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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
When the World Cup begins it should feature on the Main Page as part of "In the News", as a current event we thus need to complete preparations on the 2007 Cricket World Cup page and make it ready for constant updating. Thus we should be able to fill in the results of every match in the few hours after the match is finished. Also it is important we get some Cricket articles to FA for the sake of the World Cup and having some articles there. Cricket World Cup is on Peer Review and is the best one to start with. If you have a good picture a Featured Picture would be nice too. Do you think it'll be necessary to create main articles with more detailed match summaries? Like 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage and 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eights and 2007 Cricket World Cup finals, or are we going to put all details right into 2007 Cricket World Cup? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
no i dont think its necessary to make main articles for those, just put the results for the matches and make a section for the semi-final and the final. But I was thinking more of getting the world cup article as "Today's featured article" on the day of the start of the world cup or the final of the world cup and the 2007 world cup article being in the news section at the same time.-- Thugchildz
Yes, I think that's still within reach, the Peer Review went well, no huge objections. Just need to trim the History section and I think it'll be ready for FAC. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I recently created and populated this list with almost everything there is on the topic on Cricinfo? I have little to no experience with lists and would like to know what this list needs to get to FL like so many other Cricket-related lists. After I filled it all in I saw the FL List of One-day International records, which takes a different format but covers less specific records. Is it necessary to shape the page in the same way as List of ODI records? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This article was vandalised four times last week. Can we semi protect it for a few days. Tintin 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok....I sprotected it...Normally they don't let you sprotect things unless it is vandalised about 25+ times a day at WP:RFPP (in the spirit of letting everybody edit), but I guess when you go shopping for admins who edit the same topics, they probably will just do it to keep things quiet.... Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it time to put Cricket World Cup for FAC? Does anyone have objections that need to addressed. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The article have been nominated, and already there have been objections and constructive critisisms but all of them have addressed! So please express your views here! - Thugchildz
Thanks for the compliment above :) I have been away for a few days and have not had a chance to review the article, but will do what I can. Where results are referenced, it should be an easy matter to add a footnote to the relevant scorecard at Cricinfo or CricketArchive. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't a clue when it comes to images on WP. Can someone find an image for the trophy please? -- Dweller 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
AMBerry has been creating a template similar to the WC template, eg, see Harbhajan Singh, for each of the countries. I have asked him to make a comment here also. Personally I do not feel that we should have templates for Champions Trophy as it is biennial, and we would end up with some players with 4 Templates on the page, and then for people who play for 15 years, in the future we would have 7 templates and it would clutter up the page too much. In addition, we also already have the WC templates, and the WC is held at a much, much higher level than any other ODI tournaments. For consistency, we would then in future end up with a WC and ICCCT template for each edition, and for some players, that may give eight templates or so (Ponting/Murali - WC: 96 99 03 07; ICCCT 00 02 04 06. I think that would be excessive, and a restriction to the WC is appropriate. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I support removing all the templates related to participation in a cricket tournamentm, whether it be the World Cup or the Champions Trophy. Categories are good enough. Gizza Chat © 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is flaring up again, as India announced its 15 man squad, and the templates are creeping back in. The deadline to name the players is today. It's already overwhelmed Ajit Agarkar. Time to make a decision on the WC ones too. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with User:DaGizza. The squad templates serve little to no navigational purpose. -- mdmanser 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I should add this to the recent updates section but I think it's too big. I've been creating hundreds of quick copy stubs offline and a lot of these have been uploaded in the last few days. As a result, the status of season review articles now is that we have one for every first-class season in each of England, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Zimbabwe. South Africa has every season to 1920 and every season since 1965 plus a handful in between. Australia has a few seasons before 1965 and everything since 1965. India, New Zealand and West Indies each have all seasons since 1965.
As the period before 1965 interests me, I want to take a bit more time over the remainder and so in the short term I'm turning my attention back to the tour reviews with the intention of placing a stub for every Test tour of the last forty years. I've got a template for this and with some summary data from Wisden I hope to be able to do a bulk upload fairly soon. I've recently added or edited articles re every Australian tour of England and re every Test tour of Bangladesh. -- BlackJack | talk page 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Update. India and South Africa now have all seasons. West Indies has everything up to 1945 and everything since 1965. New Zealand has everything since the Plunket began in 1906. Australia has everything since the Sheffield began in 1892. I've also been adding some of the modern tours but still a long way to go with that. -- BlackJack | talk page 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Latest Update. All first-class seasons worldwide now have at least a stub for development as a review article. All international tours of England and Pakistan have stubs or articles. I'm currently tidying up the non-Test tours of Ceylon/Sri Lanka and then of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh before I go on to the other four major countries. -- BlackJack | talk page 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC) PS: does anyone think this talk page needs an archive doing? -- BlackJack | talk page 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Another Update. Apart from a number of early tours by England of Australia, which I am reading about at the moment, we now have a tour article or stub for every first-class tour since 1859. The missing ones are England tours of Australia up to 1936 and I hope to create these quite soon. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one to be amused by the tremendous amount of activity going on with this article? Maybe some of this energy could be diverted to other needy biography articles! Johnlp 12:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I said I was amused by it, and I'm not being censorious at all. Of course people should do what interests them. Lighten up a little, chaps. Or isn't one allowed to point out things that amuse? Johnlp 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to say that User:The Rambling Man and I have joint nom'd this article for GA. -- Dweller 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
i just noticed there two kinds of team templates that are basically the same like
{{BANc}} and {{cr-bgd}}
they are basically th same but there's now two kinds of templates the one with c at the end and ones with cr in the beginning. To me the one with the c at the end is easier as people can guess the three letters easily. so can we just re-direct all the cr templates to the c templates?-- Thugchildz
Hi, in working on the GA candidate article, I noticed that between the 3rd and 4th Tests of 1988, England made seven changes to their XI. Is there a clever website that'll tell me if (as I suspect) that's without parallel for England since 1946? -- Dweller 09:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just found the following on my talk page from someone called Nitsansh who has evidently interfered with cricket articles previously:
Strange how so many people were today intrigued by an imaginary game in Brisbane. Apart from his powers of imagination, the tone used by this character is unacceptable and he should be warned by an admin. He is in breach of Wikipedia:Stub as the articles in question are perfectly legitimate stubs that are correctly categorised and contain valid references. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all because some meddler has come along who writes things like "IMO" and "they better not". Until then, everyone was quite happy to sit and watch me do all the hard work of creating articles about first-class seasons and tours worldwide because they were not prepared to do it themselves, although several people like to moan about lack of global coverage. The only way to create a vast number of tour and season articles is by deciding on a simple format and using parameters to amend each one before doing a bulk upload. I hadn't time to go into detail at that stage and the idea of stubs is that they will be developed in due course. I strongly recommend that this is allowed to blow over and that we maintain vigilance against people who do not have the best interests of the project at heart. I have had to revert several of Nitshansh's "edits" and I suggest he is ignoring project consensus on the structure of the cricket project.
I further recommend that people make use of the new tour and season articles and develop them, as I am going to do myself. But I would remind everyone that Rome was not built in a day. -- BlackJack | talk page 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think ALoan has shown the positive response that is required here. If someone says they are unhappy about a particular article, then one of us must deal with that article. And there is nothing banal about what he has input to expand the WI 2000 article. The point about the stubs for seasons as well as tours is that they are placemarkers which we as a project require (otherwise why create any season or tour reviews at all?) and which we as a project intend to develop in due course or, in particular cases like WI 2000, as and when required.
I have a theory about Wikipedia members which is that the vast majority do not like creating articles and are much happier working with something that is already in place and has already got its categories and key references. If a large number of articles is needed as a pre-condition for contributions by this majority then someone has to do the hard work and get the things created so that the project can move forward. We now have an article of some description for every single first-class season worldwide and for every first-class or ListA tour worldwide apart from the early England tours of Australia which I am taking more time over.
I should point out by the way that some first-class or ListA tours may have slipped through the net. Tintin has already done some good work on the Parsee tour in 1886 and as a result I think there was a subsequent tour which I haven't included. -- BlackJack | talk page 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have articles covering periods in cricket history up to 1815, after which we have season by season articles instead. It seems to me that "overview" articles for, say, 1816-1864, 1865-1899, and so forth would still be useful. There's nowhere at the moment where one can mention the importance of the spread of the railways, for instance, which reduced journeys that previously would have taken days to hours, and hence made matches such as Surrey v Yorkshire a really practical proposition for the first time. (As well as greatly increasing the number of potential spectators.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhall1 ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps 1991/92? South Africa reinstated, Zimbabwe given Test status, first coloured clothing world cup... Andrew nixon 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If nobody beats me to it, I'll see if I can write an article on the 1816-63 period over the weekend. My initial thoughts on topics to include are given below. Please feel free to suggest additions.
References to include "Dates in Cricket History" article that appears now and then in Wisden. JH 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Until yesterday, I had somehow been unaware that there was already an article Overview of English cricket 1816 - 1918. I don't want to duplicate what is already there, so I would like to take that article as a starting point. I'd like to split it into two - 1816-1863 and 1864-1918 - as I think otherwise it could get too long. I'd also like to rename it from "Overview" to "History", because (1) I hope that it will eventually be a bit more substantial than just an overview and (2) people searching for articles on cricket history are more likely to use "history" as a search term than "overview". There are already articles on cricket history in the main non-English countries, so I would include links to those and restrict myself to English (and Welsh) history. Would people be happy with that? JH ( talk page) 09:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings friends. I have a question about the importance ratings that are included in assessments. I posted it in the assessment section, but wanted to put it here just to be sure the right people saw it. The WP:CRIC standards are fairly clear on how to rate importance. They say that National captains are generally classed as high importance, and players with many tests are generally classed as mid to high importance. My pet project is currently Bart King. As an American he played no Tests, and I'm not sure if he ever captained a US national side. However, based on his position as the preeminent American cricketer of all time is there any support for him being upgraded to "High Importance" on the project scale? Thanks a lot.-- Eva b d 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. I just wanted to ask the project in general in case people had not been to the article to voice any other objections. I wasn't sure if I was being biased about his importance because I'm such a fan.-- Eva b d 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I just edited the most runs/wickets bit in the infobox of this page. I didn't do anything other than update figures, but for some reason it's broken. I checked the page and I can't see what I've done wrong, so would someone check and try to fix it? Many thanks, HornetMike 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This page has been vandalised several times by a moron who thinks it's funny that someone he knows has the same name. It's a similar syndrome to Samuel Britcher. Can one of you with admin functions please "sprotect" the page for a few weeks? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 12:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There have been calls in the past, notably by Stephen Turner and Alai, to do something about the huge number of cricket stubs (all right, I know most of them were created by me). Following on from Alai's suggestion that we categorise stubs, I've expanded his sub-cats by creating extra ones for history, competitions, terminology, media, administration. I've begun to populate these with the items in the main cricket stub categories and I've reduced the total in there to about 50. I'll continue with it next time I'm on. I have de-stubbed quite a lot of articles that are no longer stubs and I've also had to attend to numerous items that had no categories.
If anyone else would like to get involved in this, all help gratefully accepted. -- BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've finished categorising or de-stubbing all the main cricket-stub items now and a summary of the stubs is as follows:
stub category | number of stubs | notes |
---|---|---|
Cricket administration stubs | 33 | |
Cricket biography stubs | 452 | inc. possible duplicates below |
Australian cricket biography stubs | 460 | |
Bangladeshi cricket biography stubs | 81 | |
English cricket biography stubs | 588 | inc. duplicates in next category |
English international cricketer stubs | 370 | |
Indian cricket biography stubs | 203 | |
New Zealand cricket biography stubs | 291 | |
Pakistani cricket biography stubs | 210 | |
South African cricket biography stubs | 318 | |
Sri Lankan cricket biography stubs | 124 | |
West Indian cricket biography stubs | 277 | |
Zimbabwean cricket biography stubs | 88 | |
Cricket competitions stubs | 48 | |
Cricket ground stubs | 87 | |
Cricket history stubs | 28 | |
International cricket tour stubs | 752 | |
Cricket media stubs | 12 | |
Cricket season stubs | 98 | |
Australian cricket season stubs | 150 | |
English cricket season stubs | 187 | |
Indian cricket season stubs | 116 | |
New Zealand cricket season stubs | 139 | |
South African cricket season stubs | 91 | |
West Indian cricket season stubs | 109 | |
Cricket team stubs | 286 | |
Cricket terminology stubs | 31 | |
TOTAL | 5629 |
Which is a lot of stubs that need development even with the duplicates. The biggies are the players, tours, seasons and teams. We need members to volunteer to take over batches of these and bring them up to article strength. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(Note this comment was first posted on the FAC). Last night I made a new infobox for the page which was later reverted and somewhat incorporated into the original by Thugzchild. The difference between the two different versions can be seen here and here. I've removed some of the entries from the infobox which are very ambiguous and technically incorrect (there have been more than 97 participants). Given that there have been numerous ways of tournament formatting I simple changed the infobox to read "multiple (see article)". Which version do you think should be used? -- mdmanser 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, he seems to have left Wikipedia. At least, in his latest (last?) message on his Talk page he says so. JH ( talk page) 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite. All it would take is a message starting something like "please can we discuss the new stubs that you have created. Experience tells us that as a rule of thumb it is not helpful to have stubs templates which are used on less than 60 articles..." I hope he comes back. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has noticed that there is no article for Cricket in Australia and nominated it for the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. I find it impossible to believe that there isn't already an article covering this (as opposed to the Australian team or the history of cricket in Australia). Is anyone aware of an article that covers cricket in Australia? -- Roisterer 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a question at the reference desk that someone may be able to help with. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I want a consistent usage for this term; basically is it with or without hyphens? List of cricket terms doesn't include it, so I'm inclined to follow the usage of the generic sports topic Man of the match. Anyone strongly dissent? -- Dweller 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's happened to the quiz? WillE 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that User:The Rambling Man and I have finished work for the moment on the 1988 West Indians, we're pitching in with Blnguyen's proposal. We've chosen Paul Collingwood as our first project and will try to get it to FA before the World Cup begins. Please help us, as the deadline is short. If sufficient editors pitch in, we may be able to do more than one article. -- Dweller 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll go through and put in any scorecards etc that we can easily garner from cricinfo or the equally useful cricketarchive.com. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Having put in several references, I see there are many more to go, an I think to myself "do we really need so many"? No disrespect intended, Ramblingman, I can see you have spent time tagging each fact, but surely not everything needs tagging? к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The World Cup Super Eights go from March 27 to April 21. All the articles are from the "big eight" teams which are highly unlikely to be knocked out in the group phase. I can't see Bangladesh getting past India or Sri Lanka, or Zimbabwe getting past Pakistan or WI. So if they become featured while their team is still in the tournament, it is still relevant I think. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've initiated a peer review on Paul Collingwood, all comments welcome. The feature article review for the Windies in England in '88 is also on-going.
On a different note, I've just started looking at Shaun Pollock and noticed what a nightmare all the different template widths are, it looks appalling. This may have been discussed before, but is there any scope for making all cricket templates, say, 90% width? I'd interested in your opinions. The Rambling Man 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What do people think of everyones favourite template example: Ian_Botham#External_links? I can roll out 75% width across all the templates if people like. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just created a template for the England world cup squad, like the footballing ones (See Template:England Squad 2006 World Cup) and I am wondering if we should put it on the articles of the players selected and do templates for the other nations, or leave it as it creates too much work and clutter. Just wanted a general consensus. The template is this:
Please post any thoughts. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So, are we saying we should keep them, do them for other nations, and match the colour scheme for world cups only? oh, and on the subject of colour schemes, should they be blue/white or blue/red, which would make more sense as it is the kit of the ODI team к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
OK then, go ahead with that. Just wondering. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather in the "anti-clutter" camp with these things, but regardless of that the colourscheme of this one isn't great: bright red text on a bright blue background is not at all easy to read. Loganberry ( Talk) 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Awful colours. Could also do with (wk) and (vc) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For an example of how these templates can look when neatened, see Anil Kumble. Now that they are neat, I actaully quite like having those templates there. I'm not opposed to having one or two world cup squad templates on an article. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I see there is a mix in format of results on this page. Mostly it's "IND by 5 wickets" or "RSA by 34 runs" but there are a number of results where it says "(country's flag) South Africa by 34 runs" etc. Just wondering whether there was a preference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HornetMike ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
I think the flag and countries full name rather than an abbreviation looks better and is more encyclopaediacally (is that a real word?) correct, so should be utilised. I would be more than happy to change some of the results, although there is every season to do and lots of names to change, so help would be more than welcome! к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 16:35, 17 February 2007 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
When the World Cup begins it should feature on the Main Page as part of "In the News", as a current event we thus need to complete preparations on the 2007 Cricket World Cup page and make it ready for constant updating. Thus we should be able to fill in the results of every match in the few hours after the match is finished. Also it is important we get some Cricket articles to FA for the sake of the World Cup and having some articles there. Cricket World Cup is on Peer Review and is the best one to start with. If you have a good picture a Featured Picture would be nice too. Do you think it'll be necessary to create main articles with more detailed match summaries? Like 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage and 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eights and 2007 Cricket World Cup finals, or are we going to put all details right into 2007 Cricket World Cup? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
no i dont think its necessary to make main articles for those, just put the results for the matches and make a section for the semi-final and the final. But I was thinking more of getting the world cup article as "Today's featured article" on the day of the start of the world cup or the final of the world cup and the 2007 world cup article being in the news section at the same time.-- Thugchildz
Yes, I think that's still within reach, the Peer Review went well, no huge objections. Just need to trim the History section and I think it'll be ready for FAC. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I recently created and populated this list with almost everything there is on the topic on Cricinfo? I have little to no experience with lists and would like to know what this list needs to get to FL like so many other Cricket-related lists. After I filled it all in I saw the FL List of One-day International records, which takes a different format but covers less specific records. Is it necessary to shape the page in the same way as List of ODI records? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This article was vandalised four times last week. Can we semi protect it for a few days. Tintin 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok....I sprotected it...Normally they don't let you sprotect things unless it is vandalised about 25+ times a day at WP:RFPP (in the spirit of letting everybody edit), but I guess when you go shopping for admins who edit the same topics, they probably will just do it to keep things quiet.... Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it time to put Cricket World Cup for FAC? Does anyone have objections that need to addressed. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The article have been nominated, and already there have been objections and constructive critisisms but all of them have addressed! So please express your views here! - Thugchildz
Thanks for the compliment above :) I have been away for a few days and have not had a chance to review the article, but will do what I can. Where results are referenced, it should be an easy matter to add a footnote to the relevant scorecard at Cricinfo or CricketArchive. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't a clue when it comes to images on WP. Can someone find an image for the trophy please? -- Dweller 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
AMBerry has been creating a template similar to the WC template, eg, see Harbhajan Singh, for each of the countries. I have asked him to make a comment here also. Personally I do not feel that we should have templates for Champions Trophy as it is biennial, and we would end up with some players with 4 Templates on the page, and then for people who play for 15 years, in the future we would have 7 templates and it would clutter up the page too much. In addition, we also already have the WC templates, and the WC is held at a much, much higher level than any other ODI tournaments. For consistency, we would then in future end up with a WC and ICCCT template for each edition, and for some players, that may give eight templates or so (Ponting/Murali - WC: 96 99 03 07; ICCCT 00 02 04 06. I think that would be excessive, and a restriction to the WC is appropriate. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I support removing all the templates related to participation in a cricket tournamentm, whether it be the World Cup or the Champions Trophy. Categories are good enough. Gizza Chat © 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is flaring up again, as India announced its 15 man squad, and the templates are creeping back in. The deadline to name the players is today. It's already overwhelmed Ajit Agarkar. Time to make a decision on the WC ones too. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with User:DaGizza. The squad templates serve little to no navigational purpose. -- mdmanser 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I should add this to the recent updates section but I think it's too big. I've been creating hundreds of quick copy stubs offline and a lot of these have been uploaded in the last few days. As a result, the status of season review articles now is that we have one for every first-class season in each of England, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Zimbabwe. South Africa has every season to 1920 and every season since 1965 plus a handful in between. Australia has a few seasons before 1965 and everything since 1965. India, New Zealand and West Indies each have all seasons since 1965.
As the period before 1965 interests me, I want to take a bit more time over the remainder and so in the short term I'm turning my attention back to the tour reviews with the intention of placing a stub for every Test tour of the last forty years. I've got a template for this and with some summary data from Wisden I hope to be able to do a bulk upload fairly soon. I've recently added or edited articles re every Australian tour of England and re every Test tour of Bangladesh. -- BlackJack | talk page 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Update. India and South Africa now have all seasons. West Indies has everything up to 1945 and everything since 1965. New Zealand has everything since the Plunket began in 1906. Australia has everything since the Sheffield began in 1892. I've also been adding some of the modern tours but still a long way to go with that. -- BlackJack | talk page 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Latest Update. All first-class seasons worldwide now have at least a stub for development as a review article. All international tours of England and Pakistan have stubs or articles. I'm currently tidying up the non-Test tours of Ceylon/Sri Lanka and then of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh before I go on to the other four major countries. -- BlackJack | talk page 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC) PS: does anyone think this talk page needs an archive doing? -- BlackJack | talk page 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Another Update. Apart from a number of early tours by England of Australia, which I am reading about at the moment, we now have a tour article or stub for every first-class tour since 1859. The missing ones are England tours of Australia up to 1936 and I hope to create these quite soon. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one to be amused by the tremendous amount of activity going on with this article? Maybe some of this energy could be diverted to other needy biography articles! Johnlp 12:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I said I was amused by it, and I'm not being censorious at all. Of course people should do what interests them. Lighten up a little, chaps. Or isn't one allowed to point out things that amuse? Johnlp 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to say that User:The Rambling Man and I have joint nom'd this article for GA. -- Dweller 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
i just noticed there two kinds of team templates that are basically the same like
{{BANc}} and {{cr-bgd}}
they are basically th same but there's now two kinds of templates the one with c at the end and ones with cr in the beginning. To me the one with the c at the end is easier as people can guess the three letters easily. so can we just re-direct all the cr templates to the c templates?-- Thugchildz
Hi, in working on the GA candidate article, I noticed that between the 3rd and 4th Tests of 1988, England made seven changes to their XI. Is there a clever website that'll tell me if (as I suspect) that's without parallel for England since 1946? -- Dweller 09:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just found the following on my talk page from someone called Nitsansh who has evidently interfered with cricket articles previously:
Strange how so many people were today intrigued by an imaginary game in Brisbane. Apart from his powers of imagination, the tone used by this character is unacceptable and he should be warned by an admin. He is in breach of Wikipedia:Stub as the articles in question are perfectly legitimate stubs that are correctly categorised and contain valid references. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all because some meddler has come along who writes things like "IMO" and "they better not". Until then, everyone was quite happy to sit and watch me do all the hard work of creating articles about first-class seasons and tours worldwide because they were not prepared to do it themselves, although several people like to moan about lack of global coverage. The only way to create a vast number of tour and season articles is by deciding on a simple format and using parameters to amend each one before doing a bulk upload. I hadn't time to go into detail at that stage and the idea of stubs is that they will be developed in due course. I strongly recommend that this is allowed to blow over and that we maintain vigilance against people who do not have the best interests of the project at heart. I have had to revert several of Nitshansh's "edits" and I suggest he is ignoring project consensus on the structure of the cricket project.
I further recommend that people make use of the new tour and season articles and develop them, as I am going to do myself. But I would remind everyone that Rome was not built in a day. -- BlackJack | talk page 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think ALoan has shown the positive response that is required here. If someone says they are unhappy about a particular article, then one of us must deal with that article. And there is nothing banal about what he has input to expand the WI 2000 article. The point about the stubs for seasons as well as tours is that they are placemarkers which we as a project require (otherwise why create any season or tour reviews at all?) and which we as a project intend to develop in due course or, in particular cases like WI 2000, as and when required.
I have a theory about Wikipedia members which is that the vast majority do not like creating articles and are much happier working with something that is already in place and has already got its categories and key references. If a large number of articles is needed as a pre-condition for contributions by this majority then someone has to do the hard work and get the things created so that the project can move forward. We now have an article of some description for every single first-class season worldwide and for every first-class or ListA tour worldwide apart from the early England tours of Australia which I am taking more time over.
I should point out by the way that some first-class or ListA tours may have slipped through the net. Tintin has already done some good work on the Parsee tour in 1886 and as a result I think there was a subsequent tour which I haven't included. -- BlackJack | talk page 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have articles covering periods in cricket history up to 1815, after which we have season by season articles instead. It seems to me that "overview" articles for, say, 1816-1864, 1865-1899, and so forth would still be useful. There's nowhere at the moment where one can mention the importance of the spread of the railways, for instance, which reduced journeys that previously would have taken days to hours, and hence made matches such as Surrey v Yorkshire a really practical proposition for the first time. (As well as greatly increasing the number of potential spectators.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhall1 ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps 1991/92? South Africa reinstated, Zimbabwe given Test status, first coloured clothing world cup... Andrew nixon 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If nobody beats me to it, I'll see if I can write an article on the 1816-63 period over the weekend. My initial thoughts on topics to include are given below. Please feel free to suggest additions.
References to include "Dates in Cricket History" article that appears now and then in Wisden. JH 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Until yesterday, I had somehow been unaware that there was already an article Overview of English cricket 1816 - 1918. I don't want to duplicate what is already there, so I would like to take that article as a starting point. I'd like to split it into two - 1816-1863 and 1864-1918 - as I think otherwise it could get too long. I'd also like to rename it from "Overview" to "History", because (1) I hope that it will eventually be a bit more substantial than just an overview and (2) people searching for articles on cricket history are more likely to use "history" as a search term than "overview". There are already articles on cricket history in the main non-English countries, so I would include links to those and restrict myself to English (and Welsh) history. Would people be happy with that? JH ( talk page) 09:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings friends. I have a question about the importance ratings that are included in assessments. I posted it in the assessment section, but wanted to put it here just to be sure the right people saw it. The WP:CRIC standards are fairly clear on how to rate importance. They say that National captains are generally classed as high importance, and players with many tests are generally classed as mid to high importance. My pet project is currently Bart King. As an American he played no Tests, and I'm not sure if he ever captained a US national side. However, based on his position as the preeminent American cricketer of all time is there any support for him being upgraded to "High Importance" on the project scale? Thanks a lot.-- Eva b d 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. I just wanted to ask the project in general in case people had not been to the article to voice any other objections. I wasn't sure if I was being biased about his importance because I'm such a fan.-- Eva b d 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I just edited the most runs/wickets bit in the infobox of this page. I didn't do anything other than update figures, but for some reason it's broken. I checked the page and I can't see what I've done wrong, so would someone check and try to fix it? Many thanks, HornetMike 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This page has been vandalised several times by a moron who thinks it's funny that someone he knows has the same name. It's a similar syndrome to Samuel Britcher. Can one of you with admin functions please "sprotect" the page for a few weeks? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 12:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There have been calls in the past, notably by Stephen Turner and Alai, to do something about the huge number of cricket stubs (all right, I know most of them were created by me). Following on from Alai's suggestion that we categorise stubs, I've expanded his sub-cats by creating extra ones for history, competitions, terminology, media, administration. I've begun to populate these with the items in the main cricket stub categories and I've reduced the total in there to about 50. I'll continue with it next time I'm on. I have de-stubbed quite a lot of articles that are no longer stubs and I've also had to attend to numerous items that had no categories.
If anyone else would like to get involved in this, all help gratefully accepted. -- BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've finished categorising or de-stubbing all the main cricket-stub items now and a summary of the stubs is as follows:
stub category | number of stubs | notes |
---|---|---|
Cricket administration stubs | 33 | |
Cricket biography stubs | 452 | inc. possible duplicates below |
Australian cricket biography stubs | 460 | |
Bangladeshi cricket biography stubs | 81 | |
English cricket biography stubs | 588 | inc. duplicates in next category |
English international cricketer stubs | 370 | |
Indian cricket biography stubs | 203 | |
New Zealand cricket biography stubs | 291 | |
Pakistani cricket biography stubs | 210 | |
South African cricket biography stubs | 318 | |
Sri Lankan cricket biography stubs | 124 | |
West Indian cricket biography stubs | 277 | |
Zimbabwean cricket biography stubs | 88 | |
Cricket competitions stubs | 48 | |
Cricket ground stubs | 87 | |
Cricket history stubs | 28 | |
International cricket tour stubs | 752 | |
Cricket media stubs | 12 | |
Cricket season stubs | 98 | |
Australian cricket season stubs | 150 | |
English cricket season stubs | 187 | |
Indian cricket season stubs | 116 | |
New Zealand cricket season stubs | 139 | |
South African cricket season stubs | 91 | |
West Indian cricket season stubs | 109 | |
Cricket team stubs | 286 | |
Cricket terminology stubs | 31 | |
TOTAL | 5629 |
Which is a lot of stubs that need development even with the duplicates. The biggies are the players, tours, seasons and teams. We need members to volunteer to take over batches of these and bring them up to article strength. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(Note this comment was first posted on the FAC). Last night I made a new infobox for the page which was later reverted and somewhat incorporated into the original by Thugzchild. The difference between the two different versions can be seen here and here. I've removed some of the entries from the infobox which are very ambiguous and technically incorrect (there have been more than 97 participants). Given that there have been numerous ways of tournament formatting I simple changed the infobox to read "multiple (see article)". Which version do you think should be used? -- mdmanser 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, he seems to have left Wikipedia. At least, in his latest (last?) message on his Talk page he says so. JH ( talk page) 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite. All it would take is a message starting something like "please can we discuss the new stubs that you have created. Experience tells us that as a rule of thumb it is not helpful to have stubs templates which are used on less than 60 articles..." I hope he comes back. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has noticed that there is no article for Cricket in Australia and nominated it for the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. I find it impossible to believe that there isn't already an article covering this (as opposed to the Australian team or the history of cricket in Australia). Is anyone aware of an article that covers cricket in Australia? -- Roisterer 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a question at the reference desk that someone may be able to help with. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I want a consistent usage for this term; basically is it with or without hyphens? List of cricket terms doesn't include it, so I'm inclined to follow the usage of the generic sports topic Man of the match. Anyone strongly dissent? -- Dweller 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's happened to the quiz? WillE 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that User:The Rambling Man and I have finished work for the moment on the 1988 West Indians, we're pitching in with Blnguyen's proposal. We've chosen Paul Collingwood as our first project and will try to get it to FA before the World Cup begins. Please help us, as the deadline is short. If sufficient editors pitch in, we may be able to do more than one article. -- Dweller 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll go through and put in any scorecards etc that we can easily garner from cricinfo or the equally useful cricketarchive.com. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Having put in several references, I see there are many more to go, an I think to myself "do we really need so many"? No disrespect intended, Ramblingman, I can see you have spent time tagging each fact, but surely not everything needs tagging? к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The World Cup Super Eights go from March 27 to April 21. All the articles are from the "big eight" teams which are highly unlikely to be knocked out in the group phase. I can't see Bangladesh getting past India or Sri Lanka, or Zimbabwe getting past Pakistan or WI. So if they become featured while their team is still in the tournament, it is still relevant I think. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've initiated a peer review on Paul Collingwood, all comments welcome. The feature article review for the Windies in England in '88 is also on-going.
On a different note, I've just started looking at Shaun Pollock and noticed what a nightmare all the different template widths are, it looks appalling. This may have been discussed before, but is there any scope for making all cricket templates, say, 90% width? I'd interested in your opinions. The Rambling Man 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What do people think of everyones favourite template example: Ian_Botham#External_links? I can roll out 75% width across all the templates if people like. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just created a template for the England world cup squad, like the footballing ones (See Template:England Squad 2006 World Cup) and I am wondering if we should put it on the articles of the players selected and do templates for the other nations, or leave it as it creates too much work and clutter. Just wanted a general consensus. The template is this:
Please post any thoughts. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So, are we saying we should keep them, do them for other nations, and match the colour scheme for world cups only? oh, and on the subject of colour schemes, should they be blue/white or blue/red, which would make more sense as it is the kit of the ODI team к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
OK then, go ahead with that. Just wondering. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather in the "anti-clutter" camp with these things, but regardless of that the colourscheme of this one isn't great: bright red text on a bright blue background is not at all easy to read. Loganberry ( Talk) 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Awful colours. Could also do with (wk) and (vc) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For an example of how these templates can look when neatened, see Anil Kumble. Now that they are neat, I actaully quite like having those templates there. I'm not opposed to having one or two world cup squad templates on an article. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I see there is a mix in format of results on this page. Mostly it's "IND by 5 wickets" or "RSA by 34 runs" but there are a number of results where it says "(country's flag) South Africa by 34 runs" etc. Just wondering whether there was a preference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HornetMike ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
I think the flag and countries full name rather than an abbreviation looks better and is more encyclopaediacally (is that a real word?) correct, so should be utilised. I would be more than happy to change some of the results, although there is every season to do and lots of names to change, so help would be more than welcome! к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)