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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
In the case of teams which have adopted official nicknames while retaining the continuous link with the original team, I think we should try our best to mention in each article when said nickname was actually adopted. It grates a little that, for example Bill Ponsford apparently played for the Victorian Bushrangers! Loganberry ( Talk) 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't comment on Australian cricket but it does seem to me that these articles are wrongly named if I presume to use an "English standard" (e.g., it would be utterly wrong to move Yorkshire CCC to Yorkshire Phoenix). Should Victoria have the old name or the new one? Is Ponsford spinning in his grave after being called a Bushranger!? -- BlackJack | talk page 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer a move to Victoria state cricket team or something along those lines. Victorian cricket team is a little vague. There are a number of Victorian cricket teams, both in Victoria, Australia but also in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Not to mention the numerous cricket teams from the Victorian era! Andrew nixon 09:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Good input by JPD above especially the point that these nicknames are now used in the Shield games as well as limited overs. I'm really not sure what we should do here. Looking at the oldest English counties we had to make a decision on how to cover their histories before the county clubs were officially formed. We decided to have two articles: e.g., Sussex county cricket teams up to 1839 and Sussex County Cricket Club from 1839 while Sussex Sharks is a mention in the club article (the Sharks is a limited overs entity only).
The Aussie scenario is not the same. I'm not even sure (can anyone help me on this, please?) if the state organisations are clubs as we understand them in England. I believe the Victoria team represents a Victorian state association of some kind rather than a "state club" like Sussex CCC. But if the Bushrangers is an official team name and is used in all forms of cricket then I would guess the article is named correctly after all, although we must be careful to make sure we pipe references correctly if referring to Victoria before 1990.
Would a set of redirects per team be a way around it? So, if I was writing about Bill Ponsford and said he played for the Victoria state cricket team, for example, it would redirect to the Bushrangers. -- BlackJack | talk page 09:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments were made at Peer review regarding the Kevin Pietersen article, that I said I'd raise here to generate more views.
As the infobox affects tons of articles, I was reluctant to change what I thought was 'policy' of "-" in the infobox, although by looking now at a selection of articles I see both forms (0 or -) are used quite a lot. As for the achievement section, I merely copied the format from Paul Collingwood the last contemporary player I can remember getting to FA. I assumed that if it was ok for one FA, it would be for another. Needless to say all of the records etc are mentioned in the full prose anyway.
I'd appreciate some feedback on these points, and another couple of peer reviews, perhaps from a cricketing POV would be good too.
Cheers, – MDCollins ( talk) 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Another related point is that 10 wickets in a match for ODIs always seems to be n/a in the infobox. It is actually possible though, right? So surely 0 is the correct entry.– MDCollins ( talk) 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi., since June is already under way, moved 2003 Cricket World Cup as CCOTM based on max. number of votes. Letz get started on it and i shall try and see if i can match efforts on both 2003 and 2007 to make them FA level at the same time. However, as the 2 articles stand as of now, it needs a lot of photos. Can someone who attended these events volunteer for some snaps. Kalyan 14:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Cricinfo, Foxsports and BBC news and so can someone please update the news in all the related article please?-- THUG CHILD z 11:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why on the cricket infoboxes is it 'not applicable' in the 10 wickets in a match - ODI box? Isn't possible to dismiss all ten batsman with one bowler in a One Day International match? I'm sure you're right I was just hoping someone could fill me in! :) SGGH speak! 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
( [3]) How many English captains would do that? -- Dweller 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Desperate is the word I'd have used. Unless water seeped under the covers and it's an old fashioned sticky wicket which he wants to bowl on before it dries out it looks like an attempt to change the story from 'Abject Somerset Batting Collapse' to 'Plucky Declaration Turns Tables at Lord's'. Steffan Jones had batted twenty minutes without scoring so there weren't many runs being added anyway. Compton and the Boy Wonder seem to be doing fine in response at the moment. Nick mallory 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/35/35822.html Tintin 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On a similar vein (rain-affected wickets) I recall a story about Len Hutton that he regarded his finest batting performance as being a low score made in the Windies on a Sticky dog. Anyone know what match that was? I think he spoke about lying in bed hearing the heavy rain on the corrugated iron roof, knowing he had to bat in the morning. Possibly in Guyana? -- Dweller 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one example of a side declaring to set a target of less than 200 and going on to win? That is remarkable.
The list mentioned mentions two occasions when a side has declared to set a target of less than 200 and lost - the 1934-5 West Indies/England match mentioned above, and the 5th Test during England's tour to South Africa in 1948-9. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Going back to the original game, Somerset conceded a first innings lead of 200 then lost both openers for 0 so a turnaround is looking unlikely. Nick mallory 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you all know that thanks to substantial work from Trebor and myself, Kevin Pietersen has been nominated for FA. Can some of you take a look and review it please?
Cheers, – MDCollins ( talk) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
i was reviewing the Sydney Riot of 1879 when i went to the profile of one of the officials involved and found to my surpise that an article citing WIKIPEDIA work was present there. Check for yourselves by clicking here - the reference to wikipedia is right at the bottom, in the biblography section. Didn't know if someone had noted it earlier. If it was noted and discussed earlier, apologies for bring it back again. Kalyan 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Trying to establish consensus for preferred article name. Please contribute at Talk:Sticky dog. Thanks. -- Dweller 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help our friend User:02blythed and me out with some of these cricketers? Particularly in aligning the prose and the box and putting them in a category? He's going faster than I can at the moment! Nick mallory 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doing the boxes, User:02blythed is! He's just asked me how to do the flag, I've told him but I think he'd appreciate a bit of help from one of you guys. Nick mallory 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello I understand about including the number of matches played by someone is a problem for a player that has not retired but I will record which players I have done infoboxes for who have not retired and update ever so often myself. I find the infoboxes you reconmend confusing and very long winded. People that use this site will probably only want to see there first class, List A record and international career and not nessasarily want to know there batting style for example and if they did then the source that I give will give them all that information. 02blythed 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Below are articles that I have created with infoboxes and if possible could someone write the prose for the articles as my english is not the best and I know I will only mess it up Thanks. 02blythed 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariful_Haque
User User Talk:Finngall has just deleted all of the articles that are just infoboxes before seeing the arrangment with this project and nick mallory in particular. I have written to his talk page outlining its notablity and the agrrement that prose will be written by other people. I am really angry because he has just deleted hours and hours of work. I would like to know people' view on this negative or positive. 02blythed 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Cricketers that I have created infobox and sentance for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikash_Sharma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplab_Sarkar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debashish_Barua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deen_Mohammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delwar_Hossain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhiman_Ghosh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dippajjal_Day
Thanks for your help 02blythed 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are more cricketers that I have created infoboxes and a sentance for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faizul_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhad_Hossain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_Hossain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fariduddin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazle_Mahmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Alamgir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Salahuddin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mabud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mawla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mortaza
Thanks 02blythed 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am reproducing feedback from non-cricket reviewer on Indian captains FLC - "I think it would be a bit more user friendly if the "Number Name Year Opposition Location Played Won Lost Drawn" row was inserted every 10 captains or so. Buc 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)". I invite reaction from this forum. Kalyan 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the article is to my mind inconsistent in its dealing with the ordering of won/lost/drawn and won/tied/lost. I would think that however you treat drawn (and I suggest that between won and lost works better for most English speakers) you should treat tied the same. Of course, I know draws and ties are not the same thing, but they're similar in that neither side won! -- Dweller 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I know technically they're very similar... so they should be treated similarly. Put them in the same order. W/DorT/L or W/L/DorT. When I last looked, you had W/L/D and W/T/L, which is inconsistent. -- Dweller 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Small question here, planning on making the T20 equivalent of List of African XI ODI cricketers, but I'm unsure of one thing: did today's match actually have T20 status? Cricket Archive is listing it as being "misc" and Cricinfo doesn't clarify, though it does say "Only T20" which would suggest it is; though it has yet to update the stats on its pages (see Loots Bosman, for instance). Thankee. AllynJ 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(Back to the left!) I never said they weren't official ODIs. Andrew nixon 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, what on earth is going on here? 1st ODI from 2 years ago. Note the comments at the bottom:
CricketArchive's scorecard of the game agrees. Seems as if Odoyo was listed as being in the squad even beyond Africa XI going in to bat; Odoyo was the next man in to bat after Boje, but Kemp came in instead. Kemp also went on to bowl. So Odoyo really *didn't* take any part in the match - or certainly didn't bat or bowl, he may have fielded.
I can't find any overall African XI stats on CricketArchive, but
Cricinfo says Odoyo has played in all 5 matches (including today's match), which is where the potential error lies. Odoyo, surely, should not have been given a cap for the first ODI - was he just a substitute fielder? If so, that shouldn't grant a cap, should it?
This occurs again in the 2nd ODI & 3rd ODIs of the same series: the
2nd ODI saying Tikolo did not bowl or field, but batted in place of one of the bowlers (Zondeki). Odoyo was involved in a similar incident again for the African XI in the
3rd ODI, having fielded and (presumably) he would have bowled had the match not been rained out, but he didn't bat.
This seems incredibly bizarre given that these matches had official ODI status... Is it simply a major oversight on the part of all those reporting on it? Or was there some bizarre change in the rules, whilst not dropping ODI status? Anyone got any clue? Ta.
AllynJ
15:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
When there's conflicting stats etc, what should we go by? I'm bringing this up is because of the conflicting run rate of the '87 cwc - cricinfo vs cricketarchive. Yeah not much of a big deal but this will serve as a precedent for future conflicting stats.-- THUG CHILD z 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning in a footnote when a major source has incorrect data. Look at note 1 in Ravi Bopara or note 1 in Will Jefferson for examples of where I've done this. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting as you are talking about statistics. I have long held that Cricinfo is unreliable as a historical reference because it does not use the verified sources and there is a conspicuous lack of editing throughout its material, which contains some real howlers. I refuse to consult it. It seems from the above that it is equally inaccurate for statistics and that doesn't surprise me. CricketArchive is generally accurate except that it still has "first-class cricket" commencing in the year 1801 and needs to get its early cricket records in order. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Classic example. I decided to create poor old Mike Taylor (cricketer) who has been hanging around on the to-do page for weeks, it seems. As it happens, his twin is Derek Taylor (cricketer) and he had an article created recently with cricinfo references both in terms of stats and his place of birth. Cricinfo says the twins were born in South Africa when in fact they were born in Buckinghamshire. And the stats were inaccurate too. Absolute rubbish!
Can I please ask everyone NOT to use cricinfo as a source. It is utterly unreliable. For historical material, if you want to quote a reliable reference depending on the period, use Wisden or S&B or whatever from an existing historical article of the same period. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I shall simply refer everyone to the strange case of Kingsmill Key: according to Cricinfo's profile, he managed to play 368 first-class matches between 1882 and 1887. I know they played more games per season in those days, but this is a bit much! (In fact his last game was in 1909.) Loganberry ( Talk) 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#Cricket templates and stubs. I'm sure comments would be welcome there. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Geoffrey, Gavaskar, Greenidge? They're the names that usually get trotted out and yesterday it cropped up in conversation yet again.
Someone asked me who I would have in an all-time XI and that was easy to answer because I've maintained and updated a team for years and it's on my userpage here. So I scribbled it down in batting order and gave it to him. He agreed it's a formidable line-up but raised a few predictable alternatives.
Then he asked: "Is this in batting order or have you put the captain first?" "No, batting order." "Oh, well I think you should move him back into the middle and have a specialist opener to go in with Hobbs."
Specialist opener? Move him "back" into the middle?
I am constantly amazed that there are lots of people who know a lot about cricket but who nevertheless assume that because WG was an all-rounder he must have batted at number six or thereabouts like Gary Sobers did. Does anyone seriously believe that WG would ever go in anywhere but first? He was always number one in any batting order and, as such, he was a specialist opener as well as a supreme all-rounder. Indeed, he was the greatest opener just as he was the greatest cricketer, especially when you consider the state of the pitches he had to bat on. -- BlackJack | talk page 07:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Hobbs and Grace are the obvious openers. I'm amazed that Steve "anything for a not out" Waugh is at number 5 in your world XI though blackjack. Ahead of Graeme Pollock or Viv Richards, Barry Richards or Victor Trumper? Denis Compton, Wally Hammond or Peter May? And does Sir Geoffrey know he's not in your all time Yorkshire team? Nick mallory 08:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
These discussions are always fun, and of course, riddled with particularism and subjectivity. I was delighted to see Sydney Barnes in your all-time England XI, Blackjack. I've always loved this character for his nonconformity, if nothing else. -- Dweller 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Pieterson has received FA status. Congrats to MDCollins for his work on the article. Kalyan 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I went through the Importance scale section and it is very vague on the assessment for player bios. How do we assign importance wrt players. i am hoping we can have a discussion on the topic. If i take a stab at measurable parameters
This can just be guideline and exceptions can de discussed in the group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimalkalyan ( talk • contribs)
You can't judge someone;s importance and standing in the game just on the numbers. Victor Trumper and Learie Constantineare all time greats in anyone's book yet the aggregate numbers suggest they'd be inferior to many players today, simply because they played fewer tests in different times. Looking at England for an example, Tich Freeman took incredible numbers of first class wickets yet did little in tests, is he really going to be judged by history as inferior to Liam Plunkett? George Hirst didn't play as many times as Ashley Giles for England but who would you pick in a side? Stats are important in cricket but not the be all and end all. Is Tom Hayward less of a batsman than Paul Collingwood? It has to be something that's agreed by debate and which evolves through discussion, it can't be imposed by a bot like statistic test. The assessors group is the best forum for this debate, it's not something that can be automatically bestowed by automatic examination of the numbers. Nick mallory 08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The importance is not to do with how significant / prolific the player is, it's a measure of the importance of the article to Wikipedia / this project. You can't judge that with numbers. In fact, have you actually read that page? There are some good arguments against what you are suggesting! → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of triggering one more huge response, i think most of you missed my point. I have no dis-respect for the great men of the ol'. but can any of you justify as to how KAPIL DEV can be a mid-importance when even from even an encyclopedic content. that and the importance for a few other cricketers was the source of my original coment.
[11] - really? → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hatches on the edge of the square were pretty common on first class grounds a few years ago, often used for helmets. A club side I played for a couple of years ago had one as well. A bigger mystery is why Chanderpaul's taking a single off the first ball of an over when he's batting with the tail for the game? Nick mallory 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's hope Hoggard's fit, but if he's not I'm sure Richardson, Shreck or Silverwood would take more wickets than Anderson at Durham and bowl straighter too. Anderson was really quick and swung it miles when i first saw him for Lancashire against Somerset at Blackpool a few years ago but he's suffered so much from injuries and too much coaching and too little play. Strauss needs a hundred there or he's out, there's no way they're picking him for the one day stuff and if Shah or Bopara does well in the one days they'll take his place with Vaughn moving back up to open. Nick mallory 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so a month or so ago we had some discussion on changing the Lists of cricketers (see: here). We never came up with a proper answer as to how to do it, so I've gone and implemented it over at List of African XI ODI cricketers, complete with a fair bit of prose (especially considering they've only played 6 games). I was wondering if anyone had some final thoughts for changing these lists? I know one user had a real desire to remove the stats, but I personally strongly oppose such a move; and beyond that, it's just finalisation of the whole batting style/bowling style columns, and whether they should be replaced with "Speciality" or not. I'm thinking we should; it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a general style. I'm not even particularly familiar with some of the names on the African XI list and can instantly pick out all but 2 players where I could label them as either a batsman, bowler or all-rounder - I don't think it would be that NPOV-bait-ish. Of course there is the potential for vandalism, but I don't think it's so great that it's going be a real problem. Anyway, I'd like to take the list to FLC in the next few days pending your guys' thoughts & general approval, so thanks for any input people can give. AllynJ 19:38, 11 June 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
In the case of teams which have adopted official nicknames while retaining the continuous link with the original team, I think we should try our best to mention in each article when said nickname was actually adopted. It grates a little that, for example Bill Ponsford apparently played for the Victorian Bushrangers! Loganberry ( Talk) 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't comment on Australian cricket but it does seem to me that these articles are wrongly named if I presume to use an "English standard" (e.g., it would be utterly wrong to move Yorkshire CCC to Yorkshire Phoenix). Should Victoria have the old name or the new one? Is Ponsford spinning in his grave after being called a Bushranger!? -- BlackJack | talk page 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer a move to Victoria state cricket team or something along those lines. Victorian cricket team is a little vague. There are a number of Victorian cricket teams, both in Victoria, Australia but also in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Not to mention the numerous cricket teams from the Victorian era! Andrew nixon 09:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Good input by JPD above especially the point that these nicknames are now used in the Shield games as well as limited overs. I'm really not sure what we should do here. Looking at the oldest English counties we had to make a decision on how to cover their histories before the county clubs were officially formed. We decided to have two articles: e.g., Sussex county cricket teams up to 1839 and Sussex County Cricket Club from 1839 while Sussex Sharks is a mention in the club article (the Sharks is a limited overs entity only).
The Aussie scenario is not the same. I'm not even sure (can anyone help me on this, please?) if the state organisations are clubs as we understand them in England. I believe the Victoria team represents a Victorian state association of some kind rather than a "state club" like Sussex CCC. But if the Bushrangers is an official team name and is used in all forms of cricket then I would guess the article is named correctly after all, although we must be careful to make sure we pipe references correctly if referring to Victoria before 1990.
Would a set of redirects per team be a way around it? So, if I was writing about Bill Ponsford and said he played for the Victoria state cricket team, for example, it would redirect to the Bushrangers. -- BlackJack | talk page 09:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments were made at Peer review regarding the Kevin Pietersen article, that I said I'd raise here to generate more views.
As the infobox affects tons of articles, I was reluctant to change what I thought was 'policy' of "-" in the infobox, although by looking now at a selection of articles I see both forms (0 or -) are used quite a lot. As for the achievement section, I merely copied the format from Paul Collingwood the last contemporary player I can remember getting to FA. I assumed that if it was ok for one FA, it would be for another. Needless to say all of the records etc are mentioned in the full prose anyway.
I'd appreciate some feedback on these points, and another couple of peer reviews, perhaps from a cricketing POV would be good too.
Cheers, – MDCollins ( talk) 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Another related point is that 10 wickets in a match for ODIs always seems to be n/a in the infobox. It is actually possible though, right? So surely 0 is the correct entry.– MDCollins ( talk) 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi., since June is already under way, moved 2003 Cricket World Cup as CCOTM based on max. number of votes. Letz get started on it and i shall try and see if i can match efforts on both 2003 and 2007 to make them FA level at the same time. However, as the 2 articles stand as of now, it needs a lot of photos. Can someone who attended these events volunteer for some snaps. Kalyan 14:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Cricinfo, Foxsports and BBC news and so can someone please update the news in all the related article please?-- THUG CHILD z 11:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why on the cricket infoboxes is it 'not applicable' in the 10 wickets in a match - ODI box? Isn't possible to dismiss all ten batsman with one bowler in a One Day International match? I'm sure you're right I was just hoping someone could fill me in! :) SGGH speak! 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
( [3]) How many English captains would do that? -- Dweller 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Desperate is the word I'd have used. Unless water seeped under the covers and it's an old fashioned sticky wicket which he wants to bowl on before it dries out it looks like an attempt to change the story from 'Abject Somerset Batting Collapse' to 'Plucky Declaration Turns Tables at Lord's'. Steffan Jones had batted twenty minutes without scoring so there weren't many runs being added anyway. Compton and the Boy Wonder seem to be doing fine in response at the moment. Nick mallory 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/35/35822.html Tintin 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On a similar vein (rain-affected wickets) I recall a story about Len Hutton that he regarded his finest batting performance as being a low score made in the Windies on a Sticky dog. Anyone know what match that was? I think he spoke about lying in bed hearing the heavy rain on the corrugated iron roof, knowing he had to bat in the morning. Possibly in Guyana? -- Dweller 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one example of a side declaring to set a target of less than 200 and going on to win? That is remarkable.
The list mentioned mentions two occasions when a side has declared to set a target of less than 200 and lost - the 1934-5 West Indies/England match mentioned above, and the 5th Test during England's tour to South Africa in 1948-9. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Going back to the original game, Somerset conceded a first innings lead of 200 then lost both openers for 0 so a turnaround is looking unlikely. Nick mallory 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you all know that thanks to substantial work from Trebor and myself, Kevin Pietersen has been nominated for FA. Can some of you take a look and review it please?
Cheers, – MDCollins ( talk) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
i was reviewing the Sydney Riot of 1879 when i went to the profile of one of the officials involved and found to my surpise that an article citing WIKIPEDIA work was present there. Check for yourselves by clicking here - the reference to wikipedia is right at the bottom, in the biblography section. Didn't know if someone had noted it earlier. If it was noted and discussed earlier, apologies for bring it back again. Kalyan 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Trying to establish consensus for preferred article name. Please contribute at Talk:Sticky dog. Thanks. -- Dweller 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help our friend User:02blythed and me out with some of these cricketers? Particularly in aligning the prose and the box and putting them in a category? He's going faster than I can at the moment! Nick mallory 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doing the boxes, User:02blythed is! He's just asked me how to do the flag, I've told him but I think he'd appreciate a bit of help from one of you guys. Nick mallory 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello I understand about including the number of matches played by someone is a problem for a player that has not retired but I will record which players I have done infoboxes for who have not retired and update ever so often myself. I find the infoboxes you reconmend confusing and very long winded. People that use this site will probably only want to see there first class, List A record and international career and not nessasarily want to know there batting style for example and if they did then the source that I give will give them all that information. 02blythed 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Below are articles that I have created with infoboxes and if possible could someone write the prose for the articles as my english is not the best and I know I will only mess it up Thanks. 02blythed 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariful_Haque
User User Talk:Finngall has just deleted all of the articles that are just infoboxes before seeing the arrangment with this project and nick mallory in particular. I have written to his talk page outlining its notablity and the agrrement that prose will be written by other people. I am really angry because he has just deleted hours and hours of work. I would like to know people' view on this negative or positive. 02blythed 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Cricketers that I have created infobox and sentance for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikash_Sharma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplab_Sarkar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debashish_Barua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deen_Mohammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delwar_Hossain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhiman_Ghosh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dippajjal_Day
Thanks for your help 02blythed 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are more cricketers that I have created infoboxes and a sentance for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faizul_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhad_Hossain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_Hossain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fariduddin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazle_Mahmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Alamgir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Salahuddin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mabud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mawla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mortaza
Thanks 02blythed 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am reproducing feedback from non-cricket reviewer on Indian captains FLC - "I think it would be a bit more user friendly if the "Number Name Year Opposition Location Played Won Lost Drawn" row was inserted every 10 captains or so. Buc 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)". I invite reaction from this forum. Kalyan 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the article is to my mind inconsistent in its dealing with the ordering of won/lost/drawn and won/tied/lost. I would think that however you treat drawn (and I suggest that between won and lost works better for most English speakers) you should treat tied the same. Of course, I know draws and ties are not the same thing, but they're similar in that neither side won! -- Dweller 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I know technically they're very similar... so they should be treated similarly. Put them in the same order. W/DorT/L or W/L/DorT. When I last looked, you had W/L/D and W/T/L, which is inconsistent. -- Dweller 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Small question here, planning on making the T20 equivalent of List of African XI ODI cricketers, but I'm unsure of one thing: did today's match actually have T20 status? Cricket Archive is listing it as being "misc" and Cricinfo doesn't clarify, though it does say "Only T20" which would suggest it is; though it has yet to update the stats on its pages (see Loots Bosman, for instance). Thankee. AllynJ 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(Back to the left!) I never said they weren't official ODIs. Andrew nixon 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, what on earth is going on here? 1st ODI from 2 years ago. Note the comments at the bottom:
CricketArchive's scorecard of the game agrees. Seems as if Odoyo was listed as being in the squad even beyond Africa XI going in to bat; Odoyo was the next man in to bat after Boje, but Kemp came in instead. Kemp also went on to bowl. So Odoyo really *didn't* take any part in the match - or certainly didn't bat or bowl, he may have fielded.
I can't find any overall African XI stats on CricketArchive, but
Cricinfo says Odoyo has played in all 5 matches (including today's match), which is where the potential error lies. Odoyo, surely, should not have been given a cap for the first ODI - was he just a substitute fielder? If so, that shouldn't grant a cap, should it?
This occurs again in the 2nd ODI & 3rd ODIs of the same series: the
2nd ODI saying Tikolo did not bowl or field, but batted in place of one of the bowlers (Zondeki). Odoyo was involved in a similar incident again for the African XI in the
3rd ODI, having fielded and (presumably) he would have bowled had the match not been rained out, but he didn't bat.
This seems incredibly bizarre given that these matches had official ODI status... Is it simply a major oversight on the part of all those reporting on it? Or was there some bizarre change in the rules, whilst not dropping ODI status? Anyone got any clue? Ta.
AllynJ
15:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
When there's conflicting stats etc, what should we go by? I'm bringing this up is because of the conflicting run rate of the '87 cwc - cricinfo vs cricketarchive. Yeah not much of a big deal but this will serve as a precedent for future conflicting stats.-- THUG CHILD z 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning in a footnote when a major source has incorrect data. Look at note 1 in Ravi Bopara or note 1 in Will Jefferson for examples of where I've done this. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting as you are talking about statistics. I have long held that Cricinfo is unreliable as a historical reference because it does not use the verified sources and there is a conspicuous lack of editing throughout its material, which contains some real howlers. I refuse to consult it. It seems from the above that it is equally inaccurate for statistics and that doesn't surprise me. CricketArchive is generally accurate except that it still has "first-class cricket" commencing in the year 1801 and needs to get its early cricket records in order. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Classic example. I decided to create poor old Mike Taylor (cricketer) who has been hanging around on the to-do page for weeks, it seems. As it happens, his twin is Derek Taylor (cricketer) and he had an article created recently with cricinfo references both in terms of stats and his place of birth. Cricinfo says the twins were born in South Africa when in fact they were born in Buckinghamshire. And the stats were inaccurate too. Absolute rubbish!
Can I please ask everyone NOT to use cricinfo as a source. It is utterly unreliable. For historical material, if you want to quote a reliable reference depending on the period, use Wisden or S&B or whatever from an existing historical article of the same period. -- BlackJack | talk page 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I shall simply refer everyone to the strange case of Kingsmill Key: according to Cricinfo's profile, he managed to play 368 first-class matches between 1882 and 1887. I know they played more games per season in those days, but this is a bit much! (In fact his last game was in 1909.) Loganberry ( Talk) 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#Cricket templates and stubs. I'm sure comments would be welcome there. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Geoffrey, Gavaskar, Greenidge? They're the names that usually get trotted out and yesterday it cropped up in conversation yet again.
Someone asked me who I would have in an all-time XI and that was easy to answer because I've maintained and updated a team for years and it's on my userpage here. So I scribbled it down in batting order and gave it to him. He agreed it's a formidable line-up but raised a few predictable alternatives.
Then he asked: "Is this in batting order or have you put the captain first?" "No, batting order." "Oh, well I think you should move him back into the middle and have a specialist opener to go in with Hobbs."
Specialist opener? Move him "back" into the middle?
I am constantly amazed that there are lots of people who know a lot about cricket but who nevertheless assume that because WG was an all-rounder he must have batted at number six or thereabouts like Gary Sobers did. Does anyone seriously believe that WG would ever go in anywhere but first? He was always number one in any batting order and, as such, he was a specialist opener as well as a supreme all-rounder. Indeed, he was the greatest opener just as he was the greatest cricketer, especially when you consider the state of the pitches he had to bat on. -- BlackJack | talk page 07:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Hobbs and Grace are the obvious openers. I'm amazed that Steve "anything for a not out" Waugh is at number 5 in your world XI though blackjack. Ahead of Graeme Pollock or Viv Richards, Barry Richards or Victor Trumper? Denis Compton, Wally Hammond or Peter May? And does Sir Geoffrey know he's not in your all time Yorkshire team? Nick mallory 08:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
These discussions are always fun, and of course, riddled with particularism and subjectivity. I was delighted to see Sydney Barnes in your all-time England XI, Blackjack. I've always loved this character for his nonconformity, if nothing else. -- Dweller 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Pieterson has received FA status. Congrats to MDCollins for his work on the article. Kalyan 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I went through the Importance scale section and it is very vague on the assessment for player bios. How do we assign importance wrt players. i am hoping we can have a discussion on the topic. If i take a stab at measurable parameters
This can just be guideline and exceptions can de discussed in the group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimalkalyan ( talk • contribs)
You can't judge someone;s importance and standing in the game just on the numbers. Victor Trumper and Learie Constantineare all time greats in anyone's book yet the aggregate numbers suggest they'd be inferior to many players today, simply because they played fewer tests in different times. Looking at England for an example, Tich Freeman took incredible numbers of first class wickets yet did little in tests, is he really going to be judged by history as inferior to Liam Plunkett? George Hirst didn't play as many times as Ashley Giles for England but who would you pick in a side? Stats are important in cricket but not the be all and end all. Is Tom Hayward less of a batsman than Paul Collingwood? It has to be something that's agreed by debate and which evolves through discussion, it can't be imposed by a bot like statistic test. The assessors group is the best forum for this debate, it's not something that can be automatically bestowed by automatic examination of the numbers. Nick mallory 08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The importance is not to do with how significant / prolific the player is, it's a measure of the importance of the article to Wikipedia / this project. You can't judge that with numbers. In fact, have you actually read that page? There are some good arguments against what you are suggesting! → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of triggering one more huge response, i think most of you missed my point. I have no dis-respect for the great men of the ol'. but can any of you justify as to how KAPIL DEV can be a mid-importance when even from even an encyclopedic content. that and the importance for a few other cricketers was the source of my original coment.
[11] - really? → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hatches on the edge of the square were pretty common on first class grounds a few years ago, often used for helmets. A club side I played for a couple of years ago had one as well. A bigger mystery is why Chanderpaul's taking a single off the first ball of an over when he's batting with the tail for the game? Nick mallory 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's hope Hoggard's fit, but if he's not I'm sure Richardson, Shreck or Silverwood would take more wickets than Anderson at Durham and bowl straighter too. Anderson was really quick and swung it miles when i first saw him for Lancashire against Somerset at Blackpool a few years ago but he's suffered so much from injuries and too much coaching and too little play. Strauss needs a hundred there or he's out, there's no way they're picking him for the one day stuff and if Shah or Bopara does well in the one days they'll take his place with Vaughn moving back up to open. Nick mallory 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so a month or so ago we had some discussion on changing the Lists of cricketers (see: here). We never came up with a proper answer as to how to do it, so I've gone and implemented it over at List of African XI ODI cricketers, complete with a fair bit of prose (especially considering they've only played 6 games). I was wondering if anyone had some final thoughts for changing these lists? I know one user had a real desire to remove the stats, but I personally strongly oppose such a move; and beyond that, it's just finalisation of the whole batting style/bowling style columns, and whether they should be replaced with "Speciality" or not. I'm thinking we should; it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a general style. I'm not even particularly familiar with some of the names on the African XI list and can instantly pick out all but 2 players where I could label them as either a batsman, bowler or all-rounder - I don't think it would be that NPOV-bait-ish. Of course there is the potential for vandalism, but I don't think it's so great that it's going be a real problem. Anyway, I'd like to take the list to FLC in the next few days pending your guys' thoughts & general approval, so thanks for any input people can give. AllynJ 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)