Jump to content

Talk:Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleColin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 11, 2009Articles for deletionKept
January 6, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
January 29, 2022Articles for deletionMerged
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Invincibles members Colin McCool, Doug Ring and Ron Hamence referred to themselves as "ground staff" because they were rarely given an opportunity to play cricket?
Current status: Delisted good article

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sco4":

  • From Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "4th Test England v Australia at Leeds Jul 22-27 1948". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2007-12-12.
  • From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "4th Test England v Australia at Leeds Jul 22-27 1948". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2007-12-12.

Reference named "o":

Reference named "sco2":

Reference named "sco1":

Reference named "sched":

Reference named "mcc":

Reference named "sco3":

Reference named "Pollard":

Reference named "sco5":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this merit a separate article from the simple Colin McCool article?

[edit]

I don't think so. I don't know that this article actually violates any part of Wikipedia rules, but it seems incredibly redundant. An article for Colin McCool is important, as is an article for The Invincibles. However, a separate article "[Player Name] with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" for each of the players involved is completely unnecessary. The information in this article should be merged into one of the two aforementioned articles (Colin McCool and/or Australian cricket team in England in 1948) and then this article should be deleted. Same with its counterparts (Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, etc.). Tiger Khan (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue is the obvious reason, otherwise if all tours were treated the same the article would be uncontrollably big. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "derby":

Reference named "surrey":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]