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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
This is Hemanshu's idea. I think it is an excellent one, and I would like very much to see it implemented. The basic idea is that every article about a cricket team receives one of these infoboxes, somewhat in line with the player version. I have made a minor edit, standardising the template along the lines of the template standardisation project. The template is at Template:Infobox Test team. Comments? smoddy 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi all, as some as you may have noticed I have edited/added a number of cricket player articles. I have personally taken on the rather dubious task of de-stubbing the List of Cricketers links - yes, that's a lot of cricketers. As it takes my fancy I will also add larger articles on more notable cricketers, although my main interest is getting decent, useable articles on lesser-known cricketers.
Anyway I just wanted an idea from other cricket enthusiasts on Wikipedia about the format of a general article. This is how a standard one looks:
For some bigger name players I do sometimes split the main article information into sub-sections. As I'm not particularly interested in writing pseudo-essays on players I don't really want to do too much research; I don't tend to go far beyond rewording the profiles listed on Cricinfo, and maybe going to a couple of external websites. I won't use my cricket book library unless I'm in a particularly studious mode. I always double-check possibly controversial information before I enter it.
With regards to editing established articles on more famous players, a couple of players I've found articles that were tripe. I don't normally like to sound harsh but it's true, it's something that someone banged together from a single source (okay for a simple article but a more complex article...). I have edited some articles mercilessly and chucked out (and sometimes reused) information, again I don't like doing this too much but sometimes it's necessary.
Anyway I digress, just wanted some feedback on the basic format. I imagine about 25-30 players have this format at the moment and I like it (although I may be biased) :) -- Cory 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Back in February I put this catch-all category up for deletion because I felt it violated the guidelines for categorization. Here's the old discussion of that: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Category:Cricket subcategories 2. I proposed replacing it with a list in a subpage of this Wikiproject's page, which I would do the effort of creating, but was told that it'd be too much work and bother keeping it up to date. I disagreed, but rather than argue endlessly I decided to just go away for a couple of months and then come back later to see whether evidence would bear me out. I made a copy of the category list as it existed back then, and then yesterday I took another snapshot and compared them. In four months' time, only twelve new categories have been added to the 265: [3]. I don't suppose anyone's interested in taking me up on my old offer to make a list page? Failing that, I'm also still game for the compromise I suggested based on Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace of putting the "cricket subcategories" category tag on category talk: pages instead. Back then that proposal got non-horrified responses from Ngb and Jguk, and Jguk requested I demonstrate what I meant by it so I've just done so with Category:Gauteng cricketers (since it had only a single article in it I figured this was a good category to use as a test case). Bryan 05:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bryan, please leave this category where it is - it is not doing any harm (you can easily ignore it if you want to) and it is very, very helpful when categorising cricketers - it means you can very quickly work out what categories we've got and how they fit together. A list would quite simply not be maintained because it is impractical to maintain it. By all means create one if you want but do not destroy what I as an editor find to be a very useful and completely comprehensive category. Being bold is good for additions, but we should not be bold in deletion, jguk 05:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oy. So here I go again, the same old argument with Jguk. Well, I've said I'm not going to repeat it all, and I'm also not going to get into an edit war. I'd appreciate some input from the other regulars here, am I completely crazy and just don't realize it? As far as I can tell the compromise of moving this "subcategories" category to the talk pages adds only one extra step when creating a new cricket subcategory - one has to click on the "discuss this page" link before one pastes the category tag in. It would take ten extra seconds, tops. The result would be a category listing just like the current arrangement, but without breaking Wikipedia guidelines on categorization in the process. Bryan 08:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've made a sort of "summary template" for a Test/ODI series, a sample of which can be viewed at Pakistanis in West Indies in 2005. However, I have a few problems with it. It interferes with the International cricket in 2005 template, pushing it down the page if I put it at the top, but at the place it is at now it's making the page a bit messy. Oh, and I would like to make it into an infobox at some point, just need to replace the facts with generic tags. I like the general look of it, though... Sam Vimes 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is the current WikiProject Cricket collaboration of the fortnight! Please help improve it to featured article standard. |
I'm wondering what people think about whether it's better to write a (reasonable) stub for as many cricketers as possible as quickly as possible, so that there's something to see if someone clicks on a player's name; or to take a slower and more methodical approach and write full articles straight off at the cost of leaving lots of redlinks for longer but with the benefit of having more professional-looking articles from the start.
Looking at the Wisden Cricketer of the Year article as a reasonable guide to notable cricketers, there are still a lot of redlinks to cricketers who should be covered in any good encyclopedia; and aside from those listed there, until Sam Vimes wrote an article yesterday there was nothing at all about Gareth Batty, for example. He may not have done much in the first Test against Bangladesh, but it seemed a little hard on him even so!
Personally I'm inclined to the first option I mentioned - that of making sure there's something on all the really big names - since, for example, I noticed last night that Vijay Merchant didn't have an entry at all. Given his notability as having the second-highest first-class average after Bradman I felt that was something that needed rectifying at once and so wrote a stub, but I don't really have the required knowledge to write a full-length piece on him. Any comments welcomed of course. Loganberry | Talk 11:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've discovered we have articles on both bowler and bowling. Should they be combined? Stephen Turner 18:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Unusual_transclusion_issue_not_covered_by_policy. Bovlb 05:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
I have decided to leave the project. My reasons for doing so are on my userpage. I'd like to say that it was a pleasure working with you. Wikipedia's cricket articles are really going places. WikiProject Cricket has increased WP's cricket-related featured articles from 2 to 7, and the Ashes should become the eighth once it gets nominated. It's looking like we'll soon have our first featured list. We also have loads of articles on lots of cricketers, comprehensive coverage of the 2005 English cricket season and the 2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup (PLEASE KEEP THESE UP!). I wish you all and the WikiProject all the best, jguk 19:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have just being doing some updating on Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005 and National League Division Two in 2005 and it occurs to me that our articles could be further improved by photos: there are a couple by Jguk in the National League article which he has obviously taken at Surrey home games. I go along to most Durham home games and will try to take some photos there to enhance our coverage. Are there any other contributors regularly going along to County games who might be able to take photos?
Secondly, are any of us in England going along to any of the NatWest Challenge/Series games or any of the Ashes Tests? Some photos from there would be good too. -- Ngb 08:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I doubt I'll be able to help much, but I thought I should bring the WikiProject's attention to what (to me) looks like a glaring gap in coverage. The only article I can find anywhere on WP about women's cricket is this one. I'm not suggesting for a moment it should be covered in anything like the depth that men's cricket is covered, but surely there must be more that can be said than just two paragraphs? OpenToppedBus - Talk 16:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe User:Ambi or nixie could be called to edit some articles. = Nichalp ( Talk)= 17:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've just written a pretty basic stub for Denise Emerson, during the writing of which a few points came to mind:
There are doubtless other points to be worked out as we go along, but perhaps mentioning some of them now might save at least some problems later on. Loganberry ( Talk) 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This person has done some outstanding work but seems to have stopped after early May. Is he someone that we know under some other name ? Tintin 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cricket terminology is a Featured list candidate. = Nichalp ( Talk)= 07:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Note that the old {{cricinfo}} templates for Player Profiles used in some players' "External links" sections no longer work now that Cricinfo's player pages are organised in a different way. I'm generally replacing them by straightforward links to the new URL; slightly more time-consuming but reliable - see Marcus Trescothick for an example. The old-style links in Infoboxes do still work, however. Loganberry ( Talk) 00:31, 17 Jun 2005 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
This is Hemanshu's idea. I think it is an excellent one, and I would like very much to see it implemented. The basic idea is that every article about a cricket team receives one of these infoboxes, somewhat in line with the player version. I have made a minor edit, standardising the template along the lines of the template standardisation project. The template is at Template:Infobox Test team. Comments? smoddy 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi all, as some as you may have noticed I have edited/added a number of cricket player articles. I have personally taken on the rather dubious task of de-stubbing the List of Cricketers links - yes, that's a lot of cricketers. As it takes my fancy I will also add larger articles on more notable cricketers, although my main interest is getting decent, useable articles on lesser-known cricketers.
Anyway I just wanted an idea from other cricket enthusiasts on Wikipedia about the format of a general article. This is how a standard one looks:
For some bigger name players I do sometimes split the main article information into sub-sections. As I'm not particularly interested in writing pseudo-essays on players I don't really want to do too much research; I don't tend to go far beyond rewording the profiles listed on Cricinfo, and maybe going to a couple of external websites. I won't use my cricket book library unless I'm in a particularly studious mode. I always double-check possibly controversial information before I enter it.
With regards to editing established articles on more famous players, a couple of players I've found articles that were tripe. I don't normally like to sound harsh but it's true, it's something that someone banged together from a single source (okay for a simple article but a more complex article...). I have edited some articles mercilessly and chucked out (and sometimes reused) information, again I don't like doing this too much but sometimes it's necessary.
Anyway I digress, just wanted some feedback on the basic format. I imagine about 25-30 players have this format at the moment and I like it (although I may be biased) :) -- Cory 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Back in February I put this catch-all category up for deletion because I felt it violated the guidelines for categorization. Here's the old discussion of that: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Category:Cricket subcategories 2. I proposed replacing it with a list in a subpage of this Wikiproject's page, which I would do the effort of creating, but was told that it'd be too much work and bother keeping it up to date. I disagreed, but rather than argue endlessly I decided to just go away for a couple of months and then come back later to see whether evidence would bear me out. I made a copy of the category list as it existed back then, and then yesterday I took another snapshot and compared them. In four months' time, only twelve new categories have been added to the 265: [3]. I don't suppose anyone's interested in taking me up on my old offer to make a list page? Failing that, I'm also still game for the compromise I suggested based on Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace of putting the "cricket subcategories" category tag on category talk: pages instead. Back then that proposal got non-horrified responses from Ngb and Jguk, and Jguk requested I demonstrate what I meant by it so I've just done so with Category:Gauteng cricketers (since it had only a single article in it I figured this was a good category to use as a test case). Bryan 05:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bryan, please leave this category where it is - it is not doing any harm (you can easily ignore it if you want to) and it is very, very helpful when categorising cricketers - it means you can very quickly work out what categories we've got and how they fit together. A list would quite simply not be maintained because it is impractical to maintain it. By all means create one if you want but do not destroy what I as an editor find to be a very useful and completely comprehensive category. Being bold is good for additions, but we should not be bold in deletion, jguk 05:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oy. So here I go again, the same old argument with Jguk. Well, I've said I'm not going to repeat it all, and I'm also not going to get into an edit war. I'd appreciate some input from the other regulars here, am I completely crazy and just don't realize it? As far as I can tell the compromise of moving this "subcategories" category to the talk pages adds only one extra step when creating a new cricket subcategory - one has to click on the "discuss this page" link before one pastes the category tag in. It would take ten extra seconds, tops. The result would be a category listing just like the current arrangement, but without breaking Wikipedia guidelines on categorization in the process. Bryan 08:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've made a sort of "summary template" for a Test/ODI series, a sample of which can be viewed at Pakistanis in West Indies in 2005. However, I have a few problems with it. It interferes with the International cricket in 2005 template, pushing it down the page if I put it at the top, but at the place it is at now it's making the page a bit messy. Oh, and I would like to make it into an infobox at some point, just need to replace the facts with generic tags. I like the general look of it, though... Sam Vimes 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is the current WikiProject Cricket collaboration of the fortnight! Please help improve it to featured article standard. |
I'm wondering what people think about whether it's better to write a (reasonable) stub for as many cricketers as possible as quickly as possible, so that there's something to see if someone clicks on a player's name; or to take a slower and more methodical approach and write full articles straight off at the cost of leaving lots of redlinks for longer but with the benefit of having more professional-looking articles from the start.
Looking at the Wisden Cricketer of the Year article as a reasonable guide to notable cricketers, there are still a lot of redlinks to cricketers who should be covered in any good encyclopedia; and aside from those listed there, until Sam Vimes wrote an article yesterday there was nothing at all about Gareth Batty, for example. He may not have done much in the first Test against Bangladesh, but it seemed a little hard on him even so!
Personally I'm inclined to the first option I mentioned - that of making sure there's something on all the really big names - since, for example, I noticed last night that Vijay Merchant didn't have an entry at all. Given his notability as having the second-highest first-class average after Bradman I felt that was something that needed rectifying at once and so wrote a stub, but I don't really have the required knowledge to write a full-length piece on him. Any comments welcomed of course. Loganberry | Talk 11:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've discovered we have articles on both bowler and bowling. Should they be combined? Stephen Turner 18:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Unusual_transclusion_issue_not_covered_by_policy. Bovlb 05:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
I have decided to leave the project. My reasons for doing so are on my userpage. I'd like to say that it was a pleasure working with you. Wikipedia's cricket articles are really going places. WikiProject Cricket has increased WP's cricket-related featured articles from 2 to 7, and the Ashes should become the eighth once it gets nominated. It's looking like we'll soon have our first featured list. We also have loads of articles on lots of cricketers, comprehensive coverage of the 2005 English cricket season and the 2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup (PLEASE KEEP THESE UP!). I wish you all and the WikiProject all the best, jguk 19:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have just being doing some updating on Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005 and National League Division Two in 2005 and it occurs to me that our articles could be further improved by photos: there are a couple by Jguk in the National League article which he has obviously taken at Surrey home games. I go along to most Durham home games and will try to take some photos there to enhance our coverage. Are there any other contributors regularly going along to County games who might be able to take photos?
Secondly, are any of us in England going along to any of the NatWest Challenge/Series games or any of the Ashes Tests? Some photos from there would be good too. -- Ngb 08:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I doubt I'll be able to help much, but I thought I should bring the WikiProject's attention to what (to me) looks like a glaring gap in coverage. The only article I can find anywhere on WP about women's cricket is this one. I'm not suggesting for a moment it should be covered in anything like the depth that men's cricket is covered, but surely there must be more that can be said than just two paragraphs? OpenToppedBus - Talk 16:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe User:Ambi or nixie could be called to edit some articles. = Nichalp ( Talk)= 17:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've just written a pretty basic stub for Denise Emerson, during the writing of which a few points came to mind:
There are doubtless other points to be worked out as we go along, but perhaps mentioning some of them now might save at least some problems later on. Loganberry ( Talk) 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This person has done some outstanding work but seems to have stopped after early May. Is he someone that we know under some other name ? Tintin 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cricket terminology is a Featured list candidate. = Nichalp ( Talk)= 07:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Note that the old {{cricinfo}} templates for Player Profiles used in some players' "External links" sections no longer work now that Cricinfo's player pages are organised in a different way. I'm generally replacing them by straightforward links to the new URL; slightly more time-consuming but reliable - see Marcus Trescothick for an example. The old-style links in Infoboxes do still work, however. Loganberry ( Talk) 00:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)