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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Can someone check the validity of this article? It is not written very well and seems to be only be based on one source. Gizza Chat © 09:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing some additional fields to Infobox Cricketer.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the date of birth isn't available then have it so that it doesn't show up, using "If codes" so its not necessary-- Thugchildz 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm dropping my call for the status activity. Can the other two be added please? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been in this project for some time, I've never before come across [1] in which I see that The Ashes is <quote>Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information<unquote>. Someone is pulling our legs here!
The Ashes article is littered with "please expand" tags and rightly so, especially in terms of the series overviews.
To improve the article, concentrate on the urn and its origin and the so-called "legend" but leave the series overviews right out of it apart from supplying links to the appropriate England v Australia categories.
In fact, reading the article without the series overviews, it is actually very good. So there is the way forward. -- BlackJack | talk page 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be some series overviews in there. Think about how the article will be used in practise by surfers using wikipedia. Anyone looking up the 'ashes' is going to be a generalist, someone who just wants a broad picture of the whole thing, not some a hard core cricket nut like us looking for a specific and perhaps obscure detail. If the article doesn't give some flavour of the series in the past that surfer is going to miss out and not know where to look for further details. There's nothing wrong with some series highlights in an article which then encourages a general reader to seek more specific detail on a dedicated page. If the article is just about the urn then a casual reader will wonder what all the fuss is about. It's not like Wikipedia is going to run out of space. The beauty of this place is that it's not limited to a certain number of sheets of paper. What matters is that it's useful to the readers. Nick mallory 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just tried to add a comment to the talk page of this article and have come up against a spam filter block that will not allow me to save: see this!
I do not believe this is a legitimate block especially as the page is somewhat controversial. Can one of you with admin functions please investigate and report what is going on here? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
BlackJack seems to be systematically working his way through those cricket articles that were rated Top, reducing their rating to Mid without giving any reasons. I don't see how one can justify rating, for example, Jack Hobbs, George Harris and Bodyline as low as Mid, unless one isn't going to have any Top rated cricket articles at all. We are surely talking about their importance in the context of cricket, not in a wider context. Even The Ashes has been reduced to High. If I sound cross, it's because I am. I've been sceptical about importance ratings for some time, as they are usually the (inevitably subjective) opinion of one individual. Perhaps we need a scheme that would allow people to vote on ratings, rather than be a single person's idea? JH ( talk page) 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
WG Grace is clearly top importance, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. One I've spotted that I also disagree with is the downgrading of Bart King to mid-importance from high-importance. As by far the best American cricketer ever, I think there is clearly a case of him being high-importance. Andrew nixon 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The rating guidelines include:
I also think that Bodyline should be Top and Cardus at least High. I believe that anyone rating an article's importance should give their reasons in the Talk page. JH ( talk page) 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
These are the definitions applicable to ratings which should be done objectively:
Status | Template | Meaning of Status |
---|---|---|
Top | {{ Top-Class}} | This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. |
High | {{ High-Class}} | This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. |
Mid | {{ Mid-Class}} | This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. |
Low | {{ Low-Class}} | This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. |
None | None | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed. |
Clearly, cricket itself and some of the more important ancillary subjects like the laws are top priority because they are of the utmost importance and form the basis of all information. No player, not even Grace or Bradman, is as important as the sport itself so can we please get a sense of perspective here.
High class refers to general areas of knowledge, not specific, and so something like England cricket team comes in here while great players and important venues, being specific, go into the mid-class.
As for who was a great player, or what is an important venue, that is subjective. King was not a Test player and was of no real significance, although I don't deny that he was a fine bowler. You can hardly equate him with Grace, Rhodes, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, etc.
The importance standards re national captains and what have you are completely inconsistent with the status meanings above. A team is generic: for example, the England team encompasses over 600 individuals. A player is specific: WG Grace does not cover a general area of knowledge but the England team does. -- BlackJack | talk page 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's very difficult to rate the importance of cricketers on specific criteria. Victor Trumper was a great cricketer, everyone would accept that, yet his test record pales in comparison with some relatively minor players of today, S.F. Barnes is another one. It's always going to be a subjective thing even in a sport so awash with statistics. You just need to have a consensus, maybe a voting procedure on this page which evens out people's opinions of some of the arguable cases like Bart King. Is there a log anywhere of how many hits a page gets? I bet the ones on the indian and pakistani stars of today get huge numbers so for that reason alone the articles need to be good and so they're important. That doesn't mean that Sewag is a better batsman than Sutcliffe though. The good thing is that you're all so passionate about this and eager to make the project better. Can I suggest that if anyone wants to have a go at someone they have a go at me for any reason they like? I know I deserve it so I wouldn't be offended. Nick mallory 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent argument Blackjack. I was just looking at it from the users point of view, and if Wikipedia is to remain successful it must focus on the people who use it and offer them what they need. Wikipedia should be the best means to the end of people getting the information they want for free, not an academic end in itself. What are the fifty most viewed pages on cricket on wikipedia for example? Whatever they are it's important that they're excellent otherwise people will go elsewhere. It's the mass of internet users who decide what is important to them, not us. Yes it's great to have the sort of structure of historical importance you advocate but it's not the only consideration. Eukaryotic cells are the basis of nearly all life on earth, but that doesn't mean the pages for lion, tiger and elephant matter less on wikipedia if you're trying to make a popular encyclopedia. Ian Botham didn't change cricket but it's very important that his page here is accurate, interesting and full of good information. As it's written voluntarily too writers will shape it the way they want. People write about what interests them and what interests people the most will have the best pages. Charles Lennox is in good hands if you're looking after him anyway. Nick mallory 08:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have separate guidelines on importance for separate topics? ie, a guideline for players that sees those players widely regarded as important at top (Grace, Bradman, Sobers, etc), for grounds that would see current regular Test grounds at the top, for teams that would see the Test teams at the top, ODI status/first-class teams at high, the rest of the associates/minor domestic sides at mid, and affiliates at low? Just a thought. Andrew nixon 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've actually been conducting an experiment here and didn't expect the discussion to be pre-empted before I'd finished. The present system of measures is completely unsatisfactory because it has clearly been designed by someone with a computing or scientific background. It is unsuitable for a sports project where a rating will invariably be partly subjective. Sport after all has an element of romance about it: it is not a system.
What I'd like to do is try and use these quality and importance measures as a basis for prioritisation of the stubs, especially the biography stubs. But I'm convinced now that they cannot be used unless we revise the importance scale. The quality scale is not too bad except I would decompose stub-class into advanced stub, adequate stub and inadequate stub (the latter being anything likely to be tagged as an alert or an AfD).
For the importance scale, I'd like to see this ranged across the different categories and the number of options increased. My first thoughts are that we should have a key or root class at the top which is of course cricket and then a scale of major, high, middle, low and minor; plus "not yet assessed". We could then have criteria within each category so that, for example, WG Grace, Indian cricket team, cricket bat and Lord's Cricket Ground could all be rated as major. Obviously the people category would need a higher degree of subjectivity than the others.
I think we should forget the importance ratings that have already been applied as they are practically useless re both their former and current values. I'll be revising them again once we have a consensus on how to make the measures suitable for the cricket project. So, apologies if you thought I was being pedantic but I did want to conclude this experiment so that I can study the final outcome and your comments have been very useful. The conclusion is that it doesn't work: it's broke so lets try and fix it. Watch this space. -- BlackJack | talk page 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we going to let this one die too?-- ThugChildz 08:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What exactly needs doing to the 'cricket' article? I wouldn't presume to mess about with such an important page without knowing exactly what needs to be done, though i'm obviously happy to mess about with lots of others. Is it just an edit to improve the English that's needed or adding new sections or adding links or what? Nick mallory 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
According to user Rafa1892 Pat Pocock once had sex with a donkey. Does the Surrey County Cricket Club section have a section specialising in interspecies erotica? And if not, why not? Nick mallory 06:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I also have a new favourite cricketer, Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau (also known as Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau of course) and somewhat disappointingly down only as IL Bula here on Wikipedia. Nick mallory 08:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
He's on the players to be done list, does anyone know who he is? I found a reference to a New Zealand rugby player but cricinfo and cricket archive didn't seem to have him. Is he known by another name? Maybe I'm spelling it wrong or something. It strikes me that there's a lot of well known county players who don't have an entry yet, maybe their names should go up there first as that would encourage people to actually do them. Nick mallory 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. Nooshan Al Khadeer was taking the piss as well I think. Nick mallory 08:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough about Nooshan Al Khadeer. I didn't mean to be disrespectful to her but I looked for Steve O'Shaughnessy, a recentish Lancashire player who scored one of the fastest ever first class hundreds and all I found was some footballer. I know it was declaration bowling but still. There would be people willing and able to do a decent article for him if his name was at the top of the page. Staying with Lancashire, which is one of the better covered counties as at least it has a decent list, John Abrahams hasn't got a page, neither has Brian Booth or Ian Cockbain. I know this is an international project but these players should be up there with the lovely Nooshan in terms of importance I think. I'll follow Sam's suggestion and try to expand a few of the stubs. Nick mallory 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I will Sam. You're right about the stub list, important players like Wayne Daniel have virtually nothing. I've done Junior Murray, Martin Kent, Jim Love and a few others and i'll keep working through it now. It's a pity there aren't a few more keen writers from the subcontinent here as a lot of the players are from there. Nick mallory 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about players who people of a certain age grew up watching in the seventies and need a page, how about Keith Pont of Essex? Stuart Turner goes to an engineer instead of the Essex all rounder too. Colin Dredge the demon of Frome? Jeff Tolchard? Brian Hardie? Ray East has a tiny stub and David Acfield has nothing. Norman McVicker is another blank. John Dye of Northants? Mike Buss of Gloucestershire? Chris Waller of Sussex? Keith Tomlins and Keith Jones of Middlesex? Phil Russell of Derbyshire, Dudley Owen-Thomas and Stewart Storey of Surrey? Graham Burgess, Brian Langford, Derek Taylor, Hallam Moseley, Allan Jones and Dennis Breakwell of Somerset? There's also Graham Johnson and Norman Graham of Kent. There are pages for some of these names, but none of them are the cricketers as far as I can see. There's also Mike Llewellyn, Tony Cordle, John Hopkins and Arthur Francis of Glamorgan. David Turner and John Rice of Hampshire, Neal Abberley and Bill Blenkiron of Warwickshire and John Inchmore of Worcestershire. Would it be ok if I put some of these players on the to do list up top then, as a newbie I don't like to presume. Maybe some of them already exist but a search under their usual name doesn't find them. Nick mallory 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite right to pick up my typos JH, I've corrected them to save any confusion. My point is only that these guys matter more than some of the people who appear in the 'players to do' list. I'm not saying saying we should do them all right now! Especially as there's also Nigel Cowley, Bobby Parks and Rajesh Maru of Hampshire, Derek Aslett and Chris Penn (not the fat actor) of Kent, Robin Boyd-Moss, Jim Griffiths and Richard Williams of Northants, John Birch and Kevin Saxelby of Notts, Duncan Pauline, David Thomas, Graham Monkhouse and Andy Needham of Surrey, Ricardo Ellcock, Paul Pridgeon of Worcestershire too. Ian Butcher and Gordon Parsons of Leicestershire, Asif Din and Anthon Ferreira of Warwickshire and Paul Newman of Derbyshire are also not covered. I'm a bit scared that I know all these guys. Just how much time have I wasted playing and watching this game? Nick mallory 13:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking them out Sam. I just did a wikipedia search for them all under their usual names, like a casual surfer would. Perhaps I shouldn't have done if off the top of my head based on bits of old games I remember. At least I know how to spell Damian now! I'm not here to make work for anyone so I'll gradually work through them myself as well. Nick mallory 13:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to encourage everyone who is writing for the Cricket Project, please avoid the wikilik [[Ashes]], as it dose not go to The Ashes cricket series, but to a disambiguation page with the many other uses of the term instead. Please use the link [[The Ashes]] or [[The Ashes|Ashes]] when referring to the series. Thanks! -- Knulclunk 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
For some strange reason this category uses "venues" in its title while all the other 19 categories in Category:Cricket grounds use "grounds".
Can one of you with admin facilities please do a speedy rename? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The template has been messed up for some while now and I don't know how to fix it. Could someone take a look at it please? Cheers Crickettragic April 11
Friends, I have a technical question. I've got an image of John Thayer (cricketer) in .bmp format. I manipulated it in MSPaint, and now cannot get it into a .jpg format or anything else that I can upload to the commons. Can anyone help? You can e-mail me if you'd like.-- Eva b d 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
On a separate but related note, I've had a copy-edit tag on Bart King since February. I've tried finding someone from the League of Copyeditors to take a look at it, but that fizzled out. I'm mostly hoping that an experienced editor can give John Barton King a solid and thorough copy edit before putting it up as an FAC. Any help on that front is also greatly appreciated.-- Eva b d 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have look at it, let me know if there's anything else I could do.-- THUG CHILD z 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
John Barton King is now up for another Peer Review here. ALoan did a thorough copy edit and I'm hoping to be up to snuff for an FAC very soon. Any help appreciated.-- Eva b d 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
According to his page he played Test cricket for England between 1948 and 1955. No source is provided and a search of Cricinfo failed to find such a player. Could you guys take a look at it .. I think it is a fair candidate for deletion - -- Crickettragic 15 April 2007
I have added a Prod. He is not a first-class cricketer, and I suspect the businessman is a coincidental namesake. The original creator was User:Pully92 and this is the user's only contribution (on Christmas Day!). Johnlp 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair it just says that he was an english 'cricket player' which could mean a club cricketer. There's no information in the info box regarding supposed Test Match statistics, only the tiny first and last match dates which could have been a mistake. The guy isn't a first class cricketer, so he shouldn't be in, but I don't think it's a malicious hoax. Maybe someone writing about their dad as a 'present'? Maybe this is a different Anthony Pullinger to the Deputy Director General mentioned above? It should be deleted anyway, stuff like this just gives ammunition to the cricket doesn't matter brigade. Nick mallory 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the reason I said that he was a supposed Test cricketer is because at the bottom of the infobox it lists the years of his first and last Tests. Crickettragic April 15
Further to the above discussion, I've made a preliminary study of the existing main categories to see what the top-rank articles are in each (if any) and where we can expect to find other articles of top or high importance.
category | main articles | comments |
---|---|---|
Cricket | Cricket is the definitive "top-rank article" | root category with this one highest-rank article which is the key to the whole project |
Cricket administration | ICC and MCC are "top-rank" | 41 other admin topics - generally mid-importance |
Cricket awards and rankings | Wisden Cricketers of the Year has "high importance" | 25 miscellaneous award topics - most are of low importance |
Cricket competitions | no articles: domestic and international competion categories only | "high importance" articles in sub-cats must include: Cricket World Cup, The Ashes, County Championship, Sheffield Shield, etc. |
Cricket by country | no articles: 27 categories by country including major Test nations | Cricket in Australia, Cricket in England, Cricket in India are "high importance": similar articles needed for the other countries |
Cricket controversies | 14 miscellaneous articles and one sub-cat | Ball tampering, betting, Bodyline and Throwing are "high importance": others are mid or low only |
Cricketers | Cricketer is a "top-rank article" but only a stub: 14 sub-cats | WG Grace and Donald Bradman are "top-rank" on basis of predominance over contemporaries; several other "movers and shakers" (e.g., William Clarke and world-class players (e.g., Shane Warne) are "high importance"; it is proposed that nominations for high importance among people is subject to absolute veto by registered assessors (to prevent hero-worship nominations) |
Cricket culture | none - 30 miscellaneous articles, none of any importance unless featured in other categories | essentially a trivia or miscellaneous category |
Cricket equipment | Cricket clothing and equipment is a "top-rank article" | 27 other articles – of high importance are ball, bat, field and wicket; others are mid, low or trivial |
Forms of cricket | Forms of cricket is a "top-rank article": six sub-cats | Test cricket, First-class cricket, Limited overs cricket and Twenty20 are "high importance" |
Cricket grounds | 2 lists only: 20 categories by country | Lord's is "top-rank"; several historic (e.g., Artillery Ground) and major Test venues (e.g, MCG and The Oval) are "high importance" |
History of cricket | History of cricket is a "top-rank article": 16 sub-cats by country | essentially tour and season articles which are "mid" importance |
Cricket images | none | reference category only |
Cricket laws and regulations | Laws of cricket | Laws of cricket is a "top-rank article"; 40 other miscellaneous topics |
Cricket lists | none | 76 miscellaneous lists: nothing major |
Cricket media | none - 9 categories | nothing major |
Cricket people | 12 categories | see category:Cricketers above - Grace and Bradman are top rank, numerous others may be subjectively high unless vetoed by an assessor |
Cricket records and statistics | none | 18 miscellaneous statistical articles - none major |
Cricket scoring | Scoring (cricket) | Scoring (cricket) is top-rank; there are 9 other pages, mostly high importance |
Cricket skills | batting, bowling, fielding and wicket-keeping | 4 major articles (see left) and three high importance ones |
Cricket teams | 3 categories: club, first-class and national teams | some national teams are "high" and some historic ones like Hambledon; assessors' veto to apply here too in case of team-worship nominations |
Cricket terminology | List of cricket terms | List of cricket terms is top-rank; 147 other topics ranging from "high" to trivial |
International cricket tours | 14 categories called "International cricket tours of X" | this category presents viewpoint of home country: see also "Y tours abroad" in "History of Y cricket"; tour articles are generally "mid" importance |
Women's cricket | Women's cricket | Women's cricket is a "top-rank article"; 7 sub-categories |
Years in cricket | none | special category; all topics shared with other categories |
Cricket stubs | none | administrative category only |
This should give us some pointers in assessing quality and importance when we want to prioritise articles and especially stubs for development. I'll continue the survey and report further findings shortly but if anyone has any points that will be useful, please reply below..... -- BlackJack | talk page 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the Key Cricket administration would be the International Cricket Council and for Cricket equipment it would be Cricket equipment.-- ThugChildz 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also there should be a tournament/tour/series category with sub-cats by international or domestic don't you think?-- ThugChildz 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work BlackJack! Might I second the suggestion that rating names are kept very clear. I'd never know if key was higher or lower than high for example, it's one of those trendy names which can mean anything. I also think we should always keep the readers in mind when organising this. What structure makes it easy for someone, who may know nothing about the subject, find out what they want? Nick mallory 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I've created Category:Cricket articles by quality and importance which categorises articles by both ratings. This method is used by Project India so I pinched it from there. For example, articles in Category:Stub-Class cricket articles of Top-importance should have development priority. -- BlackJack | talk page 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also created Category:Cricket articles needing attention which is activated by "attention=yes" parameter in the ratings template. -- BlackJack | talk page 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to jump into this discussion late, but I wasn't following it before. I have considerable qualms about creating a new importance level of "bottom". Regardless of whether it's a good idea in itself, I think it's a very bad idea to use a different scale from every other WikiProject. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion prompted by User:Kelly Martin about WikiProjects endorsing candidates at RfA. This WikiProject is one of the most active and is quite forward-thinking. I'd like to think that we can do this without falling foul of WP:CANVASS (a problem raised at Kelly's talk page). Can I suggest that if any of us spot a member of the WProject at RfA we report it here and debate if the WProject wishes to endorse or not. By a) keeping the coversation here and b) the initial report NOT coming from the candidate, I think we can avoid Canvassing problems. Thoughts? -- Dweller 10:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
He sounds like a bit of a self important twit to me to be honest. It's up to individuals to endorse people for admin roles or not, as they see fit, and there'd only be a lot more 'canvassing' if people had to sweet talk their way to an endorsement from some project before they could do that. Not everyone is a joiner, it doesn't mean they can't do good work. This is a place for people to write about stuff which interests them for the good of others, not psuedo academic 'career' building. Nobody's getting paid here. This creeping bureaucracy will strangle Wikipedia in the end, hopefully after I get past H in the Yorkshire list. If someone wants to have admin powers then by all means mention it here but formal endorsements are just silly. After all, on the internet, nobody knows you're really a dog. Nick mallory 11:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted Kelly, sorry. Nick mallory 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes David, I did read what she proposed, and I read the large number of comments from other people on her talk page opposing it. I'm sure she means very well and just wants higher standards all round, but I'm opposed to schemes which detract from wikipedia's origin as a peer created commons. There shouldn't be a requirement for people to be part of a project before they can become an administrator. She wasn't just saying that she personally wanted people to be proposed in this way, for which there is no mechanism, but that this should become wikipedia policy. She maintains that no-one who isn't 'endorsed' by a project should become an administrator. That would put a lot of good people off and so have the opposite effect to the one she wants. This is an entirely voluntary undertaking and the more bureaucratic it gets the less effective it'll become. If some projects want to propose people, and come up with their own methods for doing so that's fine. Making it compulsary for everyone, which is what she wants, is not. She's free to argue her case, and I'm free to oppose it. Nick mallory 09:29, 14 April 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Can someone check the validity of this article? It is not written very well and seems to be only be based on one source. Gizza Chat © 09:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing some additional fields to Infobox Cricketer.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the date of birth isn't available then have it so that it doesn't show up, using "If codes" so its not necessary-- Thugchildz 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm dropping my call for the status activity. Can the other two be added please? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been in this project for some time, I've never before come across [1] in which I see that The Ashes is <quote>Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information<unquote>. Someone is pulling our legs here!
The Ashes article is littered with "please expand" tags and rightly so, especially in terms of the series overviews.
To improve the article, concentrate on the urn and its origin and the so-called "legend" but leave the series overviews right out of it apart from supplying links to the appropriate England v Australia categories.
In fact, reading the article without the series overviews, it is actually very good. So there is the way forward. -- BlackJack | talk page 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be some series overviews in there. Think about how the article will be used in practise by surfers using wikipedia. Anyone looking up the 'ashes' is going to be a generalist, someone who just wants a broad picture of the whole thing, not some a hard core cricket nut like us looking for a specific and perhaps obscure detail. If the article doesn't give some flavour of the series in the past that surfer is going to miss out and not know where to look for further details. There's nothing wrong with some series highlights in an article which then encourages a general reader to seek more specific detail on a dedicated page. If the article is just about the urn then a casual reader will wonder what all the fuss is about. It's not like Wikipedia is going to run out of space. The beauty of this place is that it's not limited to a certain number of sheets of paper. What matters is that it's useful to the readers. Nick mallory 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just tried to add a comment to the talk page of this article and have come up against a spam filter block that will not allow me to save: see this!
I do not believe this is a legitimate block especially as the page is somewhat controversial. Can one of you with admin functions please investigate and report what is going on here? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
BlackJack seems to be systematically working his way through those cricket articles that were rated Top, reducing their rating to Mid without giving any reasons. I don't see how one can justify rating, for example, Jack Hobbs, George Harris and Bodyline as low as Mid, unless one isn't going to have any Top rated cricket articles at all. We are surely talking about their importance in the context of cricket, not in a wider context. Even The Ashes has been reduced to High. If I sound cross, it's because I am. I've been sceptical about importance ratings for some time, as they are usually the (inevitably subjective) opinion of one individual. Perhaps we need a scheme that would allow people to vote on ratings, rather than be a single person's idea? JH ( talk page) 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
WG Grace is clearly top importance, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. One I've spotted that I also disagree with is the downgrading of Bart King to mid-importance from high-importance. As by far the best American cricketer ever, I think there is clearly a case of him being high-importance. Andrew nixon 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The rating guidelines include:
I also think that Bodyline should be Top and Cardus at least High. I believe that anyone rating an article's importance should give their reasons in the Talk page. JH ( talk page) 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
These are the definitions applicable to ratings which should be done objectively:
Status | Template | Meaning of Status |
---|---|---|
Top | {{ Top-Class}} | This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. |
High | {{ High-Class}} | This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. |
Mid | {{ Mid-Class}} | This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. |
Low | {{ Low-Class}} | This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. |
None | None | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed. |
Clearly, cricket itself and some of the more important ancillary subjects like the laws are top priority because they are of the utmost importance and form the basis of all information. No player, not even Grace or Bradman, is as important as the sport itself so can we please get a sense of perspective here.
High class refers to general areas of knowledge, not specific, and so something like England cricket team comes in here while great players and important venues, being specific, go into the mid-class.
As for who was a great player, or what is an important venue, that is subjective. King was not a Test player and was of no real significance, although I don't deny that he was a fine bowler. You can hardly equate him with Grace, Rhodes, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, etc.
The importance standards re national captains and what have you are completely inconsistent with the status meanings above. A team is generic: for example, the England team encompasses over 600 individuals. A player is specific: WG Grace does not cover a general area of knowledge but the England team does. -- BlackJack | talk page 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's very difficult to rate the importance of cricketers on specific criteria. Victor Trumper was a great cricketer, everyone would accept that, yet his test record pales in comparison with some relatively minor players of today, S.F. Barnes is another one. It's always going to be a subjective thing even in a sport so awash with statistics. You just need to have a consensus, maybe a voting procedure on this page which evens out people's opinions of some of the arguable cases like Bart King. Is there a log anywhere of how many hits a page gets? I bet the ones on the indian and pakistani stars of today get huge numbers so for that reason alone the articles need to be good and so they're important. That doesn't mean that Sewag is a better batsman than Sutcliffe though. The good thing is that you're all so passionate about this and eager to make the project better. Can I suggest that if anyone wants to have a go at someone they have a go at me for any reason they like? I know I deserve it so I wouldn't be offended. Nick mallory 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent argument Blackjack. I was just looking at it from the users point of view, and if Wikipedia is to remain successful it must focus on the people who use it and offer them what they need. Wikipedia should be the best means to the end of people getting the information they want for free, not an academic end in itself. What are the fifty most viewed pages on cricket on wikipedia for example? Whatever they are it's important that they're excellent otherwise people will go elsewhere. It's the mass of internet users who decide what is important to them, not us. Yes it's great to have the sort of structure of historical importance you advocate but it's not the only consideration. Eukaryotic cells are the basis of nearly all life on earth, but that doesn't mean the pages for lion, tiger and elephant matter less on wikipedia if you're trying to make a popular encyclopedia. Ian Botham didn't change cricket but it's very important that his page here is accurate, interesting and full of good information. As it's written voluntarily too writers will shape it the way they want. People write about what interests them and what interests people the most will have the best pages. Charles Lennox is in good hands if you're looking after him anyway. Nick mallory 08:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have separate guidelines on importance for separate topics? ie, a guideline for players that sees those players widely regarded as important at top (Grace, Bradman, Sobers, etc), for grounds that would see current regular Test grounds at the top, for teams that would see the Test teams at the top, ODI status/first-class teams at high, the rest of the associates/minor domestic sides at mid, and affiliates at low? Just a thought. Andrew nixon 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've actually been conducting an experiment here and didn't expect the discussion to be pre-empted before I'd finished. The present system of measures is completely unsatisfactory because it has clearly been designed by someone with a computing or scientific background. It is unsuitable for a sports project where a rating will invariably be partly subjective. Sport after all has an element of romance about it: it is not a system.
What I'd like to do is try and use these quality and importance measures as a basis for prioritisation of the stubs, especially the biography stubs. But I'm convinced now that they cannot be used unless we revise the importance scale. The quality scale is not too bad except I would decompose stub-class into advanced stub, adequate stub and inadequate stub (the latter being anything likely to be tagged as an alert or an AfD).
For the importance scale, I'd like to see this ranged across the different categories and the number of options increased. My first thoughts are that we should have a key or root class at the top which is of course cricket and then a scale of major, high, middle, low and minor; plus "not yet assessed". We could then have criteria within each category so that, for example, WG Grace, Indian cricket team, cricket bat and Lord's Cricket Ground could all be rated as major. Obviously the people category would need a higher degree of subjectivity than the others.
I think we should forget the importance ratings that have already been applied as they are practically useless re both their former and current values. I'll be revising them again once we have a consensus on how to make the measures suitable for the cricket project. So, apologies if you thought I was being pedantic but I did want to conclude this experiment so that I can study the final outcome and your comments have been very useful. The conclusion is that it doesn't work: it's broke so lets try and fix it. Watch this space. -- BlackJack | talk page 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we going to let this one die too?-- ThugChildz 08:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What exactly needs doing to the 'cricket' article? I wouldn't presume to mess about with such an important page without knowing exactly what needs to be done, though i'm obviously happy to mess about with lots of others. Is it just an edit to improve the English that's needed or adding new sections or adding links or what? Nick mallory 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
According to user Rafa1892 Pat Pocock once had sex with a donkey. Does the Surrey County Cricket Club section have a section specialising in interspecies erotica? And if not, why not? Nick mallory 06:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I also have a new favourite cricketer, Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau (also known as Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau of course) and somewhat disappointingly down only as IL Bula here on Wikipedia. Nick mallory 08:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
He's on the players to be done list, does anyone know who he is? I found a reference to a New Zealand rugby player but cricinfo and cricket archive didn't seem to have him. Is he known by another name? Maybe I'm spelling it wrong or something. It strikes me that there's a lot of well known county players who don't have an entry yet, maybe their names should go up there first as that would encourage people to actually do them. Nick mallory 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. Nooshan Al Khadeer was taking the piss as well I think. Nick mallory 08:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough about Nooshan Al Khadeer. I didn't mean to be disrespectful to her but I looked for Steve O'Shaughnessy, a recentish Lancashire player who scored one of the fastest ever first class hundreds and all I found was some footballer. I know it was declaration bowling but still. There would be people willing and able to do a decent article for him if his name was at the top of the page. Staying with Lancashire, which is one of the better covered counties as at least it has a decent list, John Abrahams hasn't got a page, neither has Brian Booth or Ian Cockbain. I know this is an international project but these players should be up there with the lovely Nooshan in terms of importance I think. I'll follow Sam's suggestion and try to expand a few of the stubs. Nick mallory 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I will Sam. You're right about the stub list, important players like Wayne Daniel have virtually nothing. I've done Junior Murray, Martin Kent, Jim Love and a few others and i'll keep working through it now. It's a pity there aren't a few more keen writers from the subcontinent here as a lot of the players are from there. Nick mallory 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about players who people of a certain age grew up watching in the seventies and need a page, how about Keith Pont of Essex? Stuart Turner goes to an engineer instead of the Essex all rounder too. Colin Dredge the demon of Frome? Jeff Tolchard? Brian Hardie? Ray East has a tiny stub and David Acfield has nothing. Norman McVicker is another blank. John Dye of Northants? Mike Buss of Gloucestershire? Chris Waller of Sussex? Keith Tomlins and Keith Jones of Middlesex? Phil Russell of Derbyshire, Dudley Owen-Thomas and Stewart Storey of Surrey? Graham Burgess, Brian Langford, Derek Taylor, Hallam Moseley, Allan Jones and Dennis Breakwell of Somerset? There's also Graham Johnson and Norman Graham of Kent. There are pages for some of these names, but none of them are the cricketers as far as I can see. There's also Mike Llewellyn, Tony Cordle, John Hopkins and Arthur Francis of Glamorgan. David Turner and John Rice of Hampshire, Neal Abberley and Bill Blenkiron of Warwickshire and John Inchmore of Worcestershire. Would it be ok if I put some of these players on the to do list up top then, as a newbie I don't like to presume. Maybe some of them already exist but a search under their usual name doesn't find them. Nick mallory 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite right to pick up my typos JH, I've corrected them to save any confusion. My point is only that these guys matter more than some of the people who appear in the 'players to do' list. I'm not saying saying we should do them all right now! Especially as there's also Nigel Cowley, Bobby Parks and Rajesh Maru of Hampshire, Derek Aslett and Chris Penn (not the fat actor) of Kent, Robin Boyd-Moss, Jim Griffiths and Richard Williams of Northants, John Birch and Kevin Saxelby of Notts, Duncan Pauline, David Thomas, Graham Monkhouse and Andy Needham of Surrey, Ricardo Ellcock, Paul Pridgeon of Worcestershire too. Ian Butcher and Gordon Parsons of Leicestershire, Asif Din and Anthon Ferreira of Warwickshire and Paul Newman of Derbyshire are also not covered. I'm a bit scared that I know all these guys. Just how much time have I wasted playing and watching this game? Nick mallory 13:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking them out Sam. I just did a wikipedia search for them all under their usual names, like a casual surfer would. Perhaps I shouldn't have done if off the top of my head based on bits of old games I remember. At least I know how to spell Damian now! I'm not here to make work for anyone so I'll gradually work through them myself as well. Nick mallory 13:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to encourage everyone who is writing for the Cricket Project, please avoid the wikilik [[Ashes]], as it dose not go to The Ashes cricket series, but to a disambiguation page with the many other uses of the term instead. Please use the link [[The Ashes]] or [[The Ashes|Ashes]] when referring to the series. Thanks! -- Knulclunk 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
For some strange reason this category uses "venues" in its title while all the other 19 categories in Category:Cricket grounds use "grounds".
Can one of you with admin facilities please do a speedy rename? Thanks. -- BlackJack | talk page 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The template has been messed up for some while now and I don't know how to fix it. Could someone take a look at it please? Cheers Crickettragic April 11
Friends, I have a technical question. I've got an image of John Thayer (cricketer) in .bmp format. I manipulated it in MSPaint, and now cannot get it into a .jpg format or anything else that I can upload to the commons. Can anyone help? You can e-mail me if you'd like.-- Eva b d 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
On a separate but related note, I've had a copy-edit tag on Bart King since February. I've tried finding someone from the League of Copyeditors to take a look at it, but that fizzled out. I'm mostly hoping that an experienced editor can give John Barton King a solid and thorough copy edit before putting it up as an FAC. Any help on that front is also greatly appreciated.-- Eva b d 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have look at it, let me know if there's anything else I could do.-- THUG CHILD z 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
John Barton King is now up for another Peer Review here. ALoan did a thorough copy edit and I'm hoping to be up to snuff for an FAC very soon. Any help appreciated.-- Eva b d 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
According to his page he played Test cricket for England between 1948 and 1955. No source is provided and a search of Cricinfo failed to find such a player. Could you guys take a look at it .. I think it is a fair candidate for deletion - -- Crickettragic 15 April 2007
I have added a Prod. He is not a first-class cricketer, and I suspect the businessman is a coincidental namesake. The original creator was User:Pully92 and this is the user's only contribution (on Christmas Day!). Johnlp 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair it just says that he was an english 'cricket player' which could mean a club cricketer. There's no information in the info box regarding supposed Test Match statistics, only the tiny first and last match dates which could have been a mistake. The guy isn't a first class cricketer, so he shouldn't be in, but I don't think it's a malicious hoax. Maybe someone writing about their dad as a 'present'? Maybe this is a different Anthony Pullinger to the Deputy Director General mentioned above? It should be deleted anyway, stuff like this just gives ammunition to the cricket doesn't matter brigade. Nick mallory 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the reason I said that he was a supposed Test cricketer is because at the bottom of the infobox it lists the years of his first and last Tests. Crickettragic April 15
Further to the above discussion, I've made a preliminary study of the existing main categories to see what the top-rank articles are in each (if any) and where we can expect to find other articles of top or high importance.
category | main articles | comments |
---|---|---|
Cricket | Cricket is the definitive "top-rank article" | root category with this one highest-rank article which is the key to the whole project |
Cricket administration | ICC and MCC are "top-rank" | 41 other admin topics - generally mid-importance |
Cricket awards and rankings | Wisden Cricketers of the Year has "high importance" | 25 miscellaneous award topics - most are of low importance |
Cricket competitions | no articles: domestic and international competion categories only | "high importance" articles in sub-cats must include: Cricket World Cup, The Ashes, County Championship, Sheffield Shield, etc. |
Cricket by country | no articles: 27 categories by country including major Test nations | Cricket in Australia, Cricket in England, Cricket in India are "high importance": similar articles needed for the other countries |
Cricket controversies | 14 miscellaneous articles and one sub-cat | Ball tampering, betting, Bodyline and Throwing are "high importance": others are mid or low only |
Cricketers | Cricketer is a "top-rank article" but only a stub: 14 sub-cats | WG Grace and Donald Bradman are "top-rank" on basis of predominance over contemporaries; several other "movers and shakers" (e.g., William Clarke and world-class players (e.g., Shane Warne) are "high importance"; it is proposed that nominations for high importance among people is subject to absolute veto by registered assessors (to prevent hero-worship nominations) |
Cricket culture | none - 30 miscellaneous articles, none of any importance unless featured in other categories | essentially a trivia or miscellaneous category |
Cricket equipment | Cricket clothing and equipment is a "top-rank article" | 27 other articles – of high importance are ball, bat, field and wicket; others are mid, low or trivial |
Forms of cricket | Forms of cricket is a "top-rank article": six sub-cats | Test cricket, First-class cricket, Limited overs cricket and Twenty20 are "high importance" |
Cricket grounds | 2 lists only: 20 categories by country | Lord's is "top-rank"; several historic (e.g., Artillery Ground) and major Test venues (e.g, MCG and The Oval) are "high importance" |
History of cricket | History of cricket is a "top-rank article": 16 sub-cats by country | essentially tour and season articles which are "mid" importance |
Cricket images | none | reference category only |
Cricket laws and regulations | Laws of cricket | Laws of cricket is a "top-rank article"; 40 other miscellaneous topics |
Cricket lists | none | 76 miscellaneous lists: nothing major |
Cricket media | none - 9 categories | nothing major |
Cricket people | 12 categories | see category:Cricketers above - Grace and Bradman are top rank, numerous others may be subjectively high unless vetoed by an assessor |
Cricket records and statistics | none | 18 miscellaneous statistical articles - none major |
Cricket scoring | Scoring (cricket) | Scoring (cricket) is top-rank; there are 9 other pages, mostly high importance |
Cricket skills | batting, bowling, fielding and wicket-keeping | 4 major articles (see left) and three high importance ones |
Cricket teams | 3 categories: club, first-class and national teams | some national teams are "high" and some historic ones like Hambledon; assessors' veto to apply here too in case of team-worship nominations |
Cricket terminology | List of cricket terms | List of cricket terms is top-rank; 147 other topics ranging from "high" to trivial |
International cricket tours | 14 categories called "International cricket tours of X" | this category presents viewpoint of home country: see also "Y tours abroad" in "History of Y cricket"; tour articles are generally "mid" importance |
Women's cricket | Women's cricket | Women's cricket is a "top-rank article"; 7 sub-categories |
Years in cricket | none | special category; all topics shared with other categories |
Cricket stubs | none | administrative category only |
This should give us some pointers in assessing quality and importance when we want to prioritise articles and especially stubs for development. I'll continue the survey and report further findings shortly but if anyone has any points that will be useful, please reply below..... -- BlackJack | talk page 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the Key Cricket administration would be the International Cricket Council and for Cricket equipment it would be Cricket equipment.-- ThugChildz 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also there should be a tournament/tour/series category with sub-cats by international or domestic don't you think?-- ThugChildz 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work BlackJack! Might I second the suggestion that rating names are kept very clear. I'd never know if key was higher or lower than high for example, it's one of those trendy names which can mean anything. I also think we should always keep the readers in mind when organising this. What structure makes it easy for someone, who may know nothing about the subject, find out what they want? Nick mallory 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I've created Category:Cricket articles by quality and importance which categorises articles by both ratings. This method is used by Project India so I pinched it from there. For example, articles in Category:Stub-Class cricket articles of Top-importance should have development priority. -- BlackJack | talk page 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also created Category:Cricket articles needing attention which is activated by "attention=yes" parameter in the ratings template. -- BlackJack | talk page 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to jump into this discussion late, but I wasn't following it before. I have considerable qualms about creating a new importance level of "bottom". Regardless of whether it's a good idea in itself, I think it's a very bad idea to use a different scale from every other WikiProject. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion prompted by User:Kelly Martin about WikiProjects endorsing candidates at RfA. This WikiProject is one of the most active and is quite forward-thinking. I'd like to think that we can do this without falling foul of WP:CANVASS (a problem raised at Kelly's talk page). Can I suggest that if any of us spot a member of the WProject at RfA we report it here and debate if the WProject wishes to endorse or not. By a) keeping the coversation here and b) the initial report NOT coming from the candidate, I think we can avoid Canvassing problems. Thoughts? -- Dweller 10:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
He sounds like a bit of a self important twit to me to be honest. It's up to individuals to endorse people for admin roles or not, as they see fit, and there'd only be a lot more 'canvassing' if people had to sweet talk their way to an endorsement from some project before they could do that. Not everyone is a joiner, it doesn't mean they can't do good work. This is a place for people to write about stuff which interests them for the good of others, not psuedo academic 'career' building. Nobody's getting paid here. This creeping bureaucracy will strangle Wikipedia in the end, hopefully after I get past H in the Yorkshire list. If someone wants to have admin powers then by all means mention it here but formal endorsements are just silly. After all, on the internet, nobody knows you're really a dog. Nick mallory 11:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted Kelly, sorry. Nick mallory 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes David, I did read what she proposed, and I read the large number of comments from other people on her talk page opposing it. I'm sure she means very well and just wants higher standards all round, but I'm opposed to schemes which detract from wikipedia's origin as a peer created commons. There shouldn't be a requirement for people to be part of a project before they can become an administrator. She wasn't just saying that she personally wanted people to be proposed in this way, for which there is no mechanism, but that this should become wikipedia policy. She maintains that no-one who isn't 'endorsed' by a project should become an administrator. That would put a lot of good people off and so have the opposite effect to the one she wants. This is an entirely voluntary undertaking and the more bureaucratic it gets the less effective it'll become. If some projects want to propose people, and come up with their own methods for doing so that's fine. Making it compulsary for everyone, which is what she wants, is not. She's free to argue her case, and I'm free to oppose it. Nick mallory 09:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)