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 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thinking of prodding David Bates (groundsman). I think he'd need to pass WP:BIO and I can't spot that he does. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Great Britain national cricket team? Do the three lions actually represent the Scottish Saltires? Woogee ( talk) 03:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Britain national cricket team. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What I think is the same person who created Great Britain national cricket team has also created this article: One day Internationals Teams. I'm not sure where to start with what is wrong with this article - it includes only 12 of the 22 teams to have played ODIs plus one team that doesn't actually exist, it gives one home ground for each of the 13, and two of the flags are completely wrong. AfD or speedy? Andrew nixon ( talk) 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Who he? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Stub created. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just thought I'd drop a note to say that there is a CFD discussion on renaming to Category:Canadian bowlers to reflect the fact that it refers to players of bowls, rather to cricketers. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13#Category:Canadian_bowlers.
That discussion is probably of no significance to this project, but it prompted me to do a search for other categories of bowlers, and I found only one for cricket bowlers: Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers.
The categories for players of bowls are in Category:Bowls players, and all follow that format. However, for the avoidance of ambiguity, it would be better to rename Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers to something more specific, such as Category:United Arab Emirati cricket bowlers. However, it's the only one of its sort, so should be kept or deleted? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we can all remember the debate about Basanta Regmi a few weeks ago, which had no consensus and was thus kept (much to my delight!). Well, these cricketers should be easier for us to make our minds up about on the issue of dubious notability, or as I see it none whatsoever. But still, don't want to go tagging for deletion without having a general consensus to do so.
The following cricketers all refer to the Finland and in my opinion fail WP:CRIC and WP:ATH.
AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep any who played in the European Champs. Who's left? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Date | Unreferenced BLPs | % done |
---|---|---|
24 Jan | 355 | 0% |
31 Jan | 301 | 15% |
7 Feb | 281 | 21% |
14 Feb | 242 | 32% |
21 Feb | 221 | 38% |
28 Feb | 147 | 59% |
7 Mar | 124 | 65% |
14 Mar | 59 | 83% |
One last push should finish these off this week! Harrias ( talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well done chaps. Sorry, I've not been helping much, but I mostly edit from a computer that can't access the cricket stats sites (in case you hadn't noticed) and the rump of articles that are left pretty much need that to work out / demonstrate notability. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Came across a bot that automatically updates a page with recognized content, and set us one up at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Recognized content. It's a manually run bot, so only runs about once a week at the moment, but it's definitely more reliable than us remembering to update stuff all the time! We can alter what is on there; at the moment I think I've put more or less everything, but we don't necessarily need to have all the DYKs for example. Harrias ( talk) 07:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have or know of any pictures we can use for Malcolm Marshalls article? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have grabbed this question (which had just become an ANI thread though IMO unnecessary) and put it to you. Should there be stricter criteria for "notable"? It has spawned from a discussion about a Bangladeshi player but it begs bigger questions. Do we have a guideline/consensus to stop such debates from arising? Please hop over to the talk page to give an opinion. Cheers SGGH ping! 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new article - List of Test Match Cricket Centuries at The Basin Reserve. I wasn't sure about the introduction so I just stole it from The Basin Reserve Page. Also I don't know how to add photos. Thoughts? Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed this at WP:DYK, and I'm pretty sure it fails WP:CRIN, but thought I'd check here for opinions before submitting it for deletion. Wilbrahams Cricket Club don't play in an ECB Premier League, and as far as I can tell don't have a particularly notable history. They are undoubtedly old, but I'm not sure that in itself is enough. My dad is old after all... Harrias ( talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
They're so non notable that they don't even have any scorecards on CricketArchive, and that has scorecards from some league's third XI competitions. So yeah, non notable. Andrew nixon ( talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
North out, Steve Smith in, please YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see IPL last year but has the advertising become even more incessant. They have an ad on the TV scorebaord in the middle of the over and the commentators shut up when the camera zooms into the board and the ad is played at full volume. Also they have more junk; in addition to the "DLF maximum" they also have a "??? time-out" and some other "??? catch". When are they going to say "Hero Honda hat-trick" and "Ford Fiesta Four" or something..... The relentless tele-spamming is really getting to me, not to mention spending all their time panning to celebs in the crowd, and the cheerleading commentary, saying that every play is top-class and ignoring full tosses. How did KKR manage to win two matches..... YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell you how pleased I am that I've never seen an IPL game. I don't know what it is about it, but it depresses me even more than the incessant rise of 20/20 and the dreadful mess that's become of West Indies and Zimbabwe in recent years. Although not as much as the Stanford aberration. Thank the stars that man was a crook, because he was killing cricket even as the cricket world hailed him for saving it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous, even the toss has a named sponsor now, and the captains were all praising 10 minutes of singing in the opening ceremony as earth-shattering etc. Just 20 guys jumping on a wooden board. The worst thing is the easy brainwashing by the corporate juggernaut. And it seems to have affected the random hapless Indian who doesn't normally follow cricket per Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Cricket:_IPL they are saying that IPL is better than the WC and should be on wiki's front page; half the players are Indian quota players and barely FC standard. Some of the Indian "pacers" in the IPL bowl and 110-115kph with 50% full tosses, wides, half-volleys, long hops etc; the Australian/NZ women bowl at 120kph with accurate yorkers when the T20 was on TV. Some R Sathish bowled about 3 consec 110 kph fullies and Y Pathan in that "amazing innings" off 100 from 37.... so many boundaries from full tosses.... McCabe, Harvey, Trumper, Hammond and Compton would have been no match for 110 kph fullies, no doubt about it lol. Hopefully this spam does not make it onto the front page of WP:ITN!!! YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay here it is; I don't think you guys here are a big fan of Indian Premier League. Tried to read your post and tried to understand your reasons behind it and the conclusion I've found that you guys haven't watched it carefully. IPL is not a spam or something crap. IPL is different form of game. I guess all you guys here haven't seen much of T20 cricket because the two biggest countries which started t20 Australia and England have their own domestic T20 tournaments. Even if IPL is called DLF IPL ( with the name of sponsor) Australian domestic T20 tournament is called KFC Twenty20 bash (with the name of sponsor). Why don't you have problem with that??? IPL is not spam its just cricket with more spices, even the hardcore fans of Cricket from all over the world have appreciated the concept of Indian Premier League.
The person who is calling T20 the killing of cricket is none but a pessimistic person as T20 is not killing the Test Cricket its only making the cricket more dynamic. T20 is a revolution and when some revolution happens many people can't digest it.
Now getting back to IPL; it is the only tournament that calls all the best players of world at one place and asks them to exchange talent. County does it but in different way. County is I admit more simple, easy to go through but more political as it lacks transparency but as long as it is serving Cricket it is the best Domestic Cricket. In the same way IPL is; in different form of game. After all where would you now see Adam Gilchrist and Mathew Hadden one of the best Opening duos playing against each other. IPL calls the players from all over the world with the consent of the national boards of countries. It is the best talent exchange as a newbie Yusuf Abdullah from SA would never get a chance to play with veteran Anil Kumble or Zaheer Khan would never get a chance to play under Jonty Rhodes. IPL is innovative, it is dynamic, I admit it has some showbiz but if you are a real cricket fan you can watch some of world's best cricketers performing their best. Nitish.game ( talk) 03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just created this: List of Test cricket centuries at The WACA Ground. I wrote some stuff on there myself this time so there may well be a few errors in it. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on the SCG at the moment, it's taking a lot longer! Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Here we go: List of International cricket centuries at The WACA Ground Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have changed it to make it sortable: List of international cricket centuries at The Basin Reserve. Do you think the team of the century scorer should go into a different column? The way it is at the moment you cannot sort by team. Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Great work Apples. The SCG list just goes to show how rapidly and ridiculously the conditions have been altered in favour of the batsmen, per the boom in centuries in the last 10 years. But the WACA and Basin Reserve have not for some reason.... But I think a list of the other Australian grounds will show a big boom as well YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have completly finished the SCG now. What is the deal with the new article template at the top, can it be removed by anyone? Also might it be a good idea to seperate the grounds into different countries in the template at the bottom? Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
and some other lists of articles need RC patrolling on RCs linked; with Jpeeling gone, vandalism is lasting long time on the weekends and British daytime YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Eyes might be needed. I'm getting the impression that many IPL/Modi supporters just see IPL as equivalent to one of those Asian weddings where being the most lavish etc etc counts the most in proving one's superiority YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Cricinfo said Invincibles were in 1948 and "Adelaide Now" and Deccan Herald, the sponsors of the Deccan Chargers have copied it in incorrectly YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In Template:Infobox cricketer biography, is it necessary to write the full form of 'Test cricket', 'One Day Internationals', 'First-class cricket', 'List A cricket', or abbreviations are ok like 'Test', 'ODI', 'FC', 'LA'. Some random IP user is making edits to some articles like Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and says that this is the proper British English writing forms and changing to full form. Need your views on this.-- Managerarc (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi - point him towards the template guidelines. As Spaceman says, as long as they are linked, the short form is to be used (in the statistics), and in actual fact is necessary otherwise the infobox has width issues. With the 4 column box, Test, ODI, FC, and List A works best (List A fits and as it is the less obvious one I tend to use it); For the 2-3 column version, the abbreviations are not always necessary. Claiming "british writing forms" is pretty stupid. Expanding the date ranges as in some of his edits to 2002, 2003, 2004 etc is just wrong.— MDCollins ( talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
George Blackmore, former cricketer for the Europeans and Kent, up for debate. His article is here, his AfD page is here, and his stats are here (CA) and here (CI).
Hope everyone is well. Bobo . 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/03/Category:Cricket players. – Moondyne 03:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if these are put together on a regional basis, random mixing up by selectors from year to year, or the palyers can just sign up wherever they want? Also of the women's counties, only Kent have an article YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Needs some help from you guys, I reckon. I forget why it is on my watchlist. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely minor but have you seen this re its alternate name? ---- Jack | talk page 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The above case of George Blackmore has raised a few interesting points. The main one is that WP:CRIN may need to be revised, even though most of it was written by me. On reflection, I have to ask what exactly is " notable" about someone who played a handful of first-class matches? What exactly is notable about anyone who ever played in limited overs, especially the Twenty20 rubbish?
As the site is so fond of lists, why not populate some lists of first-class cricketers with the meagre details of those who made a few appearances instead of individual articles, especially as those articles tend to be stubs and orphans. I, as one of the worst offenders, have seen the futility of that. Having said that, see List of early English cricketers to 1786 which contains basic information about numerous players who made a couple of appearances and do not have an individual article. A standard?
Any thoughts? ---- Jack | talk page 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just some thoughts that come to mind. I'm in no way admonishing your suggestions, merely advocating devilry. :) SGGH ping! 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it could apply as a precedent but the position in List of early English cricketers to 1786 is that players with one or two appearances don't have a standalone article unless they acquired notability beyond those appearances. Okay, I accept that T20 and LO is going to be equated with FC for notability purposes, especially going forward. I like Mattinbgn's point about "a scorecard or two at CricketArchive". As you say, the number of sources is important and one thing I have tried to do with the early players is try to establish other sources besides the merely statistical. I would propose that if a player is only known via a scorecard, he is what User:Rnickel refers to as a bit-part player or an "extra". ---- Jack | talk page 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The ICC has a list of what it regards as "official cricket" at this link. It clearly defines all official internationals and it has a good list of what is regarded as first-class in each of the ten ICC full members, and whilst it doesn't go into as much detail for List A and Twenty20 cricket, I think we can certainly use it as a basis for any future rewrite of WP:CRIN.
Whatever happens though, we can't have the situation we currently have, where people argue that (the following names are made up) Frederick Harrington-Smythe, who played one first-class match for Lord Snooty's XI in 1827 is worthy of an article, whilst players who have played more than 20 official internationals aren't worthy of an article. Andrew nixon ( talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've sometimes felt it's a little ridiculous for players who have played a single f-c match without distinguishing themselves to have an article. But I think the advantage of having a definite guideline means that we should stick with that, as it's hard to see what other truly objective guideline would be practical (requiring three matches, say, would be artitrary). I think the "professional league" thing is a bit of a red herring when it comes to cricket, where some of the greatest players have been amateurs. One wouldn't want to exclude a player such as Frank Cobden, who played only for Cambridge University and MCC, and hence never in a professional league, but was the hero of one of cricket's most famous matches (at least as far as those of us interested in the game's history are concerned). JH ( talk page) 10:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't previously seen the Basanta Regmi deletion case and I agree with Johnlp that it does highlight a significant problem with CRIN because, within it, the status of international teams is a grey area. I wrote the section called "Clubs and teams" but it is domestic stuff that was aimed at classifying minor English club sides in particular. In the "Individuals" section, this statement does not help much at all: "The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971". The problem is that, strictly speaking, a limited overs international is defined by the ICC as one between teams of LOI/ODI status and there are only 16 of these at present.
Given that six countries with ODI status are all ICC Associate Members, and it seems inconsistent (typical ICC) that the rest of the Associates are excluded, I think CRIN should be amended to include any international match involving two teams representing Full or Associate Members. This would presumably put Mr Regmi above the line and make him notable in terms of his many international appearances. I would also amend major cricket to include these internationals: remember that "major cricket" is a completely unofficial term and has no definition which would exclude an international between, say, Nepal and Germany.
I suppose we ought to take a view about tournaments such as the World Cricket League but I think if we lower the line to a level just below Associate Member, that will solve the problem.
I notice the Regmi AfD made reference to the case of James Rice and, although I created the Rice stub (it isn't an article), it is players like this that are the basis of my original question above. Rice did play first-class cricket but he is only a name on three scorecards and I haven't seen anything else about him, although I suspect, from an earlier usage of the name Rice, that he is a pseudonym used by Thomas Assheton Smith II. Conspiracy theory! Rice definitely meets CRIN because he was involved in major cricket even if it is argued that the term "first-class cricket" should not apply so early. The point is what else can be said about him other than churning out the statistics of four matches (three major and one minor) which are included in S&B? ---- Jack | talk page 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I'm in the process of expending the articles related to this competition on fr.WP, but I have a few questions. On en.WP, we have a separate article for each edition for the male's event and for the women's one. The men's event has the title "ICC World Twenty20". I would be okay with that if we were speaking about the World Cup: the men's and women's events are clearly separated, and the men's event is clearly much more famous/notable than the other one. But, as for the World Twenty20, I think that the ICC try to promote it as ONE event ( have a look here for exemple) including a men's competition and a women's competition, a little bit like the Olympics, for instance. If you agree with this assertion, we should have a global article "20xx ICC World Twenty20" dealing with BOTH competitions, and, if needed, two specific articles "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Men's competition" and "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Women's competition" (except, obviously, for the 2007 event). Moreover, the main article ICC World Twenty20 would contain complete sections about the women's competition. If you don't agree, an article ICC Women's World Twenty20 is badly needed. Waiting for your answers, OrangeKnight ( talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think seperate articles work fine, as although they are Twenty20 events, they are different events - if you see where I'm coming from. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Harrias talk 16:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of you saw the latest gripping instalment in the User:Richard Daft saga earlier. It is very clear from comments last time and again today that we are all sick and tired of this disruption. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and have removed the content in accordance with WP:BLOCK as the person is involved (yet again) in block evasion. I have put a notice on his latest talk page and reported the incident to WP:ANI. I suggest that this sets a precedent which we can all follow whenever there is a recurrance. ---- Jack | talk page 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It relates to the ongoing dispute between BlackJack and the IPs and known socks. In my ignorance I asked what the problem was between them, got an answer and am now it appears the new frontline for the disrupter to wage his war. I have started a suspected sockpuppet thingy here. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
So its fine for BJ to wage war on this page but apparently no one else. I was asked a question and gave a polite response and got an abusive reply. Note too the level of abuse BJ has been laying at various peoples door without provocation. He sent me a post saying if I played ball I could play WP yet simultaeneous he was writing abusive posts elsewhere. My aim has always been to remove factual errors from the site. BJ perpertrates so many it is hardly surprising I have reverted some of his edits. Those of his followers who don't see that - well, the real historians, me about six others who've attempted to rectify laughable errors, we do at least have the real facts at our finger tips. As I've said before - Any reasonably informed cricket historian considers From Lads to Lords a questionable affair - some have been far more vitriolic. No doubt BJ will revert this. He reverts anything that opposes his position as WP's greatest cod historian. Any new editor is immediately Richard Daft. In fact six people have been tarred with BJ's brush. It is now not possible to log on and make any constructive suggestions unless one is a member of the dozen or so geniuses on this project. 88.108.10.215 ( talk) 07:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here we see a straightforward lie. BJ knows full well who Keith Warsop is and in fact has referenced him as 'the distinguished historian'. He has exchanged letters with Keith regarding pre 1800 cricket. ACS has 1500 members and has sold over 120,000 publications with 130,000 going to members. The Minor Counties Histories have sold 8000 copies alone whilst the pre 1900 match scores sold out. (About 40,000 copies) In fact I spoke to Keith yesterday about this. It was Keith who first discovered the Britcher book and compiled the first list of pre-1800 matches. Don't tell lies John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.4.232 ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Although it was immediately kicked into touch by the admin involved, this item was posted yesterday on the arbitration requests page.
Since you are all members of my fiefdom and have been admitted by my power into the elect (sic), I question if you do me sufficient honour? From now on, when you post on this page, you will begin with the words "Hail Jack".
Actually, I think the funniest thing in the whole ridiculous piece is the suggestion that there is a "serious cricket history community". Why not have a bit of fun too with their hobby?
When I was working on my book, which is essentially a matchlist derived from many sources, I actually stopped using a list published by the ACS because it contained so many errors and duplications that I found it unreliable. I relied mainly on the likes of G B Buckley and F S Ashley-Cooper for my information and, apart from typos, I'm satisfied that the match details are fundamentally correct. I checked some of them against primary sources when I had the time. Where I expressed a personal opinion, however, others are entitled to have a different opinion: that applies to historians like Arlott too and not just amateurs like me. You will note that, in all of the "risible" nonsense we have seen from Mr Daft/Fieldgoalunit/HughGal/Rosebank, there has never been a suggestion of one single specific error of content, although details have been requested. If he can point to one statement and say that is wrong because, for example, Buckley wrote such-and-such, then I'll take it on board, but all we ever get is that the small clique in the ACS have a monopoly of wisdom (because they are so serious) and anyone else (including Harry Altham and Roy Webber, incidentally, as he has actually said so) must be talking rubbish.
If some of his posts like this arbitration one were not so bloody hilarious, it would all be rather sad. Hail me! ---- Jack | talk page 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Seemingly a very pointless article; Great Britain Cricket starts by stating there isn't a Great Britain cricket team! Don't know if speedy or a prod would be appropriate here? Just a regular AfD maybe? Any thoughts? Harrias talk 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this encyclopaedic? I'm not sure if even the subject is true, and the inclusion criteria seem to be the editors own opinions. The only "references" given are external links to the home page of each stadium. This is the same account that created the above GB cricket team articles. Does this stand or is it OR/own opinion? SGGH ping! 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Mendesa, with his associate/alternate account User:Amar Mendes and his IPs 78.109.14.129 and 78.109.14.130 aren't having a good run with their articles at the moment. SGGH ping! 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
So says Hilditch. I have to disagree YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
On the CricketEurope site there is this article regarding the 2019 World Cup. I had initially included it as a reference for the Cricket in Afghanistan page, but then I remembered what day it is. So does anyone think it is a serious article or an April fools joke? If it is a joke I won't want to put it in the article! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As it is April fools day, you could be forgiven for thinking this scorecard was an April fools if you had no idea about the two teams involved: AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
1 April 2010
|
v
|
||
If I have an image of Sir Everton Weekes dating from the 1950 WI tour of England (scanned from a booklet), what licence could I use for it? -- Roisterer ( talk) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Some advice needed guys. I have created the article on Andrew Wingfield Digby and have found a picture of him here. The copyright part of the St Andrew's Church, Oxford website can be found here.
My question is, can I upload his image to commons and if so under what licence? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Following the discussions above, and those made at Talk:England cricket team against Pakistan in UAE in 2009–10, I am looking for a consensus on how these should be displayed. At the moment, there isn't a 100% consistency on how they are done, with some users, including myself and PeeJay using piped links with initials, ie PD Collingwood, while others prefer to use the full name, ie Paul Collingwood. Similarly, for the number of overs bowled by an individual bowler, some put [4] and other (4 overs). The other difference I have seen on some occasions is that some users will only list the top player from each team, so one bat and one bowler from each side, while others will put the top two or three from each side.
Although I currently use piped initials, I do feel there is an argument for using full names. While Cricinfo and CricketArchive and all traditional cricket scorecards use them, they are generally viewed by cricket fans. However, Wikipedia will often be viewed by those who have nothing more than a passing interest in cricket, and for them such initials as IJL Trott and LRPL Taylor may not be immediately obvious, but they may not really want to click or hover to find out who it is. Having the full names would seem to be far more informative. Do we just use initials because that's the way it is done? To a casual observer is DS Smith Devon or Dwayne?
Similarly with [4] rather than (4 overs). Obviously [4] takes up less space, but is that really necessary? (4 overs) is far clearer, and is immediately obvious what it means, rather than [4], which to a first time observer may make little or no sense.
Finally, the number of players. Personally on this one, I prefer only the top player from each team, with the exception of when two players have identical stats, in which case they both have to be listed. As more players get added, the scorecard gets messier and messier, especially when equal numbers aren't added from each side.
Well, that's my tupenny's worth! Harrias ( talk) 09:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, a lot of replies so far, so to split the discussion up and make it easier to summarise, I'll create subsections and put who (as I understand it) leans each way.
Managerarc would like to see flags used in the result, ie England won by 10 wickets. Harrias ( talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
|teamn=
field of the template. —
AMBerry (
talk)
17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)I believe WP:FLAG says that we shouldn't, but I've not reviewed that for a long time and I can't grit my teeth to do so this early in the morning. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
When a team is bowled out, for example for 118, do we denote that by just saying 118 (followed by the overs) or 118 all out (followed by the overs).
VS
Black hole77 talk | contrib 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
<-All out is unambiguous. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In special occasions more than one batsman or bowler can be listed, but generally just one of each from each side. There is currently no consensus on whether to list "12 (23.1 overs)" or "12 all out (23.1 overs)". Harrias ( talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate to go back to the all out issue, but no consensus means just that. At the moment the doc favours the 100 (24 overs) format. By my rough totting up of !votes below splits the issue right down the middle.— MDCollins ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Inclusion of all out
Exclusion
Depends on the source
— MDCollins ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone.
I've just seen (via WP:FOOTY) that there is an RFC on the wording of WP:ATHLETE pretty much along the same lines as we've been discussion above. Is a one-time performance in a certain league enough or does the wording need tightening. If anyone wants to summarize our view and comment it might be a good idea. It looks like heading for "no consensus" at the moment, although there are several interested parties and WikiProjects interested in throwing some ideas around.
— MDCollins ( talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class cricket articles should have covers.
If you need help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a legitimate discussion about the validity of a major source on this project. It is valid and pertient. If you think not then you are simply compounding the error. It is not for one editor to decide what should be on here because BJ is their mate. n respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.2.72 ( talk)
It's the text you right that is the problem. A big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.45.241 ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Further to the topic above and with specific reference to the point raised by Johnlp about international matches, I suggest a rewording of the second paragraph of WP:CRIN to read as follows with the addition of one new sentence:
"The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any major domestic competition. For this purpose, a limited overs international is defined as any international match involving two teams representing countries that are Full or Associate Members of the ICC. Major domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Major domestic limited overs competitions include all ListA matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc."
We need to be clear that embracing all Associate Member international matches will greatly increase the scope of our notability criteria. It may be that some of you prefer to impose a limitation according to certain levels of competition; some of you may prefer an even broader scope by inclusion of Affiliate Members. Could we please discuss and try to achieve a consensus? ---- Jack | talk page 09:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
By saying "major FC" are you omitting people if they made a one or a few appearances only, in stand-alone tour matches against foreign teams that don't count for competition points, or things like one-off matches for Tasmania before they were in SS YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I defer to Andrew on this as he is our subject expert re Associate and Affiliate Members and the WCL. I think Andrew should decide on the wording to move things forward and, as with anything in CRIN, we can tweak it in due course if it is deemed necessary. ---- Jack | talk page 06:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need an article about something that (knowing the ICC) may happen in around 6 years, at an unknown venue? Harrias talk 11:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone else have a look at this, I've undone (and recently rolled back) edits by an anonymous editor adding a section about him being a Warrington Wolves fan. In my opinion, completely non-notable, but as it keeps getting altered back (slowly, so 3RR isn't an issue), I thought it best if someone could either back me up, or tell me I'm being stupid. Harrias talk 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done to Mattinbgn YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Another case of the "notable, says who?" condition of the list under "notable openers". I propose either removing it, or finding a Wisden (or similar) list of great openers and attributing it "according to Wisden" or including the top ten players in terms of highest average at one or two. SGGH ping! 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This list of "famous" or "notable" sporting people has no clear
inclusion or
exclusion criteria. Please help
improve this article by defining clear inclusion criteria to contain only subjects that fit those criteria. |
{{Famous players}} - useful! SGGH ping! 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice in the recently updated summary that SGGH says Sidwell was dismissed whilst being on the train. Was he in fact on the train or was he stuck on a platform somewhere listening to the usual insincere regrets that the thing has been delayed by 48 minutes? Perhaps he was on the bog having eaten a British Rail sandwich? ---- Jack | talk page 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In March an IP user expanded the article on Harry Downer to claim he was dead. The date put in was 31 December 1999, which I am 100% sure is made-up or blatant vandalism. Downer would be 94 now (the oldest surviving Hampshire cricketer I think) and no cricket sites have a date of death for him. Would anyone be able to confirm this for me? Pretty sure old Harry is still with us though... AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey ( bananabucket!) 03:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Allan Rae the composer really more famous than West Indies' Allan Rae? A user has moved the latter (to Allan Rae (cricketer)) to create the article on the former on the page " Allan Rae" a few days ago with this comment: "make way for article on more well known composer". Shouldn't Allan Rae should be a disambiguation page? OrangeKnight ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox recent cricketer now open for discussion. It does not appear to be too controversial.
Now if we could get rid of {{ Infobox historic cricketer}}, {{ Cricketer Infobox}}, {{ Infobox cricketer}} and {{ Infobox Old Cricketer}} ... -- Mattinbgn\ talk 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{Cricketer Infobox}}
next, and it should be ready to go soon.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)This is a legitimate discussion about the validity of a major source on this project. It is valid and pertient. If you think not then you are simply compounding the error. It is not for one editor to decide what should be on here because BJ is their mate. n respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.2.72 ( talk)
It's the text you right that is the problem. A big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.45.241 ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
At long last, an independent admin has taken note of the problems we have had with the ACS troll and has banned his IP range, not just a specific address, for one month. As I understand it, he cannot now access WP unless he uses a computer in another area. I would say that this establishes a precedent and that, if he reappears and tries to make trouble again, any of the admins here should be able to extend the ban. I have tried to reason with him but it is a waste of time. He is here to make trouble and that is it. I think the final straw was his totally unacceptable taunt on AA's talk page, which he later described as being "temperate". I despair.
I'm afraid it is my presence here which has brought this volcanic ash down on all your heads and I'm very sorry it has happened.
Back to the cricket. Yorkshire for the title, methinks. Now how many will that be? ---- Jack | talk page 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We're down to the last few of the cricket unreferenced BLPs, and three of the remaining identified problem articles concern former or present secretaries of Middlesex County Cricket Club, while a fourth is a former president of the club. None of these people played cricket at first-class or List A level, and two of the three secretaries were in post for only a short time (the other is the current secretary/chief exec, who has been in post since 1997). A further Middlesex CCC secretary of similarly short duration isn't in the Unreffed BLPs list, but crops up in the list you get by clicking on the [[Category: Secretaries of Middlesex CCC]] link.
Do we have a view about the notability (or otherwise) of these kinds of people? We have a cricket administrators category, and I can see that some county secretaries (eg Vockins, Ryder, Jimmy James) are good candidates for notability in this category, while others (eg Lister) qualify anyway because they were once players. But the short-term people? I'm happy to be persuaded either way. Johnlp ( talk) 22:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, can we please have some more eyes on Doug Bollinger. An IP keeps adding unsourced and irrelevant (and probably false) information about Bollinger wearing a wig. Previous attempts at getting the IP blocked have been unsuccessful for reasons I don't understand. Thus can a few editors please add it to your watch list and watch for vandalism. The article needs lots of work, obviously, but I don't think this editors contributions are what we are looking for. Thanks. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Needs eyes YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
See this change from using Khan to Imran. I think it's correct. Aaroncrick TALK 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a ticklish subject around here and I am sorry to bring it up again, but I think it's necessary. BlackJack, for whose work and energy on early cricket most of us have enormous admiration, bordering on awe, has now retired from WP. A major irritation for the sometimes named, sometimes IP-addressed, people who've been coming on here and arguing with Jack has been some of the commentary and speculation parts of Jack's website book, From Lads to Lord's (LTL); the statistical record of 18th century matches in Jack's book is not (much) disputed. But in a fairly wide-ranging debate on the WP:RS/Noticeboard, now archived, specific places where LTL differs from, for example, Cricketarchive have been identified. And in particular, Jack's nomination of a "Champion County" in 18th century seasons appears to have no identifiable backing apart from a section within or adjacent to LTL. As that section of LTL in which Jack made these assertions about county champions has now been removed from Jack's external site, the citations supporting this view are in any cases dead links.
In these circumstances, I am proposing, gently over the next few days, removing these links and the material that depends upon them. I am not removing links to Jack's work, LTL, where that appears to be an accessible and readible confirmation of other material in these articles: just the contentious stuff that now has no references will go. I've done a couple in the 1730 English cricket season and 1731 English cricket season articles where you can see what I've taken out. If you think I'm being too bold and too harsh here, then shout: I certainly don't want to airbrush Jack's contribution out of the site, and it's evident that most of what he contributed was above board and should be supported. But where the links no longer work, and where the material that depends on those links can't be substantiated by any other means, I think it has to go. Johnlp ( talk) 22:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Phew! I make that make 918 known players who have represented a Hampshire team of some sort in first-class/List-A/T20 cricket. If you spot any that are missing, feel free to add them. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
All have a single first-class appearance, all currently have PROD tags. I'm currently very inactive here, so I might forget to remove them all if I don't come back here occasionally and look. Please forgive me for passing the buck, but it's very likely I won't come back here to look for at least a week.
Thank you, all. Hope everyone is well. Bobo . 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've undone a few of the prods and left the tagging editor a note. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Can anyone else see the similarities between User:MDCollins/Honours board batting (incomplete in my sandbox) and List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground, created a couple of days ago? Is this sandbox 'theft' by User:Mr.Apples2010 or an unfortunate coincidence?
Anyway, which of the two table formats are most useful? I'm not convinced that the flags are necessary here (see WP:FLAGS), especially as we've eliminated them from most of our articles.
— MDCollins ( talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes just an unfortunate coincidence. Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going through some of the pre-county club Hampshire players and I have come across a player called Francis Compton. The person on the bluelink has the same name and the same year of birth. The cricketer can be found here and here. The article on the person has his date of death as 1915 whereas the pre-existing article has his date of death as 1918.
Make also makes me think this is the cricketer is his political career, where he was a Member of Parliament for South Hampshire and later the New Forest. Now looking at the year of birth and his connection to Hampshire, could it be suffice to say this is the cricketing Francis Compton?
What I have done is added the cricketing information to the pre-existing article (this can always be removed later) while sources as found, it is the different date of death which is giving me some doubt. Some help would be much appreciated. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that we've had the fourth Twenty20 International century, does anyone else think that a list of centuries scored in Twenty20 Internationals would be a good idea? It may not have many entries right now, but I'm sure we could make a proper list out of it and it is only ever going to grow. Anyone up for making it? – Pee Jay 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Has been created, I was surprised that it didn't exist already but I did search for a while for it! SGGH ping! 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There are also a couple of queries on Talk:Unicorns cricket team if anyone can help.— MDCollins ( talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I did wonder what the point was... (I'll get my coat!)— User:MDCollins ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[1] – I know the South Africans aren't particularly good at women's cricket, but Deandra Dottin hit a 38 ball century, and is at the moment still going on 106* with an amazing 9 sixes! Harrias talk 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
From the pre-seeding of the Super8s, it seems as though the four strongest (on form) teams have landed in the same group YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Some newly converted Indian cricket fans are saying it's the best in the world... YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to get some thoughts on the article for the cricketer/coach/umpire/referee Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan. While I realise this is his full name, it is rarely used in full in English. Hack ( talk) 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! What about including the T20 stats in the infobox for the cricketers, now that the World T20 Championship is taking place in the Carribeans. பரிதிமதி ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Career Statistics | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tests
| ||||||||||
ODIs
| ||||||||||
T20Is
|
Does anyone know if he's England-qualified (yet? always has been? not yet?)
I'm increasingly of the opinion he's knocking at the door for international recognition, but our article isn't clear for which team. As a Saffer, he'd fit in well to team England. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
48 runs @ 12.00. SR 70. Bring in Shaun Marsh. An Indian-style political selection YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Cricket grounds in England, many of the names of the grounds are very obscure. For all but the most famous grounds, it seems to me that the title of an article should tell you where the ground is located, and preferably have a DEFAULTSORT on the name of the town as well. For example, who would have guessed that the Rutland Recreation Ground is not in the county of Rutland at all, but is in Ilkeston in Derbyshire. Surely something like "Rutland Recreation Ground (Ilkeston)" would be a better title? And I nearly created an article entitled "Blackheath Cricket Ground", before discovering that all that was needed was a redirect to Rectory Field. If there is a consensus, I might do some moving of articles to give them better titles. JH ( talk page) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jhall1 and Johnlp. Naming conventions are there to help, not hinder. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There's been a few AFDs on international cricketers who have played at the lower levels of the game recently, and it has been suggested that some sort of criteria need to be established to decide who is and isn't notable when it comes to international cricket. After having a think about it, I've come up with a proposal, detailed on one of my user sub-pages here. I've tried to make it so that only players with a significant number of matches are included for those who have played below "major cricket" level. Any comments/suggestions for alteration are most welcome - I've not put too much effort into the wording or layout, so feel free to edit that! Once it's been thrashed out here, we can add it to WP:CRIN. Andrew nixon ( talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As Shoaib Malik is going to play for Lancashire in the T20 Cup (assuming his visa goes through fine) I thought I'd take a look at his article. That was a bit of a shock; surely we shouldn't have controversy sections? Any controversy can be integrated into the rest of the article rather than given such prominence. Anyway, I've had a go at rewriting parts of the article. The guy's had a long an eventful career, so there's only so much I can do in a day. It's still got chunks missing and it's patchy – for example the stuff on Gloucestershire is probably complete, but there's almost nothing on his domestic career in Pakistan – but I've trimmed a lot of unimportant stuff am looking for input from folks here. It would be great if anyone can help with the article as it's getting a lot of attention at the moment, almost certainly due to his recent marriage. Nev1 ( talk) 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've finally got around to listing Laurie Nash at Peer Review. Pleased to get any feedback. Cheers. -- Roisterer ( talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've been looking at List of English national cricket captains and was thinking that going with our existing consensus on other articles, that this (and related international captain lists) should be List of England national cricket captains. Was going to execute/propose a move, but best check here first. — User:MDCollins ( talk) 18:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I've requested a move for all of the "List of fooian national cricket captains" (found in Category:Cricket captains); along with List of Tasmanian cricket captains which is the only non-international list I've found. Would somebody check I've got them right, and haven't forgotten any?
There is a whole bunch of "Category:Fooian cricket captains" that I believe should be move to "Category:Foo national(?) cricket captains" as we don't tend to make categories for captains from Foo, only captains of Foo. Else KP should be in Category:South African cricket captains as it exists at the moment. Thoughts? — User:MDCollins ( talk) 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
England WIN! SGGH ping! 18:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought the English here would be a little chirpy :) Well played England, far and away the best team in the tournament. Enjoy it while it lasts, England's ritual humiliation in Ashes series in Australia is only 6 months away! :) -- Mattinbgn\ talk 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
England won something at cricket? What? I must've missed it. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The next one in my little side project, coming along okay. SGGH ping! 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to the Australian team, beating their traditional rivals in the final. A great effort to defend what seemed to be an inadequate total. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Any Sri Lankan cricket experts around? I was writing Chris Brown (cricketer) the other day who CricketArchive has down as having played for Badureliya Sports Club. This was red-linked, and User:AssociateAffiliate rightly found Badureliya Cricket Club and linked to that. I had a look at that article which uses B. Cricket Club throughout, but has one reference cited which refers to B. Sports Club. There is however a not-very-exiciting CricInfo link to B. CC. I assume that the club usually goes by the name of B. Sport Club (where cricket is presumably only one sport).
This Cricinfo article confuses things nicely with the following
The hyperlink points to the scorecard with the heading "Tier A: Badureliya Sports Club v Chilaw Marians Cricket Club".
Would I be justified in moving Badureliya Cricket Club to Badureliya Sports Club?
— User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There's currently an exhibition at Lord's called "Swinging Away: How Cricket and Baseball Connect". There's a fascinating illustrated interview with the curator of the exhibition on the BBC's website, here. JH ( talk page) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
We've had an oppose to the proposal above re: the captains list articles. Could some of you take a look? Apparently "List of England cricket captains" is grammatically incorrect - well maybe it's ones like "List of Australia national cricket captains".
He prefers "List of Australia's national cricket captains":
I'm not sure this is correct, but it could do with some more support anyway. I guess if we are really pedantic it should be "List of Australia national cricket team captains", but that seems a bit OTT.
Talk:List of English national cricket captains#Requested move — User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - can you precis that and add it to the !debate?! Cheers.— User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah - there's a lot similar to that that needs sorting, but one thing at a time (at least we'll have some related precedence to point to) - hopefully!— User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (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 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thinking of prodding David Bates (groundsman). I think he'd need to pass WP:BIO and I can't spot that he does. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Great Britain national cricket team? Do the three lions actually represent the Scottish Saltires? Woogee ( talk) 03:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Britain national cricket team. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What I think is the same person who created Great Britain national cricket team has also created this article: One day Internationals Teams. I'm not sure where to start with what is wrong with this article - it includes only 12 of the 22 teams to have played ODIs plus one team that doesn't actually exist, it gives one home ground for each of the 13, and two of the flags are completely wrong. AfD or speedy? Andrew nixon ( talk) 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Who he? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Stub created. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just thought I'd drop a note to say that there is a CFD discussion on renaming to Category:Canadian bowlers to reflect the fact that it refers to players of bowls, rather to cricketers. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13#Category:Canadian_bowlers.
That discussion is probably of no significance to this project, but it prompted me to do a search for other categories of bowlers, and I found only one for cricket bowlers: Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers.
The categories for players of bowls are in Category:Bowls players, and all follow that format. However, for the avoidance of ambiguity, it would be better to rename Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers to something more specific, such as Category:United Arab Emirati cricket bowlers. However, it's the only one of its sort, so should be kept or deleted? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we can all remember the debate about Basanta Regmi a few weeks ago, which had no consensus and was thus kept (much to my delight!). Well, these cricketers should be easier for us to make our minds up about on the issue of dubious notability, or as I see it none whatsoever. But still, don't want to go tagging for deletion without having a general consensus to do so.
The following cricketers all refer to the Finland and in my opinion fail WP:CRIC and WP:ATH.
AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep any who played in the European Champs. Who's left? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Date | Unreferenced BLPs | % done |
---|---|---|
24 Jan | 355 | 0% |
31 Jan | 301 | 15% |
7 Feb | 281 | 21% |
14 Feb | 242 | 32% |
21 Feb | 221 | 38% |
28 Feb | 147 | 59% |
7 Mar | 124 | 65% |
14 Mar | 59 | 83% |
One last push should finish these off this week! Harrias ( talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well done chaps. Sorry, I've not been helping much, but I mostly edit from a computer that can't access the cricket stats sites (in case you hadn't noticed) and the rump of articles that are left pretty much need that to work out / demonstrate notability. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Came across a bot that automatically updates a page with recognized content, and set us one up at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Recognized content. It's a manually run bot, so only runs about once a week at the moment, but it's definitely more reliable than us remembering to update stuff all the time! We can alter what is on there; at the moment I think I've put more or less everything, but we don't necessarily need to have all the DYKs for example. Harrias ( talk) 07:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have or know of any pictures we can use for Malcolm Marshalls article? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have grabbed this question (which had just become an ANI thread though IMO unnecessary) and put it to you. Should there be stricter criteria for "notable"? It has spawned from a discussion about a Bangladeshi player but it begs bigger questions. Do we have a guideline/consensus to stop such debates from arising? Please hop over to the talk page to give an opinion. Cheers SGGH ping! 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new article - List of Test Match Cricket Centuries at The Basin Reserve. I wasn't sure about the introduction so I just stole it from The Basin Reserve Page. Also I don't know how to add photos. Thoughts? Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed this at WP:DYK, and I'm pretty sure it fails WP:CRIN, but thought I'd check here for opinions before submitting it for deletion. Wilbrahams Cricket Club don't play in an ECB Premier League, and as far as I can tell don't have a particularly notable history. They are undoubtedly old, but I'm not sure that in itself is enough. My dad is old after all... Harrias ( talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
They're so non notable that they don't even have any scorecards on CricketArchive, and that has scorecards from some league's third XI competitions. So yeah, non notable. Andrew nixon ( talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
North out, Steve Smith in, please YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see IPL last year but has the advertising become even more incessant. They have an ad on the TV scorebaord in the middle of the over and the commentators shut up when the camera zooms into the board and the ad is played at full volume. Also they have more junk; in addition to the "DLF maximum" they also have a "??? time-out" and some other "??? catch". When are they going to say "Hero Honda hat-trick" and "Ford Fiesta Four" or something..... The relentless tele-spamming is really getting to me, not to mention spending all their time panning to celebs in the crowd, and the cheerleading commentary, saying that every play is top-class and ignoring full tosses. How did KKR manage to win two matches..... YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell you how pleased I am that I've never seen an IPL game. I don't know what it is about it, but it depresses me even more than the incessant rise of 20/20 and the dreadful mess that's become of West Indies and Zimbabwe in recent years. Although not as much as the Stanford aberration. Thank the stars that man was a crook, because he was killing cricket even as the cricket world hailed him for saving it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous, even the toss has a named sponsor now, and the captains were all praising 10 minutes of singing in the opening ceremony as earth-shattering etc. Just 20 guys jumping on a wooden board. The worst thing is the easy brainwashing by the corporate juggernaut. And it seems to have affected the random hapless Indian who doesn't normally follow cricket per Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Cricket:_IPL they are saying that IPL is better than the WC and should be on wiki's front page; half the players are Indian quota players and barely FC standard. Some of the Indian "pacers" in the IPL bowl and 110-115kph with 50% full tosses, wides, half-volleys, long hops etc; the Australian/NZ women bowl at 120kph with accurate yorkers when the T20 was on TV. Some R Sathish bowled about 3 consec 110 kph fullies and Y Pathan in that "amazing innings" off 100 from 37.... so many boundaries from full tosses.... McCabe, Harvey, Trumper, Hammond and Compton would have been no match for 110 kph fullies, no doubt about it lol. Hopefully this spam does not make it onto the front page of WP:ITN!!! YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay here it is; I don't think you guys here are a big fan of Indian Premier League. Tried to read your post and tried to understand your reasons behind it and the conclusion I've found that you guys haven't watched it carefully. IPL is not a spam or something crap. IPL is different form of game. I guess all you guys here haven't seen much of T20 cricket because the two biggest countries which started t20 Australia and England have their own domestic T20 tournaments. Even if IPL is called DLF IPL ( with the name of sponsor) Australian domestic T20 tournament is called KFC Twenty20 bash (with the name of sponsor). Why don't you have problem with that??? IPL is not spam its just cricket with more spices, even the hardcore fans of Cricket from all over the world have appreciated the concept of Indian Premier League.
The person who is calling T20 the killing of cricket is none but a pessimistic person as T20 is not killing the Test Cricket its only making the cricket more dynamic. T20 is a revolution and when some revolution happens many people can't digest it.
Now getting back to IPL; it is the only tournament that calls all the best players of world at one place and asks them to exchange talent. County does it but in different way. County is I admit more simple, easy to go through but more political as it lacks transparency but as long as it is serving Cricket it is the best Domestic Cricket. In the same way IPL is; in different form of game. After all where would you now see Adam Gilchrist and Mathew Hadden one of the best Opening duos playing against each other. IPL calls the players from all over the world with the consent of the national boards of countries. It is the best talent exchange as a newbie Yusuf Abdullah from SA would never get a chance to play with veteran Anil Kumble or Zaheer Khan would never get a chance to play under Jonty Rhodes. IPL is innovative, it is dynamic, I admit it has some showbiz but if you are a real cricket fan you can watch some of world's best cricketers performing their best. Nitish.game ( talk) 03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just created this: List of Test cricket centuries at The WACA Ground. I wrote some stuff on there myself this time so there may well be a few errors in it. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on the SCG at the moment, it's taking a lot longer! Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Here we go: List of International cricket centuries at The WACA Ground Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have changed it to make it sortable: List of international cricket centuries at The Basin Reserve. Do you think the team of the century scorer should go into a different column? The way it is at the moment you cannot sort by team. Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Great work Apples. The SCG list just goes to show how rapidly and ridiculously the conditions have been altered in favour of the batsmen, per the boom in centuries in the last 10 years. But the WACA and Basin Reserve have not for some reason.... But I think a list of the other Australian grounds will show a big boom as well YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have completly finished the SCG now. What is the deal with the new article template at the top, can it be removed by anyone? Also might it be a good idea to seperate the grounds into different countries in the template at the bottom? Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
and some other lists of articles need RC patrolling on RCs linked; with Jpeeling gone, vandalism is lasting long time on the weekends and British daytime YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Eyes might be needed. I'm getting the impression that many IPL/Modi supporters just see IPL as equivalent to one of those Asian weddings where being the most lavish etc etc counts the most in proving one's superiority YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Cricinfo said Invincibles were in 1948 and "Adelaide Now" and Deccan Herald, the sponsors of the Deccan Chargers have copied it in incorrectly YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In Template:Infobox cricketer biography, is it necessary to write the full form of 'Test cricket', 'One Day Internationals', 'First-class cricket', 'List A cricket', or abbreviations are ok like 'Test', 'ODI', 'FC', 'LA'. Some random IP user is making edits to some articles like Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and says that this is the proper British English writing forms and changing to full form. Need your views on this.-- Managerarc (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi - point him towards the template guidelines. As Spaceman says, as long as they are linked, the short form is to be used (in the statistics), and in actual fact is necessary otherwise the infobox has width issues. With the 4 column box, Test, ODI, FC, and List A works best (List A fits and as it is the less obvious one I tend to use it); For the 2-3 column version, the abbreviations are not always necessary. Claiming "british writing forms" is pretty stupid. Expanding the date ranges as in some of his edits to 2002, 2003, 2004 etc is just wrong.— MDCollins ( talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
George Blackmore, former cricketer for the Europeans and Kent, up for debate. His article is here, his AfD page is here, and his stats are here (CA) and here (CI).
Hope everyone is well. Bobo . 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/03/Category:Cricket players. – Moondyne 03:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if these are put together on a regional basis, random mixing up by selectors from year to year, or the palyers can just sign up wherever they want? Also of the women's counties, only Kent have an article YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Needs some help from you guys, I reckon. I forget why it is on my watchlist. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely minor but have you seen this re its alternate name? ---- Jack | talk page 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The above case of George Blackmore has raised a few interesting points. The main one is that WP:CRIN may need to be revised, even though most of it was written by me. On reflection, I have to ask what exactly is " notable" about someone who played a handful of first-class matches? What exactly is notable about anyone who ever played in limited overs, especially the Twenty20 rubbish?
As the site is so fond of lists, why not populate some lists of first-class cricketers with the meagre details of those who made a few appearances instead of individual articles, especially as those articles tend to be stubs and orphans. I, as one of the worst offenders, have seen the futility of that. Having said that, see List of early English cricketers to 1786 which contains basic information about numerous players who made a couple of appearances and do not have an individual article. A standard?
Any thoughts? ---- Jack | talk page 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just some thoughts that come to mind. I'm in no way admonishing your suggestions, merely advocating devilry. :) SGGH ping! 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it could apply as a precedent but the position in List of early English cricketers to 1786 is that players with one or two appearances don't have a standalone article unless they acquired notability beyond those appearances. Okay, I accept that T20 and LO is going to be equated with FC for notability purposes, especially going forward. I like Mattinbgn's point about "a scorecard or two at CricketArchive". As you say, the number of sources is important and one thing I have tried to do with the early players is try to establish other sources besides the merely statistical. I would propose that if a player is only known via a scorecard, he is what User:Rnickel refers to as a bit-part player or an "extra". ---- Jack | talk page 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The ICC has a list of what it regards as "official cricket" at this link. It clearly defines all official internationals and it has a good list of what is regarded as first-class in each of the ten ICC full members, and whilst it doesn't go into as much detail for List A and Twenty20 cricket, I think we can certainly use it as a basis for any future rewrite of WP:CRIN.
Whatever happens though, we can't have the situation we currently have, where people argue that (the following names are made up) Frederick Harrington-Smythe, who played one first-class match for Lord Snooty's XI in 1827 is worthy of an article, whilst players who have played more than 20 official internationals aren't worthy of an article. Andrew nixon ( talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've sometimes felt it's a little ridiculous for players who have played a single f-c match without distinguishing themselves to have an article. But I think the advantage of having a definite guideline means that we should stick with that, as it's hard to see what other truly objective guideline would be practical (requiring three matches, say, would be artitrary). I think the "professional league" thing is a bit of a red herring when it comes to cricket, where some of the greatest players have been amateurs. One wouldn't want to exclude a player such as Frank Cobden, who played only for Cambridge University and MCC, and hence never in a professional league, but was the hero of one of cricket's most famous matches (at least as far as those of us interested in the game's history are concerned). JH ( talk page) 10:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't previously seen the Basanta Regmi deletion case and I agree with Johnlp that it does highlight a significant problem with CRIN because, within it, the status of international teams is a grey area. I wrote the section called "Clubs and teams" but it is domestic stuff that was aimed at classifying minor English club sides in particular. In the "Individuals" section, this statement does not help much at all: "The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971". The problem is that, strictly speaking, a limited overs international is defined by the ICC as one between teams of LOI/ODI status and there are only 16 of these at present.
Given that six countries with ODI status are all ICC Associate Members, and it seems inconsistent (typical ICC) that the rest of the Associates are excluded, I think CRIN should be amended to include any international match involving two teams representing Full or Associate Members. This would presumably put Mr Regmi above the line and make him notable in terms of his many international appearances. I would also amend major cricket to include these internationals: remember that "major cricket" is a completely unofficial term and has no definition which would exclude an international between, say, Nepal and Germany.
I suppose we ought to take a view about tournaments such as the World Cricket League but I think if we lower the line to a level just below Associate Member, that will solve the problem.
I notice the Regmi AfD made reference to the case of James Rice and, although I created the Rice stub (it isn't an article), it is players like this that are the basis of my original question above. Rice did play first-class cricket but he is only a name on three scorecards and I haven't seen anything else about him, although I suspect, from an earlier usage of the name Rice, that he is a pseudonym used by Thomas Assheton Smith II. Conspiracy theory! Rice definitely meets CRIN because he was involved in major cricket even if it is argued that the term "first-class cricket" should not apply so early. The point is what else can be said about him other than churning out the statistics of four matches (three major and one minor) which are included in S&B? ---- Jack | talk page 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I'm in the process of expending the articles related to this competition on fr.WP, but I have a few questions. On en.WP, we have a separate article for each edition for the male's event and for the women's one. The men's event has the title "ICC World Twenty20". I would be okay with that if we were speaking about the World Cup: the men's and women's events are clearly separated, and the men's event is clearly much more famous/notable than the other one. But, as for the World Twenty20, I think that the ICC try to promote it as ONE event ( have a look here for exemple) including a men's competition and a women's competition, a little bit like the Olympics, for instance. If you agree with this assertion, we should have a global article "20xx ICC World Twenty20" dealing with BOTH competitions, and, if needed, two specific articles "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Men's competition" and "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Women's competition" (except, obviously, for the 2007 event). Moreover, the main article ICC World Twenty20 would contain complete sections about the women's competition. If you don't agree, an article ICC Women's World Twenty20 is badly needed. Waiting for your answers, OrangeKnight ( talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think seperate articles work fine, as although they are Twenty20 events, they are different events - if you see where I'm coming from. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Harrias talk 16:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of you saw the latest gripping instalment in the User:Richard Daft saga earlier. It is very clear from comments last time and again today that we are all sick and tired of this disruption. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and have removed the content in accordance with WP:BLOCK as the person is involved (yet again) in block evasion. I have put a notice on his latest talk page and reported the incident to WP:ANI. I suggest that this sets a precedent which we can all follow whenever there is a recurrance. ---- Jack | talk page 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It relates to the ongoing dispute between BlackJack and the IPs and known socks. In my ignorance I asked what the problem was between them, got an answer and am now it appears the new frontline for the disrupter to wage his war. I have started a suspected sockpuppet thingy here. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
So its fine for BJ to wage war on this page but apparently no one else. I was asked a question and gave a polite response and got an abusive reply. Note too the level of abuse BJ has been laying at various peoples door without provocation. He sent me a post saying if I played ball I could play WP yet simultaeneous he was writing abusive posts elsewhere. My aim has always been to remove factual errors from the site. BJ perpertrates so many it is hardly surprising I have reverted some of his edits. Those of his followers who don't see that - well, the real historians, me about six others who've attempted to rectify laughable errors, we do at least have the real facts at our finger tips. As I've said before - Any reasonably informed cricket historian considers From Lads to Lords a questionable affair - some have been far more vitriolic. No doubt BJ will revert this. He reverts anything that opposes his position as WP's greatest cod historian. Any new editor is immediately Richard Daft. In fact six people have been tarred with BJ's brush. It is now not possible to log on and make any constructive suggestions unless one is a member of the dozen or so geniuses on this project. 88.108.10.215 ( talk) 07:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here we see a straightforward lie. BJ knows full well who Keith Warsop is and in fact has referenced him as 'the distinguished historian'. He has exchanged letters with Keith regarding pre 1800 cricket. ACS has 1500 members and has sold over 120,000 publications with 130,000 going to members. The Minor Counties Histories have sold 8000 copies alone whilst the pre 1900 match scores sold out. (About 40,000 copies) In fact I spoke to Keith yesterday about this. It was Keith who first discovered the Britcher book and compiled the first list of pre-1800 matches. Don't tell lies John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.4.232 ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Although it was immediately kicked into touch by the admin involved, this item was posted yesterday on the arbitration requests page.
Since you are all members of my fiefdom and have been admitted by my power into the elect (sic), I question if you do me sufficient honour? From now on, when you post on this page, you will begin with the words "Hail Jack".
Actually, I think the funniest thing in the whole ridiculous piece is the suggestion that there is a "serious cricket history community". Why not have a bit of fun too with their hobby?
When I was working on my book, which is essentially a matchlist derived from many sources, I actually stopped using a list published by the ACS because it contained so many errors and duplications that I found it unreliable. I relied mainly on the likes of G B Buckley and F S Ashley-Cooper for my information and, apart from typos, I'm satisfied that the match details are fundamentally correct. I checked some of them against primary sources when I had the time. Where I expressed a personal opinion, however, others are entitled to have a different opinion: that applies to historians like Arlott too and not just amateurs like me. You will note that, in all of the "risible" nonsense we have seen from Mr Daft/Fieldgoalunit/HughGal/Rosebank, there has never been a suggestion of one single specific error of content, although details have been requested. If he can point to one statement and say that is wrong because, for example, Buckley wrote such-and-such, then I'll take it on board, but all we ever get is that the small clique in the ACS have a monopoly of wisdom (because they are so serious) and anyone else (including Harry Altham and Roy Webber, incidentally, as he has actually said so) must be talking rubbish.
If some of his posts like this arbitration one were not so bloody hilarious, it would all be rather sad. Hail me! ---- Jack | talk page 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Seemingly a very pointless article; Great Britain Cricket starts by stating there isn't a Great Britain cricket team! Don't know if speedy or a prod would be appropriate here? Just a regular AfD maybe? Any thoughts? Harrias talk 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this encyclopaedic? I'm not sure if even the subject is true, and the inclusion criteria seem to be the editors own opinions. The only "references" given are external links to the home page of each stadium. This is the same account that created the above GB cricket team articles. Does this stand or is it OR/own opinion? SGGH ping! 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Mendesa, with his associate/alternate account User:Amar Mendes and his IPs 78.109.14.129 and 78.109.14.130 aren't having a good run with their articles at the moment. SGGH ping! 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
So says Hilditch. I have to disagree YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
On the CricketEurope site there is this article regarding the 2019 World Cup. I had initially included it as a reference for the Cricket in Afghanistan page, but then I remembered what day it is. So does anyone think it is a serious article or an April fools joke? If it is a joke I won't want to put it in the article! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As it is April fools day, you could be forgiven for thinking this scorecard was an April fools if you had no idea about the two teams involved: AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
1 April 2010
|
v
|
||
If I have an image of Sir Everton Weekes dating from the 1950 WI tour of England (scanned from a booklet), what licence could I use for it? -- Roisterer ( talk) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Some advice needed guys. I have created the article on Andrew Wingfield Digby and have found a picture of him here. The copyright part of the St Andrew's Church, Oxford website can be found here.
My question is, can I upload his image to commons and if so under what licence? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Following the discussions above, and those made at Talk:England cricket team against Pakistan in UAE in 2009–10, I am looking for a consensus on how these should be displayed. At the moment, there isn't a 100% consistency on how they are done, with some users, including myself and PeeJay using piped links with initials, ie PD Collingwood, while others prefer to use the full name, ie Paul Collingwood. Similarly, for the number of overs bowled by an individual bowler, some put [4] and other (4 overs). The other difference I have seen on some occasions is that some users will only list the top player from each team, so one bat and one bowler from each side, while others will put the top two or three from each side.
Although I currently use piped initials, I do feel there is an argument for using full names. While Cricinfo and CricketArchive and all traditional cricket scorecards use them, they are generally viewed by cricket fans. However, Wikipedia will often be viewed by those who have nothing more than a passing interest in cricket, and for them such initials as IJL Trott and LRPL Taylor may not be immediately obvious, but they may not really want to click or hover to find out who it is. Having the full names would seem to be far more informative. Do we just use initials because that's the way it is done? To a casual observer is DS Smith Devon or Dwayne?
Similarly with [4] rather than (4 overs). Obviously [4] takes up less space, but is that really necessary? (4 overs) is far clearer, and is immediately obvious what it means, rather than [4], which to a first time observer may make little or no sense.
Finally, the number of players. Personally on this one, I prefer only the top player from each team, with the exception of when two players have identical stats, in which case they both have to be listed. As more players get added, the scorecard gets messier and messier, especially when equal numbers aren't added from each side.
Well, that's my tupenny's worth! Harrias ( talk) 09:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, a lot of replies so far, so to split the discussion up and make it easier to summarise, I'll create subsections and put who (as I understand it) leans each way.
Managerarc would like to see flags used in the result, ie England won by 10 wickets. Harrias ( talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
|teamn=
field of the template. —
AMBerry (
talk)
17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)I believe WP:FLAG says that we shouldn't, but I've not reviewed that for a long time and I can't grit my teeth to do so this early in the morning. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
When a team is bowled out, for example for 118, do we denote that by just saying 118 (followed by the overs) or 118 all out (followed by the overs).
VS
Black hole77 talk | contrib 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
<-All out is unambiguous. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In special occasions more than one batsman or bowler can be listed, but generally just one of each from each side. There is currently no consensus on whether to list "12 (23.1 overs)" or "12 all out (23.1 overs)". Harrias ( talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate to go back to the all out issue, but no consensus means just that. At the moment the doc favours the 100 (24 overs) format. By my rough totting up of !votes below splits the issue right down the middle.— MDCollins ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Inclusion of all out
Exclusion
Depends on the source
— MDCollins ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone.
I've just seen (via WP:FOOTY) that there is an RFC on the wording of WP:ATHLETE pretty much along the same lines as we've been discussion above. Is a one-time performance in a certain league enough or does the wording need tightening. If anyone wants to summarize our view and comment it might be a good idea. It looks like heading for "no consensus" at the moment, although there are several interested parties and WikiProjects interested in throwing some ideas around.
— MDCollins ( talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class cricket articles should have covers.
If you need help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a legitimate discussion about the validity of a major source on this project. It is valid and pertient. If you think not then you are simply compounding the error. It is not for one editor to decide what should be on here because BJ is their mate. n respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.2.72 ( talk)
It's the text you right that is the problem. A big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.45.241 ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Further to the topic above and with specific reference to the point raised by Johnlp about international matches, I suggest a rewording of the second paragraph of WP:CRIN to read as follows with the addition of one new sentence:
"The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any major domestic competition. For this purpose, a limited overs international is defined as any international match involving two teams representing countries that are Full or Associate Members of the ICC. Major domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Major domestic limited overs competitions include all ListA matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc."
We need to be clear that embracing all Associate Member international matches will greatly increase the scope of our notability criteria. It may be that some of you prefer to impose a limitation according to certain levels of competition; some of you may prefer an even broader scope by inclusion of Affiliate Members. Could we please discuss and try to achieve a consensus? ---- Jack | talk page 09:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
By saying "major FC" are you omitting people if they made a one or a few appearances only, in stand-alone tour matches against foreign teams that don't count for competition points, or things like one-off matches for Tasmania before they were in SS YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I defer to Andrew on this as he is our subject expert re Associate and Affiliate Members and the WCL. I think Andrew should decide on the wording to move things forward and, as with anything in CRIN, we can tweak it in due course if it is deemed necessary. ---- Jack | talk page 06:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need an article about something that (knowing the ICC) may happen in around 6 years, at an unknown venue? Harrias talk 11:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone else have a look at this, I've undone (and recently rolled back) edits by an anonymous editor adding a section about him being a Warrington Wolves fan. In my opinion, completely non-notable, but as it keeps getting altered back (slowly, so 3RR isn't an issue), I thought it best if someone could either back me up, or tell me I'm being stupid. Harrias talk 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done to Mattinbgn YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Another case of the "notable, says who?" condition of the list under "notable openers". I propose either removing it, or finding a Wisden (or similar) list of great openers and attributing it "according to Wisden" or including the top ten players in terms of highest average at one or two. SGGH ping! 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This list of "famous" or "notable" sporting people has no clear
inclusion or
exclusion criteria. Please help
improve this article by defining clear inclusion criteria to contain only subjects that fit those criteria. |
{{Famous players}} - useful! SGGH ping! 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice in the recently updated summary that SGGH says Sidwell was dismissed whilst being on the train. Was he in fact on the train or was he stuck on a platform somewhere listening to the usual insincere regrets that the thing has been delayed by 48 minutes? Perhaps he was on the bog having eaten a British Rail sandwich? ---- Jack | talk page 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In March an IP user expanded the article on Harry Downer to claim he was dead. The date put in was 31 December 1999, which I am 100% sure is made-up or blatant vandalism. Downer would be 94 now (the oldest surviving Hampshire cricketer I think) and no cricket sites have a date of death for him. Would anyone be able to confirm this for me? Pretty sure old Harry is still with us though... AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey ( bananabucket!) 03:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Allan Rae the composer really more famous than West Indies' Allan Rae? A user has moved the latter (to Allan Rae (cricketer)) to create the article on the former on the page " Allan Rae" a few days ago with this comment: "make way for article on more well known composer". Shouldn't Allan Rae should be a disambiguation page? OrangeKnight ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox recent cricketer now open for discussion. It does not appear to be too controversial.
Now if we could get rid of {{ Infobox historic cricketer}}, {{ Cricketer Infobox}}, {{ Infobox cricketer}} and {{ Infobox Old Cricketer}} ... -- Mattinbgn\ talk 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{Cricketer Infobox}}
next, and it should be ready to go soon.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)This is a legitimate discussion about the validity of a major source on this project. It is valid and pertient. If you think not then you are simply compounding the error. It is not for one editor to decide what should be on here because BJ is their mate. n respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.2.72 ( talk)
It's the text you right that is the problem. A big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.45.241 ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
At long last, an independent admin has taken note of the problems we have had with the ACS troll and has banned his IP range, not just a specific address, for one month. As I understand it, he cannot now access WP unless he uses a computer in another area. I would say that this establishes a precedent and that, if he reappears and tries to make trouble again, any of the admins here should be able to extend the ban. I have tried to reason with him but it is a waste of time. He is here to make trouble and that is it. I think the final straw was his totally unacceptable taunt on AA's talk page, which he later described as being "temperate". I despair.
I'm afraid it is my presence here which has brought this volcanic ash down on all your heads and I'm very sorry it has happened.
Back to the cricket. Yorkshire for the title, methinks. Now how many will that be? ---- Jack | talk page 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We're down to the last few of the cricket unreferenced BLPs, and three of the remaining identified problem articles concern former or present secretaries of Middlesex County Cricket Club, while a fourth is a former president of the club. None of these people played cricket at first-class or List A level, and two of the three secretaries were in post for only a short time (the other is the current secretary/chief exec, who has been in post since 1997). A further Middlesex CCC secretary of similarly short duration isn't in the Unreffed BLPs list, but crops up in the list you get by clicking on the [[Category: Secretaries of Middlesex CCC]] link.
Do we have a view about the notability (or otherwise) of these kinds of people? We have a cricket administrators category, and I can see that some county secretaries (eg Vockins, Ryder, Jimmy James) are good candidates for notability in this category, while others (eg Lister) qualify anyway because they were once players. But the short-term people? I'm happy to be persuaded either way. Johnlp ( talk) 22:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, can we please have some more eyes on Doug Bollinger. An IP keeps adding unsourced and irrelevant (and probably false) information about Bollinger wearing a wig. Previous attempts at getting the IP blocked have been unsuccessful for reasons I don't understand. Thus can a few editors please add it to your watch list and watch for vandalism. The article needs lots of work, obviously, but I don't think this editors contributions are what we are looking for. Thanks. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Needs eyes YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
See this change from using Khan to Imran. I think it's correct. Aaroncrick TALK 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a ticklish subject around here and I am sorry to bring it up again, but I think it's necessary. BlackJack, for whose work and energy on early cricket most of us have enormous admiration, bordering on awe, has now retired from WP. A major irritation for the sometimes named, sometimes IP-addressed, people who've been coming on here and arguing with Jack has been some of the commentary and speculation parts of Jack's website book, From Lads to Lord's (LTL); the statistical record of 18th century matches in Jack's book is not (much) disputed. But in a fairly wide-ranging debate on the WP:RS/Noticeboard, now archived, specific places where LTL differs from, for example, Cricketarchive have been identified. And in particular, Jack's nomination of a "Champion County" in 18th century seasons appears to have no identifiable backing apart from a section within or adjacent to LTL. As that section of LTL in which Jack made these assertions about county champions has now been removed from Jack's external site, the citations supporting this view are in any cases dead links.
In these circumstances, I am proposing, gently over the next few days, removing these links and the material that depends upon them. I am not removing links to Jack's work, LTL, where that appears to be an accessible and readible confirmation of other material in these articles: just the contentious stuff that now has no references will go. I've done a couple in the 1730 English cricket season and 1731 English cricket season articles where you can see what I've taken out. If you think I'm being too bold and too harsh here, then shout: I certainly don't want to airbrush Jack's contribution out of the site, and it's evident that most of what he contributed was above board and should be supported. But where the links no longer work, and where the material that depends on those links can't be substantiated by any other means, I think it has to go. Johnlp ( talk) 22:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Phew! I make that make 918 known players who have represented a Hampshire team of some sort in first-class/List-A/T20 cricket. If you spot any that are missing, feel free to add them. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
All have a single first-class appearance, all currently have PROD tags. I'm currently very inactive here, so I might forget to remove them all if I don't come back here occasionally and look. Please forgive me for passing the buck, but it's very likely I won't come back here to look for at least a week.
Thank you, all. Hope everyone is well. Bobo . 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've undone a few of the prods and left the tagging editor a note. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Can anyone else see the similarities between User:MDCollins/Honours board batting (incomplete in my sandbox) and List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground, created a couple of days ago? Is this sandbox 'theft' by User:Mr.Apples2010 or an unfortunate coincidence?
Anyway, which of the two table formats are most useful? I'm not convinced that the flags are necessary here (see WP:FLAGS), especially as we've eliminated them from most of our articles.
— MDCollins ( talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes just an unfortunate coincidence. Mr.Apples2010 ( talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going through some of the pre-county club Hampshire players and I have come across a player called Francis Compton. The person on the bluelink has the same name and the same year of birth. The cricketer can be found here and here. The article on the person has his date of death as 1915 whereas the pre-existing article has his date of death as 1918.
Make also makes me think this is the cricketer is his political career, where he was a Member of Parliament for South Hampshire and later the New Forest. Now looking at the year of birth and his connection to Hampshire, could it be suffice to say this is the cricketing Francis Compton?
What I have done is added the cricketing information to the pre-existing article (this can always be removed later) while sources as found, it is the different date of death which is giving me some doubt. Some help would be much appreciated. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that we've had the fourth Twenty20 International century, does anyone else think that a list of centuries scored in Twenty20 Internationals would be a good idea? It may not have many entries right now, but I'm sure we could make a proper list out of it and it is only ever going to grow. Anyone up for making it? – Pee Jay 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Has been created, I was surprised that it didn't exist already but I did search for a while for it! SGGH ping! 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There are also a couple of queries on Talk:Unicorns cricket team if anyone can help.— MDCollins ( talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I did wonder what the point was... (I'll get my coat!)— User:MDCollins ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[1] – I know the South Africans aren't particularly good at women's cricket, but Deandra Dottin hit a 38 ball century, and is at the moment still going on 106* with an amazing 9 sixes! Harrias talk 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
From the pre-seeding of the Super8s, it seems as though the four strongest (on form) teams have landed in the same group YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Some newly converted Indian cricket fans are saying it's the best in the world... YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to get some thoughts on the article for the cricketer/coach/umpire/referee Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan. While I realise this is his full name, it is rarely used in full in English. Hack ( talk) 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! What about including the T20 stats in the infobox for the cricketers, now that the World T20 Championship is taking place in the Carribeans. பரிதிமதி ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Career Statistics | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tests
| ||||||||||
ODIs
| ||||||||||
T20Is
|
Does anyone know if he's England-qualified (yet? always has been? not yet?)
I'm increasingly of the opinion he's knocking at the door for international recognition, but our article isn't clear for which team. As a Saffer, he'd fit in well to team England. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
48 runs @ 12.00. SR 70. Bring in Shaun Marsh. An Indian-style political selection YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Cricket grounds in England, many of the names of the grounds are very obscure. For all but the most famous grounds, it seems to me that the title of an article should tell you where the ground is located, and preferably have a DEFAULTSORT on the name of the town as well. For example, who would have guessed that the Rutland Recreation Ground is not in the county of Rutland at all, but is in Ilkeston in Derbyshire. Surely something like "Rutland Recreation Ground (Ilkeston)" would be a better title? And I nearly created an article entitled "Blackheath Cricket Ground", before discovering that all that was needed was a redirect to Rectory Field. If there is a consensus, I might do some moving of articles to give them better titles. JH ( talk page) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jhall1 and Johnlp. Naming conventions are there to help, not hinder. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There's been a few AFDs on international cricketers who have played at the lower levels of the game recently, and it has been suggested that some sort of criteria need to be established to decide who is and isn't notable when it comes to international cricket. After having a think about it, I've come up with a proposal, detailed on one of my user sub-pages here. I've tried to make it so that only players with a significant number of matches are included for those who have played below "major cricket" level. Any comments/suggestions for alteration are most welcome - I've not put too much effort into the wording or layout, so feel free to edit that! Once it's been thrashed out here, we can add it to WP:CRIN. Andrew nixon ( talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As Shoaib Malik is going to play for Lancashire in the T20 Cup (assuming his visa goes through fine) I thought I'd take a look at his article. That was a bit of a shock; surely we shouldn't have controversy sections? Any controversy can be integrated into the rest of the article rather than given such prominence. Anyway, I've had a go at rewriting parts of the article. The guy's had a long an eventful career, so there's only so much I can do in a day. It's still got chunks missing and it's patchy – for example the stuff on Gloucestershire is probably complete, but there's almost nothing on his domestic career in Pakistan – but I've trimmed a lot of unimportant stuff am looking for input from folks here. It would be great if anyone can help with the article as it's getting a lot of attention at the moment, almost certainly due to his recent marriage. Nev1 ( talk) 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've finally got around to listing Laurie Nash at Peer Review. Pleased to get any feedback. Cheers. -- Roisterer ( talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've been looking at List of English national cricket captains and was thinking that going with our existing consensus on other articles, that this (and related international captain lists) should be List of England national cricket captains. Was going to execute/propose a move, but best check here first. — User:MDCollins ( talk) 18:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I've requested a move for all of the "List of fooian national cricket captains" (found in Category:Cricket captains); along with List of Tasmanian cricket captains which is the only non-international list I've found. Would somebody check I've got them right, and haven't forgotten any?
There is a whole bunch of "Category:Fooian cricket captains" that I believe should be move to "Category:Foo national(?) cricket captains" as we don't tend to make categories for captains from Foo, only captains of Foo. Else KP should be in Category:South African cricket captains as it exists at the moment. Thoughts? — User:MDCollins ( talk) 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
England WIN! SGGH ping! 18:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought the English here would be a little chirpy :) Well played England, far and away the best team in the tournament. Enjoy it while it lasts, England's ritual humiliation in Ashes series in Australia is only 6 months away! :) -- Mattinbgn\ talk 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
England won something at cricket? What? I must've missed it. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The next one in my little side project, coming along okay. SGGH ping! 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to the Australian team, beating their traditional rivals in the final. A great effort to defend what seemed to be an inadequate total. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Any Sri Lankan cricket experts around? I was writing Chris Brown (cricketer) the other day who CricketArchive has down as having played for Badureliya Sports Club. This was red-linked, and User:AssociateAffiliate rightly found Badureliya Cricket Club and linked to that. I had a look at that article which uses B. Cricket Club throughout, but has one reference cited which refers to B. Sports Club. There is however a not-very-exiciting CricInfo link to B. CC. I assume that the club usually goes by the name of B. Sport Club (where cricket is presumably only one sport).
This Cricinfo article confuses things nicely with the following
The hyperlink points to the scorecard with the heading "Tier A: Badureliya Sports Club v Chilaw Marians Cricket Club".
Would I be justified in moving Badureliya Cricket Club to Badureliya Sports Club?
— User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There's currently an exhibition at Lord's called "Swinging Away: How Cricket and Baseball Connect". There's a fascinating illustrated interview with the curator of the exhibition on the BBC's website, here. JH ( talk page) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
We've had an oppose to the proposal above re: the captains list articles. Could some of you take a look? Apparently "List of England cricket captains" is grammatically incorrect - well maybe it's ones like "List of Australia national cricket captains".
He prefers "List of Australia's national cricket captains":
I'm not sure this is correct, but it could do with some more support anyway. I guess if we are really pedantic it should be "List of Australia national cricket team captains", but that seems a bit OTT.
Talk:List of English national cricket captains#Requested move — User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - can you precis that and add it to the !debate?! Cheers.— User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah - there's a lot similar to that that needs sorting, but one thing at a time (at least we'll have some related precedence to point to) - hopefully!— User:MDCollins ( talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)