Jump to content

Talk:Kent County Cricket Club

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godfrey Evans

[edit]

Is Evans the guy who is being interviewed in Image:Canterbury001-02.jpg ? It is nearly impossible to recognize him without the sideburns. Tintin (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that's Doug Wright. My photo! PaddyBriggs 17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mote

[edit]

I've removed the line near the top stating that Kent use the Mote ground, as they did not use it in 2006 and are not using it in 2007 either. AMBerry 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kentcricket.gif

[edit]

Image:Kentcricket.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo change

[edit]

I've noticed that Kent have changed their logo making the current one on the page out of date, so should someone update and upload a new one? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honours

[edit]

There was a discussion at WT:CRIC many years ago when we started creating county club articles about adopting a standard approach to structure and layout for the benefit of the readers. One of the main things that was agreed per WP:CONSENSUS is that the "Honours" section should be at the top, following the introduction and preceding a "History" section. The model is based on Playfair which has always begun each county page with a summary of essential club info including honours. It has been noticeable for some time that this article "goes its WP:OWN way" and the same observation is true about many articles related to Kent CCC. Standards are agreed to enhance the reader experience by providing a consistent approach and the whole encyclopaedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS. I have therefore restored Kent's honours to the top of the article and I had to do the same for three more counties, so that all four again comply with the other fourteen first-class counties and the minor counties. Jack | talk page 19:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no style guide on articles like this. I asked last year for one and was told one didn't exist. There is no reference to any agreement that Playfair would be used as a template on any of the project pages as far as I can see. A search of the archives turns up you saying that this is the way it is twice, but never any discussion or anyone agreeing with you as far a step I can see. Your reference to OWN is hilarious in this context. On the Yorkshire talk page, however, there are three other users who appear to have agreed, over the years, that honours belong at the bottom. You've run roughshod over those as well I see.
I have absolutely no idea why the style of Playfair should be seen as a good thing to base articles on. It's not exactly an encyclopaedia.
Yes, some pages related to Kent are up to date, referenced, use prose rather than bare lists and have a suitable level of detail. This certainly marks them out as different to many other articles in the cricket project. Please don't use the inadequacies of other articles as some sort of yardstick to bring these articles down to. If actually bothering to write prose is OWN then I'd like to see a bit more ownership.
Of the 18 counties none have even good article status. Have you ever wondered why? Compare that to the 20 current premier league clubs - 5 featured and 6 good articles. That says everything about the quality of the current cricket articles. You'll note a very clear style guide at the football project of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In future, if you do not agree with an article amendment done in WP:AGF by an experienced editor (i.e., basically anyone with a few hundred edits), open a discussion first and do not instantly revert with an edit summary that can only be described as attempted sarcasm, the lowest form of humour. It was because of this petulant behaviour that I raised the concern about WP:OWN. I accept that you know a lot about Kent cricket but there are editors with much greater experience than you who also know quite a bit about the subject.
I suggest you raise the matter at WT:CRIC and propose an addition to WP:CRIC#STYLE, which is dynamic. There was a discussion somewhere, probably back in 2005 or 2006, when there was an incentive to open and develop club articles, and a standard was established which has remained in place at the vast majority of these articles (including minor counties) and so it is effective. When a standard is established it is for reasons that are weighted in favour of the readership, not of any individual editor. If CRIC discusses this and agrees that "Honours" should always be just above the "Players" or wherever, I will as always accept the WP:CONSENSUS and go around amending the various articles to comply, as I did with the "major cricket" issue in which I was out-voted.
Playfair is a much-used and respected reliable source so, if it has a good idea, it can be worth adopting here. Please do not try to disparage Playfair.
Re prose, the vast majority of CRIC articles use narrative and the ones which breach WP:IINFO (especially if WP:NOTSTATS) are tagged for attention and often sent to AfD. Lists are a different entity and not comparable with narrative articles, which is why they are classified at assessment as "list" and why the site operates a featured list award that is distinct from the featured article award. I fail to understand your apparent problem with lists. Statistics are fine if they are used sparingly in the best interest of the reader to summarise information that would be difficult to take in if presented in prose only: e.g., the tables of current squad members that appear in each county club article are easily the best means of conveying that information.
As for WP:FOOTY and WP:BASEBALL, they are and always have been way ahead of WP:CRIC because of their large, active memberships compared with our small, largely inactive one. If you want to see some county club articles at GA, propose one and then be prepared for a long wait. At present, the best are Lancashire (B-class) and Somerset (which would be B-class but for its verification issue) so why not work on those and take them forward? Jack | talk page 08:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why not adopt precisely the style guides used by FOOTY or BASEBALL then? As the sports are similar in nature.Wouldn't that save a hell of a lot of work? Given that FOOTY has tonnes more high quality articles I'd start there - indeed, that's the structure I used as a starting point for this article largely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would have no objection in principle because they are both cracking projects. It isn't up to me, though, because WP:CRIC#STYLE belongs to WP:CRIC. In any case, there are a lot of entries in it at present which are peculiar to cricket and no one would want to risk losing those. Jack | talk page 12:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have an opinion on this? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the only discussions that ever seem to have been really held about this - on the Yorkshire CCC page - led to an agreement of sorts to place at the bottom, I'll move these back to where I believe they belong. I'm very happy to listen to other opinions - but as far as I can tell, other than on the Yorks page there has never been a proper discussion about this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kent County Cricket Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kent County Cricket Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early cricket in Kent

[edit]

You need to revise this area because, like most of Wikipedia, it contains misinformation:

  1. Nowhere on pages 3 and 4 of Birley's book does he mention the Weald.
  2. There is absolutely no proof that the 1705 match took place at Malling. The primary source says it was at a place called "Maulden" which does not exist but it could have been Maidstone, given that later West Kent matches were played there.
  3. The primary source for the 1705 match clearly states that the stakes were "11 guineas a man" (see Maun), not "a side".
  4. The definitive source for the 1709 match is Buckley who was the first to assert that two parish teams were involved.
  5. London is not a county. Middlesex and Surrey were active county teams at the time. London was, if you like, a special case because they sometimes played against counties but usually against other town clubs.
  6. I think you should read the main sources re the beginning of "true" county cricket instead of that heritage trust site which has some strange ideas all of its own, especially three matches against Surrey in 1728 which NEVER took place at all. Kent played Surrey once in 1729 and Sussex once earlier that season before taking on a combined Hampshire, Surrey and Sussex team in the September. They did NOT play Surrey in 1728.
  7. Your heading "Early county sides: 1730–1842" is misleading by commencing in 1730 when the text mentions Edwin Stead, whose teams were active in the 1720s. A better start date would be 1709, notwithstanding Mr Buckley's view about the match that year.
  8. You say that Kent first played "All-England" in 1746 and I suggest you read 1739 English cricket season in which you will see that the earliest known All-England matches were against Kent that season. You will also see that authoritative sources are cited there, not the erroneous Kent timeline that you have chosen. The match you have described took place in June 1744 and was the first in S&B, where the year was incorrectly given as 1746 (see the ACS on that as they found the original scorecard) and it was in fact the FOURTH match between Kent and England in 1744. Kent played England twice in 1745 and twice more in August 1746.
  9. There is no record whatsoever of any match between Kent and Hampshire/Hambledon in 1763, but Dartford played Hambledon three times in 1756. The first time a "Hambledon v Kent" match occurred was at Broadhalfpenny in 1768.
  10. Kent and Surrey played each other FOUR times in 1773. The two counties played each other a number of times between 1744, when the Laws were first published, and 1773 so why not mention those?
  11. Kent did not play against Hambledon or Hampshire at Bishopsbourne in 1772. There was a match there between All-England and Hampshire, for which Haygarth is the main source, but he does not mention any crowd of 20,000. Neither do the ACS who are an additional source for the match. See the season review article. Birley's book is entertaining but not always accurate and this is a case in point. His 20k crowd was probably at a different match altogether.
  12. A minor point to conclude: you have written "Hambledown" instead of "Hambledon". And it should any case be "Hampshire" as the Hambledon Club organised matches played nominally by Hampshire. Indeed, as reputable sources assert, the Hambledon teams were representative of both Hampshire and Sussex combined.

I hope all this is useful. If you have any questions about sources, please list them here. I'll keep an eye on the page. 86.177.251.187 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - a lot of things that need tidying up, mainly typos and things that fell across various versions of the section. There are other elements of this that I might comeback to later on as well, but I'll deal with the simple things first and then look at the trickier parts afterwards. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point by point:
  1. I'll get back to this later - I'm not sure if the Weald needs removing. It's a remnant from a much longer section of the article and could be dispensed with - it might belong in other articles rather than here. e2a: added sources, although I'm concerned there's an element of cyclical sourcing.
  2. I'm happy enough with this for now. Other sources seem to support Malling as well.
  3. Done - thank you
  4. Yes, but I don't have that source and haven't seen the name mentioned in the ones I've used. I'm happy with how it reads - the aim of the entire section was to be very, very brief - this is a history of the post-1842 (and really the post-1870) club. It's probably overlong anyway
  5. In the context of the sentence I can live with this
  6. Thank you - my error, should have been Sussex I think?
  7. The sentence includes "throughout the 18th century". I think it's reasonable to use 1730, but section headings are tricky. I'm happy with this for now but will consider what else might be done.
  8. Clarified with specific quote. I'll look at the date when I get the chance. The Kent Timeline and the text on the Heritage Trust website were both written by David Robertson, who is Kent's historian. I'm sure research develops and the like, and I know that you're aware that opinions differ with regard to this era. I might remove this little part anyway - I'm not sure that the section isn't too long already.
  9. Typo - thank you
  10. Clarified - I need to double check the fc status element
  11. I've seen other mentions of a 1772 match, but this would bear some further investigation. For now I think we go with Birley - it illustrates the point that lots of people were coming to see cricket played in Kent at the time. e2a: this might need a note to clarify the "teams" involved?
  12. Auto-correct - thank you
I'm sure I've missed something. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as far too long and too technical. This needs to be a summary - I was hoping to cut it down to be a little less than we had already - this adds too much really for **this** article. I'll move it all to Kent county cricket teams and we can re-visit it once we get a History of Kent County Cricket Club article (which isn't going to happen any time soon). Do you think you could cut it down - preferably to no more than we had before. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good. I've made a few additions to County Teams and I'll reduce the period in County Club to a summary, as you suggest. Thank you. 86.177.251.187 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going in the right direction. It might cut a little more, perhaps with more of a general summary to leave the specific detail and step by step breakdown on the other page. We'll see how it looks and feels. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_County_Cricket_Club&oldid=1207950222"