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.

At the Harry Trott FAC discussion, I have been asked to use a consistent form for the phrase "the Ashes" ot "The Ashes" (note the capitalisation of the "T") I agree with the suggestion that we should at least be consistent inside each article but I would suggest a project-wide style would be appropriate. There is no guidance on this topic on the cricket article style guide at WP:CRIC#STYLE.

I prefer "the Ashes" but can see a rationale for capitalising the "The" if the trophy name is "The Ashes" rather than the "Ashes" Others thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 04:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider whether "the Oval"/"The Oval" should be capitalised or not at the same time :) Daniel ( talk) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that even in the main article on the topic both forms are used interchangeably. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 07:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use The Ashes and The Oval. In these cases, the definite article is part of the title. It's the same as for film and book titles; or for a sporting title such as The Wanderers which is both a football team and a cricket ground. If most people agree, I'll add it to our MOS. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Blackjack. – MDCollins ( talk) 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefer to see it capitalised, for what it's worth. Daniel ( talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't really mind if we capitalise the The or not. But there are some cases where the phrase is used adjectivally – as in "fastest hundred in an Ashes Test" or "in the history of Oval Tests" – where a The isn't needed. Johnlp ( talk) 14:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a point that should be mentioned in the style guide too. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've updated WP:CRIC#STYLE to capture these points. Please let me know if any additions or amendments are needed. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One reviewer at the FAC has criticised this section: "Seems like trivia". There are similar sections in many football FAs (including some I've been involved in). They're less common in cricket articles I suppose because outside of the subcontinent cricket doesn't have anything like the same mass appeal as football.

My stance on this is that the information in the section is all notable, referenced and hangs together relatively well. Some of it is arguably not exactly pop cult, but section headings are rarely rigorous even at FA - they're there to give a reader an expectation of what he'll find there (and help him to find what he's after through the TOC).

In short, I think it's fine, but I promised to solicit other opinions and you lot are ruthless! Give it to me straight... -- Dweller ( talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. In popular culture sections are the norm for historical figures who have been portrayed several times in film, on TV or in books. If you look at people from the American West like Wyatt Earp and Jesse James, you'll see what I mean. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do need some more opinions, to help garner consensus... Please??? -- Dweller ( talk) 09:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The section itself is useful; hell, there is enough there for its own article. In the main it relates directly to Bradman, rather than the passing references normally associated with these section (was part of a punchline on a TV comedy etc.). The only thing I would change is the reference to the ex-PM. I know what you are trying to illustrate but it certainly wasn't common to refer to Howard that way. Some alternatives:

• "The Bradman of Bathurst" ( Peter Brock)
• "The Bradman of Horse racing" ( Scobie Breasley)
• "The Bradman of the boards" ( Jackie Howe, a shearer)
• "The Bradman of cities" (Sydney? surely not ...)
• "The Bradman of communication in palliative care???"
• "The Bradman of women politicians" (Thatcher)
• "The Bradman of his generation of classicists" ( Martin Litchfield West)
• "The Bradman of Australian country music" ( Slim Dusty)

Actually the last link is useful. It includes the line: "A cottage industry worth millions of dollars annually sells representations and memories of 'the Don' through commercial products such as books, videos, songs, souvenirs, prints, autographed limited edition bats, statuettes, caps, ties, scarfs, jigsaw puzzles, calendars, teaspoons, golfballs, fridge magnets and sunglass cases. Furthermore, Australia has a vernacular term for excellence and endurance: 'Bradmanesque'". -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 10:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good. I particularly would like examples that aren't Australian, to show its more universal usage - shame the Thatcher one is a blog. I'll look into this more. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another series of reverts has been taking place on the cricket article over this question of cricket's global popularity status. I think we are going to need admin intervention before long.

My take on this issue is the following, which I've written on the article's talk page:

• This whole argument is a storm in a teacup. It doesn't matter if cricket is the first, second, third or fifteenth most popular sport on the planet. What does matter is that it is a major world sport as are (association) football, athletics, swimming and a few others. I think these sort of claims detract from the objectivity and readability of the article and from the credibility of the cricket project. Leave it out.

I'd be interested to know if other members think the claim is at all useful. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you wholeheartedly here. The claim would be hard to measure objectively and isn't really necessary. The global reach and popularity of the sport is better demonstrated in other ways. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree. The number of countries affiliated to the ICC is not a reliable measure for the sport's popularity. Association football and athletics are surely both more popular than cricket worldwide. JH ( talk page) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the claim is very hard to substantiate. One may be able to find evidence for a sport being the second most watched, second most attended, etc, but popularity is hard to define exactly as there is no set criteria. Andrew nixon ( talk) 10:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Popularity is a whole can of worms; how is it measured indeed. Playing strength by the population, viewership on terrestrial TV, satellite viewing figures, column inches in the newspapers, global interest outside the commonwealth, etc. It is something that is both hard to quantify and qualify. Londo 06 11:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is however, it is THOUGHT to be the 2nd most popular sport in the world. Plus soccer does the same thing.-- THUG CHILD z 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Thought to be". In other words, an opinion, which is POV. Is cricket more popular than swimming? No doubt you will say that more people watch cricket than watch swimming, but popularity consists of both participation and spectating. There are more people on Earth who swim than watch cricket and, to pick up the point by JH above, the same applies to running.

As the edit has just had to be reverted yet again, given overwhelming consensus both here and on the cricket talk page to exclude it, I really think we need an admin to deal with this and place some protection on the article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and is "considered widely" as in the soccer article not at POV? No one said POV's aren't allowed just gotta keep in NPOV otherwise with the sources it could have just been said it is but instead to keep it NPOV is where the thought to be come in. The same goes to there's way more people that swim/run than watch soccer but they don't do it as an sport. the edit has just had to be reverted yet again because some people keeps removing facts without coming to an solution 1st.-- THUG CHILD z 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you just relying on the education reporter of the New York Post? He's hardly an expert on cricket. Do you know where he got his information on cricket being the second most popular sport from? It may well be that the soccer article is wrong in terms of what it claims, but that is not our concern. JH ( talk page) 19:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a different source? Would that satisfy you? The soccer article in the end is our concerns because it's a wikipedia article and article of the project (not in the sense of wikiprojects) and articles have to be consistent.-- THUG CHILD z 20:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on the source. It would also be a big help if their reasoning for coming to their conclusion was known. JH ( talk page) 20:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Usa today credible enough for you? I don't think editors will explain that while writing an article. Bottom line no matter what, the fact is still that it's thought to be the 2nd most popular sport. That's putting it in a NPOV way, a POV way would be just saying it is.-- THUG CHILD z 22:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A throwaway reference by an newspaper worded as "Arguably the world's second-most popular sport ..." is not enough to support a claim that cricket is the second most popular sport. In what way is it popular, participation, spectators, television viewing etc. Where did the journalist in question get his evidence for this claim. My guess would be from the subjects of the article; i.e. hearsay. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and a claim of that nature, to my mind would require peer-reviewed research from a credible institution. Even so, making such a claim isn't really necessary. It is far better to show that the sport has a global reach and is widely popular and then let people come to their own conclusions. Adding "thought to be" to the claim does not improve the situation at all. It is the opinion of a journalist, supported by little in the way of evidence. If you are unhappy with the claims made in the soccer article take it up there. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Again the article wasn't saying it IS but that it's thought to be which is for a fact. People can still come to an conclusion themselves whilst reading that what it's thought by credible sources. Way more credible I might add then people here. And it's not the opinion of A journalists, what you want like 20 sources? That can be done too. Oh I'm not unhappy with claims used in the soccer article but am saying that it's being used there which is fine like wise it's fine using it in the cricket article.-- THUG CHILD z 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the only fact that can be discerned from the article is that Paul Newberry thinks that cricket is arguably the second most popular sport in the world. However, including "Paul Newberry, journalist for the Associated Press, has expressed the opinion that cricket is the second most-popular sport in the world" in the article is clearly not appropriate. You go on to say that Paul Newberry is "Way more credible I might add then people here" Why? What evidence so you have that he knows anything about the sport? The sole basis for the claim in the AP article is, I suggest, that one of the people that Newberry interviewed that day told him so. That makes it merely hearsay and there is no reason to accord Mr. Newberry's opinion any more weight than mine, or yours for that matter. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's not only Paul Newberry so would you like every person that thinks that as a source? There's really inconsistency here how other things work here and are sourced and what's happening with this. One difference, a big one, between you, I or anyone else here and him or the other journalist/editors is that they're professionals while we are not.-- THUG CHILD

z 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So a journalist/editor who works for a gutter-rag tabloid is to be believed while non-journalists are not? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that any journalist who knows anything about cricket (and I count myself in this, though I'm mostly an unpaid journalist) would ever claim that cricket is the second most popular sport in the world. As said above, it is the opinion of one single journalist on a paper that rarely writes about cricket. Hardly conclusive. Andrew nixon ( talk) 07:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what's gutter and what's not? Now you're pushing your pov. Point you're not supposed to be pushing your pov around without being neutral which is whatever you believe neutralized by the others point of view which rightly or wrongly is that they consider it just that. Now you guys are just owning the article.-- THUG CHILD z 07:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now you are starting to get out of line. I suggest you take another look at WP:NPOV. NPOV requires that articles are written from a neutral point of view. It does not mean that editors are not allowed a point of view about reliability of a source or the appropriateness of content. Editors should discriminate between sources, using reliable ones and rejecting poor ones. It also does not mean that editors are not allowed express their opinions on talk pages. It is quite clear the consensus here is that the source is unsuitable for the claim and that the claim itself is not appropriate for the article. If it is added again, it will be reverted. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I nuetral point of view, which removing it just points the point of view of people here. Oh, so things that has a point of view different from yours is not reliable? Because I would say New York post, Usa today etc are plenty reliable. That claim is appropriate for that article because it's about cricket in general and that includes things like that. That claims not appropriate? Are you kidding me? It's appropriate just as it's done in the soccer article. My guess is no matter what the source you'll still dismiss it saying it's not reliable or whatever. And if it's reverted it can be reverted again, but I'll not get into that and wait for a plausible reason against it or a neutralized version will be in there.-- THUG CHILD z 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(restart) I have made it quite clear what type of source I think is needed for a claim of this nature. From my comment above: "a claim of that nature, to my mind would require peer-reviewed research from a credible institution." Different types of claims clearly require differing standards of evidence. A claim likely to be challenged, such as this one needs something more than a throwaway reference in a story about local cricket in the US. I don't think we are likely to come to any agreement on this one. If you are not happy about this, feel free to take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, stating the fact in question and the source you want to use to support it. Otherwise, as the consensus view is unanimously against inclusion, it is time to move on. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what you think to satisfy your mind and may be who ever agrees with you, but you are not speaking for everyone else. People here aren't in power to decide for the every one else. The sources used in the soccer article is just about the same. And no there's nothing wrong with those used in the soccer article like there's nothing wrong with the ones here. If it doesn't satisfy your mind then don't believe it but from a neutral point of view the fact still is that people think it's the 2nd most popular which is what it said and is verifiable through a reliable source.-- THUG CHILD z 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't saying where it IS or it isn't but that people do think that it is, and other's can decide for themselves. The same is done in the soccer article.-- THUG CHILD z 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the UK when such surveys of popularity used to be done ( in my youth!) the winner on participation surprisingly always turned pout to be Angling. I could never believe this and I guess times may have changed though, these days its probably Wii Fit! Tmol42 ( talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very true. There are still a lot of anglers about when I go walking around waterways. And how popular is walking? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a couple of days, and I've concluded that I don't like it. The problem is that it's meaningless. Unless the source says under what measure it's the world's second most popular sport, the claim is easily falsified. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thugchildz, remember that Wikipedia proceeds by consensus. I'm afraid you'll have to accept that, whatever you think is right or wrong, consensus is clearly against you on this point. You've had plenty of chance to explain, and the community doesn't agree with you. It's time to let it go. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this consensus. As there's no objective way of defining "popularity" (no. of participants? no. of professional participants? TV audiences?) nor, really, of defining "sport" (Chess, anyone?), this is an argument you can't win Thugchildz, sorry. And while my heart says that football must indeed be #1, my NPOV/NOR head says we can't even say that, let alone that cricket is #2. If you'd like to narrow the claim to, I dunno, #2 sport in terms of TV audience and you have stats to prove it, it'd conform to NPOV and NOR. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How did I know that no matter what the source, no matter what the reason, that you guys weren't going to be satisfied? I'm not arguing over whether it IS the 2nd most popular and if so in which terms but that it is CONSIDERED by people to be the 2nd most popular which is a fact. And in soccer it's doing the same thing not saying IT IS the 2nd most popular but that it's considered to be. The pov way of putting them would be- It is the most popular sport backed up by the sources, the NPOV is that people consider it to be. Several (bullshit) reasons I came upon here as to why it's not ok being that it's backed up by sources- hmm it's a throw away thing said in a article, people that wrote it doesn't know about cricket so it's not credible etc. OK so let's see if the following will do any good (I doubt it since, you were never going to change your mind). It's not to justify whether cricket is or not but that it's thought by people, and to make it credible let's see if they know about cricket- Cricket Council USA I'm pretty sure they know a thing or 2 about cricket, no you can brush that with some nonsense reason too? Ok how about Cricket World International? No, they don't know about cricket either? Guide to the world cup? They don't know anything about cricket either? That's a shame. New York Times gutter tabloid too? Outside point of view that theres is this reputation not enough? A book published but not credible eh? If all that isn't credible to back that people think cricket is the 2nd most popular than majority of the sources on wikipedia are not credible.-- THUG CHILD z 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not arguing over whether it IS the 2nd most popular and if so in which terms but that it is CONSIDERED by people to be the 2nd most popular which is a fact." If you were to say that "some people believe that cricket is the second most popular sport in the world", then that would clearly be true from the evidence that you have supplied, but doesn't really seem to be worth saying. Probably there have also been claims that various other sports are the second most popular. As others here have pointed out, popularity is too vague a concept to allow a definitive answer. It's noticeable that the more authoritative of the sources that you quote tend to be the ones making the more modest claims. For instance, we see wording such as "cricket, which its fans say is the world’s second most popular sport" and "the sport is arguably second only to soccer in popularity in many parts of the world...". If you wanted to quote the latter with the corrssponding citation, I wouldn't have any problem with it. JH ( talk page) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth saying in a general article about cricket that it's considered to be the 2nd most popular. Which as my point that the sources were credible enough to back that while not to saying that it is, basically what I've been saying for a while.-- THUG CHILD z 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, sorry. Plenty of people think plenty of things; not all of which are worth including in an article. Stacking up multiple sources with the same trivia doesn't make it any more suitable. I still can't see that saying, "Some people think cricket is the second-most popular sport in the world" is worth including the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an opinion piece for crying out loud. You have had a good chance to have your say, consensus is against inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is enough to assert that cricket is a major world sport. The article doesn't need someone's opinion that cricket is more popular than another major sport. That adds nothing to the article and it would immediately annoy someone who supports, say, athletics or swimming. The fact that cricket is a major sport is the effect of its huge popularity. We don't do ourselves any favours by boasting about how popular we think we are in comparison to other sports. The article is meant to describe the sport so that a reader who is unfamilar with it can, hopefully, learn a lot about it, but that reader does not want propaganda of the "we are better than them" sort. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah plenty of people thinks a lot of things but what is worth including is what it thought by credible people/organizations who have earned that recognition and their opinion is indeed worth more than say any random person. And over that it's not 1 persons opinion but the reflection of a general reputation of cricket as the 2nd most popular sport.-- THUG CHILD z 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that this claim contravenes Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That can be dealt with doing what it says of doing as an option expample- "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." But how can this opinion be qualified with an opinion holder? There are millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history."-- THUG CHILD z 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Y-A-W-N. Wikipedia proceeds by consensus. Consensus here is clear. Can we move on? Johnlp ( talk) 10:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are clear; it is not something that we can qualify and quantify and as such we shall leave such a statement out, right? Londo 06 11:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me to be the consensus, yes. Johnlp ( talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good forking scheme? The article is 60k in prose. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, the authors have certainly been thorough! There seems no obvious way to split it, and I'm not on favour of doing so solely to keep within a Wikipedia guideline on length (which as I understand it is not a hard and fast rule). The lead seems very long, and if its contents can all be found in the body of the article then it might be possible to shorten that section by a fair amount. JH ( talk page) 08:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the lead, how's that? SGGH ^speak! 08:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please chime in with your opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Two_more_FAC_issues. Thank you. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

... just did something rather nifty for Essex, I think this article is horrifically under written (no infobox!) and he will certainly be getting some attention soon, how about we spruce it up? SGGH ^speak! 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox in place, and some minor tidying of what material there is already in place. – MDCollins ( talk) 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Only seven players have surpassed his total, all at a much lower rate Sachin Tendulkar (who required 159 innings to do so), Matthew Hayden (167 innings), Ricky Ponting (170 innings), Sunil Gavaskar (174 innings), Jacques Kallis (200 innings), Brian Lara (205 innings) and Steve Waugh (247 innings)" you don't really needed to list them all. Maybe just say who was the quickest.

Pondering this. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Next best is Brian Lara with 9 in 232 innings (4%), Walter Hammond with 7 in 140 innings (5%) and Kumar Sangakkara 6 in 110 innings (5%)." again don't need to list them all.

How many would you include? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One

Pondering this. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's useful to have the contexts of how his records dominate, in that those who come close in one respect (number of hundreds, or number of double hundreds) have taken more innings to do so, or a far lower %. We've listed all seven of the centurions and the next best three double centurions. The three is subjective, but seems sensible (esp. as once you go to 5 double hundreds, the number of individuals begins to rise quickly) the seven objective. What does the WikiProject think? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The seven centurions should be retained in full as they have passed a fixed milestone and it is useful for the reader to see how long it took all of these fine players to surpass Bradman. I have a slight doubt about the second group because it uses percentages and Sangakkara is still playing. I think I would remove the percentages and note that Sangakkara's total is "to date". Hammond as a contemporary is a must comparison. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do need some more opinions, to help garner consensus... Please??? -- Dweller ( talk) 09:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With the lists, I would suggest only one is needed to show the vast gap between Bradman and the rest. The remainder are superfluous. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 10:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So, one opinion for 7/3 and one for 1/1. I think either is logical and defensible. Need more opinions to find consensus. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would only include the next best in each case. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd include only the next best, though it's tempting to add the Hammond comparison in as well because he is really the only Bradman contemporary in these lists. Johnlp ( talk) 10:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all should be included personally. One of the most interesting things about Bradman to a cricket enthusiast (and one of the most interesting things about any great cricketer) is their ability compared to others. Those are all great names, and many will go to the Bradman article wondering "is he as great as [contemporary great player]" and these comparisons make the article more interesting. I believe it greatly improves the experience of the reader to have all the names there, and it is not like we are short on space. SGGH ^speak! 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with having all of them. As for the percentages, it might be useful to add some comparison with other players from the 1920s-1950s, because all the highest accumulators are from the modern era where batting averages have become inflated from better batting conditions. And to be honest to Sangakkara in the second lot, 2? of his 200s were against Bangladesh. Although most of the guys in the first list plundered some really weak attacks in 21st century conditions as well....Most of the leading players have averaged 70+ since the 21st century (Kallis, Ponting Dravid come to mind). Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Don Bradman’s splendid entry in Wikipedia ..."! -- Dweller ( talk) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bradman hit only one six in his test career". I thought it was six. [1] But either way, isn't it an interesting enough statistic to include in our article? Moondyne 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC) And well done by the way!! Moondyne 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Roar is incorrect. He hit two sixes, for example, in one innings, when he made 304. I don't want to overplay the 'not hitting sixes' angle. In an article already overly packed with stats and mindboggling achievement, it's fairly minor... and we partially cover it when mentioning he'd hit no sixes at all in one sequence of heavy scoring, with the significance of it explained. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the Don anyhow SGGH ^speak! 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you should include this because it speaks volumes about Bradman's approach to batting. It shows that he was not a slogger. He was a batsman who placed his shots rather than blasted them. And of course by going for four he was actually playing safely. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, we've covered that point in the article already. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid my double negative tripped me up there. I'll try a double positive instead! BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, good work to see Wikipedia article's being praised rather than blamed for the downfall of society. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This notion of one six in a career needs to be checked. D. Dyer a member of ACS recently compiled a list of all sixes hit for Notts since scorebooks were kept. Asked at a recent meal how many sixes he hit in his career, Reg Simpson said, Oh not many. In fact he hit over a hundred! I believe there is a claim that ED Weekes hit one six but I've seen thatr this is not true. Another player who claims are made about few sixes is MC Cowdrey. Stats show he hit a few including 2 in 2 balls as late as 1974. The Bradman claim MAY, I say MAY be one of these little stories. It's also worth remembering that the Aussie grounds (and often the UK ones) utilised the full field. Fieldgoalunit ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one, predictably, is Boycott but in fact he used to hit a fair few sixes too. He was very adept at driving the straight six. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Another member of the 1948 Australians has been listed at peer review. Any and all comments would be very much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lended my comments. Looks pretty solid. With Ron Hamence and Ron Saggers also at GA the Invincibles drive is looking fairly healthy. SGGH ^speak! 09:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For all that are interested, the current state of the FT drive can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Australian biography worklist#Invincibles. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 10:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

...need to be watched for vandalism for the next day or so. I have briefly protected both KP and Colly to weather any initial backlash from whats happened in the game. I suspect this is being too cautious but it can never hurt. 606 is hoppin', and many of the writers there are wikipedia users and casual writers. SGGH ^speak! 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This pre-emptive protection is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Various_cricket_articles MickMacNee ( talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

.Fine, undone. SGGH ^speak! 18:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection request withdrawn. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been using these criteria for a few weeks now. They were introduced to WP:CRIC earlier this year but are already used by other projects, though the details are rarely the same.

I think we need a rethink about both the wordings and the sequence. I'd like to propose that we change from this:

• 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
• 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and contains no major omissions or inaccuracies.
• 3. It has a defined structure with a lead section and one or more sections of content.
• 4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
• 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as infobox, images, or diagrams.
• 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates.

to this:

• 1. It reasonably covers the topic using WP:NPOV and contains no major omissions or inaccuracies
• 2. It uses good English and is free from major grammatical, syntax and spelling errors
• 3. It has a defined structure with a lead section and one or more sections of content
• 4. It provides adequate navigation through links, categories and appropriate templates
• 5. It is suitably referenced and all major points have appropriate inline citations
• 6. It contains appropriate supporting materials such as an infobox, images or diagrams

The existing criteria 2-4 are effectively about the basic content. Is there enough of it, is it accurate, is it well written, is it structured? I would say that an article that fails any of these should be rated a stub and I think that therefore these three criteria should become nos 1-3 in the sequence. So, having first determined that the article is not a stub, the reviewer can go onto the more exacting criteria around navigation, references and supporting materials.

My rationale for wording changes includes the need to consider WP:NPOV and to check that adequate linkages have been created from the article to other articles. I think we need to say more about grammar and stress that we expect good use of English.

Please discuss. All ideas and feedback welcome. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The suggested changes seem sensible to me. JH ( talk page) 09:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also consider including a requirement that any cricket terminology is linked at the first occurrence eg. not out, runs, etc. and any link to an article that isn't specific to cricket includes the appropriate anchor, eg. innings and batting average not innings and Batting average. Or is that more something for higher-class articles? Andrew nixon ( talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably more for FA, A and GA really but I think it should be included in WP:CRIC#STYLE. Certainly if I found numerous instances of terminology that were all unlinked, I would fail the article on point 4 because it does not provide adequate links. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that a C-class is about to be rolled out across Wikipedia. This gives Wikiprojects the opportunity to tighten the requirements for B-class, without relating the near-misses to Start-class. Bluap ( talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in knowing what C-class will entail. Can you point me to it, please? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for details. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 07:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a lot of opposition to it and, personally, I can't see how it would help, although it wouldn't hinder either. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the criteria to the proposed ones above. We'll see how they go. It's easy to change them again if anyone thinks of anything else. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I facebooked TMS asking if they (or a fan) would release a pic of Geoffrey Boycott for the article. Maybe they will restraining order me! SGGH ^speak! 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but they have. Have search for Geoff on www.flickr.com and you'll see that several have been uploaded by TMS. I believe that most photos on Flickr are free to upload into the Commons for use elsewhere if you want to try that. – MDCollins ( talk) 23:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the TMS shots on flikr earlier and unfortunately all are marked copyright, all rights reserved. See this link for details. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Added a request for the photographer here http://www.flickr.com/photos/68521817@N00/523493667/?addedcomment=1#comment72157605819641153 to come here and lend us his wares. Johnlp ( talk) 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys SGGH ^speak! 08:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Facebook was a no go SGGH ^speak! 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of red links on the list of female England test cricketers so I've at least started an article on each of them, despite the usual minor skirmishes with the deletion brigade. There's a dearth of articles on players from other test playing countries which might be something to address in the long term. The article on Sarah Potter was greatly improved thanks to a certain editor on here and any other contributions would be welcome. At least our girls still hold the Ashes! Nick mallory ( talk) 11:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to go down this path in having lists of every match? What next, List of Tests? We do have List of Ashes series (and others), but they're more specific. Moondyne 08:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This will become an horrendous list for users to download, especially with all those flag icons. It serves no good purpose. If anyone wants to see all the Twenty20 internationals we should direct them to CricketArchive via a suitable link. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A list of when a team played their first Twenty20 International could be useful, but this list is going to grow out of control very quickly. There's at least 14 on the way in the next 2 months alone. Andrew nixon ( talk) 14:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Article is now prod'ed accordingly. Moondyne 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this originally or I would have responded. I see no reason to delete the article. The list will grow unwieldy but when it does it can be split, either temporally or geographically. Flags can be dealt with under WP:FLAG. The information is useful, encyclopedic and worth preserving. A Wikipedia list can do things that a CricketArchive list cannot, such as link to other WP articles. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:FLAG before. I agree with it completely. I've been removing these things from articles and lists where they were overused without realising it's official policy! BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the article — I don't see the value of a simple list like this, and I don't think it will be kept up to date. Actually, someone did once start a list of all Tests but it got deleted.

As for the flags, I would keep them. WP:FLAG doesn't say that flag images are always bad. In fact it says "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists ... such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results". I think this is exactly that case: they make it quicker to find entries in the table.

Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLAG warns against overuse of flags and this list had two on every single line. You have to remember that not all users have broadband and these things do cause slow download. I read WP:FLAG to say that a flag can be used in strict moderation: e.g., a single one in an infobox. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont see why it needs to be deleted, there was a list of all the games on Twenty20 International so i just created a new page to put it on. It will be updated because i will do that. So there was already a list i just moved it. Wt is this (talk)15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

As there seems to be no consensus to delete this, I've deprodded it accordingly. Moondyne 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the Ian Johnson (cricketer) article, I am looking for the version of the Laws of Cricket that applied in 1954-55. This is to support a claim in the article about the (alleged) watering of the wicket in the MCG Test of that series. An online source would be beaut, but the exact wording of the watering clause and a reference to an appropriate printed copy of Wisden (I don't own any copies of Wisden at all) would be suitable. Thanks, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• This has the older versions of laws, but there could also be additional playing conditions that is relevant only to a specific country, experimental laws etc which are not included here. Tintin 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, that is ideal. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• While I am asking questions, is it "laws of cricket" or "Laws of Cricket"? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• And one last one. Do you think there is any fair use justification for using this image in the article? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the image would still be under UK copyright, which lasts a bit longer than Australian. I'll look up the laws/playing conditions in the 1954 or 1955 Wisdens this evening UK time. Johnlp ( talk) 14:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in any of the mid-1950s Wisdens to indicate that there was any local or temporary variation in the total ban on watering the pitch that is contained in Law 10. And, on your other query, the WP article is Laws of cricket with lower case for both important words throughout. Johnlp ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading that there was something of a scandal regarding that incident in 1954-5, when the pitch was thought to have been watered overnight. It was definitely illegal. Added later: Wisden's report on the incident can be found in their match report: [2] JH ( talk page) 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. If anyone is interested feel free to comment at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Ian Johnson (cricketer)/archive1

Did Ishant bowl at 158 kph yesterday? Please keep an eye on his article. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

this people seem to think it was speed gun error. I dunno why it's that unbelievable, people have bowled that fast before... SGGH ^speak! 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Speedboy Salesman has again changed a few articles to indicate that players are bats and not batsmen. Didn't we establish consensus that we'd use batsman? Andrew nixon ( talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1st discussion, 2nd discussion. -- Jpeeling ( talk) 14:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at England cricket team. The infobox has a user advert. Could someone take a look at all such incidents? All such adverts should be kept off the main namespace. Plus, shoulnd't the infobox of the england team contain the ECB logo instead of a long distance photo of some players? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the spam (and it doesn't seem to be on any other pages). I am very doubtful that the ECB logo would be legitimate fair use in the infobox, as its use would be primarily decorative. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, 701 of the articles assigned to this project, or 6.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. JH ( talk page) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This article's Featured list removal candidate page is still open at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers. I encourage any contributors to visit the page in an attempt to resolve any outstanding comments before the nomination is closed. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The List needs a lot of work, as it is far from Featured quality IMHO. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that much about featured lists to be honest, but looking at the article and the featured list criteria, apart from the table not being sortable I can't really see where it falls down:

• The standard of prose seems fine.
• The lead section does introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
• The list is comprehensive (ie lists all major statistics of all English T20I cricketers).
• It is easy to navigate.
• I think (but haven't studied this extensively) it complies with the MOS.
• It seems (to me) to be visually appealing enough.
• It is not the subject of edit warring.

The page is not that long, but I don't see why it should be. After all, it has links to all the relevant terms, such as cricket, England cricket team, Twenty20 and Twenty20 International, and if people want to know more about these things they can just follow the links. Juwe ( talk) 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do feel free to chime in at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers -- Dweller ( talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will make a post there saying what I have just said here. I was just wondering why you thought the article still needed "a lot of work", considering that I couldn't see any obvious deficiencies. You obviously had a reason for your statement, which makes me think that maybe you have thought of some things that I haven't. Juwe ( talk) 17:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can photos with a some rights reserved licence on Flickr such as [3] , [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] be used on Wikipedia? Can we crop [9], or would that be a derivative work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeer.ag ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends which specific licence. Roughly, anything with "non commercial" or "no derivatives" is unacceptable. See lists at WP:ICT/FL and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Deprecated. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Since they are under a non commercial licence, they are clearly unaaceptable. Abeer.ag ( talk) 06:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a new article I've created and would appreciate assistance in expanding the list. If you can remember an English cricketer who also played professional football from an article you made, or have read, then please add them to the list. Thanks guys. Crickettragic ( talk) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ian Johnson is now a Featured article candidate. A reviewer has requested a check of punctuation etc. and if anyone could take a look and fix any problems they find, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel this article is a little premature? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. It even has a match schedule so it certainly contains useful information. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I don't think a mere schedule of matches alone is encyclopedic content. Others must I guess, so I will leave it at that. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 09:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed back some edits from a very useful copy-edit on Ian Johnson by Mdcollins1984 (thank you!) that, at first, I thought were in error. I have generally used "First Test", "Second Test" etc. when writing cricket articles and I am sure I saw this written somewhere. These were changed in the copy-edit to "second Test", "third Test" etc. Having a look for some guidance I couldn't find anything written and checking articles I see a mixture of styles used for this. Is there a project standard and if not should we have one? Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 09:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While this may be a longshot, I was wondering if anyone had heard of Arie Molenaar [10]? I came across some info from 1949 that stated he was the best fast bowler in the Netherlands (taking six wickets against a touring MCC side) and had been signed by Lancashire League team Ramsbottom for the 1950 season when he was charged with "provoking the murder" of a shopkeeper in the dying days of WWII. He was gaoled for 10 years. So, while he was never a first-class cricketer, he sounds interesting enough for an article but obviously a bit more information would be great. -- Roisterer ( talk) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Wisdens have information from Associate member countries. Dunno if they used to have that (I suspect not) but I have the 1946, 1949 and 1950 Wisdens, so I'll take a peek later and see if there's any information either re Netherlands, Lancs leagues or murder. Unfortunately, to-date, the searchable Old Bailey records only go up to the 1910s. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could discover his year of death - assuming he's no longer alive - then the following year's Wisden might have an obituary, though a search on the archive at Cricinfo didn't turn up anything. Also I imagine that his trial must have recived some press coverage, which would probably have included some basic biographical information on him. If Ramsbottom Cricket Club has a website, there might be something there. JH ( talk page) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything in Wisdens of the period: they didn't cover the Leagues at that stage and coverage even of major cricket-playing nations (except Australia) was minimal, so there is no mention of the Netherlands. Ramsbottom CC has a website www.rammycricket.co.uk but its history is "under construction" and has so far only reached 1914. There is no Molenaar in the list of former Ramsbottom players and the professional for 1949 and 1950 was Harry Lambert of Victoria. Johnlp ( talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that most Dutch people are fluent in English, so it might be worth asking if anyone knows anything about him on the web forum on the Netherlands Cricket Board's site: [11] JH ( talk page) 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked on The Guardian's website (where you can see headlines, but have to pay for full access, which I didn't). On 9 October 1948 it ran the headline: "Charge against Dutch cricketer", with the dateline "Rotterdam, October 8" and you can see that the first line reads: "The Dutch cricketer Arie Molenaar...". On 14 January 1949 the headline was "Dutch Cricketer on Trial" and on 28 January 1949 there was "Ten Years' Sentence on Dutch Cricketer". Johnlp ( talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The information I have on Molenaar came from the Advertiser on the same days as the Guardian reports so are probably the same articles. I shall see what else I can dig up. -- Roisterer ( talk) 01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to nominate List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly which I created on the lines of List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar for peer review, but I seem to have messed up Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review. I tried to fix, but I couldn't. I'd be very grateful if someone could look over it. Abeer.ag ( talk) 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Its fixed now. Somehow the transcluded link got into the Boycott page also. Moondyne 00:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

His player page will need to be updated, but I'm afraid I'm here to make a slightly silly comment. There's a link from the Cricinfo story about the T20 game's cancellation to this scorecard for Worcs v Gloucs in 2000. A note at the bottom says "Match to be replayed on 4th July, after it was discovered Worcestershire had played an eligible player." Yes, sic! Loganberry ( Talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This match, according to Cricinfo, is another instance of a replayed game. Here is the scorecard of the match of the 4th July 2000 ("Replay of original match on 21st June 2000"). OrangeKnight ( talk) 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was simply amused at the typo I quoted, implying that Worcestershire's error was to field an eligible player! Loganberry ( Talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I didn't notice the eligible, and read uneligible as if it was correct. I thought you missed the fact that it wasn't the scorecard of the match implying Azeem Rafiq. Please excuse me! I'm fool! OrangeKnight ( talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Following the superb efforts by many people including User:Dweller, User:The Rambling Man and User:Mattinbgn to get The Don up to FA standard, shouldn't we put a similar effort into getting The Great Cricketer himself up where he belongs?

There is already substantial content in the WG article but it does need a serious overhaul and in particular it needs a settled bibliographical section from which to draw meaningful information about the importance of his family; his "shamateurism"; his career (obviously); his illnesses and his medical qualifications; and his immense influence upon the development of cricket.

One of the main criticisms I have of the article as it stands is the fund of "stories" it contains: for example, the one about the train is also attributed to Thornton, the one about the bails to Jupp. The saga of Jones bowling the ball through his beard should be covered in one sentence.

If anyone is interested in forming a WG task force, I'm with you. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The last time that I read through the whole article, I thought that the biggest problem was the structure. Things weren't always in the most logical order, and there was a lot of repeated information. I have Rae's very thorough biography, and also acces to a copy of the Memorial Biography put together by Harris, Hawke, Gordon and others. JH ( talk page) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree about the structure, which is really why I think a serious overhaul is needed, as you say, to get things into a logical sequence. I think much more is needed about the influence of his family and there are glaring omissions in the coverage of his career. Two things that must be covered are his relationships with EM (they did not get on) and Fred (they did get on), which I think are fundamental to an understanding of his character. And much more is needed re his parents, his wife and his uncle. But the main requirement is to describe the reality of the man and his cricket (and his medical career) and put aside all the "tales". BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced, but I would certainly love to help in whatever way I can.16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeer.ag ( talk • contribs)

User:Busillis has moved this article to Imran Khan (Pakistani cricketer), and edited a large number of links that pointed to Imran Khan. I was surprised to see this, and asked Busillis's reasoning. The reply implied that the Bollywood actor by the same name was now a big enough star for "Imran Khan" not automatically to be associated with the cricketer. As I'm not familiar with the actor, I can't be sure about this, but from reading his article it doesn't give the impression of a major, established, Imran-the-cricketer-rivalling star, more an impressive up-and-comer. Can anyone here give a more knowledgeable summary? Loganberry ( Talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat some of what I told Loganberry earlier. If you google the name, then you get both Imran Khan the cricketer and the bollywood actor's wiki entries, implying that they are both being looked at. No one is claiming that the cricketer's international fame has been outdone - but when you have two people of the same name who are being recognized, it is the most user-friendly to direct them to a dab page. Here is how one of The Hindu paper's publications in India mentioned the actor: "Imran Khan’s days of being confused with the legendary cricketer are over. Or being introduced on TV talk shows as superstar Aamir Khan’s nephew." Given his rising popularity and the media-saturation that he is a subject of, I thought this was only the most convenient thing to do. I speak as someone who has researched both these guys though (disclosure: I wrote almost all of the cricketer's entry as it exists today and will be working on the actor's entry soon). I will also add that Imran Khan, the cricketer, is not in the news as much these days - his political activities have been of interest to a small dedicated set, so it doesn't really hurt anyone to have a dab page as "Imran Khan." Lastly, there were a lot of other Imran Khans whose pages were previously linking to the cricketer's page but now they link to the dab page - which makes sense and is, once again, much more user friendly. Imran Khan, the cricketer, is very well known, but he is nowhere near being universally recognized - for example, his own ex-father-in-law didn't know about him. The point of the dab page is: are most people who search for their "Imran Khan" being directed conveniently to the right person? Since a lot of the readers now are looking for the actor, this makes things more efficient. Thanks. Busillis ( talk) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved it back and I disagree. This guy has only made one film and hasn't become iconic yet. Imran Khan is frequently on all the world news, especially campaigning against Musharraf and so forth. "When you have two people of the same name who are being recognized, it is the most user-friendly to direct them to a dab page" - this only applies when there is approximately the same coverage. Imran Khan is one of the 5 most iconic subcontinental cricketers of all time and this other guy with one film is not one of the five most iconic subcontinental movie stars of all time, far from it. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, this guy's first film was released last week and he obviously hasn't won any awards yet, from the government or from the flim industry. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm firmly with Blnguyen on this one. There are several Imran Khans of differing notability, so there is already a dab page that works. In time, one of the others may achieve equal notability to the cricketer/politician, but that time hasn't arrived yet. Johnlp ( talk) 04:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm moving all the changed links back into place with rollback. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)