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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Shouldn't this have a field for the names of a ground's ends? That seems likely to be of more general interest than the (extant) field for stand names. Loganberry ( Talk) 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There are currently quite a few different types of cricket series templates that are in use around Wikipedia. For instance see:
Although the need to rationalise the template styles in not urgent, it is surely something that should be done in the future to make pages more appealing and for consistency sake, both of which I find rather important. In this regard I propose the following two templates to start off. They are heavily based on a former version of mine of the current two templates used on the first two pages listed above:
It could even be suggested that these two templates could be merged but perhaps to make things easier with the subtle field variable differences they should be left apart. I suggest that the top bars are colour coded according to whether the Wikipedia page is describing a tournment in general or a specific tournament. Perhaps a similar-styled template could be designed to be used for pages similar to the bottom two pages I listed, although we may choose to leave things as they are now. What are everyone's thoughts on the proposal? mdmanser 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that he made his county debut today, so I've celebrated by creating an article. No, not that Robbie Williams! this one.
I can imagine the headlines success and failure may bring him... "SWING GETS MIDDLESEX WINNING" "LET ME ENTERTAIN YOU!" / "TAKE THAT!" "MIDDLESEX NEED INTENSIVE CARE" or even some compilations, "WILLIAMS ESCAPOLOGY AFTER MIDDX DO SOMETHIN STUPID" -- Dweller 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done Robbie. 5-112 in his first innings in county cricket. Not bad for a " fat dancer from Take That". -- Dweller 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Blackjack's actions at Citizendium remind me that eventually, probably soon, someone will bring Cricket to FAR and it will fail. The article is beautiful, pretty accurate, well-written... and largely unsourced. If ever there were a project we should work on collaboratively, it's making this article worthy of its Featured star.
I propose - we leave all images, structure and insignificant copy issues and concentrate on adding cn tags where cites are needed and then replace them with references, or delete the unreferencable material.
Who's willing to help? -- Dweller 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
From TRM's talk page:
Sign here please:
Thanks guys. I now need to look into how to copy the content and history to my userspace. Watch *this* space. -- Dweller 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This may be a long shot, but while writing Maurice Foster (English cricketer) a couple of questions occurred to me, and it may just be that someone knows the answer. Firstly, the CricketArchive scorecard mentions that the game was played in support of the "Our Day" Fund. What was this? Given the date, some sort of wartime connection seems likely, but that's a guess. And secondly, how many first-class games have there been when two bowlers have bowled unchanged throughout three (or four) innings? Loganberry ( Talk) 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I happened to be over at Citizendium, where I noticed that he has just joined and created an article on cricket (sport) only yesterday. I hope he is not gone forever. -- !! ?? 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't do other than wish him well at Citizendium. I'm gutted he's gone. My favourite only Belligerent Gnome. --
Dweller 11:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes an international tour? Recently, I've been looking into the Bangladesh national team matches/series archives on Cricinfo and Cricket archive and a few incidents come to mind.
1. Bangladesh's inaugural Test match against India in season 2000-2001
(1)
This is of importance and has been given a Wikipage, but the series only consisted of one Test match, not any ODIs or tour matches.
2. Pakistan's solitary ODI against Bangladesh in Dhaka in season 1998-99 the day after Pakistan had won the 1998-99 Asian Test Championship at the same place.
This ODI was hastily organised and is generally overlooked. If this event were to be included, would this merit an individual page as a series between Bangladesh and Pakistan, or as a footnote to the Asian Test Championship page? Would the ODI constitute a Pakistan tour of Bangladesh on its own or would the tour include the Asian Test Championship match?
And another thing, what is the wikipedia/encyclopedic definition of an international tour? Would I be correct to say that it is an official team visiting another single country and play its official team? My query arises from the points mentioned as well as finding that a Bangladesh team played Scotland and Ireland in 1998 although on the Cricket Archive page, the Bangladesh team is referred to as Bangladeshis, whilst Scotland and Ireland remain as they are (I assume the British Isles teams were regarded as official).
I think I've bored you with enough for now. -- Madbassist 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Did not expect this much response from my vague questions! Been doing some research on Bangladesh cricket recently (yes, I am unemployed) and compiling a potentially huge database of series and players and relevant sources. For a nation that became independent in 1971 and an ICC associate member in the late 70s, the Tigers have played a LOT of cricket. SAARC Quadrangular Series, ACC trophies, Omar Kureishi XI touring - they really ought to be a force by now! Anyway, I plan on a thorough rewrite of a few Bangladeshi cricket page. Madbassist 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this notable? Probably best merged into Professional Cricketers' Association. Advice please. — Moondyne 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
...but a small milestone has been reached. Every one of the 107 Worcestershire players who made their first-class debuts for the county before the First World War now has some sort of article. Of course I didn't write all of them, and a number will need improvement and/or tidying up in the "next round" of editing, but it's quite nice to have got this far. Lots more work yet to be done, of course! Loganberry ( Talk) 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I take it you are a Worcestershire fan and as such I thank you for losing so magnanimously to Sussex a day or so ago to give us our third title in five seasons! No, seriously, I've been looking through some of the Worcestershire player articles and they are very good with their emphasis on the glories of Fostershire. Well done.
I suppose I should do the same with Sussex. All Sussex players from Waymark to Fry. Erm, ah, well.... -- Fiddlers Three 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Scores of 196 and 130* against Lancashire mean that he finishes the season with 2,026 first-class runs at 101.30, and ten centuries. I believe this makes him the only player to average over 100 in two successive English seasons. Bradman did it in 1938, 1938-39 and 1939-40, but he only played seven innings in 1938-39 and some record lists require eight. Apart from the Don, though, I can't think of anyone else who's achieved the feat. Loganberry ( Talk) 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It'll be a good quiz question in future years, name the England batsman who averaged over one hundred two seasons running but wasn't picked for the test team. By the way is this Kamal_Akmal just a spelling mistake which needs getting rid of? It's Kamran Akmal isn't it? Sometimes Pakistani players names go through some changes but I've never heard their keeper called Kamal before Nick mallory 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sir Geoffrey did it twice but not in successive seasons. Did the Don not do it twice in England? -- Fiddlers Three 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
How common is this abbreviation? It's the equivalent of One Day Internationals being refered to as ODI's so with the categories should we change "Category:English Twenty20 International cricketers" to "Category:English T20I cricketers"? Crickettragic 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem rapidly to be becoming our "institutional complainer" on this subject, so I shall now annoy everyone by having another whinge! I think we have potentially quite a serious problem with the very low level of referencing on some of our articles. I'm not, this time, talking about things like scorecards which are (usually) uncontroversial and can be found easily enough via CricketArchive as long as a link to the player's stats page or similar is given; I'm referring to specific and significant items of non-statistical information that our readers are being asked to take on trust.
Tonight, as an experiment, I used a random number generator to choose half a dozen chosen biography articles dealing with English Test cricketers. I chose English Test cricketers for this "test" because they're probably what will get the most interest on an English-language encyclopedia like ours. If a player's page was a minimal stub with nothing beyond the barest of stats (eg Roger Prideaux) I "rolled the dice" again. This is what I saw...
Anyway, you get the point. Should anyone decide to go on a "challenging unverifiable information" drive, a lot of our cricket-related content could be at risk. Mitchell's article is clearly the most vulnerable of the six I list above, but lots of the bios have "verifiability holes". Inline referencing is badly lacking in most articles, but having some sort of reference should be the priority.
It's not just players' pages, either: I noticed while doing the above research that Wisden Cricket Monthly is totally unreferenced even though it was created in March 2005. Defunct the magazine may now be, but it deserves better than that. My own view, which may be unpopular, is that if we haven't got a solid reference to cite for "Molesworth was a moody, often withdrawn figure" then we shouldn't mention that at all in an article until and unless we find one. Loganberry ( Talk) 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you at all. Articles should be improved wherever possible and obviously statements should be sourced but this is going to happen naturally and gradually. A drive to go through every cricket article to source every statement by next week isn't going to happen. Nick mallory 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As the name of the section implies, the T20 page has a list of every international. It also has a sentence, "The next scheduled match is..." which currently says the Ind vs Pak final. The section is bound to expand and I don't see an equivalent on the One-day cricket and Test cricket pages obviously. I therefore suggest that it should go to another page or be deleted altogether. What are other people's thoughts on this? Gizza Discuss © 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It just needs to be copied into a new article entitled "List of Men's Twenty20 International games". Crickettragic 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Gul sent one down to Dhoni in the Twenty20 final today. Is it just my imagination, or are beamers becoming more common in international cricket than they used to be? And if so, is it possible to find a source to quote in the (currently entirely unsourced) Beamer (cricket) article about it? Loganberry ( Talk) 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone else getting "HTTP 500 Internal Server Error" when they attempt to access their Watchlist? I'm feeling rather bereft not being able to access mine. JH ( talk page) 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering whether we could get a consensus on who should be included in the current squad section of international team pages. There's a wide mix at the moment. India and Pakistan seem to have the best format, listing pretty much every player that's played for them lately. New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies have lists with seemingly vague criteria, Sri Lanka doesn't have one at all, England merely lists the most recent ODI squad, Australia shows a load of contracted players.
May I suggest we take a similar approach to the one taken with football articles and list all the players who have played (rather than called-up, as with football) for the team in the last year. Or perhaps extend to 18 months, seeing as some players won't play for six months in the off-season. Renaming the section "Current players" would probably be in order too.
Incidentally, this should include Twenty20 players - whilst this may mean including a few players who wouldn't otherwise come near the international side, it's taken seriously these days. Maybe a field to a table could be included saying "forms played in".
Which brings me to the next point, the way they're formatted. The tables used for India and Pakistan are good, I think it'd be good to see them implemented across the board.
So yeah, thoughts? Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. HornetMike 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
He's back again adding that ridiculous 'no free image' thing on cricketers pages eg Jimmy Adams. I thought he agreed to stop? Crickettragic 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted Jimmy Adams and Neil Adcock. I suggest we should feel free to revert any others that have been done. This is a user who is convinced he knows better, despite previous discussions on the subject. Other people are also objecting now on his talk page. Johnlp 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the tour article redirects to Bodyline, which is a FA. If the Bodyline article is supposed to describe the tour, rather than just the tactical theory and politics, then I think it would clearly fail FARC, since the article doesn't discuss the actual results and thus would fail the comprehensiveness criteria. So, should the series be un-redirected into a cricket results type article? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted an edit dumping a large amount of copied and pasted text from the Cricinfo article. It was copied from this this site. As the site seems to be licenced under this licence, I am not sure if it is a copyright violation but at the least, it does not appear that the original authors have been credited for their work. Those with more experience with copyleft licencing may be able to make more sense of that than me.
Also, even if this meets Wikipedia's licencing requirements, in its existing form the material is unencyclopaedic, not written in an appropriate tone or adequately referenced. The history of Cricinfo would be fascinating and well worth including in the article but not in this form. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to move "Twenty20" to "Twenty20 cricket". Because the latter page already exists this would require an administrator and would be awkward to change back if i've made an error. So i thought i would canvass views to assert this is the correct thing to do. Operating 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello cricket folks
I've just declined a speedy delete request for 1970-71 West Indian cricket season. It does qualify under db-blank, but I'd rather bring it here in the hope that someone on this project could expand it just a tad to bring it out of the danger zone. Thanks. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems that someone thinks that I'm Cayman Islands player Ryan Ebanks. See the talk page of his article. Andrew nixon 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this discussion for details.
I've decided to merge the "bare stub" season and tour articles into period histories by country but leaving as individual articles any that have been developed to a reasonable extent. I've started with Pakistan and you can see what I'm up to if you look at History of cricket in Pakistan to 1970. I'll follow this with Pakistan cricket from 1971 and then move onto the other countries.
I think England is the only country for which we should keep individual articles about every season and tour because it has had a lot of work done while the rest simply haven't taken off. When all this merging and rewriting is done, I'll propose that all the bare stubs encompassed by the new articles are speedy deleted as db-blank and db-author.
If anyone has any suggestions or if you can help with the mergers, please let me know. -- BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that several of you have been discussing my work on Citizendium (CZ). Thanks for the kind wishes that were expressed and I'm sure Dweller will be delighted to see that his Fighting Elf is back!
CZ is an interesting concept and certainly a huge challenge as a cricket project there must start from scratch. I created an introduction to cricket, began a glossary and did a very high-level history. All of this was useful in getting to grips with the site and comparing it with WP.
I wrote to Larry Sanger earlier today to give him my feedback, FWIW, of CZ and this is what I have concluded:
Larry's reply was:
He may well be right about subpages once they have got the design right but I think their approach to categories is misguided and they should base categories on subject as WP does. I take his point that it is not "experts only" but I suppose using your real name must be offputting for some people, though to me it doesn't matter at all.
I think WP can learn one thing and that is to restrict edits to people with registered usernames that have been confirmed via e-mail. That would solve vandalism overnight.
So that's that. I will look in on CZ occasionally and keep the pot boiling but I have decided to come back to WP too and see what can be done with all these wearisome season and tour articles. I see another one nearly got deleted only today. Groan! -- BlackJack | talk page 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The article on this recently deceased cricketer has {{ POV}} and {{ refimprove}} templates. I have added some good sources (obituaries; Cricinfo profile), expanded it significantly, and removed some of the more value-laden statements. I'd be grateful iif someone could let me know if these templates can now be removed, or what further needs to be done. Thanks. -- !! ?? 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've hit a little problem here. Cricket Archive implies we should sort the names of Atif Malik, Iqbal Siddiqi, Naveed Abdul in forename surname order, but a user who reversed this name order disagrees.
What order should we put them in? Bobo . 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just got page to GA and hoping to make a push for A-class. Eventually want this to reach FA. I have already put it on peer review but thought I could get more useful comments here. Monsta666 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A poor impression I have formed of the WP cricket project is that many articles, particularly in the history categories, have what I might term "default sources". It often seems that the sources or bibliography section has been populated with titles that might contain relevant information rather than those actually used to obtain information.
That's one aspect of it but I am more concerned about the repeated use of sources that lack real authority. One that appears time and time again is a book called the Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records by P Wynne-Thomas of the ACS. This book is a lightweight collection of statistical trivia that might be useful to a casual fan but is not the sort of thing we should be using as a reference source for what are, after all, supposed to be serious articles with an academic goal. Why, for example, when Wisden and Playfair are quoted as sources for an article about an English season, do we also have this thing that tells us nothing but who won the title, who topped the averages and a potted summary of the season's Test matches? It won't do.
We must have sources that provide both comprehensive coverage of the article's subject and an in-depth analysis too; ideally we should also be looking for something that provides an original view or theory. You don't get that from Mr Wynne-Thomas whose history of cricket From the Weald to the World is another oft-quoted lightweight offering that is really just a high-level overview of the subject. But what do you expect from the ACS, a group that has been lambasted by Wisden for trying to rewrite history and produces in its own journal such meaty topics as Cricketer-Footballers who have Represented Watford FC and Played First-Class Cricket!?
I also think that if Wisden and Playfair are quoted, the year of the publication must be given. Obviously, the sources for 1968 English cricket season are Playfair Cricket Annual 1969 and Wisden Cricketers Almanack 1969, not Playfair Cricket Annual and Wisden Cricketers Almanack (annual)!
Another point is that we should use "Sources" or "Bibliography" as the section header because "References" is for citations.
Well, that's what I think, anyway. -- Fiddlers Three 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you are confusing "references" and "further reading" a bit. If Mr Wynne-Thomas writes a reliable source that supports a point in the article, that's fine as a reference. Comprehensive coverage of the article's subject and an in-depth analysis too is more a criteria for the further reading section. As for the section headings, from WP:REF#Further reading/External links: All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links" [or "Bibliography"]. And anyway, if you are using sources, you should be citing them - specific facts in the article to specific pages in the book - rather than just noting that you looked at the book at the end of the article. All very much an ideal world thing, of couse. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
See this :-)
I think the robot got it slightly wrong, there. -- BlackJack | talk page 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is really in need of help, it's certainly nowhere near FA any more and I don't think the Project should allow it to slip away in a WP:FAR... All hands to the pumps... The Rambling Man 07:16, 11 October 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Shouldn't this have a field for the names of a ground's ends? That seems likely to be of more general interest than the (extant) field for stand names. Loganberry ( Talk) 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There are currently quite a few different types of cricket series templates that are in use around Wikipedia. For instance see:
Although the need to rationalise the template styles in not urgent, it is surely something that should be done in the future to make pages more appealing and for consistency sake, both of which I find rather important. In this regard I propose the following two templates to start off. They are heavily based on a former version of mine of the current two templates used on the first two pages listed above:
It could even be suggested that these two templates could be merged but perhaps to make things easier with the subtle field variable differences they should be left apart. I suggest that the top bars are colour coded according to whether the Wikipedia page is describing a tournment in general or a specific tournament. Perhaps a similar-styled template could be designed to be used for pages similar to the bottom two pages I listed, although we may choose to leave things as they are now. What are everyone's thoughts on the proposal? mdmanser 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that he made his county debut today, so I've celebrated by creating an article. No, not that Robbie Williams! this one.
I can imagine the headlines success and failure may bring him... "SWING GETS MIDDLESEX WINNING" "LET ME ENTERTAIN YOU!" / "TAKE THAT!" "MIDDLESEX NEED INTENSIVE CARE" or even some compilations, "WILLIAMS ESCAPOLOGY AFTER MIDDX DO SOMETHIN STUPID" -- Dweller 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done Robbie. 5-112 in his first innings in county cricket. Not bad for a " fat dancer from Take That". -- Dweller 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Blackjack's actions at Citizendium remind me that eventually, probably soon, someone will bring Cricket to FAR and it will fail. The article is beautiful, pretty accurate, well-written... and largely unsourced. If ever there were a project we should work on collaboratively, it's making this article worthy of its Featured star.
I propose - we leave all images, structure and insignificant copy issues and concentrate on adding cn tags where cites are needed and then replace them with references, or delete the unreferencable material.
Who's willing to help? -- Dweller 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
From TRM's talk page:
Sign here please:
Thanks guys. I now need to look into how to copy the content and history to my userspace. Watch *this* space. -- Dweller 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This may be a long shot, but while writing Maurice Foster (English cricketer) a couple of questions occurred to me, and it may just be that someone knows the answer. Firstly, the CricketArchive scorecard mentions that the game was played in support of the "Our Day" Fund. What was this? Given the date, some sort of wartime connection seems likely, but that's a guess. And secondly, how many first-class games have there been when two bowlers have bowled unchanged throughout three (or four) innings? Loganberry ( Talk) 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I happened to be over at Citizendium, where I noticed that he has just joined and created an article on cricket (sport) only yesterday. I hope he is not gone forever. -- !! ?? 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't do other than wish him well at Citizendium. I'm gutted he's gone. My favourite only Belligerent Gnome. --
Dweller 11:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes an international tour? Recently, I've been looking into the Bangladesh national team matches/series archives on Cricinfo and Cricket archive and a few incidents come to mind.
1. Bangladesh's inaugural Test match against India in season 2000-2001
(1)
This is of importance and has been given a Wikipage, but the series only consisted of one Test match, not any ODIs or tour matches.
2. Pakistan's solitary ODI against Bangladesh in Dhaka in season 1998-99 the day after Pakistan had won the 1998-99 Asian Test Championship at the same place.
This ODI was hastily organised and is generally overlooked. If this event were to be included, would this merit an individual page as a series between Bangladesh and Pakistan, or as a footnote to the Asian Test Championship page? Would the ODI constitute a Pakistan tour of Bangladesh on its own or would the tour include the Asian Test Championship match?
And another thing, what is the wikipedia/encyclopedic definition of an international tour? Would I be correct to say that it is an official team visiting another single country and play its official team? My query arises from the points mentioned as well as finding that a Bangladesh team played Scotland and Ireland in 1998 although on the Cricket Archive page, the Bangladesh team is referred to as Bangladeshis, whilst Scotland and Ireland remain as they are (I assume the British Isles teams were regarded as official).
I think I've bored you with enough for now. -- Madbassist 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Did not expect this much response from my vague questions! Been doing some research on Bangladesh cricket recently (yes, I am unemployed) and compiling a potentially huge database of series and players and relevant sources. For a nation that became independent in 1971 and an ICC associate member in the late 70s, the Tigers have played a LOT of cricket. SAARC Quadrangular Series, ACC trophies, Omar Kureishi XI touring - they really ought to be a force by now! Anyway, I plan on a thorough rewrite of a few Bangladeshi cricket page. Madbassist 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this notable? Probably best merged into Professional Cricketers' Association. Advice please. — Moondyne 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
...but a small milestone has been reached. Every one of the 107 Worcestershire players who made their first-class debuts for the county before the First World War now has some sort of article. Of course I didn't write all of them, and a number will need improvement and/or tidying up in the "next round" of editing, but it's quite nice to have got this far. Lots more work yet to be done, of course! Loganberry ( Talk) 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I take it you are a Worcestershire fan and as such I thank you for losing so magnanimously to Sussex a day or so ago to give us our third title in five seasons! No, seriously, I've been looking through some of the Worcestershire player articles and they are very good with their emphasis on the glories of Fostershire. Well done.
I suppose I should do the same with Sussex. All Sussex players from Waymark to Fry. Erm, ah, well.... -- Fiddlers Three 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Scores of 196 and 130* against Lancashire mean that he finishes the season with 2,026 first-class runs at 101.30, and ten centuries. I believe this makes him the only player to average over 100 in two successive English seasons. Bradman did it in 1938, 1938-39 and 1939-40, but he only played seven innings in 1938-39 and some record lists require eight. Apart from the Don, though, I can't think of anyone else who's achieved the feat. Loganberry ( Talk) 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It'll be a good quiz question in future years, name the England batsman who averaged over one hundred two seasons running but wasn't picked for the test team. By the way is this Kamal_Akmal just a spelling mistake which needs getting rid of? It's Kamran Akmal isn't it? Sometimes Pakistani players names go through some changes but I've never heard their keeper called Kamal before Nick mallory 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sir Geoffrey did it twice but not in successive seasons. Did the Don not do it twice in England? -- Fiddlers Three 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
How common is this abbreviation? It's the equivalent of One Day Internationals being refered to as ODI's so with the categories should we change "Category:English Twenty20 International cricketers" to "Category:English T20I cricketers"? Crickettragic 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem rapidly to be becoming our "institutional complainer" on this subject, so I shall now annoy everyone by having another whinge! I think we have potentially quite a serious problem with the very low level of referencing on some of our articles. I'm not, this time, talking about things like scorecards which are (usually) uncontroversial and can be found easily enough via CricketArchive as long as a link to the player's stats page or similar is given; I'm referring to specific and significant items of non-statistical information that our readers are being asked to take on trust.
Tonight, as an experiment, I used a random number generator to choose half a dozen chosen biography articles dealing with English Test cricketers. I chose English Test cricketers for this "test" because they're probably what will get the most interest on an English-language encyclopedia like ours. If a player's page was a minimal stub with nothing beyond the barest of stats (eg Roger Prideaux) I "rolled the dice" again. This is what I saw...
Anyway, you get the point. Should anyone decide to go on a "challenging unverifiable information" drive, a lot of our cricket-related content could be at risk. Mitchell's article is clearly the most vulnerable of the six I list above, but lots of the bios have "verifiability holes". Inline referencing is badly lacking in most articles, but having some sort of reference should be the priority.
It's not just players' pages, either: I noticed while doing the above research that Wisden Cricket Monthly is totally unreferenced even though it was created in March 2005. Defunct the magazine may now be, but it deserves better than that. My own view, which may be unpopular, is that if we haven't got a solid reference to cite for "Molesworth was a moody, often withdrawn figure" then we shouldn't mention that at all in an article until and unless we find one. Loganberry ( Talk) 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you at all. Articles should be improved wherever possible and obviously statements should be sourced but this is going to happen naturally and gradually. A drive to go through every cricket article to source every statement by next week isn't going to happen. Nick mallory 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As the name of the section implies, the T20 page has a list of every international. It also has a sentence, "The next scheduled match is..." which currently says the Ind vs Pak final. The section is bound to expand and I don't see an equivalent on the One-day cricket and Test cricket pages obviously. I therefore suggest that it should go to another page or be deleted altogether. What are other people's thoughts on this? Gizza Discuss © 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It just needs to be copied into a new article entitled "List of Men's Twenty20 International games". Crickettragic 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Gul sent one down to Dhoni in the Twenty20 final today. Is it just my imagination, or are beamers becoming more common in international cricket than they used to be? And if so, is it possible to find a source to quote in the (currently entirely unsourced) Beamer (cricket) article about it? Loganberry ( Talk) 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone else getting "HTTP 500 Internal Server Error" when they attempt to access their Watchlist? I'm feeling rather bereft not being able to access mine. JH ( talk page) 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering whether we could get a consensus on who should be included in the current squad section of international team pages. There's a wide mix at the moment. India and Pakistan seem to have the best format, listing pretty much every player that's played for them lately. New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies have lists with seemingly vague criteria, Sri Lanka doesn't have one at all, England merely lists the most recent ODI squad, Australia shows a load of contracted players.
May I suggest we take a similar approach to the one taken with football articles and list all the players who have played (rather than called-up, as with football) for the team in the last year. Or perhaps extend to 18 months, seeing as some players won't play for six months in the off-season. Renaming the section "Current players" would probably be in order too.
Incidentally, this should include Twenty20 players - whilst this may mean including a few players who wouldn't otherwise come near the international side, it's taken seriously these days. Maybe a field to a table could be included saying "forms played in".
Which brings me to the next point, the way they're formatted. The tables used for India and Pakistan are good, I think it'd be good to see them implemented across the board.
So yeah, thoughts? Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. HornetMike 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
He's back again adding that ridiculous 'no free image' thing on cricketers pages eg Jimmy Adams. I thought he agreed to stop? Crickettragic 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted Jimmy Adams and Neil Adcock. I suggest we should feel free to revert any others that have been done. This is a user who is convinced he knows better, despite previous discussions on the subject. Other people are also objecting now on his talk page. Johnlp 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the tour article redirects to Bodyline, which is a FA. If the Bodyline article is supposed to describe the tour, rather than just the tactical theory and politics, then I think it would clearly fail FARC, since the article doesn't discuss the actual results and thus would fail the comprehensiveness criteria. So, should the series be un-redirected into a cricket results type article? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted an edit dumping a large amount of copied and pasted text from the Cricinfo article. It was copied from this this site. As the site seems to be licenced under this licence, I am not sure if it is a copyright violation but at the least, it does not appear that the original authors have been credited for their work. Those with more experience with copyleft licencing may be able to make more sense of that than me.
Also, even if this meets Wikipedia's licencing requirements, in its existing form the material is unencyclopaedic, not written in an appropriate tone or adequately referenced. The history of Cricinfo would be fascinating and well worth including in the article but not in this form. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to move "Twenty20" to "Twenty20 cricket". Because the latter page already exists this would require an administrator and would be awkward to change back if i've made an error. So i thought i would canvass views to assert this is the correct thing to do. Operating 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello cricket folks
I've just declined a speedy delete request for 1970-71 West Indian cricket season. It does qualify under db-blank, but I'd rather bring it here in the hope that someone on this project could expand it just a tad to bring it out of the danger zone. Thanks. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems that someone thinks that I'm Cayman Islands player Ryan Ebanks. See the talk page of his article. Andrew nixon 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this discussion for details.
I've decided to merge the "bare stub" season and tour articles into period histories by country but leaving as individual articles any that have been developed to a reasonable extent. I've started with Pakistan and you can see what I'm up to if you look at History of cricket in Pakistan to 1970. I'll follow this with Pakistan cricket from 1971 and then move onto the other countries.
I think England is the only country for which we should keep individual articles about every season and tour because it has had a lot of work done while the rest simply haven't taken off. When all this merging and rewriting is done, I'll propose that all the bare stubs encompassed by the new articles are speedy deleted as db-blank and db-author.
If anyone has any suggestions or if you can help with the mergers, please let me know. -- BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that several of you have been discussing my work on Citizendium (CZ). Thanks for the kind wishes that were expressed and I'm sure Dweller will be delighted to see that his Fighting Elf is back!
CZ is an interesting concept and certainly a huge challenge as a cricket project there must start from scratch. I created an introduction to cricket, began a glossary and did a very high-level history. All of this was useful in getting to grips with the site and comparing it with WP.
I wrote to Larry Sanger earlier today to give him my feedback, FWIW, of CZ and this is what I have concluded:
Larry's reply was:
He may well be right about subpages once they have got the design right but I think their approach to categories is misguided and they should base categories on subject as WP does. I take his point that it is not "experts only" but I suppose using your real name must be offputting for some people, though to me it doesn't matter at all.
I think WP can learn one thing and that is to restrict edits to people with registered usernames that have been confirmed via e-mail. That would solve vandalism overnight.
So that's that. I will look in on CZ occasionally and keep the pot boiling but I have decided to come back to WP too and see what can be done with all these wearisome season and tour articles. I see another one nearly got deleted only today. Groan! -- BlackJack | talk page 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The article on this recently deceased cricketer has {{ POV}} and {{ refimprove}} templates. I have added some good sources (obituaries; Cricinfo profile), expanded it significantly, and removed some of the more value-laden statements. I'd be grateful iif someone could let me know if these templates can now be removed, or what further needs to be done. Thanks. -- !! ?? 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've hit a little problem here. Cricket Archive implies we should sort the names of Atif Malik, Iqbal Siddiqi, Naveed Abdul in forename surname order, but a user who reversed this name order disagrees.
What order should we put them in? Bobo . 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just got page to GA and hoping to make a push for A-class. Eventually want this to reach FA. I have already put it on peer review but thought I could get more useful comments here. Monsta666 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A poor impression I have formed of the WP cricket project is that many articles, particularly in the history categories, have what I might term "default sources". It often seems that the sources or bibliography section has been populated with titles that might contain relevant information rather than those actually used to obtain information.
That's one aspect of it but I am more concerned about the repeated use of sources that lack real authority. One that appears time and time again is a book called the Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records by P Wynne-Thomas of the ACS. This book is a lightweight collection of statistical trivia that might be useful to a casual fan but is not the sort of thing we should be using as a reference source for what are, after all, supposed to be serious articles with an academic goal. Why, for example, when Wisden and Playfair are quoted as sources for an article about an English season, do we also have this thing that tells us nothing but who won the title, who topped the averages and a potted summary of the season's Test matches? It won't do.
We must have sources that provide both comprehensive coverage of the article's subject and an in-depth analysis too; ideally we should also be looking for something that provides an original view or theory. You don't get that from Mr Wynne-Thomas whose history of cricket From the Weald to the World is another oft-quoted lightweight offering that is really just a high-level overview of the subject. But what do you expect from the ACS, a group that has been lambasted by Wisden for trying to rewrite history and produces in its own journal such meaty topics as Cricketer-Footballers who have Represented Watford FC and Played First-Class Cricket!?
I also think that if Wisden and Playfair are quoted, the year of the publication must be given. Obviously, the sources for 1968 English cricket season are Playfair Cricket Annual 1969 and Wisden Cricketers Almanack 1969, not Playfair Cricket Annual and Wisden Cricketers Almanack (annual)!
Another point is that we should use "Sources" or "Bibliography" as the section header because "References" is for citations.
Well, that's what I think, anyway. -- Fiddlers Three 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you are confusing "references" and "further reading" a bit. If Mr Wynne-Thomas writes a reliable source that supports a point in the article, that's fine as a reference. Comprehensive coverage of the article's subject and an in-depth analysis too is more a criteria for the further reading section. As for the section headings, from WP:REF#Further reading/External links: All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links" [or "Bibliography"]. And anyway, if you are using sources, you should be citing them - specific facts in the article to specific pages in the book - rather than just noting that you looked at the book at the end of the article. All very much an ideal world thing, of couse. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
See this :-)
I think the robot got it slightly wrong, there. -- BlackJack | talk page 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is really in need of help, it's certainly nowhere near FA any more and I don't think the Project should allow it to slip away in a WP:FAR... All hands to the pumps... The Rambling Man 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)