![]() | 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 75 | ← | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
The reaction to CA'a commercial decision is quite amusing. Bearing in mind we have to pay for books, why not blacklist them as well. It's clear that some editors would like to do that to CA. This is the real world and cricket, outside of 20 and a few internationals is a nickle and dime set up.
Hi guys. I happened to come across Category:Central Zone (Pakistan) cricketers during some category cleanup work and noticed that there's no corresponding article for Central Zone (Pakistan). It's a basic principle that there shouldn't be categories without a corresponding article, and I assume you'd want to create it rather than delete the category. They played a couple of first class games against touring sides in the 50s/60s and played one domestic match in an incarnation of the President's Trophy - see Cricketarchive. I don't know what the policy is on these things, but I leave it to you guys to decide... Le Deluge ( talk) 18:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Created a stub called Central Zone cricket team (Pakistan) to kick this off. Jack | talk page 18:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I've just discovered the following templates:
These are only used on a handful of articles, and in the body of biographies ( example). Unless I've missed something, I don't see any reason for these to exist. Happy to nominate them for deletion, unless someone knows of a good reason why they're needed. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I have been working on, what I feel is, a much required page in the Cricket project: List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket. I would like to discuss more about the page with you all. I'm also hoping to receive contributions from others. Cheers! -- Coconut1002 ( talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Having looked at the article in more detail and also having seen "see also" links to it placed on biographical pages, I've referred it to AfD because of the BLP concerns primarily but there are multiple other issues as well. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket to take part in the discussion. Jack | talk page 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please could someone take a look at the page 2021 ICC Champions Trophy? I created it as possible search term and redirected it to the main tournament page. However, another user is adamant that it should be an article. The source they've provided looks very dubious (another wiki?) and I don't think it has any use other than a redirect. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Shah. The nomination is by the same person who raised the Abbas Baseer case (see above), using the same argument. Jack | talk page 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Since it was founded in 1787, over 3,000 players have represented MCC in top-class matches. Interestingly, MCC have only played in 15 List A matches (mostly abroad in the 1970s) and never (yet) in a top-class T20 match. I've been putting together lists by period of all the players and these are the results:
All players are listed (except for the inevitable one that has slipped through the net – there's always one!) but, apart from 1787–1826, the articles are unfinished. I've noted all MCC tours that each player went on (Colin Cowdrey seems to have done the most) and I've used a † symbol to identify the hundred who played in the List A matches. I still need to complete detail in many cases such as clubs, Test status and, needless to say, linkage. Many players were occasional and played only for MCC so there are still a lot of redlinks and no links; and there are many players whose article titles I need to check before creating a link.
This has been a much bigger undertaking than any of the county lists so it ain't going to be perfect. If anyone could run the rule over the lists and correct any errors or omissions you might see, that would be great. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 07:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'd prefer it to be a single list (subdivided), so that each player occurs once. Jack | talk page 20:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's been around for a few weeks and has been relisted twice. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
User:MOTORAL1987 recently moved all the Cricket World Cup articles to include "ICC". Were the competitions actually called that? As far as I know, the Cricket World Cup has only ever been called that, without including the "ICC" bit. It's like the Rugby World Cup - it's not the "IRB Rugby World Cup" (well, it certainly isn't any more, since the IRB changed its name, but whatever...) – Pee Jay 15:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Our "flagship" article? Its main problem is "too many cooks" and too many of them deal in trivia and don't realise that the article's purpose is to explain a complex sport to a readership unfamiliar with it. One of the article's worst aspects has been the introduction which I have tried in the past to improve: well, temporarily at best. I've just spent some time on it again and it occurred to me that we have a very good root category here which is limited to our 26 "top importance" articles. Why not, I thought, build the intro around these 26 articles by ensuring that all of them get a mention by means of a wikilink? At the same time, the intro must comply with WP:LEAD (it didn't) and it must present a readable, concise summary of the whole article (it didn't).
Can you all please look over the revised intro and see if it now passes muster? Perhaps if we can achieve a consensus here re what the intro should and should not contain, we can use that as a rationale for removing stuff added in future which does not enhance the article. Thanks very much.
Hmmph! And then there is the rest of the article........ (despairs) Jack | talk page 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
How about updating the world map depicting full members and associate members of the ICC in the articles of International Cricket Council, where Ireland and Afghanistan are still colored in light green (indicating associate membership) instead of dark green (indicating full membership) even though they are full members now? Or at least someone tell me whether (& how) I can edit those maps on Wikipedia. Arka 92 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of World XI wicket-keepers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World XI wicket-keepers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Harrias talk 20:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles in this template Template:Wicket-keepers in Test cricket are nothing more than WP:LISTCRUFT. If everyone agrees so we could nominate them for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination). Thanks. Jack | talk page 13:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's been around for a month and is overly represented by other than WP:CRIC members. Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Any good ideas for sourcing this claim in a more sustainable way? I've given up with cricket archive, but one of you might be more willing to persevere with their nonsense. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated Big Four (cricket) for deletion. See here if you wish to contribute to the deletion discussion. – Pee Jay 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
A couple of things:
Cheers -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
which restrict the nationality of players in national teams are to be considered as “pure sporting” rules and thus do not fall under (then) Articles 39 and 49 EC." Harrias talk 16:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC) <-I'm going to do the page move, as I don't think it's controversial, based on these sontributions, the worst we can dig up is a page that's inconsistent. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I've proposed that Knocking-in be merged to Cricket bat. The discussion about this can be found here. – Pee Jay 11:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed these being added to articles? For example, look at this template {{ New South Wales Squad 1928-29 Sheffield Shield Champions}} and then go to the foot of Don Bradman's article. Thoughts on this? Are they needed for every single season, or are they template clutter? Also ping the user creating them @ Dutchy85:. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lugnts... thanks for the heads up... I didn't get my ping, so appreciate the message. I have been doing older shield templates... I took my lead from people who had been doing templates for modern day Shield competition champions and thought it was appropriate people do it for older years as well. I don't want to clutter, truly - maybe we could put it in a Nav Box? The NSW squad from 1928-29 was v unusual in the large number of people who were in it. Would love help with the FB community on this one. Thanks! :) Dutchy85 ( talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Add these templates too: Template:Sydney Thunder 2015–16 BBL Champions, Template:Rajasthan Royals 2008 IPL Champions, Template:Sydney Thunder 2015–16 WBBL Champions, Template:Sydney Sixers 2016–17 WBBL Champions, Template:Sydney Sixers 2011–12 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2016–17 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2014–15 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2013–14 BBL Champions Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there no way we could keep the templates in some form? most of the players referred to have hardly any templates whatsoever - I feel its such a great resource to have people see what players were in Shield winning sides. The Sheffield Shield is one of the leading domestic competitons in the world - surely its worthy of some recognition? As hard to win as the BBL. Is it the word "squad"? When did the concept of squad officially become a thing? Can we use a different word? Not assign numbers It just seems such a shame. Dutchy85 ( talk) 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the one who used to commentate on himself.
Anyone know where I can find source information about his domestic career, time with Western Province and/or family (other than Tino). Cheers. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Something odd has gone on at Vinod Kambli. I've left a note at Talk:Vinod_Kambli#Copy.2Fpaste.3F because I don't have the time to work out what has happened. Hopefully, someone from this project can pick up on it. Sorry to dump stuff like this. - Sitush ( talk) 12:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Astonishingly, we had a redlink at this name. I've just started it. And I notice that our daughter articles stop in 1914.
Any suggestions for how to make this main article work?
What boundaries should we have for after 1914?
Maybe WWII, end of amateurs, Packer, millennium? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Inspired by England's current two-toned Test outfit, I was reading the article Cricket whites and noticed the sentence "One-Day Internationals were first played in white clothes but after December 2000, all ODI cricket utilizes coloured clothing." Is this true? Hack ( talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The article about the former England cricket captain has long languished at Wally Hammond, rather than the more formal Walter Hammond which his later amateur status and social pretensions might perhaps support. Now an enterprising Rugby League aficionado has parked a stub article about a somewhat obscure Wakefield Trinity player of 1913 on the Walter Hammond page, and has assiduously gone through all the back-doubles where this more formal name used to link to the cricketer to change them all to "Wally". What do we feel about this (if anything)? There's no doubt that the Rugby League editor has done his work very thoroughly, and it's probably unreasonable to think that the cricketer should be able to command both the Wally and the Walter articles. But I for one have long been uncomfortable with calling him "Wally" anyway. Johnlp ( talk) 22:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hatnotes are in place at both articles, so it is easy to get from one to the other. What woud be your preferred solution, Johnlp? Move the rugby player to Walter Hammond (rugby league) and redirect Walter Hammond to Wally Hammond, or a disambiguation page at Walter Hammond? What is the primary topic for Walter Hammond?
Thought experiment: what would our reaction be, if there was a rugby league player from the 1910s called Donald Bradman?
![]() A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Craig_McMillan&diff=780511450&oldid=777817306 shows cumulative edits by one editor that are oddly phrased and incorrectly phrased in at least one place near the top. I don't know how much of it should be reverted or not. The editor is very prolific, so I couldn't research if similar errors were made in other articles. Sorry all I can do is point this out due to real life limitations. Thanks in advance! — Geekdiva ( talk) 03:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been engaged in a discussion about notability for cricketers. The case in point is a player whose first name we don't know and whose bonafides are established in only one place: cricketarchive.com. Here is the overarching rule for notability of sports figures: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [From Wikipedia:Notability (sports)]. If a WP article is relying on a single source, that's simply a mirror of another database. It hardly adds value to the reader - except in this case it relieves them from paying to see cricketarchive.com. This is not an attack on cricket specifically. It's a general question about notability. I'm not sure why sports figures should get articles in WP based on their existence in a single database. What do you think? Rhadow ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This will be fun. Can anyone help me find either the match details or (better) details and footage of two things:
Hope you can help! -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, Bill Athey only made three hundreds for England in international matches - one in Tests (123 against Pakistan at Lord's in 1987) and two in ODIs (142* against New Zealand at Old Trafford in 1986, and 111 against Australia at Brisbane in 1987). One of those?
Gooch appears to have bowled the last over in the same match against New Zealand, which apparently went for 26 runs. He and Athey then put on 193 for the first wicket.
New Zealand cricket team in England in 1986 does not help much (also does not mention Botham coming back from suspension in the Third Test to equal the world record for wickets, or Gower being noballed for deliberately throwing the last ball bowled in the Second Test (0-0-4-0), which was the second time that NZ won a Test in England, and so on), but here is Wisden's report. [3] Tracking down Cricinfo's coverage of the 1986 series brings you to a 2009 vintage page! [4] I think the website has reinvented itself two or three times since then. Seldom for the better. The new format for live match coverage takes some getting used to, but it is working much better than last week.
Good luck finding video online from an ODI in 1986! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.241 ( talk) 13:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The editor mentioned a few threads up has been adding lists of MoM awards (from ODIs only) to rather a lot of articles. I came across this at Curtly Ambrose, and I can't really see the need. It may be worth keeping an eye on. Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's do some maths. Let's take a theoretical player who has a very long/successful ODI career and therefore plays in 200 ODIs. In this theoretical world they have an even chance of winning MotM in the notional 50% of matches won by their team. One eleventh of 100 is fewer than 10. I don't have a strong opinion that we should keep the tables, but I can't see a strong reason for getting rid of them. For most players, it'd be 4 or 5 awards or fewer. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. I haven't checked the records but I presume the extreme example is Sachin Tendulkar, who won a staggering 62 of these awards. Some sensible thinking has hived this off into a daughter article, List_of_ODI_awards_for_Sachin_Tendulkar and it's not in his biog. I think that's the way to go if the list on any individual's article gets overbearing. I see no harm in keeping the short lists at Ambrose and Collingwood. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
What makes Howstat less "reliable" than Cricinfo or CricketArchive? We know they all have their idiosyncrasies and shortcomings. There are lists of "most MoM" awards at Cricinfo - Test and ODI (which also says Ambrose has 14 awards in Tests, but he is not on the ODI list, minimum 10) - but the Test one says "Match awards have only been a regular feature in Tests since the mid-1980s and the list is not complete for earlier matches". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.82 ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This has to be up there amongst the oddest things I've seen on WP. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this may have happened before, but someone has moved page to Windies cricket team. This seems to go against WP:COMMONNAME and needs discussion rather than WP:BOLD. What is best way to revert this? Spike 'em ( talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
And to get us started:
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
ICC ESPN cricinfo BBC all still refer to "West Indies" as team name Spike 'em ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
According to Cricket West Indies back in May:
Cricket West Indies (CWI) will begin its 91st year today, with a new name and website as part of a comprehensive rebranding programme. From today the West Indies Cricket Board will be renamed Cricket West Indies and formally recognise all representative teams as the WINDIES
Thankfully no-one seems to have noticed (apart from the overzealous page mover earlier today) Spike 'em ( talk) 15:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There are a couple of current page move discussions:
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest anyone to complete the full five wicket haul list at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground.It has not been updated for a quite long time as this list has about 50+ fifers.Thank you. Abishe ( talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
First instinct: delete. Second instinct: probably doing no harm and not obviously nn and if ppl want to work them up, fine. But the Headingly one (and any others in a similar condition) should be deleted or improved or redirected pronto. That's just misleading. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The list in Geoffrey_Boycott#Opening_partners is so flawed (as it admits) it's probably worth removing all the stats and leaving a list of names, which is a bit of a shame. Anyone good enough with Statsguru to get round the problem, without hitting OR problems? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I think either of these does it nicely. Ignoring the odd line doesn't feel too much like OR. Not like deducting numbers / recalculating. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it right to disambiguate the two Ollie Robinsons by their county when we have other means of disambiguating? They won't always play for their respective current teams, and if they ever end up on the same team we'll have to move them anyway, so surely it makes sense to move Ollie Robinson (Sussex cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1993), and Ollie Robinson (Kent cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1998)? – Pee Jay 18:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of English player Articles that I believe contain excessive detail of subsection for every international series played and often down to describing every single innings. I edit a variety of sports and the details are generally limited to career highlights and major lowlights. Examples:
Compare it to Michael Clarke (cricketer) or Virat Kohli. LibStar ( talk) 07:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's some more:
LibStar ( talk) 05:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Play is due to run on day one of the Ashes from morning to evening on November 23, Australia time.
I presume that straddles two days in UTC. Is it mostly November 24 in UTC?
Trying to come up with something for Main page, and 23 November is worth avoiding if possible. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify that whether Last Man Stands' Cricket is popular across almost every countries or not?I just created a draft page which is not organized according to guidelines but take a look at it. Last Man Stands cricketAnyone can create article regarding this topic as I couldn't find adequate resources.But on the other hand,I am not quite sure about the entire history and popularity of this form of cricket.I just read about this form of cricket in newspapers,other sources in Sri Lanka. Abishe ( talk) 14:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that there were some edit conflicts regarding the issue that whether [6] Chanderpaul is an actual Guyanese origin cricketer or a Tamilan cricketer.One anonymous user has tried to say that Chanderpaul is a Tamilan and he is not from Hindi origin.I just undone the edit of the unregistered User. Abishe ( talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking through some of the 02blythed entries in the draft list, I notice that CricketArchive is named in some as an external link and that it carries a "subscription required" notice. This breaches WP:ELREG. I suggest that the subscription notice is removed from all articles because it is pointless and doesn't help anyone, especially if, as I am (perhaps reliably) informed they will do, CA terminates subscription next year. Jack | talk page 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought of the tactic as Bodyline, with a capital. And indeed, when Bodyline passed FAC and got its shiny star, that's how the article looked. Subsequently, someone has changed all the incidences of the word that don't begin a sentence to a lower case b, and I'd like consensus here on which we should go with. (I'll post at the article talk, too). -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding {{ infobox cricket team}} that could use your input. Please join in the conversation here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this campaign launch. All the best. Jack | talk page 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Due to some alleged (I haven't looked into this myself) poor work in creating articles from User:02blythed, a large number of articles that user has created or expanded have been taken out of mainspace and into draft space. This includes numerous international Test cricketers. I don't have time to look into this too much myself, but they are all included in Category:Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed. Harrias talk 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Erm, I don't get it. What policy would demand that Draft:Akbar_Ansari, the second article I checked, be draftified? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Can't wait. Just found one of a cricketer who played 71 Test matches and the biog includes a string of reliable source references. Draft:Chris Martin (cricketer). -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this WikiProject wasn't notified of the discussion? What was so very pressing about doing this for articles, many of which are up to 10 years old, before we could weigh in? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
an abuse of AWBI’d say that it isn’t because I was implementing community consensus from a closed WP:AN discussion, secondly, I didn’t actually move the pages with AWB, I did that manually, and thirdly, none of the actions I have taken have contravened the recent WP:ARBCOM case on AWB, nor violated the WP:AWB/UM.
I'm sorry, DrStrauss, you've done a terrible job of this. The first half dozen articles I've checked, all of them have 2 or more sources. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
terriblejob. I think it went pretty well bar the 15-or-so ones that I self-reverted (and Chis Martin). DrStrauss talk 13:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please save us a lot of time and use the tool to revert yourself on anyone who is dead? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are ones containing "died":
DrStrauss talk 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a step in the right direction. If you pop those articles back into mainspace and remove the category (which should be a hidden one, btw) from them, and maybe trawl the subcats of Category:Deaths by year, that'd be a good start. We can then work through what's left and see which ones (like this) do need work, because none of us would deny that there is a problem: BLPs with 0 or 1 reliable source. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Draft:Ian Billcliff was not created by the user in question, so checked all other international cricketers I could spot in the list that have been made a draft (excluding Bangladeshis) ... all of the biographies below were created by someone else;
It really wasn't a difficult task to identify the articles to review in the first place, it was made a lot harder than it should have been. I'm haven't used AWB for some time (only the script version), but my understanding if you can paste article names into the list box, in which case a simple check of this widely used tool would have revealed all of the articles the user has created. At the very least you have a list for crosschecking. Jevansen ( talk) 07:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The move log also is a way of finding the articles draftified and has the advantage of (I think) including any subsequently speedy deleted under WP:G13. People are entitled to disregard draftification/refund when making G13 requests and acting on them although it is not considered best practice. [7] Thincat ( talk) 08:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved somewhere in the region of 100 of the articles back to mainspace now. I think most of what is left is genuinely problematic stuff, though I've probably missed a couple. To be fair, even a lot of what I moved back is stuff that does need work, but wasn't covered by the AN discussion. We're annoyed at these moves, but we need to be aware that there is a genuine problem here that we need to fix. Harrias talk 09:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have consulted the admin who deleted some/most/all of the redirects. See User talk:Malcolmxl5#Deleted redirects. He is trying to help but it seems there may be no systematic way of restoring these. Thincat ( talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Dweller:. Thanks for letting me know about Argent (Middlesex cricketer), although it was originally a 02blythed stub (I only renamed it). I've found the relevant match in S&BII so, in case it is true that there are serious objections to CA (which seems to be inferred at ANI), we do now have an undeniably reputable source in that article at least. Jack | talk page 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are people deleting redirects from draftspace? WP:RDRAFT is pretty clear that these redirects should be kept. Hack ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
See here. I've written to User:DrStrauss for him to resolve.
All the Pakistani players whose names begin with "Aa" have either been moved back to article space or sent to WP:MfD. Jack | talk page 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
There are at least a couple of international players still stuck in draft, Draft:Dhiman Ghosh/ Dhiman Ghosh (14 ODIs and the Indian Cricket League) and Draft:Shamsur Rahman (cricketer)/ Shamsur Rahman (cricketer) (5 Tests, 10 ODIs).
What a mess.
Yes, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed again. There are now 255 entries left in the list (down from way over 300) and there are only half a dozen of us actually doing anything. So, can we have some more keyboards working on this to get the job done, especially belonging to those who like to complain but leave the work to someone else. Lets say that we double the half dozen to a dozen. 255 divided by 12 is 21 remainder three so I'll do 24. How long would it take you to do 21? Three days? Come on, then. We're a project team so lets see some teamwork.
All you have to do is pick a player and tidy up his article. If you want to reserve certain players, add a comment in the "notes" column. Find him on ESPN and add that reference to the narrative. Most of the drafts have the CA reference in there already as an external link or in the infobox so you don't have to worry about subscriptions. Put that reference in the narrative too and delete the EL section (you can delete the infobox too if you're not happy with it; many of them contain errors). If you choose a draft that doesn't have the CA ref, tell me and I'll get it for you (no, I don't subscribe). If you can't move the draft without leaving a redirect, again tell me and I'll do it. Easy. Thank you. Jack | talk page 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why these templates exist. They don't have pages so they are navigating arbitrary selected numbers. They are:
Last one was created by me two years back. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Following are the two templates which I think don't serve any purpose. They were used for navigation purposes but with the deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages they are reductant now. Continuously updating them after every match is tiresome. Also, they are based on 20 innings criteria which is too inclusive.
Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
We also have this in the Don Bradman FA quality biography (see chart on right), which is the top 10. I've just updated it, to dump Sanga for Voges:
Don Bradman (AUS) | 99.94
|
Adam Voges (AUS) | 61.87
|
Graeme Pollock (RSA) | 60.97
|
George Headley (WI) | 60.83
|
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG) | 60.73
|
Eddie Paynter (ENG) | 59.23
|
Ken Barrington (ENG) | 58.67
|
Everton Weekes (WI) | 58.61
|
Wally Hammond (ENG) | 58.45
|
Garfield Sobers (WI) | 57.78
|
Source: Cricinfo Qualification: 20 completed innings, career completed. |
-- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 has been nominated for deletion. Please consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40. St Anselm ( talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Note a very similar article was also deleted a few months ago too. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, WP:CRIC is "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" and has serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues, etc. Please see this ANI discussion. Thanks. Jack | talk page 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy to support you, Bobo. CRIN may need an odd tweak now and again, like the one I did yesterday, but fundamentally it is fit for purpose and, by insisting upon one top-level appearance, it does the job. Imagine the chaos if this Reyk character had his way and an unspecified number of appearances were required!! As I often say, there's always one – and then there's another one → universal truths. AfD and anything that produces an alleged "consensus" is a travesty. You get these idiots coming along saying that there is a consensus to delete all sports articles because there was a thread at the village pump or whatever and three people took part with a 2–1 "vote" in favour. And, no, that is not a far-fetched analogy. Jack | talk page 21:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
My being around at the moment is causing more problems than it's solving. I'm taking a break while I still can while our guidelines are being relentlessly mocked. If they want to destroy our project from the outside, let them. Now that we've found out from DRV that our main problem is inadequate sourcing, nothing we can do as a project to change that. So there's nothing I can really work to do to improve what we've already done.
I'll come back. Eventually. With all my health worries over the last few weeks I need a break before I drive myself crazy. I'll be back. But not while our project is under threat. Bobo . 17:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the ANI discussion moved so far away from discussions about my conduct towards the actual implementation of CRIN criteria, and the fact that even the simplest of guidelines can no longer be seen to be adhered to, is proof that there is no need for me to attempt to further the aims and goals of our encyclopedia. It's nothing to do with "boo hoo I lost". I'm not getting involved in a project which people are trying to destroy by arguing about POV nonsense.
There is nothing left to break. Job done. Enough is enough. Catch you all soon. Bobo . 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion on the template's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Please engage in this discussion and address the issues regarding the article. Thank you Abishe ( talk) 09:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I've sent this to CSD. Please see the article if you wish to comment. Thanks. Jack | talk page 07:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The article New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017 contain scoreboards related to the ongoing Australian cricket team in India in 2017-18 series and other international cricket match Scoreboards. So I decided to include the article into AfD. See this discussion. Thank you Abishe ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Techie Premier League is a Professional cricket tournament which is hosted in Tamil Nadu is a questionable article with citing only one source. Please see this discussion.I think some Tamillians are interested in creating articles like these to gain attention. For example, Tamil Nadu Premier League. I would have nominated it for a speedy deletion but I would like to discuss it with other wikipedians who are very much experienced than me. But if I am wrong in my point of view, I regret for my mistakes. Thanks Abishe ( talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
A cricketing article has been sent to AfD for containing only a link to CA and not a link to CI in spite of meeting WP:CRIN guidelines. Since we've demonstrably proven that WP:GNG is completely inapplicable with regard to cricketing articles on account of its contradictory nature, I suggest we all help in adding links to CI as well as CA in order to stop this happening in the future.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this right now. We've learnt that people are somewhat fond of indiscriminately adding articles which meet WP:CRIN guidelines to WP:AFD and I have no interest in defending our right to keep these articles. Bobo . 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Will it be appropriate to move page English women's cricket team in South Africa in 2011 to season 2011–12. srini ( talk) 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Yet another article has been sent for deletion because of WP:ONESOURCE. This is becoming intensely, intensely boring and WP:POINTy. I don't have the time or energy to cover every single article on every single first-class cricketer... let's be prepared for this to happen a few thousand more times. *breathes in* Bobo . 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Sports guidelines are almost insultingly easy to follow and ensure that every single cricketer who has made a single major cricketing appearance (which in modern-day terms is painfully easy to define) is equally worthy of an article. To suggest otherwise is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
The new MCC laws come into effect on Sunday, and the ICC version already in use in the Tests that started yesterday. As a start, I've created a draft of the Laws today at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/Laws of Cricket, which I'll move over on Sunday. Any articles that make mention of the Laws (including those linked to from the Laws) will need to be amended, as most of them have been renumbered as below Spike 'em ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Previous Law | New Law | Comment |
---|---|---|
Law 1 - Players | Law 1 - Players | |
Law 2 - Substitutes | Law 24 - Substitutes | Split into 2 |
Law 25 - Batsman Innings;Runners | ||
Law 3 - Umpires | Law 2 - Umpires | |
Law 4 - Scorers | Law 3 - Scorers | |
Law 5 The Ball | Law 4 - the Ball | |
Law 6 The Bat | Law 5 - The Bat | |
Law 7 - the Pitch | Law 6 - The Pitch | |
Law 8 - the wickets | Law 8 - the wickets | |
Law 9 - the bowling crease etc | Law 7 - The creases | |
Law 10 - Preparation of pitch | Law 9 - Preparation of pitch | |
Law 11 - Covering the Pitch | Law 10 - Covering the Pitch | |
Law 12 - Innings | Law 13 - Innings | |
Law 13 - Follow on | Law 14 - The follow-on | |
Law 14 - Declaration and forfeiture | Law 15 - Declaration and forfeiture | |
Law 15 - Intervals | Law 11 - Intervals | |
Law 16 - Start of play; cessation of play | Law 12 - Start of play; cessation of play | |
Law 17 - Practice on the field | Law 26 - Practice on the field | |
Law 18 - Scoring runs | Law 18 - Scoring runs | |
Law 19 - Boundaries | Law 19 - Boundaries | |
Law 20 - Lost ball | Removed | closest is Law 20 - Dead Ball |
Law 21 - The result | Law 16 - The result | |
Law 22 - The over | Law 17 - The over | |
Law 23 - Dead ball | Law 20 - Dead Ball | |
Law 24 - No ball | Law 21 - No ball | |
Law 25 - Wide ball | Law 22 - Wide ball | |
Law 26 - Bye and Leg bye | Law 23 - Bye and Leg bye | |
Law 27 - Appeals | Law 31 - Appeals | |
Law 28 - The wicket is down | Law 29 - The wicket is down | |
Law 29 - Batsman out of his ground | Law 30 - Batsman out of his ground | |
Law 30 - Bowled | Law 32 - Bowled | |
Law 31 - Timed out | Law 40 - The result | |
Law 32 - Caught | Law 33 - Caught | |
Law 33 - Handled ball | Removed | Now covered by Law 37 - Obstructing the Field |
Law 34 - Hit Ball twice | Law 34 - Hit Ball twice | |
Law 35 - Hit wicket | Law 35 - Hit wicket | |
Law 36 - Leg before wicket | Law 36 - Leg before wicket | |
Law 37 - Obstructing the Field | Law 37 - Obstructing the Field | Now includes handled the ball |
Law 38 - Run out | Law 38 - Run out | |
Law 39 - Stumped | Law 39 - Stumped | |
Law 40 - The wicket-keeper | Law 27 - The wicket-keeper | |
Law 41 - The Fielder | Law 28 - The Fielder | |
Law 42 - Fair and unfair play | Law 41 - Unfair play | |
Law 42 - Players' Conduct | New Law |
Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just split out some of the page on Substitute (cricket) to Retired (cricket) to include both Retired Hurt and Retired Out. I now see there is already Retired out, which I'm inclined to redirect (it is almost the same content as was in Substitute), but just worried that I may lose page history or do something else dodgy, so are there any guidelines I need to follow? There was also a redirect from Retired hurt but I've moved that already. Spike 'em ( talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I wanted to share that this WikiProject has now reached the milestone of 200 featured lists! It was achieved on 17 September when both List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria and Trans-Tasman Trophy were promoted. A total of 14 lists have achieved FL status in 2017. Congratulations everyone! Let's keep up great work. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am a relatively new user and was wondering if anyone can either show me how to create or create themselves a link on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI? Thanks, Aussiespinnersfanpage ( talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion.
I just found this nonsense, which you didn't bother to tag me on
Comment - worth noting that this discussion is being accompanied by significant veiled personal attacks - not all directed towards me, but towards unnamed uninvolved parties - by a certain user on WT:CRIC, which are completely independent of either this article or this AfD debate. I refuse to be provoked by his behaviour, as I have been before out of my own frustration. I have learned from my mistakes. Telling me to "go jump in a lake" is frankly beyond the pale. Spike 'em claims that I am instructing him "which articles to edit" and that I am taking this "far too personally", both of which are outright lies.
Once again these complaints go beyond the sole concern pointed out on this AfD, which has no relation to either WP:GNG or WP:CRIN but WP:ONESOURCE, are therefore irrelevant to this conversation, and unprovoked by myself or @BlackJack:. Bobo. 02:25, 3 October 2017
You are not being civil. You have said before that
I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this right now.
Yet when I say :
I am not going to spend time improving articles I don't feel deserve it. There is far more I'd like to improve than hunt around for players who happen to have played 1 game and have a terrible article that no-one is ever going to look at
apparently I am
not working to the benefit of the encyclopedia,
and
frankly have no right to complain
Spike 'em ( talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
And back to the discussion WP:WHYN says
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
Spike 'em ( talk) 08:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In an attempt to actually be constructive, I notice that the cabal of deletionists have changed from AfDing to PRODing the cricketers: I guess they are trying a different tack in the hope it works. Personally, I am conflicted about what to include here. I am of the belief that one top-level appearance does not make a person notable, but realise that any attempt to create rules will impose an arbitrary level, and the only defensible one is a single appearance. As mentioned elsewhere, I would treat any player with one appearance that we only have cricinfo / cricket archive links in exactly the same manner. People are picking on the easy targets where the underlying data is most sparse (those Sri Lankans where no forenames / DoB are known), but I see these as no different to a similar Indian or British player that we do know the names and DoB of. At least knowing these will make google searches easier. For the record, I've never voted in an AfD where a player meets CRIN, though I have voted to !delete those who do not. I have thought about alternatives, but have yet to come up with anything that does not impose arbitrary levels of notability. I don't, however, think it is reasonable to say it is POV to think that all players are not equally notable. Spike 'em ( talk) 14:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I suggested you go jump in a lake if you think my efforts are against the good of the encyclopedia. Rather than try to rescue a load of pages that people only ever read to suggest deleting them, I've updated the whole laws section in the last 2 weeks. If this really is contrary to the aims of the project then I'll just leave you to create another 4 different threads all arguing the same point and go jump in a lake myself. Spike 'em ( talk) 00:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This article about the ICC Cricket World Cup to be held in 2027, just about 10 years more is a bit hurry to be created in the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, a user redirected 2027 Cricket World Cup to here due to insufficient sources provided by the page creator. Normally upcoming Cricket World Cup tournaments in around 10 years time, do not have proper sources inorder to prove the clarification of the article as the article was created too early by a novice Wikipedian. Currently, the article is in a risk of deletion as the article was created without proper planning. See articles like 2026 FIFA World Cup which has been created in the late 2012, but contains adequate references to prove the accuracy of the information provided in the article. Abishe ( talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at these two articles and they are lacking in reliable sources.
I have proposed these 2 articles for deletion due to faling to match the relevant notability guidelines. Abishe ( talk) 06:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I stumbled across Ireland 'A' cricket team in Bangladesh 2017. What are everyone thought on keeping this article? – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sri Lankan cricketer at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh de Zoysa. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
All of these lists are incomplete or haven't been updated. It may be worth checking the other lists to see if they are fully updated too. Bobo . 12:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
panics Oh no. I've just provided links to lists of articles of cricketers who have only made one first-class appearance. What a foolish mistake of mine. I have accidentally opened up the door to allowing people to randomly select items for deletion again. (Insert many sarcastrophes). Bobo . 12:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I brought up this point on the recent AfD debate too late, and I use Cranston's name simply as an example, so don't take it as just being about him but about anyone. Use his name as a placeholder name if you wish.
If Tom Cranston came along and said, "I feel uncomfortable with my article being on Wikipedia", I find that the exclusionist nature of the members who would say, "This man clearly does not qualify for an article" on whatever grounds, would be in opposition to the natural reaction of "But you have to expect that your article would be on Wikipedia because you are a former first-class cricketer and therefore meet guidelines. Please don't try and claim you don't exist or that we should deny knowledge of you".
There is a part of me which would like opinions from what I'm going to loosely refer to as the "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" sides. Bobo . 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Any adults with opinions on this matter please? Bobo . 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Let me repeat the question below. I believe that the same people who would say, "This person does not deserve an article because I feel they don't meet my guidelines", would say, "But you should expect yourself to have an article because you meet guidelines." This is nothing to do with me "crying". It's a simple question about a simple logical fallacy. And this is a point which has nothing do with previous debates. It centres around the whole "guideline" confusion of WP:CRIN (and other such guidelines, which state that logically the person would have an article) and any other guideline which might suggest that the individual doesn't qualify. If you'd read what I'd written above, Spike 'em, you would have noticed I pointed out that this question was nothing to do with that specific article and I was using his name as a placeholder name... but I'm just repeating myself. Bobo . 12:02, 20 October 2017 (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 75 | ← | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
The reaction to CA'a commercial decision is quite amusing. Bearing in mind we have to pay for books, why not blacklist them as well. It's clear that some editors would like to do that to CA. This is the real world and cricket, outside of 20 and a few internationals is a nickle and dime set up.
Hi guys. I happened to come across Category:Central Zone (Pakistan) cricketers during some category cleanup work and noticed that there's no corresponding article for Central Zone (Pakistan). It's a basic principle that there shouldn't be categories without a corresponding article, and I assume you'd want to create it rather than delete the category. They played a couple of first class games against touring sides in the 50s/60s and played one domestic match in an incarnation of the President's Trophy - see Cricketarchive. I don't know what the policy is on these things, but I leave it to you guys to decide... Le Deluge ( talk) 18:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Created a stub called Central Zone cricket team (Pakistan) to kick this off. Jack | talk page 18:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I've just discovered the following templates:
These are only used on a handful of articles, and in the body of biographies ( example). Unless I've missed something, I don't see any reason for these to exist. Happy to nominate them for deletion, unless someone knows of a good reason why they're needed. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I have been working on, what I feel is, a much required page in the Cricket project: List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket. I would like to discuss more about the page with you all. I'm also hoping to receive contributions from others. Cheers! -- Coconut1002 ( talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Having looked at the article in more detail and also having seen "see also" links to it placed on biographical pages, I've referred it to AfD because of the BLP concerns primarily but there are multiple other issues as well. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket to take part in the discussion. Jack | talk page 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please could someone take a look at the page 2021 ICC Champions Trophy? I created it as possible search term and redirected it to the main tournament page. However, another user is adamant that it should be an article. The source they've provided looks very dubious (another wiki?) and I don't think it has any use other than a redirect. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Shah. The nomination is by the same person who raised the Abbas Baseer case (see above), using the same argument. Jack | talk page 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Since it was founded in 1787, over 3,000 players have represented MCC in top-class matches. Interestingly, MCC have only played in 15 List A matches (mostly abroad in the 1970s) and never (yet) in a top-class T20 match. I've been putting together lists by period of all the players and these are the results:
All players are listed (except for the inevitable one that has slipped through the net – there's always one!) but, apart from 1787–1826, the articles are unfinished. I've noted all MCC tours that each player went on (Colin Cowdrey seems to have done the most) and I've used a † symbol to identify the hundred who played in the List A matches. I still need to complete detail in many cases such as clubs, Test status and, needless to say, linkage. Many players were occasional and played only for MCC so there are still a lot of redlinks and no links; and there are many players whose article titles I need to check before creating a link.
This has been a much bigger undertaking than any of the county lists so it ain't going to be perfect. If anyone could run the rule over the lists and correct any errors or omissions you might see, that would be great. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 07:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'd prefer it to be a single list (subdivided), so that each player occurs once. Jack | talk page 20:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's been around for a few weeks and has been relisted twice. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
User:MOTORAL1987 recently moved all the Cricket World Cup articles to include "ICC". Were the competitions actually called that? As far as I know, the Cricket World Cup has only ever been called that, without including the "ICC" bit. It's like the Rugby World Cup - it's not the "IRB Rugby World Cup" (well, it certainly isn't any more, since the IRB changed its name, but whatever...) – Pee Jay 15:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Our "flagship" article? Its main problem is "too many cooks" and too many of them deal in trivia and don't realise that the article's purpose is to explain a complex sport to a readership unfamiliar with it. One of the article's worst aspects has been the introduction which I have tried in the past to improve: well, temporarily at best. I've just spent some time on it again and it occurred to me that we have a very good root category here which is limited to our 26 "top importance" articles. Why not, I thought, build the intro around these 26 articles by ensuring that all of them get a mention by means of a wikilink? At the same time, the intro must comply with WP:LEAD (it didn't) and it must present a readable, concise summary of the whole article (it didn't).
Can you all please look over the revised intro and see if it now passes muster? Perhaps if we can achieve a consensus here re what the intro should and should not contain, we can use that as a rationale for removing stuff added in future which does not enhance the article. Thanks very much.
Hmmph! And then there is the rest of the article........ (despairs) Jack | talk page 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
How about updating the world map depicting full members and associate members of the ICC in the articles of International Cricket Council, where Ireland and Afghanistan are still colored in light green (indicating associate membership) instead of dark green (indicating full membership) even though they are full members now? Or at least someone tell me whether (& how) I can edit those maps on Wikipedia. Arka 92 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of World XI wicket-keepers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World XI wicket-keepers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Harrias talk 20:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles in this template Template:Wicket-keepers in Test cricket are nothing more than WP:LISTCRUFT. If everyone agrees so we could nominate them for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination). Thanks. Jack | talk page 13:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's been around for a month and is overly represented by other than WP:CRIC members. Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Any good ideas for sourcing this claim in a more sustainable way? I've given up with cricket archive, but one of you might be more willing to persevere with their nonsense. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated Big Four (cricket) for deletion. See here if you wish to contribute to the deletion discussion. – Pee Jay 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
A couple of things:
Cheers -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
which restrict the nationality of players in national teams are to be considered as “pure sporting” rules and thus do not fall under (then) Articles 39 and 49 EC." Harrias talk 16:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC) <-I'm going to do the page move, as I don't think it's controversial, based on these sontributions, the worst we can dig up is a page that's inconsistent. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I've proposed that Knocking-in be merged to Cricket bat. The discussion about this can be found here. – Pee Jay 11:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed these being added to articles? For example, look at this template {{ New South Wales Squad 1928-29 Sheffield Shield Champions}} and then go to the foot of Don Bradman's article. Thoughts on this? Are they needed for every single season, or are they template clutter? Also ping the user creating them @ Dutchy85:. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lugnts... thanks for the heads up... I didn't get my ping, so appreciate the message. I have been doing older shield templates... I took my lead from people who had been doing templates for modern day Shield competition champions and thought it was appropriate people do it for older years as well. I don't want to clutter, truly - maybe we could put it in a Nav Box? The NSW squad from 1928-29 was v unusual in the large number of people who were in it. Would love help with the FB community on this one. Thanks! :) Dutchy85 ( talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Add these templates too: Template:Sydney Thunder 2015–16 BBL Champions, Template:Rajasthan Royals 2008 IPL Champions, Template:Sydney Thunder 2015–16 WBBL Champions, Template:Sydney Sixers 2016–17 WBBL Champions, Template:Sydney Sixers 2011–12 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2016–17 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2014–15 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2013–14 BBL Champions Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there no way we could keep the templates in some form? most of the players referred to have hardly any templates whatsoever - I feel its such a great resource to have people see what players were in Shield winning sides. The Sheffield Shield is one of the leading domestic competitons in the world - surely its worthy of some recognition? As hard to win as the BBL. Is it the word "squad"? When did the concept of squad officially become a thing? Can we use a different word? Not assign numbers It just seems such a shame. Dutchy85 ( talk) 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the one who used to commentate on himself.
Anyone know where I can find source information about his domestic career, time with Western Province and/or family (other than Tino). Cheers. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Something odd has gone on at Vinod Kambli. I've left a note at Talk:Vinod_Kambli#Copy.2Fpaste.3F because I don't have the time to work out what has happened. Hopefully, someone from this project can pick up on it. Sorry to dump stuff like this. - Sitush ( talk) 12:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Astonishingly, we had a redlink at this name. I've just started it. And I notice that our daughter articles stop in 1914.
Any suggestions for how to make this main article work?
What boundaries should we have for after 1914?
Maybe WWII, end of amateurs, Packer, millennium? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Inspired by England's current two-toned Test outfit, I was reading the article Cricket whites and noticed the sentence "One-Day Internationals were first played in white clothes but after December 2000, all ODI cricket utilizes coloured clothing." Is this true? Hack ( talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The article about the former England cricket captain has long languished at Wally Hammond, rather than the more formal Walter Hammond which his later amateur status and social pretensions might perhaps support. Now an enterprising Rugby League aficionado has parked a stub article about a somewhat obscure Wakefield Trinity player of 1913 on the Walter Hammond page, and has assiduously gone through all the back-doubles where this more formal name used to link to the cricketer to change them all to "Wally". What do we feel about this (if anything)? There's no doubt that the Rugby League editor has done his work very thoroughly, and it's probably unreasonable to think that the cricketer should be able to command both the Wally and the Walter articles. But I for one have long been uncomfortable with calling him "Wally" anyway. Johnlp ( talk) 22:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hatnotes are in place at both articles, so it is easy to get from one to the other. What woud be your preferred solution, Johnlp? Move the rugby player to Walter Hammond (rugby league) and redirect Walter Hammond to Wally Hammond, or a disambiguation page at Walter Hammond? What is the primary topic for Walter Hammond?
Thought experiment: what would our reaction be, if there was a rugby league player from the 1910s called Donald Bradman?
![]() A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Craig_McMillan&diff=780511450&oldid=777817306 shows cumulative edits by one editor that are oddly phrased and incorrectly phrased in at least one place near the top. I don't know how much of it should be reverted or not. The editor is very prolific, so I couldn't research if similar errors were made in other articles. Sorry all I can do is point this out due to real life limitations. Thanks in advance! — Geekdiva ( talk) 03:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been engaged in a discussion about notability for cricketers. The case in point is a player whose first name we don't know and whose bonafides are established in only one place: cricketarchive.com. Here is the overarching rule for notability of sports figures: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [From Wikipedia:Notability (sports)]. If a WP article is relying on a single source, that's simply a mirror of another database. It hardly adds value to the reader - except in this case it relieves them from paying to see cricketarchive.com. This is not an attack on cricket specifically. It's a general question about notability. I'm not sure why sports figures should get articles in WP based on their existence in a single database. What do you think? Rhadow ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This will be fun. Can anyone help me find either the match details or (better) details and footage of two things:
Hope you can help! -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, Bill Athey only made three hundreds for England in international matches - one in Tests (123 against Pakistan at Lord's in 1987) and two in ODIs (142* against New Zealand at Old Trafford in 1986, and 111 against Australia at Brisbane in 1987). One of those?
Gooch appears to have bowled the last over in the same match against New Zealand, which apparently went for 26 runs. He and Athey then put on 193 for the first wicket.
New Zealand cricket team in England in 1986 does not help much (also does not mention Botham coming back from suspension in the Third Test to equal the world record for wickets, or Gower being noballed for deliberately throwing the last ball bowled in the Second Test (0-0-4-0), which was the second time that NZ won a Test in England, and so on), but here is Wisden's report. [3] Tracking down Cricinfo's coverage of the 1986 series brings you to a 2009 vintage page! [4] I think the website has reinvented itself two or three times since then. Seldom for the better. The new format for live match coverage takes some getting used to, but it is working much better than last week.
Good luck finding video online from an ODI in 1986! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.241 ( talk) 13:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The editor mentioned a few threads up has been adding lists of MoM awards (from ODIs only) to rather a lot of articles. I came across this at Curtly Ambrose, and I can't really see the need. It may be worth keeping an eye on. Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's do some maths. Let's take a theoretical player who has a very long/successful ODI career and therefore plays in 200 ODIs. In this theoretical world they have an even chance of winning MotM in the notional 50% of matches won by their team. One eleventh of 100 is fewer than 10. I don't have a strong opinion that we should keep the tables, but I can't see a strong reason for getting rid of them. For most players, it'd be 4 or 5 awards or fewer. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. I haven't checked the records but I presume the extreme example is Sachin Tendulkar, who won a staggering 62 of these awards. Some sensible thinking has hived this off into a daughter article, List_of_ODI_awards_for_Sachin_Tendulkar and it's not in his biog. I think that's the way to go if the list on any individual's article gets overbearing. I see no harm in keeping the short lists at Ambrose and Collingwood. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
What makes Howstat less "reliable" than Cricinfo or CricketArchive? We know they all have their idiosyncrasies and shortcomings. There are lists of "most MoM" awards at Cricinfo - Test and ODI (which also says Ambrose has 14 awards in Tests, but he is not on the ODI list, minimum 10) - but the Test one says "Match awards have only been a regular feature in Tests since the mid-1980s and the list is not complete for earlier matches". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.82 ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This has to be up there amongst the oddest things I've seen on WP. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this may have happened before, but someone has moved page to Windies cricket team. This seems to go against WP:COMMONNAME and needs discussion rather than WP:BOLD. What is best way to revert this? Spike 'em ( talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
And to get us started:
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
ICC ESPN cricinfo BBC all still refer to "West Indies" as team name Spike 'em ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
According to Cricket West Indies back in May:
Cricket West Indies (CWI) will begin its 91st year today, with a new name and website as part of a comprehensive rebranding programme. From today the West Indies Cricket Board will be renamed Cricket West Indies and formally recognise all representative teams as the WINDIES
Thankfully no-one seems to have noticed (apart from the overzealous page mover earlier today) Spike 'em ( talk) 15:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There are a couple of current page move discussions:
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest anyone to complete the full five wicket haul list at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground.It has not been updated for a quite long time as this list has about 50+ fifers.Thank you. Abishe ( talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
First instinct: delete. Second instinct: probably doing no harm and not obviously nn and if ppl want to work them up, fine. But the Headingly one (and any others in a similar condition) should be deleted or improved or redirected pronto. That's just misleading. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The list in Geoffrey_Boycott#Opening_partners is so flawed (as it admits) it's probably worth removing all the stats and leaving a list of names, which is a bit of a shame. Anyone good enough with Statsguru to get round the problem, without hitting OR problems? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I think either of these does it nicely. Ignoring the odd line doesn't feel too much like OR. Not like deducting numbers / recalculating. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it right to disambiguate the two Ollie Robinsons by their county when we have other means of disambiguating? They won't always play for their respective current teams, and if they ever end up on the same team we'll have to move them anyway, so surely it makes sense to move Ollie Robinson (Sussex cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1993), and Ollie Robinson (Kent cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1998)? – Pee Jay 18:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of English player Articles that I believe contain excessive detail of subsection for every international series played and often down to describing every single innings. I edit a variety of sports and the details are generally limited to career highlights and major lowlights. Examples:
Compare it to Michael Clarke (cricketer) or Virat Kohli. LibStar ( talk) 07:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's some more:
LibStar ( talk) 05:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Play is due to run on day one of the Ashes from morning to evening on November 23, Australia time.
I presume that straddles two days in UTC. Is it mostly November 24 in UTC?
Trying to come up with something for Main page, and 23 November is worth avoiding if possible. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify that whether Last Man Stands' Cricket is popular across almost every countries or not?I just created a draft page which is not organized according to guidelines but take a look at it. Last Man Stands cricketAnyone can create article regarding this topic as I couldn't find adequate resources.But on the other hand,I am not quite sure about the entire history and popularity of this form of cricket.I just read about this form of cricket in newspapers,other sources in Sri Lanka. Abishe ( talk) 14:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that there were some edit conflicts regarding the issue that whether [6] Chanderpaul is an actual Guyanese origin cricketer or a Tamilan cricketer.One anonymous user has tried to say that Chanderpaul is a Tamilan and he is not from Hindi origin.I just undone the edit of the unregistered User. Abishe ( talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking through some of the 02blythed entries in the draft list, I notice that CricketArchive is named in some as an external link and that it carries a "subscription required" notice. This breaches WP:ELREG. I suggest that the subscription notice is removed from all articles because it is pointless and doesn't help anyone, especially if, as I am (perhaps reliably) informed they will do, CA terminates subscription next year. Jack | talk page 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought of the tactic as Bodyline, with a capital. And indeed, when Bodyline passed FAC and got its shiny star, that's how the article looked. Subsequently, someone has changed all the incidences of the word that don't begin a sentence to a lower case b, and I'd like consensus here on which we should go with. (I'll post at the article talk, too). -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding {{ infobox cricket team}} that could use your input. Please join in the conversation here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this campaign launch. All the best. Jack | talk page 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Due to some alleged (I haven't looked into this myself) poor work in creating articles from User:02blythed, a large number of articles that user has created or expanded have been taken out of mainspace and into draft space. This includes numerous international Test cricketers. I don't have time to look into this too much myself, but they are all included in Category:Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed. Harrias talk 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Erm, I don't get it. What policy would demand that Draft:Akbar_Ansari, the second article I checked, be draftified? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Can't wait. Just found one of a cricketer who played 71 Test matches and the biog includes a string of reliable source references. Draft:Chris Martin (cricketer). -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this WikiProject wasn't notified of the discussion? What was so very pressing about doing this for articles, many of which are up to 10 years old, before we could weigh in? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
an abuse of AWBI’d say that it isn’t because I was implementing community consensus from a closed WP:AN discussion, secondly, I didn’t actually move the pages with AWB, I did that manually, and thirdly, none of the actions I have taken have contravened the recent WP:ARBCOM case on AWB, nor violated the WP:AWB/UM.
I'm sorry, DrStrauss, you've done a terrible job of this. The first half dozen articles I've checked, all of them have 2 or more sources. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
terriblejob. I think it went pretty well bar the 15-or-so ones that I self-reverted (and Chis Martin). DrStrauss talk 13:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please save us a lot of time and use the tool to revert yourself on anyone who is dead? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are ones containing "died":
DrStrauss talk 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a step in the right direction. If you pop those articles back into mainspace and remove the category (which should be a hidden one, btw) from them, and maybe trawl the subcats of Category:Deaths by year, that'd be a good start. We can then work through what's left and see which ones (like this) do need work, because none of us would deny that there is a problem: BLPs with 0 or 1 reliable source. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Draft:Ian Billcliff was not created by the user in question, so checked all other international cricketers I could spot in the list that have been made a draft (excluding Bangladeshis) ... all of the biographies below were created by someone else;
It really wasn't a difficult task to identify the articles to review in the first place, it was made a lot harder than it should have been. I'm haven't used AWB for some time (only the script version), but my understanding if you can paste article names into the list box, in which case a simple check of this widely used tool would have revealed all of the articles the user has created. At the very least you have a list for crosschecking. Jevansen ( talk) 07:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The move log also is a way of finding the articles draftified and has the advantage of (I think) including any subsequently speedy deleted under WP:G13. People are entitled to disregard draftification/refund when making G13 requests and acting on them although it is not considered best practice. [7] Thincat ( talk) 08:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved somewhere in the region of 100 of the articles back to mainspace now. I think most of what is left is genuinely problematic stuff, though I've probably missed a couple. To be fair, even a lot of what I moved back is stuff that does need work, but wasn't covered by the AN discussion. We're annoyed at these moves, but we need to be aware that there is a genuine problem here that we need to fix. Harrias talk 09:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have consulted the admin who deleted some/most/all of the redirects. See User talk:Malcolmxl5#Deleted redirects. He is trying to help but it seems there may be no systematic way of restoring these. Thincat ( talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Dweller:. Thanks for letting me know about Argent (Middlesex cricketer), although it was originally a 02blythed stub (I only renamed it). I've found the relevant match in S&BII so, in case it is true that there are serious objections to CA (which seems to be inferred at ANI), we do now have an undeniably reputable source in that article at least. Jack | talk page 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are people deleting redirects from draftspace? WP:RDRAFT is pretty clear that these redirects should be kept. Hack ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
See here. I've written to User:DrStrauss for him to resolve.
All the Pakistani players whose names begin with "Aa" have either been moved back to article space or sent to WP:MfD. Jack | talk page 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
There are at least a couple of international players still stuck in draft, Draft:Dhiman Ghosh/ Dhiman Ghosh (14 ODIs and the Indian Cricket League) and Draft:Shamsur Rahman (cricketer)/ Shamsur Rahman (cricketer) (5 Tests, 10 ODIs).
What a mess.
Yes, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed again. There are now 255 entries left in the list (down from way over 300) and there are only half a dozen of us actually doing anything. So, can we have some more keyboards working on this to get the job done, especially belonging to those who like to complain but leave the work to someone else. Lets say that we double the half dozen to a dozen. 255 divided by 12 is 21 remainder three so I'll do 24. How long would it take you to do 21? Three days? Come on, then. We're a project team so lets see some teamwork.
All you have to do is pick a player and tidy up his article. If you want to reserve certain players, add a comment in the "notes" column. Find him on ESPN and add that reference to the narrative. Most of the drafts have the CA reference in there already as an external link or in the infobox so you don't have to worry about subscriptions. Put that reference in the narrative too and delete the EL section (you can delete the infobox too if you're not happy with it; many of them contain errors). If you choose a draft that doesn't have the CA ref, tell me and I'll get it for you (no, I don't subscribe). If you can't move the draft without leaving a redirect, again tell me and I'll do it. Easy. Thank you. Jack | talk page 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why these templates exist. They don't have pages so they are navigating arbitrary selected numbers. They are:
Last one was created by me two years back. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Following are the two templates which I think don't serve any purpose. They were used for navigation purposes but with the deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages they are reductant now. Continuously updating them after every match is tiresome. Also, they are based on 20 innings criteria which is too inclusive.
Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
We also have this in the Don Bradman FA quality biography (see chart on right), which is the top 10. I've just updated it, to dump Sanga for Voges:
Don Bradman (AUS) | 99.94
|
Adam Voges (AUS) | 61.87
|
Graeme Pollock (RSA) | 60.97
|
George Headley (WI) | 60.83
|
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG) | 60.73
|
Eddie Paynter (ENG) | 59.23
|
Ken Barrington (ENG) | 58.67
|
Everton Weekes (WI) | 58.61
|
Wally Hammond (ENG) | 58.45
|
Garfield Sobers (WI) | 57.78
|
Source: Cricinfo Qualification: 20 completed innings, career completed. |
-- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 has been nominated for deletion. Please consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40. St Anselm ( talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Note a very similar article was also deleted a few months ago too. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, WP:CRIC is "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" and has serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues, etc. Please see this ANI discussion. Thanks. Jack | talk page 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy to support you, Bobo. CRIN may need an odd tweak now and again, like the one I did yesterday, but fundamentally it is fit for purpose and, by insisting upon one top-level appearance, it does the job. Imagine the chaos if this Reyk character had his way and an unspecified number of appearances were required!! As I often say, there's always one – and then there's another one → universal truths. AfD and anything that produces an alleged "consensus" is a travesty. You get these idiots coming along saying that there is a consensus to delete all sports articles because there was a thread at the village pump or whatever and three people took part with a 2–1 "vote" in favour. And, no, that is not a far-fetched analogy. Jack | talk page 21:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
My being around at the moment is causing more problems than it's solving. I'm taking a break while I still can while our guidelines are being relentlessly mocked. If they want to destroy our project from the outside, let them. Now that we've found out from DRV that our main problem is inadequate sourcing, nothing we can do as a project to change that. So there's nothing I can really work to do to improve what we've already done.
I'll come back. Eventually. With all my health worries over the last few weeks I need a break before I drive myself crazy. I'll be back. But not while our project is under threat. Bobo . 17:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the ANI discussion moved so far away from discussions about my conduct towards the actual implementation of CRIN criteria, and the fact that even the simplest of guidelines can no longer be seen to be adhered to, is proof that there is no need for me to attempt to further the aims and goals of our encyclopedia. It's nothing to do with "boo hoo I lost". I'm not getting involved in a project which people are trying to destroy by arguing about POV nonsense.
There is nothing left to break. Job done. Enough is enough. Catch you all soon. Bobo . 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion on the template's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Please engage in this discussion and address the issues regarding the article. Thank you Abishe ( talk) 09:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I've sent this to CSD. Please see the article if you wish to comment. Thanks. Jack | talk page 07:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The article New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017 contain scoreboards related to the ongoing Australian cricket team in India in 2017-18 series and other international cricket match Scoreboards. So I decided to include the article into AfD. See this discussion. Thank you Abishe ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Techie Premier League is a Professional cricket tournament which is hosted in Tamil Nadu is a questionable article with citing only one source. Please see this discussion.I think some Tamillians are interested in creating articles like these to gain attention. For example, Tamil Nadu Premier League. I would have nominated it for a speedy deletion but I would like to discuss it with other wikipedians who are very much experienced than me. But if I am wrong in my point of view, I regret for my mistakes. Thanks Abishe ( talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
A cricketing article has been sent to AfD for containing only a link to CA and not a link to CI in spite of meeting WP:CRIN guidelines. Since we've demonstrably proven that WP:GNG is completely inapplicable with regard to cricketing articles on account of its contradictory nature, I suggest we all help in adding links to CI as well as CA in order to stop this happening in the future.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this right now. We've learnt that people are somewhat fond of indiscriminately adding articles which meet WP:CRIN guidelines to WP:AFD and I have no interest in defending our right to keep these articles. Bobo . 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Will it be appropriate to move page English women's cricket team in South Africa in 2011 to season 2011–12. srini ( talk) 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Yet another article has been sent for deletion because of WP:ONESOURCE. This is becoming intensely, intensely boring and WP:POINTy. I don't have the time or energy to cover every single article on every single first-class cricketer... let's be prepared for this to happen a few thousand more times. *breathes in* Bobo . 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Sports guidelines are almost insultingly easy to follow and ensure that every single cricketer who has made a single major cricketing appearance (which in modern-day terms is painfully easy to define) is equally worthy of an article. To suggest otherwise is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
The new MCC laws come into effect on Sunday, and the ICC version already in use in the Tests that started yesterday. As a start, I've created a draft of the Laws today at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/Laws of Cricket, which I'll move over on Sunday. Any articles that make mention of the Laws (including those linked to from the Laws) will need to be amended, as most of them have been renumbered as below Spike 'em ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Previous Law | New Law | Comment |
---|---|---|
Law 1 - Players | Law 1 - Players | |
Law 2 - Substitutes | Law 24 - Substitutes | Split into 2 |
Law 25 - Batsman Innings;Runners | ||
Law 3 - Umpires | Law 2 - Umpires | |
Law 4 - Scorers | Law 3 - Scorers | |
Law 5 The Ball | Law 4 - the Ball | |
Law 6 The Bat | Law 5 - The Bat | |
Law 7 - the Pitch | Law 6 - The Pitch | |
Law 8 - the wickets | Law 8 - the wickets | |
Law 9 - the bowling crease etc | Law 7 - The creases | |
Law 10 - Preparation of pitch | Law 9 - Preparation of pitch | |
Law 11 - Covering the Pitch | Law 10 - Covering the Pitch | |
Law 12 - Innings | Law 13 - Innings | |
Law 13 - Follow on | Law 14 - The follow-on | |
Law 14 - Declaration and forfeiture | Law 15 - Declaration and forfeiture | |
Law 15 - Intervals | Law 11 - Intervals | |
Law 16 - Start of play; cessation of play | Law 12 - Start of play; cessation of play | |
Law 17 - Practice on the field | Law 26 - Practice on the field | |
Law 18 - Scoring runs | Law 18 - Scoring runs | |
Law 19 - Boundaries | Law 19 - Boundaries | |
Law 20 - Lost ball | Removed | closest is Law 20 - Dead Ball |
Law 21 - The result | Law 16 - The result | |
Law 22 - The over | Law 17 - The over | |
Law 23 - Dead ball | Law 20 - Dead Ball | |
Law 24 - No ball | Law 21 - No ball | |
Law 25 - Wide ball | Law 22 - Wide ball | |
Law 26 - Bye and Leg bye | Law 23 - Bye and Leg bye | |
Law 27 - Appeals | Law 31 - Appeals | |
Law 28 - The wicket is down | Law 29 - The wicket is down | |
Law 29 - Batsman out of his ground | Law 30 - Batsman out of his ground | |
Law 30 - Bowled | Law 32 - Bowled | |
Law 31 - Timed out | Law 40 - The result | |
Law 32 - Caught | Law 33 - Caught | |
Law 33 - Handled ball | Removed | Now covered by Law 37 - Obstructing the Field |
Law 34 - Hit Ball twice | Law 34 - Hit Ball twice | |
Law 35 - Hit wicket | Law 35 - Hit wicket | |
Law 36 - Leg before wicket | Law 36 - Leg before wicket | |
Law 37 - Obstructing the Field | Law 37 - Obstructing the Field | Now includes handled the ball |
Law 38 - Run out | Law 38 - Run out | |
Law 39 - Stumped | Law 39 - Stumped | |
Law 40 - The wicket-keeper | Law 27 - The wicket-keeper | |
Law 41 - The Fielder | Law 28 - The Fielder | |
Law 42 - Fair and unfair play | Law 41 - Unfair play | |
Law 42 - Players' Conduct | New Law |
Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just split out some of the page on Substitute (cricket) to Retired (cricket) to include both Retired Hurt and Retired Out. I now see there is already Retired out, which I'm inclined to redirect (it is almost the same content as was in Substitute), but just worried that I may lose page history or do something else dodgy, so are there any guidelines I need to follow? There was also a redirect from Retired hurt but I've moved that already. Spike 'em ( talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I wanted to share that this WikiProject has now reached the milestone of 200 featured lists! It was achieved on 17 September when both List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria and Trans-Tasman Trophy were promoted. A total of 14 lists have achieved FL status in 2017. Congratulations everyone! Let's keep up great work. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am a relatively new user and was wondering if anyone can either show me how to create or create themselves a link on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI? Thanks, Aussiespinnersfanpage ( talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion.
I just found this nonsense, which you didn't bother to tag me on
Comment - worth noting that this discussion is being accompanied by significant veiled personal attacks - not all directed towards me, but towards unnamed uninvolved parties - by a certain user on WT:CRIC, which are completely independent of either this article or this AfD debate. I refuse to be provoked by his behaviour, as I have been before out of my own frustration. I have learned from my mistakes. Telling me to "go jump in a lake" is frankly beyond the pale. Spike 'em claims that I am instructing him "which articles to edit" and that I am taking this "far too personally", both of which are outright lies.
Once again these complaints go beyond the sole concern pointed out on this AfD, which has no relation to either WP:GNG or WP:CRIN but WP:ONESOURCE, are therefore irrelevant to this conversation, and unprovoked by myself or @BlackJack:. Bobo. 02:25, 3 October 2017
You are not being civil. You have said before that
I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this right now.
Yet when I say :
I am not going to spend time improving articles I don't feel deserve it. There is far more I'd like to improve than hunt around for players who happen to have played 1 game and have a terrible article that no-one is ever going to look at
apparently I am
not working to the benefit of the encyclopedia,
and
frankly have no right to complain
Spike 'em ( talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
And back to the discussion WP:WHYN says
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
Spike 'em ( talk) 08:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In an attempt to actually be constructive, I notice that the cabal of deletionists have changed from AfDing to PRODing the cricketers: I guess they are trying a different tack in the hope it works. Personally, I am conflicted about what to include here. I am of the belief that one top-level appearance does not make a person notable, but realise that any attempt to create rules will impose an arbitrary level, and the only defensible one is a single appearance. As mentioned elsewhere, I would treat any player with one appearance that we only have cricinfo / cricket archive links in exactly the same manner. People are picking on the easy targets where the underlying data is most sparse (those Sri Lankans where no forenames / DoB are known), but I see these as no different to a similar Indian or British player that we do know the names and DoB of. At least knowing these will make google searches easier. For the record, I've never voted in an AfD where a player meets CRIN, though I have voted to !delete those who do not. I have thought about alternatives, but have yet to come up with anything that does not impose arbitrary levels of notability. I don't, however, think it is reasonable to say it is POV to think that all players are not equally notable. Spike 'em ( talk) 14:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I suggested you go jump in a lake if you think my efforts are against the good of the encyclopedia. Rather than try to rescue a load of pages that people only ever read to suggest deleting them, I've updated the whole laws section in the last 2 weeks. If this really is contrary to the aims of the project then I'll just leave you to create another 4 different threads all arguing the same point and go jump in a lake myself. Spike 'em ( talk) 00:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This article about the ICC Cricket World Cup to be held in 2027, just about 10 years more is a bit hurry to be created in the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, a user redirected 2027 Cricket World Cup to here due to insufficient sources provided by the page creator. Normally upcoming Cricket World Cup tournaments in around 10 years time, do not have proper sources inorder to prove the clarification of the article as the article was created too early by a novice Wikipedian. Currently, the article is in a risk of deletion as the article was created without proper planning. See articles like 2026 FIFA World Cup which has been created in the late 2012, but contains adequate references to prove the accuracy of the information provided in the article. Abishe ( talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at these two articles and they are lacking in reliable sources.
I have proposed these 2 articles for deletion due to faling to match the relevant notability guidelines. Abishe ( talk) 06:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I stumbled across Ireland 'A' cricket team in Bangladesh 2017. What are everyone thought on keeping this article? – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sri Lankan cricketer at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh de Zoysa. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
All of these lists are incomplete or haven't been updated. It may be worth checking the other lists to see if they are fully updated too. Bobo . 12:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
panics Oh no. I've just provided links to lists of articles of cricketers who have only made one first-class appearance. What a foolish mistake of mine. I have accidentally opened up the door to allowing people to randomly select items for deletion again. (Insert many sarcastrophes). Bobo . 12:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I brought up this point on the recent AfD debate too late, and I use Cranston's name simply as an example, so don't take it as just being about him but about anyone. Use his name as a placeholder name if you wish.
If Tom Cranston came along and said, "I feel uncomfortable with my article being on Wikipedia", I find that the exclusionist nature of the members who would say, "This man clearly does not qualify for an article" on whatever grounds, would be in opposition to the natural reaction of "But you have to expect that your article would be on Wikipedia because you are a former first-class cricketer and therefore meet guidelines. Please don't try and claim you don't exist or that we should deny knowledge of you".
There is a part of me which would like opinions from what I'm going to loosely refer to as the "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" sides. Bobo . 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Any adults with opinions on this matter please? Bobo . 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Let me repeat the question below. I believe that the same people who would say, "This person does not deserve an article because I feel they don't meet my guidelines", would say, "But you should expect yourself to have an article because you meet guidelines." This is nothing to do with me "crying". It's a simple question about a simple logical fallacy. And this is a point which has nothing do with previous debates. It centres around the whole "guideline" confusion of WP:CRIN (and other such guidelines, which state that logically the person would have an article) and any other guideline which might suggest that the individual doesn't qualify. If you'd read what I'd written above, Spike 'em, you would have noticed I pointed out that this question was nothing to do with that specific article and I was using his name as a placeholder name... but I'm just repeating myself. Bobo . 12:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)