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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Is there support for creating some succession boxes for world record holders in cricket? I was on the verge of creating one, following the update I just made to Jack Hobbs (following the question I just set on the quiz), but I've looked around some other sporting articles and there don't seem to be succession boxes for world records. Just medals/titles etc. Is this a policy? I think it would be helpful to be able to trace the progression of records and to see extraordinary lifetime achievements of individuals summarised in their articles. -- Dweller 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform the Project members that I have renommed Bodyline for FA status. I hope this is not tantamount to cadging votes - I think I'm alright as it's not technically a vote process, but a debate and I've seen similar notes on other Wikiproject talk pages. If I shouldn't have posted this, sorry (and no doubt it'll be blanked quickly enough). -- Dweller 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above thread, I've created Template:Cricket scores succession box.
So far, I've only applied it to Brian Lara and you'll see why if you click on him. I can't fathom how to make it appear on just one line. Please do chime in if you can help. I had to create Template:S-ach too, to create an ambiguous enough heading for any and all records. -- Dweller 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see a need for this succession box - particularly as having the highest Test score is not a role in the same way as being an international captain is. The achievement of getting the highest Test score should be mentioned within the text. If you want to add details of who preceded and succeeded the player to that feat, again, the text is the best place for it. jguk 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting debate. I thought there might be some dissent, which is why I wanted to solicit some consensus before blazing away. I agree with some of the comments made. Too many boxes would look silly, but I disagree that they're not useful. I think User:ALoan's right. If we limit their use to only the most prestigious records in Tests and ODIs, it would seem sensible. I'd like to know if this is the Project members' consensus, so please do continue to comment. -- Dweller 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see :
Bangladeshi cricketers by century
and give your views.
I've stated my position on the page already. I'm simply making this category consistent with an overall restructure taking place throughout category:History of cricket. -- BlackJack | talk page 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I was quite shocked by how out of date this article is. It's also littered with typos. I'm going to get stuck into it and do my best. I welcome any and all assistance. -- Dweller 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed already, but I've created a new page, User:CricketBot/stubs. This lists biographies which are stub-length, together with the number of Tests and ODIs the player has played. This should help in identifying players who are a priority for an improved article.
(This replaces the previous page User:CricketBot/substubs).
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I and some others have dealt with (edits/dismissing) a number of comments on Bodyline arising from the FAC. There's one outstanding one, concerning fair use on an image. Way outside my experience here! Can someone pls help? -- Dweller 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the article has regained FA status, although confusingly there's no sign that the process has ended at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bodyline -- Dweller 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This drivel has appeared in the main cricket category. It is yet another example of the tedious "corridor cricket" nonsense. Could someone with admin functions please remove it and do whatever is necessary to prevent repeats. Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I think it's a little unfortunate that the immortal CB Fry's cricket statbox is illustrated with a charming cartoon of him playing for England... at football. Can anyone find a good cricket image under fair use? I seem to recall there's a brilliant Spy cartoon of him as cricketer... -- Dweller 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The first of ALoan's finds looks terrific. How does one go about establishing the copyright / fair use issues? -- Dweller 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There is an interesting question by a reader from America at Talk:Underarm_bowling_incident_1981. Tintin ( talk) 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we also point out to cricinfo that Arthur Heygate should actually be Harold Heygate? Johnlp 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Wright&action=history The cricketer article was moved and replaced by one about a company that gets 4 google hits. Unknowingly, I too helped him in cleaning up the page. Tintin ( talk) 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
See discussion at: Minor counties
User:ProveIt has requested that we put the name of this category into context. -- BlackJack | talk page 09:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of the marriage controversy mentioned in Tony_Greig#Later_career. Is it well-known in Aus/Eng ? Tintin ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a general understanding of some sort, that adding things about which football team or which music some player listens to should be removed from the article? It seems what we are perhaps hesitant to put down a marker about this kind of stuff, but I think we should start enforcing it. I think it is unencyclopedic Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant that the outside cricket stuff, if it can be relevant, it would be moulded into the article. However, random facts in a separate section should be removed. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Copied from WP:CRIQ :
The words used in the deletion discussion may have been a bit harsh. However, you should never write Wikipedia articles about yourself or groups you're involved in personally. See WP:AUTO and WP:COI for the Wikipedia policies on this. If you do, your article will almost always be deleted as non-notable. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take the plunge and apply to be an admin:
My main purpose is to help the development of cricket on the site and as an admin to protect it but in a more general sense I would like to get involved with AfD and CfD. -- BlackJack | talk page 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that somebody has added extensive tables of batting averages for Test and ODI players, both retired and active to Batting average. I think this is a bad move for several reasons: 1. It makes for a page that needs constant updating with new stats. 2. I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of constantly updated sports stats anyway. Other sites do it better, and we can easily provide an external link to CricInfo or HowsStat or whatever. 3. Probably most importantly: It makes it look like cricket is starting to monopolise that article at the expense of baseball. I think this is a bad thing, because it presents a bad image of cricket on Wikipedia. (And everyone here should know that we've had and continue to have image problems in the face of people who think cricket is a ridiculous sport.) The article as it was before was primarily an interesting insight into how two different sports arrived at their respective primary batting statistic, illustrating clearly the relationship between them and the important differences in a statistical sense. I believe that many baseball fans who came to the page discovered something of interest about their chosen sport and how its history is related to cricket, that they never would have learnt if there were separate articles on batting average for each sport. I fear that if we start pushing too much cricket stats in to the page we may alienate the baseball people and create a push to separate it into two articles, which would be a tragedy. Therefore I propose removing most of the batting average tables, restoring it to only the top 10 Test averages, to mirror the baseball stats. - dmmaus 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and well spotted. The stats are pretty daunting not just in their bulk, but also in the position they're at in the article. There might just be some merit in putting a smaller table (of highest Test batting averages for completed careers only?) down at the bottom of the article to go alongside the baseball table and to show the different measures of notability alongside each other. But if that's difficult, then just put in a reference line to one of the outstanding external websites where such tables are constantly updated, and take them out of here. Johnlp 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I'll make the change later today or tomorrow then. (Unless someone beats me to it.) - dmmaus 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please may I say that I have moved the Ben Smith article to Ben Smith (cricketer) (due to the high amount of Ben Smith articles on the site). I have also sorted the double re-directs and it took me over an hour! If I have made any mistakes please contact me on my Talk page. Kingjamie 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the new (and presumably temporary) name of the Gillette/NatWest/C&G Trophy in England. I'd like to ask for suggestions around giving the article a permanent generic title instead of using sponsor names. Unfortunately, the competition began life under a sponsored name in 1963 and it has never really acquired a generic one, unlike the County Championship or the National League or even the Twenty20 Cup.
It has sometimes been referred to as "the knockout" but only by individuals and it certainly has no official name other than the present sponsor.
Recently, one of our Kiwi friends changed the State Championship (formerly Plunket Shield and Shell Trophy) to the generic New Zealand first-class cricket championship. New Zealand's limited overs competitions are also named after State Insurance nowadays and to avoid further confusion I've changed State Shield to New Zealand limited-overs cricket trophy.
To set the ball rolling on a permanent title for the English version, I suggest English limited-overs cricket trophy. It would of course need a very clear introduction that outlines what it is and refers to all its past and present sponsor names. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I here that your list, List of Test cricketers, is automatically updated. If so, how is this done. We at WP:RU are rather interested in some sort of way at reducing user time in completing List of All Blacks. Please reply either here, my talk page or at talk: WP:RU. Chow.-- Hamedog Talk| @ 06:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there's a potential problem with having an overview article on The Ashes plus a series of articles on Australian cricket team in England in nnnn plus a series nnnn English cricket season. At best, a lot of the same information is likely to appear in all three places, at worst there may be inconsistencies between the three or the greatest detail on the Test series may not always be in the most logical place for it. (I suppose that the "Australian cricket team in England" articles ought to include the most detail.) It also means that every article needs to provide appropriate links to its "brother" articles and to have all the appropriate Categories, so that it's made easy for a reader to get the full picture. I think that some sort of co-ordination effort might be needed. At the moment, Sam Vimes seems to be taking the lead on "Australian cricket team in England", BlackJack on "English cricket season", with many people adding to the "The Ashes" piece, but I don't know how much they all talk to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhall1 ( talk • contribs)
The RSC FAQ [1] classifies fast-medium bowlers as faster than medium-fast bowlers, and medium-slow as faster than slow-medium. This fits with my experience of how commentators generally use the terms; however, an editor is claiming on the fast bowling article that medium-fast is faster than fast-medium, citing Vikram Singh's cricinfo profile as a reference. Does anyone else have input on how these terms are generally used, or a reliable reference for how pace bowlers are generally classified? -- Muchness 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's already a stylistic standard regarding this, but after browsing a few articles, there doesn't appear to be. What is the consensus on having the asterisk indicating a not out score on a player's highest score, being a link to the aforementioned article or a similar explanation of the concept of not-out? Therefore, if someone not too familiar with the intricacies of cricket scoring were to come across the cryptic asterisk, they'd be linked to a definitive explanation. If so, should this only be done on the player's infobox (i.e., their highest score), throughout the article or only at the first occurrence within an article? I've done this in the infobox at the Makhaya Ntini article on which I'm currently working. Any thoughts? - Cenobite 22:02, 30 December 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Is there support for creating some succession boxes for world record holders in cricket? I was on the verge of creating one, following the update I just made to Jack Hobbs (following the question I just set on the quiz), but I've looked around some other sporting articles and there don't seem to be succession boxes for world records. Just medals/titles etc. Is this a policy? I think it would be helpful to be able to trace the progression of records and to see extraordinary lifetime achievements of individuals summarised in their articles. -- Dweller 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform the Project members that I have renommed Bodyline for FA status. I hope this is not tantamount to cadging votes - I think I'm alright as it's not technically a vote process, but a debate and I've seen similar notes on other Wikiproject talk pages. If I shouldn't have posted this, sorry (and no doubt it'll be blanked quickly enough). -- Dweller 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above thread, I've created Template:Cricket scores succession box.
So far, I've only applied it to Brian Lara and you'll see why if you click on him. I can't fathom how to make it appear on just one line. Please do chime in if you can help. I had to create Template:S-ach too, to create an ambiguous enough heading for any and all records. -- Dweller 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see a need for this succession box - particularly as having the highest Test score is not a role in the same way as being an international captain is. The achievement of getting the highest Test score should be mentioned within the text. If you want to add details of who preceded and succeeded the player to that feat, again, the text is the best place for it. jguk 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting debate. I thought there might be some dissent, which is why I wanted to solicit some consensus before blazing away. I agree with some of the comments made. Too many boxes would look silly, but I disagree that they're not useful. I think User:ALoan's right. If we limit their use to only the most prestigious records in Tests and ODIs, it would seem sensible. I'd like to know if this is the Project members' consensus, so please do continue to comment. -- Dweller 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see :
Bangladeshi cricketers by century
and give your views.
I've stated my position on the page already. I'm simply making this category consistent with an overall restructure taking place throughout category:History of cricket. -- BlackJack | talk page 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I was quite shocked by how out of date this article is. It's also littered with typos. I'm going to get stuck into it and do my best. I welcome any and all assistance. -- Dweller 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed already, but I've created a new page, User:CricketBot/stubs. This lists biographies which are stub-length, together with the number of Tests and ODIs the player has played. This should help in identifying players who are a priority for an improved article.
(This replaces the previous page User:CricketBot/substubs).
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I and some others have dealt with (edits/dismissing) a number of comments on Bodyline arising from the FAC. There's one outstanding one, concerning fair use on an image. Way outside my experience here! Can someone pls help? -- Dweller 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the article has regained FA status, although confusingly there's no sign that the process has ended at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bodyline -- Dweller 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This drivel has appeared in the main cricket category. It is yet another example of the tedious "corridor cricket" nonsense. Could someone with admin functions please remove it and do whatever is necessary to prevent repeats. Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I think it's a little unfortunate that the immortal CB Fry's cricket statbox is illustrated with a charming cartoon of him playing for England... at football. Can anyone find a good cricket image under fair use? I seem to recall there's a brilliant Spy cartoon of him as cricketer... -- Dweller 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The first of ALoan's finds looks terrific. How does one go about establishing the copyright / fair use issues? -- Dweller 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There is an interesting question by a reader from America at Talk:Underarm_bowling_incident_1981. Tintin ( talk) 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we also point out to cricinfo that Arthur Heygate should actually be Harold Heygate? Johnlp 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Wright&action=history The cricketer article was moved and replaced by one about a company that gets 4 google hits. Unknowingly, I too helped him in cleaning up the page. Tintin ( talk) 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
See discussion at: Minor counties
User:ProveIt has requested that we put the name of this category into context. -- BlackJack | talk page 09:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of the marriage controversy mentioned in Tony_Greig#Later_career. Is it well-known in Aus/Eng ? Tintin ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a general understanding of some sort, that adding things about which football team or which music some player listens to should be removed from the article? It seems what we are perhaps hesitant to put down a marker about this kind of stuff, but I think we should start enforcing it. I think it is unencyclopedic Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant that the outside cricket stuff, if it can be relevant, it would be moulded into the article. However, random facts in a separate section should be removed. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Copied from WP:CRIQ :
The words used in the deletion discussion may have been a bit harsh. However, you should never write Wikipedia articles about yourself or groups you're involved in personally. See WP:AUTO and WP:COI for the Wikipedia policies on this. If you do, your article will almost always be deleted as non-notable. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take the plunge and apply to be an admin:
My main purpose is to help the development of cricket on the site and as an admin to protect it but in a more general sense I would like to get involved with AfD and CfD. -- BlackJack | talk page 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that somebody has added extensive tables of batting averages for Test and ODI players, both retired and active to Batting average. I think this is a bad move for several reasons: 1. It makes for a page that needs constant updating with new stats. 2. I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of constantly updated sports stats anyway. Other sites do it better, and we can easily provide an external link to CricInfo or HowsStat or whatever. 3. Probably most importantly: It makes it look like cricket is starting to monopolise that article at the expense of baseball. I think this is a bad thing, because it presents a bad image of cricket on Wikipedia. (And everyone here should know that we've had and continue to have image problems in the face of people who think cricket is a ridiculous sport.) The article as it was before was primarily an interesting insight into how two different sports arrived at their respective primary batting statistic, illustrating clearly the relationship between them and the important differences in a statistical sense. I believe that many baseball fans who came to the page discovered something of interest about their chosen sport and how its history is related to cricket, that they never would have learnt if there were separate articles on batting average for each sport. I fear that if we start pushing too much cricket stats in to the page we may alienate the baseball people and create a push to separate it into two articles, which would be a tragedy. Therefore I propose removing most of the batting average tables, restoring it to only the top 10 Test averages, to mirror the baseball stats. - dmmaus 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and well spotted. The stats are pretty daunting not just in their bulk, but also in the position they're at in the article. There might just be some merit in putting a smaller table (of highest Test batting averages for completed careers only?) down at the bottom of the article to go alongside the baseball table and to show the different measures of notability alongside each other. But if that's difficult, then just put in a reference line to one of the outstanding external websites where such tables are constantly updated, and take them out of here. Johnlp 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I'll make the change later today or tomorrow then. (Unless someone beats me to it.) - dmmaus 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please may I say that I have moved the Ben Smith article to Ben Smith (cricketer) (due to the high amount of Ben Smith articles on the site). I have also sorted the double re-directs and it took me over an hour! If I have made any mistakes please contact me on my Talk page. Kingjamie 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the new (and presumably temporary) name of the Gillette/NatWest/C&G Trophy in England. I'd like to ask for suggestions around giving the article a permanent generic title instead of using sponsor names. Unfortunately, the competition began life under a sponsored name in 1963 and it has never really acquired a generic one, unlike the County Championship or the National League or even the Twenty20 Cup.
It has sometimes been referred to as "the knockout" but only by individuals and it certainly has no official name other than the present sponsor.
Recently, one of our Kiwi friends changed the State Championship (formerly Plunket Shield and Shell Trophy) to the generic New Zealand first-class cricket championship. New Zealand's limited overs competitions are also named after State Insurance nowadays and to avoid further confusion I've changed State Shield to New Zealand limited-overs cricket trophy.
To set the ball rolling on a permanent title for the English version, I suggest English limited-overs cricket trophy. It would of course need a very clear introduction that outlines what it is and refers to all its past and present sponsor names. -- BlackJack | talk page 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I here that your list, List of Test cricketers, is automatically updated. If so, how is this done. We at WP:RU are rather interested in some sort of way at reducing user time in completing List of All Blacks. Please reply either here, my talk page or at talk: WP:RU. Chow.-- Hamedog Talk| @ 06:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there's a potential problem with having an overview article on The Ashes plus a series of articles on Australian cricket team in England in nnnn plus a series nnnn English cricket season. At best, a lot of the same information is likely to appear in all three places, at worst there may be inconsistencies between the three or the greatest detail on the Test series may not always be in the most logical place for it. (I suppose that the "Australian cricket team in England" articles ought to include the most detail.) It also means that every article needs to provide appropriate links to its "brother" articles and to have all the appropriate Categories, so that it's made easy for a reader to get the full picture. I think that some sort of co-ordination effort might be needed. At the moment, Sam Vimes seems to be taking the lead on "Australian cricket team in England", BlackJack on "English cricket season", with many people adding to the "The Ashes" piece, but I don't know how much they all talk to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhall1 ( talk • contribs)
The RSC FAQ [1] classifies fast-medium bowlers as faster than medium-fast bowlers, and medium-slow as faster than slow-medium. This fits with my experience of how commentators generally use the terms; however, an editor is claiming on the fast bowling article that medium-fast is faster than fast-medium, citing Vikram Singh's cricinfo profile as a reference. Does anyone else have input on how these terms are generally used, or a reliable reference for how pace bowlers are generally classified? -- Muchness 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's already a stylistic standard regarding this, but after browsing a few articles, there doesn't appear to be. What is the consensus on having the asterisk indicating a not out score on a player's highest score, being a link to the aforementioned article or a similar explanation of the concept of not-out? Therefore, if someone not too familiar with the intricacies of cricket scoring were to come across the cryptic asterisk, they'd be linked to a definitive explanation. If so, should this only be done on the player's infobox (i.e., their highest score), throughout the article or only at the first occurrence within an article? I've done this in the infobox at the Makhaya Ntini article on which I'm currently working. Any thoughts? - Cenobite 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)