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.

Someone just made this edit to change the Flag of South Africa to the one that was around in 1992. Many articles seem to be using the flag that was current at a point of time rather than a common one. I suppose it is unnecessary for us to do the same in cricket. Tintin ( talk) 08:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that there's a discussion about this in some of the earliest archives of this page, and we decided to use the current one because it's the most recognisable. That's certainly my preference, anyway. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Found it here Tintin ( talk) 05:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are some of his edits walking a fine line into POV and hagiography? I think that the George Giffen article is the prime example. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at the other articles but the stuff that looks like POV in Giffen was added by an IP editor here. Stevens' this edit only rearranged the existing contents. The only complainable edit in the few lines that he added is the 'surely' about Walter Giffen which he changed in a subsequent edit. Tintin ( talk) 05:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's done!!! *whoops*, *jumps*, *runs around shouting*, *sits down tired & resumes typing* Finally after nearly three months of work the ODI Bios list is finally complete. This means that Wikipedia now provides info on every player who has ever played international cricket! Wow, I gues that's a great achievement. I would like to thank all the members of the Cricket project for their support in reaching this goal. Anyway time to celebrate with cha-, no I don't think I have any so water will have to do!

Cheers

Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work! I myself would never have been able to complete such a task. Really good work. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Our coverage of female players is much less extensive - plenty of female Test captains are redlinked - amd we need to address the sub-stubs... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers!!!!! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed great work. I am duly impressed. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend recently to link to videos of cricketers from the See Also sections of their articles. The videos are usually a TV program uploaded to Google Video. I always remove these when I see them, because I'm convinced that they must be copyright violations. Am I correct to do this?

Stephen Turner ( Talk) 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion at a forum I moderate, and the decision was that although Google claim to check all videos for copyright violations, there are clearly several video clips there that are copyrighted. I think it's best to err on the side of caution, and not link to them Andrew nixon

Regardless, as someone coming in who is interested in cricket but understands little of it, it would be useful to see something moving. Maybe this is a parallel between cricket and baseball - that it is not easily described and one must watch it unfold to understand. An effort to provide some video resource would be welcomed. 208.114.132.151 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian cricket team has been Promoted to Good Article and is about to be promoted to Selected Article on the India Portal. So I've put it up for Peer Review at This location. Feel free to contribute with your comments. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do Cricket Team of the University of Göttingen, Lansing Cricket Club, Salesian Old Boys Cricket Club seem to be just random groups of cricket players who are non-notable. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All look pretty non-notable to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should nom them for deletion. -- Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All put up for deletion. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hoppers crossing cricket club from yesterday. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have put these ones up also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bessborough Cricket Club, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunswick Village (Hove) CC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micklehurst Cricket Club and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heyside Cricket Club. Two are local cricket teams in a town of 20,000, one is in the third division of Middlesex county league, the other isn't even in a league. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cricket Team of the University of Göttingen is evolving into Cricket in German which probably is notable and probably needs some help from people who know more about cricket than I do. -- Bduke 09:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening on Category:English cricket captains says: This is a list of the 76 cricketers who have captained England in at least one Test match. Are ODI only captains (eg. Adam Hollioake) excluded from this category? -- I@n ≡ talk 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a rather bold move (for my standards) and unilaterally edited this article because I get a lot of TV and radio coverage of all Australian international games, so I felt confident in changing a lot of judgement calls which I think were obvious, but subtle POV.

• That his return from injury in the 2001 Ashes was difficult due to flat pitches and a lack of luck
  • Pitches in the subcontinent are much flatter and have not seam/swing, so I removed this excuse; unless we should put this excuse in the bio of every IND/PAK/SL pace bowler
• Aspersion that his poor results were due to McGrath and Warne being injured
  • This was only true of 2003, and Gillespie was still playing then, and Gillespie is better than all but maybe two or three quicks at that time, so I removed that statement. I didn't think it was fair to say that Irfan Pathan gets bad results because he has to bowl with Ajit Agarkar, for instance.
• "one of the world's finest bowlers", "devastating inswinging yorker", in reference to his strike rate - "amongst the greats"
  • Changed to: 1) cited his ICC ranking, "dangerous" and "incisive"
• Claim that is 159km delivery against Bangladesh is a claim to being th fastest bowler
  • Removed - This is not the fastest ball of all time.
• That his slower ball, with the largest speed differential, is "one of the most impressive", and that this was supported by an arbitrary dismissal of Lara
  • Rm that also, dismissing a certain batsman on a random occasion with a certain type of ball is not proof that it is a great trait
• That his speed creates and suffers bad luck because balls will get nicked through the slips more; gave a random example of bad luck
  • The slips stand back further for a faster bowler. There is no evidence that he gets more nicks due to sheer speed or that he will get more dropped catches, edges piercing the slips due to this
• Spectacular batting, allrounder claims
  • Cited his ICC ranking, which is in the 90s

Please review this extensive and possibly controversial changes. Thanks. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the history, and it seems as though User:Night Bringer added all of these in many iterations, without anybody noticing. He also lobbied at Talk:Australian cricket team to put in a section saying that Australia's recent poor form was due to anti-Australian umpiring (other way round IMHO - no I didn't put that in the article), so I think I'd better keep an eye on him. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also carved into Darren Lehmann and Brendon Julian. Please reviewm my changes. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost the first thing in the article is that Nehra is a Hindu and a Jat. Why is there such an undue prominence given to this. I think it should be removed. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it as it has no relevance to the article. IMHO, unless it is a matter of significance or curiosity, relegion should have no place in the cricket articles. Tintin ( talk) 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC's Test Match Special commentator, (probably Jonathan Agnew, but I'm not quite sure on their names yet), just mentioned our article on the doosra (which I think focuses a bit too much on chucking at present) if people wanted help understanding what it is, as it "was going to be mentioned a lot during this series". (Admittedly it was on an email from the viewer, but still :)) Sam Vimes 11:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just added a greatly expanded article on Charles Llewellyn, the South African test cricketer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I thought I should mention a few points about the article that could prove controversial.

1. Llewellyn was South Africa's first black test cricketer. In my research (see the References section of the Llewellyn article), it was clearly stated that Llewellyn was South Africa's first black test cricketer (his mother was a black woman from the island of St Helena). The current Wikipedia article on Makhaya Ntini states that Ntini is the first Black African test cricketer, which is distinct from Llewellyn, as St Helena is not Africa.

I found a mention in Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Complete Who's Who of Test cricketers, 1986 edition : The story that Buck was a coloured man ostracized by Jimmy Sinclair and other members of the SAF team to Australia in 1910/11 was scotched by his daughter in The Cricketer a few years ago. She confirmed that her father, though born at Pietermaritzburg, was of Welsh and English extraction and had no coloured blood. Moreover, he had been on good terms with all his cricket colleagues.

What does Merret say about the claims of the Llewlyn family ? Tintin ( talk) 13:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merret mentions the claims of the family but dismisses them. I don't have the article in front of me but IIRC, Merrett considered the claims of the daughter as someone trying to hide a skeleton in the family closet. The article also refers to the claims of ostracism by team mates but states that there was only anecdotal evidence (which is why I haven't referred to this in the article). -- Roisterer 13:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Llewellyn invented the Chinaman: Our article on Left-arm unorthodox spin states that Llewellyn claimed to have invented the delivery. In my research I found nothing to back that up and so haven't mentioned it in the Llewellyn article.

It is most unlikely that he was the first left arm unorthodox bowler, but he could have been the first to bowl the googly. Tintin ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Llewellyn photo: I would like to add a Puiblic Domain image to the article. Cricinfo has a couple of images (such as this one [1]). I have added a lot of PD images to articles in the past, as the law, at least in Australia, states than images taken prior to 1955 fall into public domain. Does anyone know whether this is the case with images like this one? -- Roisterer 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

{{ PD-Australia}} only applies where the image was created in Australia. -- Nick Boalch 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of that. I was asking what the law might be in the case of the Llewellyn image, which wasn't created in Australia but was created prior to 1955. -- Roisterer 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It would depend where it was created; also when, and how long the photographer has been dead. I can't see anything obvious on the page you point to that says where or when it was taken, or who by (although I think we can assume it was prior to 1964!). Without this information it is impossible to say anything concrete about the image's copyright status. -- Nick Boalch 13:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the article should explain that the claim that he was the first "black" South African cricketer is a matter of controversy and is disputed by members of his family. (I would note in passing that "black" does not seem quite right given that he could apparently pass as white - would "mixed-race" be a better term?) There is a biography at Cricinfo from The Cricketer in 1976 [2] which call hims "the only coloured man to have played Test cricket for South Africa", with a photo with the caption "the first coloured man to play Test cricket for South Africa?", which goes on to say "There are conflicting reports about his experience of prejudice as a result of the colour of his skin." and a footnote that mentions the letter from his daughter published later that year.

Accringon Cricket Club call him "the first bowler in England to bowl the 'Chinaman' with any degree of regularity" [3] which implies th\t others had before him, if irregularly. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My main reference was the Merret article which specifically refers to Llewellyn as black. Whether this is a spot of revisionism, I'm not sure. Merret also mentions "The Cricketer" article and the letter from Llewellyn's daughter as evidence of ongoing controversy surrounding Llewellyn without investigating the issue in depth. -- Roisterer 11:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I proposed a month ago, I have now created the above two stub templates, and the associated stub categories, and also populated them. All 10 Test-playing nations now have their own cricketbio-stub template, which should be used in preference to the plain {{ cricketbio-stub}}. The other countries don't yet have enough biographies to justify their own stub, according to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.

Stephen Turner ( Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, some anon is going around sticking Parsi tags on a few of the Indian Test cricketers. Does the same apply as the Nehra case above? ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nehra is definitely not a Parsi. As per the earlier discussion on this page, he is a Hindu & a jat. Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I've got a good knack of managing to confuse other people with my wording :(. The Parsi category was applied to Rustomji Jamshedji and Khershed Meherhomji; but is probably analogous to the Nehra case being Hindu. As stated before, a religion of a cricketer is not particular relevant to their public lives on the cricket field, unless, eg they make an issue of it like Mohammed Yousuf, Imran Khan or Saeed Anwar. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, I didn't read your comment carefully. Maybe because of the fact that I probably slept for just 3 hours last night *yawn* :). Anyway I don't think that the Parsi category is required or should be added, as it isn't relevant to what religion a cricketer belonged to unless, as Blnguyen has pointed out above, he makes an issue about it. Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 03:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the cats in question from the respective pages. Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk to User:Haphar about his addition of the Sikh Category to Harbhajan Singh, Monty Panesar etc. He reinstated them again. Thanks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I had left comments on Blnguyen's page before the revert, He has not mentioned my reasoning and makes it seem here that i am reverting without any discussion. Let me clarify I had cited other examples that have the tags, Blnguyen seems to be discussing only the Sikh category, let me mention the other cricketers with a religion tag again- Syed Kirmani, Abid Ali, Zaheer Khan, Azharuddin,, Pataudi and Farukh Engineer all have religion tags ( The last being Parsi and among the very few Parsis in the Indian team so far, it would be a shame to remove the Parsi cat from his bio). I do not think it takes away from them if their religion is mentioned. For minorities I think the fact that they have representation is important and the category is important. For instance the Anil Dalpat page has a mention that he is a Hindu - not a big point if he was playing for India or the West Indies, but a big point for Hindu's in Pakistan. So rather then genralise that religion should not be mentioned, what is the logic behind it ? The place of birth is mentioned too , some cricketer have OT play cricket) how is that relevant to anyone's performance ? it is additional information and if factual adds to the bio. Haphar 08:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also never touched Sarandeep Singh's bio so do not know why his name is mentioned. Haphar 08:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about Sarandeep Singh, it was a mistake. I didn't talk about your reasoning about Manmohan Singh because for a notable politician, it may be quite important, but generally for a cricketer it is not so. I will remove those other religion tags for Muslims and Hindus.

Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Which does not seem like a discussion but a decision ( I will remove). The reasoning that I am mentioning is not for Manmohan Singh but cricketers. AND there is reasoning as to why for cricketers too in some cases (ie minorities) the category should remain. Again no discussion on that aspect, just a decision. Sure you just became an Admin so go ahead and push your POV across without even an attempt to give the logic. How does a category called "Alumni of Penssylvania University" become "relevant" to cricket ? By the logic of religion not relevent to his cricket such categories should be removed too. Do not see that happening either, so can I remove such categories too from ALL cricketers.? Haphar 09:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pasted from User talk:Blnguyen

Justin Langer shows up as an Australian Roman Catholic, Mark Taylor as " People of Wagga Wagga" , Clive Lloyd as Freemason, all the Australians have the state/city cat and this cat is APART from the state cricket cat, Phil Tufnell has a Winner of TV program category, David Gower has "people living in Kent" . So all these categories are not "relevant" from the cricket point of view and not from the individuals personal life point of view either. So where does one start or stop with such categories, why stop at religion and say state/ associations alumni categories not related to cricket are OK ? One should then look to remove all these categories. But then clearly the number of categories impacted would have a large number of people who would want them back, so why are we playing god and saying we cannot put categories related to religion for the cricketers and allowing all these superflous to cricket categories ? The aim is not to remove these categories as they clearly mean something to people who can identify with them, but to be more inclusive. Haphar 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the reason I said I will remove was you asked my why I was only targeting Sikhs. Well, I keep track of all the changes to cricket bios, and I noticed that the Category:Sikhs was being added so I removed it in line with previous discussion here ( I was not the only one to say that religion cats should be removed). The Azharuddin and Zaheer cases were before I was watching closely, so I was not aware of them. When you asked me if I was targeting Sikhs, and not Muslims like Azhar and Zaheer, Pataudi, etc, so I said I will remove to show even-handedness in this religion matter in accordance with what was previously discussed, to show that I am not targeting Sikhs - I did not say this to show my superiority or wielding dictatorial authority here as an newly created administrator - I have been removing the addition of these cats for at least a month now, and my actions have not involved any administrator privileges, I am editing the cricket articles as an editor. Even though I am an administrator, I am still subject to blocks under WP:3RR for edit-warring, as are all admins. I am not pushing a POV. I have removed the cats once, you have reverted and I am awaiting a discussion, so I am not agitating through edit-warring.

The second point, I could remove the Justin Langer cat (which I think is wrong, I'm sure he's a Protestant born-again evangelical) for consistency of all religions, but you might say that I'm bulldozing. As to why religion cats are generally sparingly used, it is because they are subjective to what it actually means - If a person was born in 19xx, died in 19xx, citizen of some country, went to a certain university - this is 100% concrete about what this means, whereas with religion, it is a label - some people maybe labelled as such, but do they follow the rules of the religion properly, etc, eg when people associate political violence with a religious ideology, there will also be people who say that the militant group is misguided and is "not representative" of the religion; also I recall Sania Mirza's father saying that she was a "devout Muslim", and then a group of Islamic clerics complaining about her not conforming to Islamic dress - also Jack Kerouac the hippie poet called himself Buddhist and did meditation, but many people would disagree with this because Buddhism doesn't allow drug-taking like LSD etc, whereas many hippies think that they are Buddhist and that taking LSD, amphetamines, etc will tell you the truth when the teachings would clearly say that drug-taking impairs human judgement and should be avoided - so you can see that there is always a complaint about whether someone categorized under "religion x" is "conforming" to the rules of the religion and whether they should be categorized under that. Which is why unless there is a strong aspect of religion in their public conduct it is generally avoided as the categorization may be subjective (many people think this)- whereas for "People living in Kent" or "Graduates of some university" there is no ambiguity in what this means. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As the person who reverted some anons for removing the info that Sania Mirza is a Muslim, I may be least qualified to talk about why religion should not be mentioned in the article. However, I'll still talk! In the case of Sania, it is important because of the controversy about her wardrobe and obstacles she faced in playing with Shahar Peer of Israel. If someone from a religion is the first to represent something, that info can still come in the article, but preferably not in the cat. All religious info is probly best kept in the religion pages or the religion sub-articles. For example an article on Parsis can talk of the low % of population they form, but positions they hold in business and cricket. It can even be a sub-article on Parsis in cricket etc. - the trick is in keeping them NPOV. Religion cats are probably divisive in the same way as user boxes are and so, probly not a good idea as a cat. A mention may be made of the religion in the article if it is relevant. -- Gurubrahma 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to feel that it may be better to turn a blind eye to the cats (as opposed to adding relegion in the main text) because Category:Sikhs, Category:Indian Muslims and Category:Parsis all have many entries (which we can't do much about), and there is not much to gain by keeping only the cricketers out. Tintin ( talk) 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the logic of why leave only cricketers out of religion category. Why is it that a person has to wear his (or her) religion on his or her sleeve to get it mentioned as a category ? Why does it take a "controversy" to qualify Sania as a muslim? So if the controversy had not risen, Sania would have had different beliefs and practices ? Her outlook to religion is the same as before her fame, a controversy makes it acceptable for her to get labelled ? Unless there is specific mention that a person has "renounced" his or her religion it is as factual and unambigous as Category as a person from Tasmania category. A person from Tasmania may or may not be happy living there, might not be enamoured with Tasmania, might be vey active in maintaining the locality or participating in it's cultural event or might not, may or may not identify with the region, if you want to peel the onion any category or label is offensive and parochial. A person from Tamil Nadu is no less parochial an identity than Sikh from the perspective that it is regional and gives a regional identity which might not apply ( ie cricketer Arjun Kirpal Singh who does not fit into a stereotype of a "Tamil") And what of Clive Lloyd and Freemason. So we should either look at all categories not related to the person's activities ( and not just cricketers) or allow the category as long as it is factual and not too fractured ( ie person living on street x). Haphar 09:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon has been cutting and pasting Cricinfo biographies - 82.36.60.174 ( talk · contribs). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of cricket-related lists on FLC at the moment - List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries and One-day International cricket hat-tricks. Futher comments would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An anon User:219.74.40.72 has added a number of records to the Rahul Dravid article after the first ODI against the West Indies which although probably authentic, are IMO quite unnecessary. We can derive endless such records if we consider every match Dravid has played against every country & soon we will have a massive records section filled with meaningless records. I think only significant records (like the ones already present) should be included. Please let me know your opinion.

Thanks

Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 15:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree but since they look like good-faith edits, maybe an encouraging word in his talk page would be nice :-) Tintin ( talk) 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article contains this line : He is also the only cricketer to be selected to play for England while playing league cricket. Is it true ? Tintin ( talk) 16:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cricinfo says so... They could be wrong, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't think of any others. But Barnes had played half a dozen first-class matches (for Warwickshire and Lancashire) before Maclaren picked him out of the League for the 1901-02 tour, so he wasn't a total unknown. And after 1903, when he gave up first-class county cricket, he continued to play Minor Counties cricket for Staffordshire until the 1930s, as well as playing in some first-class matches for scratch teams and representative sides, so league cricket wasn't his only outlet. It's relatively common, of course, for touring teams in England to co-opt players from the Leagues when beset by injuries or loss of form. Johnlp 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian cricket tour of South Africa 2006 -- I@n ≡ talk 09:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody looked at the edits by this IP? I have removed his edits to Shoaib Malik, and then looked at the edits to Jonty Rhodes and Boeta Dippenaar, and I am not sure whether they are joke edits or simply badly constructed. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

His trivia edits look well-meaning but unencyclopaedic. Although this and this don't bade well. Will need to watch. -- I@n ≡ talk 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Lord Frederick Beauclerk - it reads like a hatchet job right now. I came across it while on random article patrol. Cheers. Megapixie 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've simply reduced it to a stub for it to be developed objectively with a more accurate representation of the sources. I agree Beauclerk was an unsavoury character but we must be objective. -- Jack 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nichalp has commented that this infobox looks jaded and dull. Is there anyone with more knowledge about tables and templates that can make it look a little better? Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really bad. User:Saravask might help out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Persondata is special metadata which can be added to biographical articles. With about 4500 cricketer and related people biographical articles now setup in Wikipedia, we are in a wonderful position to leverage off that and so I wonder whether we should embark on a side project to embed persondata tags into all of our biographies. I can see lots of possibilities once this has been done, but the task would be immense. I've added a persondata block into Donald Bradman so you can see what I'm talking about.

I'm interested what others think and if supportive, is there a way to (at least partially) automate the task? -- I@n ≡ talk 14:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd already started doing this to a tiny minority of English cricketers ( Bobby Abel to William Attewell), using AWB to help automate the task, but I got distracted by something else and didn't continue. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ ^talk 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I'm particularly interested in whether data scraping would be feasable to construct the block. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can start doing it for the Indian cricketers. I just got authorized to use AWB, so the task will be much easier. Should I start with the important players first or just the whole category? Thanks. Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a task that could feasibly be given to CricketBot? Stephen? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ ^talk 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think CricketBot could, but Stephen would have to to a hell of a lot of work to get the bot to recognize the cricketers' details, given that the details are not entirely uniform for all the players. BTW I was just about to start & was wondering that if a player doesn't have a nickname & is alive should the Date of death & Nickname fields be left empty or removed? Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 12:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently yes - leave them there, but blank. Wikipedia talk:Persondata discusses some of the formatting rules. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate biographical data could perhaps be slurped from Cricinfo (where it's presented in a standard format) rather than the Wikipedia articles. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ ^talk 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the flags used in cricketer's bios are all .png. Can we use cricketbot to make the switch to the superior .svg format? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A new contributor who is, I think, well-intentioned has made some strange edits to Rohan Kanhai. I reverted similar edits from an anonymous IP-addressed editor at the weekend, but there are evidently things that this new editor wants to say, and though they aren't being said very clearly there may be some value in some of them. I'm loath to go back in and revert again: perhaps someone else could take a look? Johnlp 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I've tried, but I don't know whether my edits were what you were after. :) Sam Vimes 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice work. Johnlp 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've just created Category:Cricketer-politicians as it seems to have some potential. Someone may want to populate relevant articles with the cat after looking at the description on the cat page and cat_talk page. -- Gurubrahma 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this is on the project list. I've done quite a bit of work on this recently, dropping great chunks of repetition, some POV, getting things into a sensible order etc. I'll continue working on it... and welcome contributions from others! Dweller 08:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How easy is it to create one of these? Would be nice for the WikiProject participants to have their very own. Dweller 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

duh. found it. Dweller 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Cricket.

Oops, I'd made one of my own because I couldn't find any: Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is a member of WikiProject Cricket.

Hmmm... it does make more sense for the background to be green! Dweller 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this on cricinfo:

110.2 Mohammed to Dravid, OUT, gone! (caught) 110.3 Mohammed to Jaffer, 1 run

Does anyone know why Jaffer, after Dravid was out caught, took the strike instead of the incoming batsman?

Thanks - and please let me know if I should ask this elsewhere. Thank you. -- Dbk331 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the batsmen exchanged places by taking runs while the ball was in the air, thus allowing Jaffer to be on strike. Unlike when a boundary is hit, the batsman does not return to his original spot after a dismissal. And you are in the right place (at least, nobody here is criminally offended by the sight of a cricketing question) Sam Vimes 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added various images onto Wikipedia over the last few months, mainly from the Benefit Matches we host at Upminster Cricket Club, the photos are on our website [4] and I have used those for Wikipedia. The problem is one by one these are being flagged for deletion as I have used the original photographers name not mine. They have happily donated the photos for my website why can't they donate to Wikipedia? First case in point is Image:Acook.JPG kroome111 12:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't help with the irritating copyright problem, but that photo isn't the showing most elegant of defensive shots by England's "star of the future"! Dweller 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kroome111, Ahh, the copyright police have found you! Every image has some form of copyright automatically assigned to it which is "owned" by the creator of the image. Generally, only the copyright owner can reassign or rescind copyright. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more details.

I can suggest two options for you:

1. on your website, clearly mark the images as being licensed under either "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v2.0", or "Public domain" (either individually or globally, but it needs to be very clear and explicit - and you and other photographers agree and understand what it means) and then in the Wikipedia image page, name the website and html page as the source. You can then safely tag the WP image with {{ cc-by-sa-2.0}} or {{ PD}} respectively (but don't use {{ PD-self}} for the reasons you've already discovered :). Read the cc-by-sa deed here.
2. tag the images with either {{ PermissionAndFairUse}}, or with {{ Fair use in}} and {{ Withpermission}} (must use both together). You must also describe as much as possible about the permission including who gave it and what conditions were made if any.

I hope this helps. If you need any more help, just ask on my talk page or here. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that recent addition of certain records to this article is quite unnecessary. First is the re-addition of the Minor Records section which I think should be removed (see WT:CRIC#Rahul_Dravid above) as it only contains Dravid's records against the West Indies. It also contained a statement "Every cricketer in his life accumulates a host of minor records to his name, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a list of them" which I removed as a WP:ASR violation. Also the record referring to Dravid's success under Ganguly, although interesting, seems a bit out of place. I would appreciate if some of our "regulars" can check it out. Thanks. Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a minute to read this

I'd like to create a new page that is devoted to whites, explaining what they are made of, look like, history, scope for personal expression, advertising on them, numbers etc etc.

This came about during my editing of a new page devoted to David M Ward, a biffer I loved watching.

The problem is that "whites" and "Whites" are currently simple redirections to " White people". I suspect that if I nab one or both of those pages, create what I want and include a disambig line at the top, I'll be soundly stamped on by dozens of irate Wikipedians.

That's not necessarily enough to deter me <grins> but I recognise I'm still a bit of a noob, so I'm asking advice here.

I don't want to wimp out and go for whites (cricket) or some such. Why? Well, because the current pages are merely redirects to a "proper" article which is correctly and unambiguously titled. Similarly, whites are called whites, not "whites (cricket)". And I think "cricket whites" is even worse. But I'm not sure why.

Do you get the impression of a slightly-bolshy yet slightly reticent-to-kick-things-off person? Hmmm... I sound deranged.

Anyway, please can some experienced Wikipedians who love cricket advise me.

Dweller 12:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be "Cricket whites". -- Vivenot 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that blacks also redirects to black (people). I would be surprised if there has not been some debate on that situation (I have not waded throught the inevitably extensive talk pages) and would be wary of changing anything without checking first why it is currently set up the way it is, and asking on Talk:Whites.

Cricket whites are always going to be a subsidiary meaning, at either cricket whites or whites (cricket) (preferably one with a redirect from the other). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a regular participant in this project, I have nevertheless created a list of first-class cricket records at List of first-class cricket records (by analogy with List of Test cricket records). I think a cricket encyclopedia definitely ought to contain such a list. I'd welcome feedback: I recognise there's plenty that could be added (links to match scores at cricketarchive.com, for instance). My rationale for the career lists was to set the qualification so that it included roughly the top 15 in each category runs, wickets, w/k dismissals. Given the current set-up of the game it does not appear to me that these career records will ever need modifying again after Hick retires (which, by the way, I hope won't be 2010 at the earliest :-). -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested additions :

• About the Wisden/ACS mismatch : Most career runs for Hobbs and Grace follow the Wisden figures while almost everything else use the ACS stats. It could be one or the other but only one standard should be followed throughout the article, and there should be a comment somewhere explaining the issue.
• Most runs in a season may include a comment that this is only for the English season and these are unlikely to be bettered because of the reduction in the number of matches since 1969; optionally the best since then; and if there is enough space left, may also include the non-English figures. Tintin ( talk) 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tintin has pointed out that I have inadvertantly mixed ACS/cricket archive figures with Wisden figures - I think the mix-up is because I thought Wisden Almanack and Wisden Cricinfo would show the same :-). Which should we use? Tintin and I agree that since the player articles all use cricinfo/cricket archive it would be the more logical choice. Anyone with a different view? Either way, I'll fix it in due course. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In case others are interested, Sam Vimes has confirmed that he would accept a WP:RFA nomination - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

...are a bit confused.

• Category:First Class cricket teams looks to be incorrectly captitalised
• We have Category:Former first-class cricket clubs and Category:Pakistani first-class cricket teams with a hyphen and the rest without.

I think we should lose the capital letter, and suspect that we ought to have a hyphen, but could live without it. And then there is "teams" versus "clubs".

Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This probably sounded very boring to everyone ;) Anyway, for the record, I agree with you - and so does a Cricinfo search [5]. I also think everything should be "teams" because the Pakistani teams clearly aren't clubs in the traditional sense, and I don't think the Indian are, either (since they represent the local governing association, rather similar to a national team). Sam Vimes 11:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, very boring, compared to the 2006 FIFA World Cup anyway :) Do we need some sort of CFD? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The parent category First Class cricket teams wouldn't need a CFD, that goes under Capitalisation fixes in the Speedy renaming criteria. Think it might be needed for teams v. clubs, tho. (and there's a whole hour before Portugal v. Mexico to do it in!) Sam Vimes 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There. Category:First-class cricket teams created, for the time being anyway. Sam Vimes 13:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This really should be a featured list, like List of Test cricket grounds by date. Its failings are:

• a few redlinks (mostly in Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
• missing names for "ends" at a number of grounds (many in Pakistan, and some that are very historic and difficult to find - like Bramall Lane or Brisbane Exhibition Ground)

Please help! (I have deliberately left off the number of Tests at each ground, by the way, to avoid having to update incessantly.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed on the SIGNPOST that this is a featured picture. I didn't know about it previuosly, but I feel that there are a couple of errors at least. Long leg is shown as being finer than fine lege, which I thought was supposed to be the other way around. Also the "backward short leg" is not close in, as it is supposed to be. It is shown close to the edge of the ODI fielding restriction circle. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the Long Leg error is quite glaring. A featured pic should be completely accurate. Any graphic designers in the house? -- Srikeit ^{( Talk | Email)} 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm there. (PS: the first draft was made by me ( Image:Cricket fielding positions.svg). Actually the "straight" errors are in because the newer version used these terms as modifiers, rather than actual positions. BTW anyone can edit the image, just download Inkscape to edit the image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

'Straight' is used only infront of the wicket, so it may be removed from near longleg. The 'deep forward' and 'deep sweeper' midwicket may be replaced with a single 'deep midwicket'. Backward short leg should be closer (as mentioned above) and leg slip should be made finer. The 'square' near the boundary in line with these cannot go with any other term. Tintin ( talk) 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I was the image promoter, and only promoted it as it appeared (according to the discussion) that these kinds of technical issues had been worked out already. Personally, I have no knowledge whatsoever of Cricket. If the errors are particularly egregious, we could delist the image as a featured picture and later nominate a corrected version. Alternatively, if the errors are easy to fix and are corrected quickly, I see no reason to delist it. -- moondigger 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you mark of corrected positions on the png image, (using Paint, GIMP, or a similar program) and then upload for reference? I can make the changes. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are these edits correct ? Tintin ( talk) 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's wrong. I have a cricket textbook from 1970 which has the "beamer" as a full-toss; also a 1970s anecdote book by Ian Chappell, using the alternative bean-ball as a head-high full toss. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a high full-toss. I think chest-height would still classify - the issue is it's dangerous. So it's probably not been delivered by a slow bowler. How about "a full-toss delivered at pace at a height that endangers the batsman"? -- Dweller 08:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• See the laws of cricket! Anything above waist height at speed is problematic. While the Law doesn't use the word "beamer", it clearly is referring to the phenomenon: [6]. Law 42.6.b reads as follows:

"(b) Bowling of high full pitched balls (i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. (ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker."

Subsequent Laws require the Umpire to call "No-ball" for a beamer and warn the bowler, with further punitive measures imposed for repetition of the offence. If the umpire decides that the beamer was deliberate, the bowler cannot bowl again in that innings. -- Dweller 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is wrong too, and the 1970s citation seems to seal it, but what does that book call fast short-pitched deliveries? And what were they called in the 1930s during Bodyline?

I wonder if the anon can provide some citations for bouncers being called beamers in the West Indies in the 1970s... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that older sources tend to call bouncers "bumpers", not "beamers". -- Dweller 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice User:BlackJack has removed several articles from this category:

• Bombay Quadrangular
• Sydney Riot of 1879
• The Ashes
• Ball of the Century
• Underarm bowling

They are all articles about historical events in cricket, so I don't see why they should be removed. Comments? - dmmaus 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• See next discussion point. The articles have not been removed. They are assigned to appropriate categories. The history category is generic and should not be used to store specific items like the above as otherwise it will eventually have over a thousand disparate, remotely historical articles in it and it will be useless to anyone trying to navigate the cricket project. Before using a category, people must think what its purpose is and especially this question of generic and specific. -- Jack 05:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not a problem. I have no objection at all, and think this is a good idea. I just didn't notice the announcement of your intentions and so was confused. (The cricket organisation discussions are spread over a few pages, I notice...) - dmmaus 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This has become something like Topsy that has "just growed".

It has been evident to me for some time that there is no structure to the categories; that there are stray articles all over the place; that categories that were designed for generic items and as "holding categories" for relevant sub-categories are simply being used as additional bases for specific articles; and that what we have here is another fine mess.

What makes it worse is that I have been trying to get other cricket people interested in using WP for cricket reference and their feedback has been critical to say the least.

We MUST have a top-down structure to categories and we must stop piling things ad hoc into useless lists. If we have a structured categorisation, the lists will be redundant (they are anyway) and readers will easily be able to navigate.

I have identified 28 categories under Cricket and there should only be 10! As a rule of thumb, I would say that the number of sub-cats in one category should be a cricket team (plus perhaps an umpire) and that an XI (or a dozen) is the limit.

Here are my proposed level 2 categories under the level 1 Cricket "root":

• Cricket by country (1) – each country has own cat at level 3 (status quo except that level 3 is for holding cats only)
• Cricket culture (2) – one-off to capture the miscellany, the peripherals, the trivials, the wider picture, etc.
• Forms of cricket (3) – first-class, Test, local clubs, under-19, etc. – histories of each to be in sub-cats
• Cricket images (4) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
• Cricket (in the) media (5) – anything re books, broadcasting, journalism, film, computers, etc. Currently renaming this category.
• Cricket organisation and governance (6) – admin, scoring, venues, comps, equipment, awards, Laws, records, stats, etc.
• Cricket people (7) – players, umpires, writers, administrators, etc – every article to be re an individual
• Cricket skills (8) – batting, bowling, fielding, keeping, captaincy, umpiring – onfield activities only
• Cricket stubs (9) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
• Cricket terminology (10) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose

Apart from the two in bold, all the above are existing categories. Apart from the generic article Cricket, the portal and the WikiProject, there should be no articles or pages held under the root category.

Level 3 should be the main sub-categories. For example, under skills at level 2 the level 3 cats would be batting, bowling, umpiring, etc. as above. Generally, there should be no pages at level 2 except for the standalone categories like culture, images and stubs. A couple of the level 2 cats like country and people should not have pages on level 3 either as level 3 is where they split up into countries and occupations respectively.

The worst categories of all are history, teams and Tests which frankly need completely restructuring or demolishing. They are a disgrace and I am especially embarrassed by history as I started it and put most of the original effort into it. History is carrying surplus articles that should be reassigned or else have sufficient specific categories already and should not be in a generic category like history. History had eight sub-cats and six of them were cross-cats that were already adequately located elsewhere, especially under the country or competition headings. The other two history cats were small specific items that should both be elsewhere: Olympics under competitions and Years under first-class cricket.

I have already started sorting out much of this mess but I will not change the root category's sub-cats until members have had chance to read this and respond to it. Pending any feedback, I will change the root cat on Sat 1 July. -- Jack 05:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is pretty much spot on - it's what happens in a wiki. Anyway, I think the history of cricket category is still useful - it's not immediately obvious where to go from the top level in your organisation if you want information on how the game evolved in the 19th century, say. (Yes, it may be obvious when you're familiar with the categories, but not everyone have designed the system.) I think it's a bit of a large step to just wipe it out altogether. Sam Vimes 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam re history but otherwise I think Jack is on the right track. -- GeorgeWilliams 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is a useful tool that shows a tree view of the Cricket category and all it's subcategories (and the articles within them). – AlbinoMonkey ^{( Talk)} 09:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate someone taking the time to look at this, and I think your suggestions have a lot of merit. One point, though: categories do not have to form a tree hierarchy. Adding a category is essentially free, so why shouldn't there be cross-cats? Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of the problem. I'd also be interested in details of the critical feedback you have received - what else don't your cricket contacts like about WP? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's very much around structure and not having a navigable categories system. Too many sub-categories on one page when it is easier to drill down through the levels, providing the labelling is done well. I've tried finding something under another subject where there is a host of categories at the top and it is very difficult to determine which category to search under when there's a whole mass of them together. I'm taking the point about cross-cats but I think they need to be useful to the reader and not there for the sake of it: history is a good example (see below). -- Jack 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, I think Category:Women's cricket should hold a position under the "root" category, as it does now. – AlbinoMonkey ^{( Talk)} 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. -- Jack 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For information. The following contributions have been copied to here from the cricket category talk page so that the whole discussion is in one place. I have left a link on the cricket page to here and another link has been placed in the portal. -- Jack 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose all This idea is based on a completely false premise as there is nothing wrong with having 27 subcategories and it is nothing out of the ordinary to do so. Chicheley 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is everything wrong with 27 categories: it is 15 too many. One of the worst problems in WP is seeing a page with a mass of data on it and trying to find what you want. Small and simple is the way forward and if that means several hierarchical levels, that is better than all one page. It is much easier to navigate a sound structure than to scroll through a mass of data. -- GeorgeWilliams 17:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As a long-time reader of wiki cricket it would seem that the proposal is for the benefit of myself and others like me. I agree with the principle of the proposal if not all the detail. I would like to say here that the views of Chicheley should be taken with caution as he is not a member of the project and is actively working against it, if his performance in the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" is anything to go by. I know from my reading that many of you have had problems for a long time with people attempting to delete things and obstruct progress. Well, here is one of those responsible. I am very suspicious of his motive here but not at all impressed by his reasoning as to say there is nothing wrong with 27 categories is frankly absurd. A structured system is essential and it should be as simple as possible. For the benefit of the readers. -- AlbertMW 06:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is very true. All of us who have created new articles have had problems with the "deletion faction" and I know from recent experience that Chicheley is very active on Afd/Cfd. I also question his motive in appearing on here so soon after getting involved in cricket-related matters on the deletion page. However, his views will be taken into account (even if Albert is right and they are "absurd"). -- Jack 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose all It has not "just growed" but has been highly stable since a major reorganisation in late 2004 and I am happy with it. Specifically the history, teams and test categories are all essential (and the first two feed into all-sport categories, giving another route into the cricket coverage). I can't believe you seriously think taking Category:Cricketers out of Category:Cricket is a sensible idea. I don't think you will be able to find any other sport which doesn't have a competitors category in the top category. Some of your proposals might have been designed to make things hard to find, for example your proposal to put "statistics" under "organisation and governance" is utterly baffling. Calsicol 11:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Good points. I think stats is one to think about. We have both cricketers and cricket people; we can't really put Brian Johnston under cricketers but he deserves as much recognition as most county players: another one to ponder. I'm sold on the phased approach idea which has been raised by someone below. -- Jack 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support for all except history. I definitely think the history category should be retained at level 2 but that it should be sorted to make it generic at this level and then building down to specifics at levels 3 and below. I can put up with cross-categorisation in history as it simply presents two views of the same article or sub-category: one from the historical angle (e.g., English cricket in the 1850s) and one from the country angle (e.g., 1850s cricket in England). That would actually be useful. What is wrong with the history category at present is the number of stray articles especially those in categories designed to be generic and Jack is absolutely right to tidy this up. Whereas I fully respect the views of Calsicol, I cannot agree with him that the present structure is stable. It is a shambles and I can only think he is comfortable with it because he has gotten used to it, but I have spoken to other readers who are new or newish and they don't like it all. As Jack says, there is no structure and it needs a top-down analytical approach to sort it out. I think the "organisation and governance" category is a great idea and it should include records and statistics. I'm not entirely sure about the "cricketers" category, though, and I wonder if that should exist in both "cricket" and "cricket people"? Need to think about that one. "Cricket skills" is a no-brainer: why on Earth not? And the same with "forms of cricket". Yes, Jack is right in principle but just some of the detail needs to be reviewed. -- GeorgeWilliams 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• George, you are spot on re history and I'll come up with new proposals for dealing with its problems: as you say, it's really the stray articles that are the problem. -- Jack 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The proposal is not in line with the treatment of other sports such as:
  • Aussie rules: 21 top tier categories
  • Baseball: 43
  • Basketball: 22
  • Football (soccer): 29
  • Golf: 23
  • Ice hockey: 24
  • Rugby union: 17

Some of them have a few that might be moved down a tier, but only a few. This proposal is a radical departure from the normal standards for similar categories, and I think that is a reason to stop and think. It seems to me that in some cases you would have to know quite a bit about cricket to know what might be where and as User:Calsicol has observed, in one or two even then you would probably be stumped. Images and stubs are not very useful categories to the reader and do not deserve to be at a higher level than things like test cricket, ODI cricket and cricketers. Jack seems to think that it is a problem if articles are in more than a couple of categories, but it isn't within reason. Extra categories mean there are more access routes; if there are only a couple on an article and they do not match a particular user's way of thinking he will not find the article through the categories. Chicheley 17:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Comment How other sports, and other subjects generally, are handled on the site is totally irrelevant. The proposal concerns the structure of the cricket project and how it appears to the readers. The readers are people like myself who use wiki cricket for reference and the site is supposed to exist for our benefit, not for people like you who spend a lot of time in the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" section. It is because of people like you that things do not get done. When you say "you would have to know quite a bit about cricket to know what might be where" you are describing the present lack of structure. I have difficulty searching through a long list of unrelated categories on one page. We need identifiable headers at the top level followed by identifiable and relevant sub-headers at the next level and so on breaking down to the articles themselves. So much easier for the reader. -- AlbertMW 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Re other sports, I could not agree more. Cricket sets the standard and I think I am right in saying that cricket is easily the sport with the biggest WP coverage. -- Jack 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support in principle. I say in principle because I favour a phased approach to this. I agree with George Williams re history and I think User:Calsicol has made a fair point about governance as a category. I think we need a category of that sort but it needs to be thought about, especially the name which is a bit cumbersome. On the other hand, the skills category should be introduced immediately. I like the idea of keeping the stubs, culture, glossary and images at the top as standalones - these are like appendices in a book and it is very sensible to keep them here to maintain their profile.-- AlbertMW 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For information. This ends the contributions originally made on the cricket category talk page.-- Jack 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Progress Discussion going well and it seems there is a consensus to retain history as a generic category that provides an additional route to the country material so I'll start working on that. Also I agree with Albert that a phased approach is necessary for things like governance but that skills can be introduced now (i.e., on 1 July). Thank you to everyone for contributing. Can we have more, please? -- Jack 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. I agree partially with the proposals, but only partially. There certainly is some consolidation which could be done — moving fielding, batting and bowling under skills is a good idea, for example, though I'm not so sure about umpiring. But I do want to emphasise some counter-points too:
  1. As ALoan said, the category structure should not be a tree. It should be an acyclic directed graph (no category should be an ancestor of itself), but it is very useful to have different routes up through the hierarchy. For example, Category:English Test cricketers is a subcat of Category:English cricketers (which leads up through Category:Cricket in England) and also of Category:Test cricketers (which contains Test cricketers of all countries), and this is how it should be.
  2. Similarly, it is proper for an article to sit in two different cricket subcategories, as long as one isn't an ancestor of another.
  3. Finally, I don't want to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of subcats in a cat. This should be determined purely by what makes sensible groupings, not by some perceived maximum. Whether it comes out at 10 or 25, I don't really care.

Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

History progress. I'm sure GeorgeWilliams meant to say something about the history category when he added his piece about the "Test cricket" category below. I notice he has tidied up the remaining stray articles, largely using his new sub-cats in "Test cricket", and it's a good bit of work as the history category now has just its generic articles and one relevant sub-cat. Given the comments above, I think we should add more sub-cats to provide the extra route mentioned (e.g., to historical articles that exist in the country categories). -- Jack 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists category See below re how I have ruined my own case for reduced sub-cats! -- Jack 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Live date has arrived and so this discussion is closed. The things I had most concern about were stray articles, the history category and the Test category. The strays have been rounded up and allocated to suitable categories while the generic categories now contain only generic articles: that was easy enough to do. The Test category has already been sorted (see below) by introduction of new sub-cats to deal with specific articles and Test history has been linked to cricket history to broaden access. I've done some more work on the history category this morning which is explained in detail in a new topic below. I've introduced a cricket skills category as this idea has got support. For the rest, I will adopt the phased approach which was recommended by two or three members and will make proposals re the other categories and topics individually in due course. Thank you to all the project members who took part in the discussion or else sent me personal messages. Much appreciated. -- Jack 09:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot see the point of maintaining huge and difficult to use lists like List of cricket topics and List of cricketers. There are probably hundreds of articles not in them and who can be bothered to look there when it's so much easier (and reliable) to use the search facility or the cricket categories anyway?

Pending any feedback, I'm going to propose both of those lists for deletion on Sat 1 July. -- Jack 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Doesn't look like they have been maintained. Johnlp 13:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think those two lists in particular are literally a waste of space. Definitely delete them. -- GeorgeWilliams 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I created List of cricket topics to have some way, any way, to organise the growing number of articles, since at the time there wasn't any better way to do it. Literally the next day the category system came online, and I immediately realised that the list page was then redundant. I'd be happy to see it go. - dmmaus 23:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as List of cricket topics is concerened, I spent a lot of time (unsuccesfully) trying to reorganise it some time ago and I'm ashamed to say it was just too hard and I gave up. The one useful thing these two lists do is to provide a reference for the Related changes feature - here. But other than that, categories are probably the better way to go, subject to being reorganised per Jack above. Change my mind - I say keep, but major housekeeping is needed. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

List of cricket topics List of cricketers is generated automatically by user:CricketBot from the various country lists. If Stephen is happy to continue to run the bot, I'd keep that one. -- I@n ≡ talk 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't List of cricketers updated automatically too? What is the problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As Ian said above, the real purpose of creating that page was to provide an easy way to monitor the changes made to all cricketer pages using the Recent changes list, especially since it is not always possible to keep track of the newly created pages. If such a page is not appopriate in the main space, it may be moved under WP:Cric, but it should not be deleted. Same goes for List_of_cricket_topics, but if is not an automatically generated page, it won't be of much use. Tintin ( talk) 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse everyone. Its List of cricketers and not List of cricket topics that's updated automatically. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal I think Tintin has made the best suggestion. Unless there is strong opposition from project members I will recategorise both of these lists (on Sat 1 July) to Category:WikiProject Cricket for "safe storage" and they will be there if anyone can find the time and motivation to make good use of them. Owzat? -- Jack 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, they should be a subpage of WP:Cricket, not in the main space. They're useful for editors to do Related Changes, but they're not useful to the ordinary reader of the encyclopaedia. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal Good point by Stephen. I've provisionally created a "Lists" section in the to-do box at the top of this page and added these two lists to it. Other difficult lists can be added in due course. Would anyone like to do anything else with the two large lists? -- Jack 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category It goes against the grain but I've found a category:Cricket lists which was outside the cricket structure and existed only as a sub-cat of a general sports folder. This clearly belongs in the cricket category and it would be useful there as a marshalling yard for all cricket lists including these two, so I've effectively demolished my own argument for less sub-cats in the cricket category!!!! Groan! Having said that, I think the lists section in the to-do box above should stay as it highlights the problem of maintenance and might encourage someone to take a fresh approach to the big lists. -- Jack 06:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has marked one of the lists for deletion: see my new notice below. -- Jack 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on the cricket categories included in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 24 Tintin ( talk) 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cricket WikiProject now has scored a century with 100 participants. A fine innings... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated category:cricket dismissals for delete as it contains only four articles that are all in its own parent category:cricket terminology. This is pointless duplication especially as the parent cat is the one being developed (it has over 100 articles). -- GeorgeWilliams 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One for delete. It has been under context request for ages and clearly no one can be bothered to develop it. Pointless list idea. -- GeorgeWilliams 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been targeted by user:BlackJack for review and cleanup, mainly because of stray articles so I've made an attempt to do it. I've created a few new sub-categories such as history, grounds and competitions and moved the articles into it, leaving only three generic articles in the main category plus the one above that I've nominated for deletion. See what you think. -- GeorgeWilliams 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, except for one subcategory: I'm not too keen on the Category:Famous Tests, though, mainly because it involves a POV decision I don't think we should go near - what is famous? We'd have to find sources for every single one, and that's just tedious for a category that's not really that necessary anyway. Sam Vimes 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam re the title of "Famous Tests" (definitely POV and an open invite to all sorts of recent matches) but I can see that the intention was to have a category for articles about individual Tests or series given that we have very few at present: a sort of "holding category" pending a bigger spread of articles. I would change the name but keep the category (can't think of a name though!). Otherwise George has done a great job here and the sub-cats for Test grounds and competitions are fine. I just have one other little point which is that Boxing Day Test isn't really generic and should be found a category too: something like "Test cricket terminology", perhaps? -- 213.122.0.188 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work but I agree "Famous Tests" is POV and will inevitably lead to a proliferation of recent Tests that do not warrant the inclusion. As there are only three of these at present, why not move them into the parent category and Cfd the famous Tests category? -- Jack 09:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Famous_Tests -- I@n 07:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See this page and comment. I've requested further discussion given the project's topic above. -- Jack 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought we'd had this debate before, but Jack has amended the Cricket Article Style Guide on WP:Cricket to say that seasons that cross years should now be referred to as 2005-2006, rather than 2005-06. I don't agree with this, but what do others think? Johnlp 08:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We debated this pretty thoroughly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive14#Season_styles_.28again.29. Sam Vimes 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes we did and the consensus was 2005-06. I just had a look at WP:MOS which is still silent on this. Therefore it's up to us to establish our own style. If the cricket style guide needs to be changed, please discuss it here before arbitrarily changing. I've reverted the project page accordingly. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for an oversight here. For some reason I was sure that Wiki convention was as per Y2K which is to use all four digits in all years (probably confused with another site). I definitely prefer the Y2K convention but if consensus is to use 2005-06 then so be it. Can I be assured that we will not use 1899-00 and 1999-00, however? -- Jack 09:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Johnlp 10:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here as well. Sam Vimes 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto -- I@n ≡ talk 11:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

With the recent spate of cricket related AfD nominations and the need to bring them to participants attention, I wonder what project members think of opening a page in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting for cricket. Basically, AfD and CfD pages are transcluded to a separate page which you can then add to your watch list. A small notice is also placed in the AfD page indicating that the nomination has been included in associated deletion sorting page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia for an example of how it works. It may be that the volume is too low to warrant it and an alternative could be to just have an section in the WP:CRIC project page or this talk page with same. I'm interested in others thoughts. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think it is worth trying. Even if the volume is one article only, it is worth doing to keep it within the project and stop outside interference. -- Jack 09:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its a great idea as many cricket-related AFD's come and go without the knowledge of many participants here, who may not be AFD regulars, can provide an expert's view to the discussions. The volume here might be low but are quite important like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leipus. I have taken the initiative & created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket (Shortcut WP:DSC) and would like to request all the participants (& non-participants too) to list any cricket-related AFD or prod here. We can also have its transclusion or create a Cricket Noticeboard of sorts which could direct project members to the deletion sorting page. I'd appreciate any opinions or comments & feedback and would request everyone again to populate the lists. Thanks -- Srikeit ^{( Talk | Review me!)} 10:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work Srikeit. Can everyone now add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket to their watchlist. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with consensus in the recent categories discussion above, I've made changes to the history structure to relocate stray articles to specific categories and to relate the history sub-categories to the geographic ones.

For example, 1726 English cricket season is in category:English cricket in the 18th Century which is a specific sub-category of the sub-generic category:History of English cricket. That category is a child of two parents, one historic and one geographical — category:History of cricket and category:Cricket in England respectively.

You will note that category:History of cricket is a main category of the root category:Cricket itself and that it also contains category:History of Australian cricket and category:History of Test cricket.

category:Cricket in England is part of category:Cricket by country and this includes category:Cricket in Australia which follows a similar pattern in that it leads to category:History of Australian cricket which is being developed as per its English counterpart. At present it has one sub-cat category:Australian cricket in the Golden Age and this has some season stubs and a seasonal template as per the equivalent English category.

Obviously, the intention is to develop the other countries using the same structure.

I hope you can follow the above but it's best to navigate the hyperlinks and you'll see what's going on. Can anyone make any additional suggestions? -- Jack 10:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)