision in any case!
Has anyone any ideas or suggestions? -- BlackJack | talk page 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Done it. I've effectively provided a short overview of each major topic within each key period (usually by centuries) and given linkages to the specific articles where these exist. I'll keep an eye on it and add other linkages over time: we are very short of 19th century articles, I notice.
Why focus more on modern cricket? I don't understand that view at all. We are talking about the history of a sport which, in terms of "first-class" matches alone, goes back over 300 years. Nearly all its key developments (apart from one-day cricket) took place up to 1890. Modern cricket has actually very little to offer in terms of history. -- BlackJack | talk page 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an important topic to Wikiproject Cricket and I hope that it can be featured soon. I'm suggesting the following changes based on what happens in WP:FAC.
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is now very good indeed and you personally, Jack, should take a lot of the credit for that. Johnlp 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Great article. Touches everything that is important. Tintin ( talk) 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that User:Burnside1980 ( contribs) has been creating a lot of articles on obscure first-class cricketers. All first-class cricketers automatically meet our notability requirements, but I still find it strange. At the very least, the articles need serious cleaning up.
He's also been unlinking a lot of redlinks, which is definitely the wrong thing to do.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't particularly a new problem, but it may be worth mentioning again, especially for those (such as me!) who like to write biographical articles for less famous players. I've been vaguely looking through players from non-Test/ODI nations in the 2005 ICC Trophy, having discovered that unlike earlier tournaments this had List A status, meaning that there are players from unlikely countries (not least Oman!) who, in theory at least, qualify for articles. But as a slightly less obscure example, there's Nandikishore Patel of Uganda:
The CA profile page seems to be a simple mistake since his FC career dates are mentioned on the same page, but the other two results are clearly irreconcilable - especially as CricketArchive has Patel scoring 74 on his first-class debut against Namibia while Cricinfo claims he made a pair in his only f-c match (presumably this one against Kenya). I have to follow an existing reference (no original research), but here they disagree fundamentally.
It seems that there are two possibilities: either that Cricinfo is right, and that CA has conflated the figures of two Patels; or that CA is right, and that CI have omitted three-quarters of Patel's f-c matches. I'd be inclined to go with the CA scorecards, and say that he has played four f-c games, but would I be right to do so? Loganberry ( Talk) 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Of CA's four first class matches ( http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/78/78884/First-Class_Matches.html), CI attributes 3 to 'N Kishore' and the fourth ( http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OTHERS/ICC-CONT/SCORECARDS/KENYA_UGAN_ICC-CONT_22-24APR2005.html ) to N Patel. Going by circumstantial evidence CA is correct and CI is wrong. Tintin ( talk) 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I find cricinfo very unreliable for biographical and historical material. They don't edit their work properly, IMHO. CricketArchive I find very good on the whole with only minor errors of detail. -- BlackJack | talk page 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone help out with improving this article on the former Surrey and Middlesex cricketer? -- Dweller 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There are some more pertinent comments on Image:Cricket fielding positions2.svg on Talk:Fielding (cricket). One day this image will be finished :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That SMG named him Rohan Jaivishwa Gavaskar is a famous story but CI and CA has him as Rohan Sunil Gavaskar. What happened to the Jaivishwa part ? Tintin ( talk) 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or is there a need to keep an eye on this? There seems to be massive POV and also I wonder if he pasted them in from a profile off some website. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Our West Indies specialist Deville has kindly offered himself up for scrutiny at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deville. Participants may wish to pass by there and leave a mark. -- I@n 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to anybody out there, since Dweller was apparently previously unaware (expressed in the above arena) that there are admins within the cricket project who are available for administrative tasks.
So there are 19 18 admins, so 16.8% opf registered members are admins. This is quite high I think.
Blnguyen |
rant-line 01:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Add Raven4x4x. There is also ALoan who has not listed himself among the participants. Tintin ( talk) 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see this move. Comments ? I have always found him name as George Hirst. Tintin ( talk) 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw this too and was confused, as I'd not heard this before. The author claims to have got this direct from Headingley. I've found nothing to support it in any of my books so far. But I'll keep looking. Johnlp 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
: This is ridiculous. Some teenage girl in the ticket office probably looked in a players' register and said: "Oh, yes, he was definitely George Herbert". We'd better move Fred to Frederick Sewards Trueman then. You won't find any source that says he was George Herbert Hirst unless it is being deliberately formal and is using his full name in that context. He was George Hirst to everyone. --
BlackJack |
talk page 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I've expanded and reffed these two bios in the last two days and put them up for nomination at Template talk:did you know for inclusion on the front page (if selected) WP:DYK. If selected, they will probably get featured in the next 3-4 days. Seeing as these two players are current players and also will be playing ODIs for India against Sri Lanka in the next few days, I'm guessing it will probably attract some vandalism or POV edits in response to upcoming results, so could people consider putting them on their watchlist for a while? Also to make sure that it doesn't get excluded from DYK because someone dropped by and put POV into it. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I was making some bios for some Bermudian ODI cricketers, and it occurred to me that an appropriate infobox template would be one which lists ODIs and first-class stats. I was sure such a template existed and remembered once seeing it, but I can find no mention of it on the project page. I was going to make one myself, but I figured that if it didn't exist by now, there might be a good reason not to make it; and if it existed already, that's a really good reason not to make it...:) So, two questions: 1] does such a template exist? 2] If not, is there a good reason not to make one? One good reason to make such a template is that most cricketers from (e.g.) Bermuda will likely not play in any Tests, so the standard infoboxes will always have many empty boxes. -- Deville ( Talk) 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshurtree just made an edit to Michael Vaughan which involves putting all the stats on a subpage, Michael Vaughan/info, and the template including them from there. What do people think about that? My inclination is to leave all the stats on the main page, otherwise it's too subtle for editors. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Just been looking through the category:Cricket grounds and I see we don't have a category:Cricket grounds in Ireland or any articles about them. Does anyone have ready material to knock up a couple of stubs and create a sub-cat? Remember that Northern Ireland and the Republic are combined in a cricket sense, as they are in rugby. -- BlackJack | talk page 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The following cricket category is up for delete or keep as you choose. Please contribute at:
--
BlackJack |
talk page 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Forget it. Nomination withdrawn as the category is part of a buildings and construction study so it is relevant to that if not to cricket. --
BlackJack |
talk page 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on all Pakistan related pages. People have already started adding match reports. Tintin ( talk) 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that if you go back to the original 1744 code of the Laws of Cricket, you will find that the umpire's decision was final then and it is still final today. Or is it? -- BlackJack | talk page 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sally the n power girl, she's fantastic! Speedboy Salesman [[User talk: Speedboy Salesman]] 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
She's the one who the n power ball guys try to chat up everytime there is a commercial break. Speedboy Salesman [[User talk: Speedboy Salesman] 13:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there should be an article! I don't know enough about her. The article would be like 3 lines long Speedboy Salesman | talk page 12:00 07 September 2006 (UTC)
Jguk is up and running again!!!! Blnguyen | rant-line 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to the excellent wikipedia cricket pages, and can't find an article on racism or accusations of racism in cricket... would be interesting; such accusations seem to come up a lot, especially during test controversies (e.g. recent comments by Shaharyar Khan implying Hair is racist). Is there such an article? If not do you guys think it would be a good idea to have one (I don't have the knowlege to create one)? Russ 07:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been academic books written on the subject so an article would certainly be possible. A wider approach, offering pages on the social history of cricket, which would address racism as well as other issues, would, in my opinion, be more interesting. Personally, I learnt much more about the social history of England through reading Derek Birley's well-known book than I ever learnt at school. jguk 12:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Where an infobox has a section for the date of a player's last appearance, is that the first or last day of his final match? I've been assuming the latter - ie his last appearance as a f-c (or Test, or whatever) player, even if he wasn't actually on the field - but I thought it worth checking. Loganberry ( Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many of you are aware that there are new parser functions for use in templates. The switch function could be hugely useful for the problem of having to update several articles when a statistic changes.
So far i've just created the new construct for Michael Vaughan as an example. The top of the page just references Template:Infobox Cricketer alt with no parameters. All the statistics are stored at Michael Vaughan/info. Now if you want to add Michael Vaughan to some random list of cricketers along with the number of tests hes played you would add {{:Michael Vaughan/info|tests}} instead of the old manual method. This would automaticly be updated whenever someone updates the info page.
The Parser Functions are currently available on a trial basis. So a small scale role out may be an idea until it is confirmed that they're permenent.
I hope you understand the muddled mess i've just written. Perhaps someone who does could describe the system in a more ledgeable manner. josh ( talk) 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is clear that we have a difference of opinion about Wikipedia editing and where it should go. So i'm going to stop now before we get bogged down in wikiethics. We could either go to the village pump to get opinions there or simply wait to see how switches get used and if this usage gets deemed appropriate or not.
Meanwhile, I think the Infobox could be simplyfied by using templates to eliminate the need to enter the abbreviation, flag and personification of a country in the parameters. The flag is easy. Instead of the current code you would add [[Image:Flag of {{{country}}}.svg]]. The other two require templates with a standard form. For example, Eng would be stored in a template called Template:England abbr or similar. I've droped a note on Wikipedia talk:Country referencing templates to find out if such templates already exist. josh ( talk) 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To what extent has anyone attempted to automate any of these? If so, where did you get the data from? Could some bot do everything, or is that too optimistic?
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above artile has just been deleted for being a copyvio. Could someone please re-write it? I can access the deleted version and re-add the infobox and the cats as and when a non-copyright infringing article is put in place - just ping me once it is done. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We have articles about all the current county clubs, though most if not all are still stubs. I'm wondering about creating additional articles for the counties that played first-class cricket before their clubs were founded. This will apply to several counties: Sussex aka Brighton; Yorkshire aka Sheffield; Notts aka Nottingham; Lancashire aka Manchester cricket team; Essex aka Hornchurch; Middlesex; Hampshire; Kent; Surrey; Berkshire; Norfolk and Leicestershire all were involved in first-class cricket at county team level before any formal county club was organised.
I don't think it is appropriate to add the relevant material to the club article so in addition to, for example, Sussex County Cricket Club, we also need something about Sussex cricket up to 1839 when the club was founded. The main use for such an article would be as an xref from all the historical articles where that county's team is mentioned. Some of these go right back to the early 18th century.
I'm proposing to call it, same example, County cricket in Sussex with an xref to the county club article. Has anyone got any alternative ideas for a naming convention? Or any other ideas re approach? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
(importing some of my own comments from Old County Teams into this subsection)
pro sports in North America. For baseball in North America, all professional records are organized on league-season basis, back to 1871, and earlier professional records are not organized. No one counts non-league games, although for fifty years some of those deprecated "exhibition games" were (a) strong matches on the field or (b) important sources of income for players. Other pro team sports follow baseball.
college sports. In the U.S., I believe, Jack's question pertains (within Wikipedia, no original research) only to university teams. I guess the same is true in England: universities control and cover the debts today, where the students were once responsible? Oxford University Cricket Club (now there's a stub); Cambridge University Boat Club (1828); Dublin University Football Club (1854) -- P64 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[Wisden's] "substantial reorganisation" probably means business form but that may be replicated for the university sports clubs. I'll try to find out whether Sport History academics have covered this phenomenon in general. -- P64 20:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all of it, unfortunately, but a lot of the feature articles and obituaries from old editions are up on the Cricinfo site. In particular, "Dates in Cricket History" may be useful. An author isn't credited, but I think it's by Rowland Bowen.
JH 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to separate out this question from User:P64 - Back to old teams in old counties: Do reference books and databases generally distinguish between Sussex CCC teams and earlier "representative" teams in Sussex county; between Glamorgan CCC teams and earlier teams in Glamorgan county? Or do the reference works list first-class matches played for Sussex in the 1830s and 1840s identically and sum them in one player-team record?
This is not easy to answer because the county name is freely used and you can read an account which talks about the 1830s and the 1840s and about "Sussex" in both decades. But Sussex CCC was founded in 1839 so there is a difference (at least in terms of legal existence). I believe most people in their minds tend to subjugate the club and think only in terms of the county.
There is an additional problem around the age of the source you are reading. Many older books adopted the now outdated view that first-class cricket began in 1864 and so, as far as they were concerned, Sussex CCC was "not first-class" until then, let alone Sussex County.
But I believe the trend nowadays is to see things in continuous terms and "sweep up" the county club in passing. Thus, the Sussex team that was proclaimed "Champion County" in the 1820s is to all intents and purposes the same one as Sussex CCC two decades later. If you take a famous player like William Lillywhite who played for both Sussex County and Sussex CCC from 1825 until 1853 and look at his record on Cricket Archive you will see that he has a continuous first-class record. This is a modern source which reflects the trend I mentioned.
How that translates into a treatment of pre-club county teams vis-a-vis county clubs, I'm still uncertain. It might well come down to a practical consideration like size of article! -- BlackJack | talk page 07:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This is so big that many of its sub-categories have disappeared from the top and can only be found if you go to the appropriate letter of the alphabet. This is poor in presentation terms. Is it a problem with Wikipedia generally or something specific to this category? -- BlackJack | talk page 08:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I was not sure if everyone involved in this project kept an eye on Deletion Sorting/Cricket, so I thought I would post here too. The above mentioned article is at AfD. It would be great if someone could improve the article or merge it in a relevant place. - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 18:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What do people think of this diff? Obviously, it needs rewriting at a minimum, because it sounds like self-promotion at the moment. But it seems too minor to me to appear in the main Cricket article at all. I haven't reverted it, because I wonder if it's bigger in other parts of the world, particularly Australia. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted it, because there are no links or references and the names don't bring anything up on a Google search (well, actually, they do, but nothing that makes me believe it!) I'll leave a note on the author's page so if it turns out that I'm wrong, they can come back. Johnlp 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Above is today's featured picture on the Main Page. -- I@n 01:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Further to the discussions above, I've made a start on tying up the histories of the first-class county clubs with those of the earlier teams that represented the counties. See Sussex cricket team and Sussex County Cricket Club for the first treatment. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well done, Jack. I think that's excellent. You've left room to add more detail in the historic article without over-balancing the CCC article with too much prehistory. Johnlp 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)