Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

"Promotional" pics on bios?

SportsAddicted has added a picture to my bio of Alexei Kervezee. It's taken straight from Cricinfo, as is stated on the image page, but SA justifies that by using the "promotional" template. It does look as though it is, although I'm not absolutely sure. However, there are a heck of a lot of pics on Cricinfo (Gooch's being a more-or-less random example) that are in that "promotional-looking" style, and since we haven't already used those, the addition of this Kervezee one gives me pause.

I've left a note on SA's talk page mentioning my doubts, and also pointing out that two of the requirements for this tag - that there is evidence of ownership of the photo (ie not just "from Cricinfo), and that the picture is of low resolution - are not met. I've never been all that certain about fair-use images anyway, so I'm posting here in the hope that those with more knowledge of the bounds of acceptability could decide. Loganberry (Talk) 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your message on my talk page, sending me to this place, so I thought of replying here instead of there. I have been adding pictures like this for a while now, without any problem at all and so have others, mainly in football, but also in other sports related articles. Some examples are: Robin van Persie and Michael Essien by others... not mentioning anything other then just an URL to the original image and the promotional tag. There are hundreds of pics added like this on wikipedia and they can all stay as far as they are tagged correctly as far as I can see/have seen. Examples of these kind of pictures I added can be found on Marianne Vos, Marloes Wesselink or for instance Patrick van Balkom. Like I mentioned I have been doing this for a few weeks now without any problems. I did not find out about this myself, but I saw many other pictures like this already being in use on wikipedia for months and I started using the same tags, as these are probably accepted. For instance the picture at Éric Bernard which doesn't even have a source mentioned, but is in use since 3 October 2005. This week I have been starting to add pictures of deceased people in their articles using the fairusein tag. Then someone added an additional tag to one of my images, which I have used on the deceased people's images since then, see for instance the image of another cricketer Walter Hadlee. We might be able to add a similar additional tag to the image used on Alexei Kervezee and future images. You're also stating the image to be too big to qualify for low resolution. Well, at first I can see your point, however I don't think these are high resolution pics. There are much bigger pictures of celebrities on the net, which in my opinion are the high resolution shots, however we can simply change that by resizing the original to a low quality, or just use the one on http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/netherlands/content/player/214695.html instead of the headshot mentioned below I took now. Please take a look at Andrew York and the picture added to that article. This is what I call high resolution, however it's been used on wikipedia since March 2006 already. The name of the copyright holder is specified there though. Then there are also promotional images used on wikipedia since january 2006 without mentioning a source at all, like Image:Stuartryan.jpg. This all togetherit doesn't really look like a problem to me to use the cricinfo images. SportsAddicted 07:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because there are other things that use "promotional" images with dubious sources doesn't mean that it's strictly speaking legal - it means people haven't got round to discovering them yet.
IIRC most of Cricinfo's current pictures are bought off Getty Images, and they certainly don't release pictures as "promotional". The only thing you could argue that about would be pictures on his own website or something, I think, though I don't know much about these laws. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sam Vimes is right. Promotional images are those which come from press kits. These are from a photo agency and are simple copyright violations.
Promophoto is one of the most abused image copyright tags on Wikipedia, and there's been talk of removing it.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes if they are Getty Images pictures or something like that, then I believe those aren't promotional images. I see what you mean with the difference between that kind of images and images on someone's own website. SportsAddicted 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This would seem to settle one point, that of the photo's ownership: the text under the photo says "© Worcestershire CCC" - so not, in fact, from Getty Images. The other points are not resolved, however, and given that other bios don't generally use pics from county sites my feeling is that they're not acceptable for Wikipedia. (Personally I'd like to see only free pics allowed on bios, but maybe that's just me.)
Secondly, the photo as it stands uses the {{promotional}} tag, which is not quite the same in its wording as the {{promophoto}} tag discussed above. (The latter does not have the "low-resolution" stipulation, for one thing.) If the Kervezee photo is to stay, then its tag should be changed to {{promophoto}}. However, that requires that the pic is known to come from a "press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media", and details of the photographer. Both the above-mentioned tags require a "detailed fair use rationale", something which is lacking at the moment. Loganberry (Talk) 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just been reading WP:FUC (specifically point 1) and its talk page. It's my understanding from this that it's impossible to have a fair use image of a living person. That's certainly not current practice but it may well be the way it's going to go soon. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That talk page discussion in particular is interesting, and I agree with your impression of the direction things are going. If the WP guidance were indeed changed to make it clear that photos cannot be used just because it would be tricky (as opposed to impossible) to find or produce a free image, then photos such as the Kervezee one would become unequivocally unacceptable and would most certainly have to be removed. I'm actually quite pleased to see this, since I've always been uncomfortable with "fair use" being used in the way it very often is and would support tightening (and tighter enforcement) of the rules on that. "There are no free pictures" is not a good enough reason in itself to use a non-free picture. Loganberry (Talk) 00:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing we should be able to do more is to have more photos of long-dead people. Where there is a photo or picture of a 19th century cricketer, it is almost certainly out of copyright (regardless of frequent claims to the contrary). jguk 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never fully understood the law on this point. Don't you have to know the date of death of the photographer? Can you cite a definitive statement about this? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a basic guide to UK copyright law as it applies to digital images here from Oxford. [1]. I remember when I dealt with this as a new law in 1988 that the "life of the originator plus 70 years rule" applied then and something similar had applied in the US for about 10 years previously. The person photographed only has rights where the image is being used in way that they explicitly do not approve of or implicitly could not be expected to approve of; the originator is the photographer, whether he has or hasn't assigned the copyright to an agency such as Getty. I think the previous rule was 75 years from date of photo, so UK photos before 1931 would all be fair game now.

Are you sure? The Oxford source you cite says "as a good working guide, assume that copyright in the photograph lasts for 70 years beyond the end of the year when the creator died or, if it is an anonymous photograph, 70 years from the date of publication". That rather implies that if the photographer is known, then you do have to know the date of their death - so a picture published in 1927 whose photographer died in 1942 woud not be fair game, as I read it. Loganberry (Talk) 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The greyest of grey areas in all this is not the photograph, but the spoken word, where the speaker and the "recorder" both have rights as the owner and originator of the words. Johnlp 23:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of an off-the-wall suggestion, but I don't suppose anyone knows of any photos of cricketers under UK Crown Copyright, or at least photos of cricketers included in other Crown Copyright images? Since that protection still only lasts 50 years from the end of the calendar year of creation, everything up to and including 1955 would be fair game (the same as for Australian photos). Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Hawke, 7th Baron Hawke

This article for Lord Hawke is shockingly stubby, for such an important figure in cricket history. I'm adding it to my to-do list, but this is an invitation to any other editor to get stuck in too. --Dweller 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One interesting fact (if you can find a reference for it), possibly DYK worthy, is that he instituted the Yorkshire born policy for Yorkshire County Cricket Club, despite being born in Lincolnshire. Andrew nixon 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In The Cricket Captains of England Alan Gibson says: "There was one odd thing about him. He was not a Yorkshireman. Even by his time, the county had established the rule... that only Yorkshiremen-born play for Yorkshire... Hawke's dispensation cannot have been unconnected with the fact that he was, by then, a prospective peer. He was within his legal rights - there was a 'family home' qualification in the championship regulations..." So if Gibson is right, Hawke did not begin the Yorkshire-born policy, even though he appears to have enthusiastically continued it. JH 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The article certainly ought to mention that, though he might have been something of a despot, he did a lot to improve the pay and conditions of the Yorkshire professionals. JH 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of knighted cricketers

I've updated this list to include Sir Francis Lacey and Sir Frederick Toone, who were both English cricket administrators and I believe the first two people to be knighted for services to cricket. I hope before long to write articles for each of them.

The preamble to the list says that it's of people knighted for services to cricket, but Sir Aubrey Smith is included even though his article says: "He was knighted in 1944 for services to Anglo-American amity." Something similar applies to Learie Constantine (whose article oddly did not seem to mention his knighthood - which I've now put right). I think that it might be better to change the preamble rather than to change the list. JH 19:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Murray Bisset is another who may be included if Smith is in. Tintin (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Could we make a case for Geoff Hurst (played one game for Essex) to be included? Andrew nixon 07:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If we include fc ckters, it will be a huge list. Tintin (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely it needs to be limited to people knighted "for services to cricket" or similar? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm now coming round to that viewpoint, which would mean Aubrey Smith, Learie Constantine (possibly) and maybe one or two others having to go. If you include all knighted cricketers, you would also have to add Sir Alec Douglas-Home. JH 11:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Smith and the other Test cricketers could be included as a seperate section. Tintin (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


We need to decide whether we mean "knighted cricketers" (i.e. cricketers with knighthoods, of whom there must be hundreds, even if we limit ourselves to first-class cricketers) or "cricketing knights" (i.e. people knighted for their cricketing exploits). I think we should aim for the latter, personally, but we could have a separate section for the former. It seems a shame to lose Learie Constantine, for example. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If we include only Test cricketers and exclude people with hereditary knighthood (I guess Sir TC O'Brien was one of those), there will be only about 3-5 cricketers (FS Jackson is another) who fall in the first list and not in the second. Why can't we have them on the same page ?
Wisden obits contains too many fc cricketer-knights that it will be pointless to add them all. Tintin (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to check whether Vizzy's k'hood had anything to do with cricket. Tintin (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now created an article for Francis Lacey JH 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the questions raised above are answered here (as at 2001):

It points out an apparent omission in our list: Sir Neville Cardus, knighted for services to cricket and music journalism. (And he was a cricketer as a young man, even if only an assistant professional at a school). JH 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Test or One-day International cricket families

Re some additions made yesterday in the West Indies section, does anyone have a reference for Gibbs-Gibbs, Drakes-Hurley, Butcher-Butcher and Bishop-Gray ? Tintin (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OT : Google seems to have ditched Cricketarchive. It doesn't appear anywhere near the first few pages for player searches. Tintin (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Added fact tags to all four entries. Tintin (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What should I do??

What club (not players) stubs should I do now?? can anyone give me an assignment??

Reply to me when you find an assignment

Also I'm a routine member who edits the international cricket season during on weekdays, i'm edited from the last 3 months of 2006 season, but I edited the most of 06-07 season with the tables, results.

Rakuten06 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make club stubs, the Sri Lankan Premier League is a good start. See [2] for a list of fixtures and [3] for last season's table. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I just started on this: Defence Services Sports Board I want to change the title to Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club, how do I do that?? Rakuten06 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of redlinks on List of current first-class cricket teams. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Iconic scores

Any support for the idea of creating articles about some of cricket's iconic scores? 333, 364, 375, 501 etc? Some of the ones that spawned merchandise are particularly notable. --Dweller 09:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC

Not sure if no response means no-one agrees, no-one disagrees or no-one cares. --Dweller 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't understood what such an article would look like. In fact, I'm not even sure whether you're talking about one article covering all famous scores (which would probably run into POV and OR problems) or one article per score (which seems excessive). You can always include a bullet point in the article on the number (e.g., 333 (number)), if it's really notable, although I doubt many are notable enough for that, except perhaps 99.94. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd envisage it being an in-depth look at classic innings (333, 364, 375, 501 etc), with wagon wheels, stat analysis, match situation, scorecard etc if possible. In other words, including the kind of detail in 364 that an article about Len Hutton can't afford. I hadn't thought of doing averages, but 99.94 seems pretty notable! --Dweller 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Heck, now that we've started talking about it, I've decided to be bold and have kicked off with Stephen's suggestion. 99.94 is no longer a red link, although it is still a stub. :-) --Dweller 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
One thing you might want to add: All ABC postal addresses are GPO Box 9994 in each capital city... – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've heard both that their address is a tribute to Bradman, and that that story is a myth. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm OK I'd never heard that it was a myth (quite a coincidence/fluke that they chose that number if it is), but I guess it's best to leave it out until we can find some confirmation. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a link to a semi-official debunking at Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Postal address, which talks about the "the persistent [myth] that Talbot Duckmanton chose GPO Box 9994 as the ABC's address in honour of Don Bradman’s test batting average. In fact the ABC wasn’t given that address until after Sir Talbot Duckmanton retired, by someone in the Postmaster General’s department who may or may not have had Sir Donald Bradman in mind." -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Our article on Bradman currently says that it's true, with a source. It should probably be less definitive, with a link to ALoan's source. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord's "Classic matches"

In my article on Martin Donnelly, I mention that he is one of two cricketers to have scored a century at Lord's in a Test Match, an Oxford v Cambridge match and a Gentlemen v Players. Is there a term which decribes this trinity of matches besides "classic matches", which I currently use? --Roisterer 14:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ]

I am not familiar with "classic matches" either. Tintin (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you're creating an arbitrary category. What about selection for Lavinia Duchess of Norfolk's XI, MCC, or even The Rest? --Dweller 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No, appearing in those three fixturres at Lord's is something that I've seen referred to in various cricket works, so it's a recognised thing and not something of Roisterer's invention. JH 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen them called "classic", but the category makes some sort of sense. "Super" first class, I guess. Would you include the school match (Eton v Harrow)? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There would be a case for it, though of course that fixture was not f-c (even back when it was played over 3 days). JH 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll go back and see what my reference specifically stated but it indicated that the three matches listed were "the big three" of the English calendar (at Lord's). I only used the term "classic matches" as a place holder until I could find something better. --Roisterer 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Your source could be out of date. Any summary of the biggest days (at Lord's) in the calendar that didn't include 1-day cricket is barmy, as the two finals of the one day competitions are very special and the 1 or 2 international 1 day games Lords gets each summer is fairly noteworthy too! --Dweller 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
One reference, Graeme Wright's obituary of Martin Donnelly in the 28 October 1999 edition of The Independent, refers to "the Lord's triptych he shares with a fellow left-hander, Percy Chapman: hundreds at headquarters in the University Match, Gentleman v Players and a Test match." The other, his obituary in The Times, writes "The three classic occasions at Lord's were the Test match, Gentlemen against Players and Oxford against Cambridge... The only other cricketer ever to do that was A.P.F. Chapman - and not even he played rugby for England as well, as Donnelly once did." So one reference uses a term that normally refers to paintings while the other uses "classic". --Roisterer 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Chapman's obit, it was a "triple performance" never before achieved. Tintin (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It's very much an historical term, as indicated by the fact that Gentlemen v Players was last played in 1962. So one-day matches don't come into it. Also, of course, nobody additional to Chapman and Donnelly can now achieve this feat. JH 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Wisden tended to refer to them unglamorously as "Other Matches at Lord's" in a section that came immediately after the MCC matches. I've not come across the term "classic" matches. Other matches covered in this Wisden section were the regular Lord's public schools matches, including Eton v Harrow, and the services matches. The Lord's Gentlemen v Players match was certainly seen as a notch above the others of the same title played at The Oval, Scarborough, Folkestone and elsewhere. Most of these "Other" matches seemed to take priority over Middlesex games: in 1939, for instance, Middlesex played Notts at The Oval because Lord's was "needed" for Eton v Harrow for just one day of a three-day match. Autres temps, autres moeurs. Johnlp 22:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Ashes info

We have 2005 Ashes series. We also have Australian cricket team in England in 2005, which has a lot of material on said Ashes games. Given that (even these days) tours don't only consist of internationals they're not covering identical subjects, but it seems a bit pointless to have all the Ashes details in the general tour article. The problem is that the way that general article has been written it's rather tricky just to use the usual "see main article" template. Any thoughts? Loganberry (Talk) 14:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem that's always going to come up and I don't know what the answer is other than transcluding - and we don't want to go down that path do we! -- Moondyne 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose one way to do it would be to separate out the Ashes section so that the "see main article" template could be used... but then that would require the strict chronological order of the general article to be broken. Ah well. Loganberry (Talk) 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You can link to sections, thus:
Main article: 2005 Ashes series § First Test: England v Australia (21–24 July)
Don't know if this is particularly clever, but it's one way of doing it. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, it works okay until someone changes around the other article and breaks the sections, which tends to happen a lot! I'll bear it in mind, though; thanks. Loganberry (Talk) 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ford Ranger One Day Cup

Above is the new name of the Australia domestic one-day competition (was ING Cup for 4 years previously). The competition has a history of fairly frequent name changes to the current sponsor's name. Do we rename the article every time there's a sponsor change (and change all the associated links), or can we come up with a more generic name? I'm happy either way but don't want to start changing things just yet. -- Moondyne 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the competition have a generic name? If so, then use that For example, the English National League is currently on its sixth name since it was inaugurated in 1999 (with a whole heap more names for its predecessor, the Sunday League), but since the unsponsored "National League" exists there's no problem. However, the C&G Trophy was previously the NatWest Trophy and before that the Gillette Cup, and as far as I know does not have an unsponsored name. Since C&G are not going to renew their sponsorshop, that article too will have this same problem very shortly. I rather suspect that yes, we will have to keep moving articles. That's commercialism for you! (And it could be worse: look at the horrible mess of South African domestic team names!) Loganberry (Talk) 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the general Wikipedia policy does suggest that we move the page when the name changes, unless the subject of the article is widley known by another name. Thankfully with redirects, the links don't need to be changed in a hurry, only the ones where the information is out of date anyway. JPD (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
When this competition and the Pura Cup are reported on the ABC they use generic terms in keeping with the organisation's charter of not advertising. Therefore they refer to the Ford Ranger Cup, ING Cup and its many predecessors as the "Domestic One-Day Cricket Competition" and the Pura Cup as the "Four-Day Cricket Competition" or "Domestic First Class Cricket Competition" - certainly a mouthful, but nevertheless descriptive. --Dave 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor counties players categories

Why don't we have categories for minor counties? I realise they don't play first-class cricket, but they do play at List A level, and if we're going to allow anyone who's played List A cricket to have an article then surely we should also allow List-A-playing teams to have categories? If there's been a discussion/decision on this in the past, then I admit that I've forgotten about it and would welcome being pointed towards it. My interest right now is because I've just written David Taylor (English cricketer): he played no first-class matches, but appeared in eight List A games spread between five counties, three of which were minor counties. I saw there wasn't a category for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or Oxfordshire cricketers, set them up, then wondered if I might have done the wrong thing. (If so, by all means delete those cats without further comment.) I'm still curious, though. Loganberry (Talk) 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever discussed it. And I don't see why we shouldn't have those categories. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. When I set up the files for the individual minor counties in a rather mechanistic way, I put a section for famous players in each of them. They're pretty basic and under-populated, but there could be the start of a collection for categories there. It would also get around one of the places where our former colleague Jack and I had a small debate: I put one-time England Rugby Union captain Dickie Jeeps in as a famous Cambridgeshire cricketer, but Jack argued convincingly that he wasn't a famous cricketer and should therefore not appear. He could, though, appear in a Cambridgeshire cricketers category. Johnlp 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I know nothing about Jeeps' cricketing career, but my own criterion would be: did he play List A cricket for said minor county? Since that's how we decide whether a player is eligible for a bio in the first place, it seems logical also to make it how we would decide whether he was eligible for the category. I don't think we should include players who've only played minor cricket for minor counties, any more than we should include players who've only appeared at Second XI level. (Especially since Second XIs used to play in the Minor Counties Championship!) Loganberry (Talk) 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, we already have a precedent for a non-county first-class category (other than the universities), and that's Category:MCC cricketers. Whether we should allow every first-class team to have a category and so have, for example, Category:Players cricketers, Category:Combined Services cricketers and so on is another matter - I can see that there has to be a limit somewhere given that WG Grace played first-class cricket for no fewer than 29 teams! But the minor counties seem a much less controversial proposition.

On that note, though I'd like to know whether people think that only those minor counties for which the player has appeared at List A level should count for the categories. For example, there are players who have had careers with two minor counties who have appeared in a List A match (eg in the NatWest Trophy) with one but not with the other: do they get one category, or both? As I said above, I'm inclined to be quite restrictive and only consider List A careers (though one game would be enough). Loganberry (Talk) 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Valuable thought they undoubtedly are, when you are thinking about minor counties players, please consider that there are hundreds of Test and first-class players languishing as sub-stubs at User:CricketBot/substubs that deperately need a little TLC. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. But I'm not talking about minor counties players who are known only for being minor counties players. I'm talking about cricketers who I was already going to write about who have also played for minor counties at List A level (and who therefore qualify for a bio anyway) and whether they should have those categories added. For example, I write bios on Worcestershire players because frankly I'm better at that than I would be at writing about Test players I don't really care about. Some of those Worcs players (even the Test players!) also played for minor counties. That's the sort of cricketer I mean; I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Loganberry (Talk) 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket style guide

The S/G has one disputed section. Rather than just leaving it that way, could we have another attempt at consensus please. Current text is:

  • disputed Team score format: Adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the tournament, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries. Use slashes when shortening scores. The alternative view is that we should be consistent throughout all articles and use the style used in all countries other than Australia.

The Australian style of reporting team scores is established and will never change. It seems only logical that matches played there are reported accordingly. To be consistent throughout is a noble ideal but impractical and imposes a bias. I would prefer to show in the format of the host country. -- Moondyne 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moondyne, for reasons of avoiding systematic bias. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. So if the Colin Cowdrey article says that came into bat with the score at 3/2, the user has to guess whether it is 3 for 2 or 2 for 3 depending on the venue ? Tintin (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Three for two is so ambiguous it should be written three runs for two wickets anyway. Besides, the subject of the Cowdrey article is undoubtably English, so it should use the English format.
It might be better rewritten as:
Team score format: Use the format used in the country the article concerns, or the host country for tournaments, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for articles about Australian cricket or matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict). That's a good example, Tintin. But I would argue that that's bad style anyway, because an Australian would naturally read it wrongly if the international version was meant, and vice versa. And there's always the worry of whether I need to know the nationality of the person who wrote it before I can understand it. In fact, I think the style guide should advise against all use of "m/n" or "m for n", where (m <= 10 and n <= 10 and m != n). In these rare cases, you should say something like "Cowdrey came into bat with two wickets down and only three runs on the board" instead. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Careful with only, that's POV ;) Sam Vimes | Address me 11:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I like Sam's suggestion, at least until we convince the rest of the world to write scores the right way. JPD (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I am still not very convinced about the need for these. By this logic we should also use Australian terms (bosie, sundries) where we talk about matches in Australia. Tintin (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the benefits of having one style throughout Wikipedia far outweigh any benefits from trying to have a special rule for Australia. It makes the corpus of cricket articles easy to read; Australian readers are going to have to get used to runs-for-wickets notation anyway. With the Ashes round the corner, we'll only see those ignorant of the cricket style guide using runs-for-wicket notation in the 2006-07 Ashes article, and it would be a nightmare policing edits for the next world cup hosted by Australia.

Before we proceed further, may I ask whether there are Australian contributors who would be genuinely concerned if we stated runs-for-wickets notation as the only acceptable notation? I'm happy to discuss the point further if there are, but if there aren't, we might as well officially move to one standard, jguk 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As an Australian, it does seem as ridiculous to me as using US spelling because it is the most prevalent. It is not at all comparable to bosie (which is not used much these days anyway) or sundries (although sundries is more common, extras is used and understood in Australia). JPD (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"W. G. Grace"

This article has just been moved (without discussion on dubious grounds). I object. Does anyone mind if I move it back? --RobertG ♬ talk 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not that again. I think it's fairly well known that my personal preference is for the unpunctuated form, but that I also see no reason whatever to move an established page. I'd vote for moving it back to W. G., without a doubt. Loganberry (Talk) 10:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the move. We discussed this only last month, and confirmed a previous decision that either "WG Grace" or "W. G. Grace" is acceptable, but that it is unacceptable to change from one to the other. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A request

Looking at some scorecards recently added to Cricket Archive a came across this which reports that in a match between Leicestershire and the Gentlemen of Canada in 1880, their captain was arrested during the match. I mentioned this incident in the Canadian cricket team article, but think the player deserves a write up. He did later play one first class match [4], so he fits our notability criteria. I'm not sure I can do a biographical article justice, but I mention it as I think it would make a great little fact for the DYK section. There can't be many sportsmen who have been arrested during a match surely? Andrew nixon 10:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

None of these men, however, seems to have had quite as eventful a career as Tom Dale. This tall, well-built English fast bowler, nicknamed "jumbo" by his teammates, had spent time as a professional in St Louis and Chicago before joining the Peninsular club in 1877. He would best be remembered, however, for a series of bizarre events that unfolded while he was in England playing for a touring Canadian team in 1880. Though travelling under the pseudonym "Jordan", Dale was identified as a deserter from a British regiment that had been stationed in Canada and immediately arrested. Apparently finding even the exceedingly light one-month prison term too onerous, the former army corporal tried to elude his guards by "running down" Knightsbridge street, only to be recaptured and have his sentence exceeded by an additional eleven months. None the worse for the whole experience, Dale eventually returned to Detroit, divorced his wife who, it was rumoured, had betrayed him to British authorities, and evidently spent the remaineder of his career in peace and quiet in that city.

Tom Melville, The Tented Field : A History of Cricket in America, Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1998, ISBN 0-87972-770-5, p.81

Melville's sources are "Daily Inter-Ocean, 14 August 1883, 2; Clipper 3 July 1880, 115; St Louis Globe-Democrat 22 June 1880, 6; Detroit Free Press 5 June 1880, 6; 28 July 1881, 1." Tintin (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Melville's use of "exceeded" is a strange one. He means "extended" or "increased", surely. Loganberry (Talk) 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Loganberry's referring to "have his sentence exceeded", which I agree is not something we'd say now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Mea culpa. It is actually "extended an additional eleven months". :=/ Tintin (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Does anyone know if Wikipedia has a stated policy re date links?

WP:MOS-L warns agains overlinking by various means including low added-value date links but doesn't seem to say if dates and years should be linked. I always used to link them because I thought it was required but I'm no longer sure and I cannot see the point, so now I write them unlinked. I've noticed that some other users do religiously link them. --BlackJack | talk page 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:MOSDATE, sections 1.2 and 1.3. In brief, month and day with or without year should always be linked to allow users' date preferences to work. Bare weekdays and months should not be linked. Years are the subject of controversy, but the issues are discussed on that page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that years on their own don't need to be linked as they don't assist readers' preference. Also, if you use 20 October 2006 as your informat then the whole date meets readers' preference in advance, so surely that doesn't need to be linked: the article does say "normally" so this must be the exception. I can see why you would need a link if your informat is October 20. I would have thought you would only really want to link the year if the piece of information you are working with also appears in the actual year article. --BlackJack | talk page 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The point about users' date preferences is that if you link [[20 October]], some people will see "20 October" and other people will see "October 20" depending what their preferences are set to. So they should always be linked except in the most exceptional circumstances.
I completely agree with you about year links — they're almost always useless — but other people disagree and find that they generally add context to an article. This has been the subject of long and heated discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and neither linking nor leaving unlinked has ever reached consensus, hence the current guidance which educates editors on the pluses and minuses but leaves them to decide.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course you might have 1997. I know that it's preferable where possible to make it obvious that that's not a simple year link, but sometimes it's hard to do that without making the text look very ugly. (I don't plead innocent of that in all cases, either!) Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(back to left) Yes, I've got myself confused about the date format. Obviously someone else may have a different preference and would see a different value. So I agree that the date should be linked but not the year, which achieves nothing other than a nice blue number. --BlackJack | talk page 16:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Loganberry: I liked that idea for a short time (I did it in Will Jefferson, for example), but I went off it rather quickly. The reason is that it confuses the reader because it doesn't lead to where he expects. That is, if he clicks it at all — probably he doesn't because he expects it to be the usual useless year link. I prefer to spell it out now: "In the 1997 season, Hick did something or other", rather than "In 1997, Hick ...". Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

English Cricket Season Articles

User:Gene Nygaard placed a "prod" on 1969 English cricket season because it was in "template" form and contained no data, just a few headings and references and categories. This allowed us five days to expand the article so that it becomes a meaningful stub. I managed to do this by talking about the county competitions and finding the top batsmen and bowlers.

There are several other stubs like this around which haven't been developed so if you spot any more "prods", just use 1969 as a crib and add some info. --BlackJack | talk page 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this subject has come up, it may be worth mentioning that there's no consistent format for season articles. Compare 1904 English cricket season, 1969 English cricket season, 1997 English cricket season and 2005 English cricket season: all different in many ways! Loganberry (Talk) 23:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added data this morning to a few other "templates" from 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000. The formats are very different and I think you will find the 18th century seasons also differ, though these are at least consistent within that category. --BlackJack | talk page 11:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about "prod" - you can just remove the template if you disagree with it. It may end up at AfD though. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Farokh Engineer

Engineer's biography named From the far pavilion came out last year. Does anyone here have that book ? Tintin (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have it somewhere, though I'm in the middle of moving so not entirely sure where it is. Is there any question you have in particular about it? jguk 19:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In the Madras Test against WI in 1966-67, he scored 94* before lunch. Engineer has claimed that he completed his hundred with a six off Gibbs off the first ball after lunch (a report that says the same thing is here). It has been contradicted by Frindall who says that the innings included no sixes. Does the book mention anything about this ? Tintin (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've looked up the report of that match in the 1968 Wisden. It makes no mention of Engineer reaching his hundred with a six, and it's sufficiently unusual an occurrence that had it happened it would have been almost sure to be mentioned. JH 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Cricket Archive scorecard [5] has no sixes for the innings either. Andrew nixon 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now been reunited with my copy of From the Far Pavilion. On p77, the book says "At lunch India were 125 for no loss with Engineer just six short of his century. Wisden, which summarised Farokh's innings as a 'brilliant display of controlled hitting', noted how he 'smashed a six just after the interval to bring up his hundred'." I agree that this is inconsistent with the scorecard, jguk 08:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The online Wisden report doesn't say this either :-/ Tintin (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's also inconsistent with what Wisden actually says - unless by Wisden he was referring to Wisden Cricket Monthly rather than to the Almanack. JH 08:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also just noticed that the Frindall reference Tintin refers to above was a response to a question by the author of From the Far Pavilion, John Cantrell. The book itself was published in 2004, so it seems Cantrell wasn't quite sure that what he had written (and no doubt heard first hand from Engineer) was corect, jguk 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that Engineer confused two of his innings in his mind, in one of which he reached 94* by lunch and in the other of which he reached his hundred with a six. JH 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Jguk, very interesting. I hadn't noticed that. John, in his other hundred (v Eng 1972-3), Engineer did not reach his 100 with a six. I have a very interesting interview with him from the old Wisden.com site. I'll upload it later today. Tintin (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded the interview with Engineer at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CTE9G6VT (2.4 mb, 4 minutes long). Most of it is about the hundred at Madras and he repeats the Gibbs six story. But the interesting part is the description of the opening over of the match from Wes Hall. Engineer says he straight drove the very first ball of the match for four. The next five balls were bouncers and Engineer hooked two of them out of the ground because of which three newballs had to be used in the first over. How could you trust the word of someone who makes such obviously false claims ? Tintin (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Test cricket grounds

Does anyone have access to records that would enable us to complete the list of ends at the Test cricket grounds? The existing details are mostly from cricinfo, but its database is not complete.

We are missing a few old ones that are no longer used for cricket, such as Brisbane Exhibition Ground and Bramall Lane and Old Wanderers and Bombay Gymkhana, and several newer ones, particularly in India and Pakistan. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can fill in the details for Bramall Lane, thanks to a map of the ground in the 1965 Wisden, p629. I can't 100% guarantee that the names of the ends were the same when it was used for a Test in 1902, but it seems almost certain. I'll add the details to the article. JH 09:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Lala Amarnath's biography has a wagon-wheel of his Test hundred at Bombay Gymkhana. One end of the ground is marked as the Bombay Gymkhana end and the other is not named. Having been there, I know that at the other end is wide open space where temporary stands are built during important matches. Don't know whether it is called by any particular names. Tintin (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, both. The list is also missing the names of the ends at:
(Note also the two remaining redlinked grounds.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor Counties and Second XIs

The new articles Minor Counties Cricket Championship, MCCA Knockout Trophy and Second XI Championship all include a list of winners. I decided to do these as I can't find any similar lists elsewhere on the internet. If anyone can add any useful information about the history of these competitions that would be a great help.

Within the minor counties there are four that have played first-class cricket in the distant past. Berkshire was first-class in the 18th century but that team had no direct connection with the present club and is too remote to be included in the present club's article apart from an xref. The other three are Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. With these there is a discernible line from the essentially town clubs that represented the counties at first-class level to the present county clubs.

Norfolk and Suffolk were only briefly first-class and played just a few matches each so they are easily dealt with. Cambridgeshire has a longer story to tell and I've so far only provided a high-level mention of its first-class era and who its best players were. If any of you have some readily useful info about Cambs in the mid-19th century, please see Cambridgeshire CCC. --BlackJack | talk page 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the Wisden Book of County Cricket I've been able to add a paragraph of mainly statistical information about the Cambridgeshire f-c years. There's probably some useful stuff in Barclay's World of Cricket about the Minor Counties and Second XI Championships. When I have time, I'll see what I can dig out. JH 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning (it's in Wisden) in the respective articles that Buckinghamshire declined an invitation to the county championship in 1921 and Devon had an application refused in 1948. Andrew nixon 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrew. I've added those facts. --BlackJack | talk page 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

County Club Articles

I've been trying to establish a consistent approach to the layout of the 18 first-class county articles and I've extended this to the minor counties. The principles equally apply to equivalent overseas clubs but I haven't ventured that far.

Some of the county articles are much more developed than others and have significantly more sections, especially around things like club captains, club records, past players, current players. Most of them had a history section and nearly all had some form of honours list. Some of the articles like Somerset and Yorkshire were already very good; some like Essex and Lancashire were poor.

The approach I've introduced is to have a standard intro that explains who the club is and what it represents, followed by a paragraph about its venues and then perhaps a short piece around its current status, captain, coach and what have you. The next section is honours which I've standardised with help from JH. This is near the top to follow Playfair. Next comes the history starting with earliest cricket in the county, then the formation of the club and then the main events in the club's history up to the present.

This is where Essex and Lancashire failed because in both cases you would think the clubs were formed in the last 25 years or so.

Some counties have a complete list of captains and this is either in the article or else in the club's category page with an xref from the article. This is one thing we need to think about though the priority is to have a complete list for each club.

Although the club captains were mostly notable players, I think we need another list of players with most appearances (rather than most runs and wickets) so that we highlight the stalwarts as well as the stars. Then there are the club records. And so on.

I'd like to use this forum to capture ideas about what else we can include in these articles and realistically develop. --BlackJack | talk page 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Power Cricket

I had a idea, why not post an article about Power Cricket?? where Asia versus RoW (Rest of the World) in 15 overs competition, there was a mention in Shahid Afridi about the first batsman to hit an 12, hitting the roof in Cardiff, England Rakuten06 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord's

The article on Lord's Cricket Ground says that the current ground is the second, whilst the article on Thomas Lord says that it's the third. They can't both be right. I believe that the correct article is the Thomas Lord one. There's a case for replacing much of the part of the Lord's article that deals with the early history with a link to the Thomas Lord piece, to ensure consistency.JH 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Got a copy of The Story of Cricket (1977, Robin Marlar) out of the library recently - I don't know how reliable a source it is (I'm sure Jack can tell more about this), but it's essentially a bit of an encyclopedia itself, but it says on the history of Lord's:
Thomas Lord leased a piece of land, now Dorset Square, from the Portman family.. (note. The internal links are slightly incorrect because they weren't Viscounts when he rented it)
The first game at Lord's, at 1787, was between Middlesex and Essex...
Within twenty years he was obliged to move his ground to Lisson Grove, then owned by the Eyre family. Later, in the winter of 1809-10, Lord transported the actual turf from the old ground...
When Parliament bisected his field with the Regent's Canal in 1813, Lord moved the turf yet again, to the present ground.
Seems a sensible account of events, and also agrees pretty much with the account at Thomas Lord (though some years are inconsistent). Sam Vimes | Address me 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There were three grounds. The Robin Marlar account tallies with a number of other sources. Apparently, Lord did literally shift his turf! The present Lord's ground was formerly a duckpond and it opened at the height of the Napoleonic War when hardly any cricket was being played.
The first ground is often called Lord's Old Ground or Lord's (Dorset Square). The Lisson Grove venue is generally referred to as Lord's Middle Ground. The present ground was at first called Lord's New Ground. --BlackJack | talk page 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

99.94

Following the iconic scores thread (above), please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99.94. Interested in the opinions of the Wikiproject. --Dweller 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Category Rename Proposal

See [6] for proposed rename of 1890-1914 to 1890-1918 so that it will include the new article 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons --BlackJack | talk page 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Initials - yet again...

Jack has done some tidying up of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year article, including correcting a few names. All to the good... but he's again followed what, at the risk of sounding unpleasant, seems to have become almost an obsession of his - that of changing the names of "initialled" cricketers to the format W G Grace (ie with spaces but no punctuation). Strangely he's not been consistent in this, at least at the time of writing: for example, MJK Smith and K. S. Duleepsinhji remain listed as such.

To be honest, I am getting heartily sick of this particular topic, and despite my personal preference for the punctuation-less "MJK Smith" format I would be more than willing to move to using "M. J. K. Smith" myself if it would help to give us all one format to use. Actually I'd be willing to use Jack's preferred format if there were a consensus for its being acceptable here - but there is not. What I don't want is for one person (whether Jack, me or anyone else) to keep changing names from an existing acceptable format to one that has no advantage other than that he personally prefers it. Loganberry (Talk) 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In the near future, I will be creating an article entitled E. G. Morant about a cricket patron of the 1790s who was a prominent member of the early MCC, but in the body of that article and anywhere else that I refer to this Georgian gentleman, I will call him E G Morant or perhaps EG Morant because it is easier to type. I've accepted W. G. Grace and M. J. K. Smith as the title format because of WP:NAMEPEOPLE (even though I don't agree with it) but within articles the reality is that all variations are used right across the site and the trick is to have redirects, which are both harmless and useful. It really doesn't matter what is used in the body of an article as long as it doesn't redlink. The thing is to create the articles so that the readers have something to refer to and other editors have something to build on.
On the subject of creating articles, if we are going to start creating ccyy English cricket season articles it is no good just doing 2005 and 2006, plus the dozen or so Golden Age ones that jguk put so much effort into. There are press reports of cricket in England going right back to 1697, which is 310 years. 12 articles is not enough: I reckon we need 1697 to 1725, 1811 to 1815, 1915 to 1918 and 1940 to 1945 plus one article for each of the other individual years from 1726 to 2006 inclusive. I think that amounts to 269 articles. And then there are all those Australian, South African, West Indian, Indian, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lankan seasons too. Can we think about achieving all of that and not worrying over minor details?
And if you spot an edit you don't agree with and you are sure your version is the right one or at least meets WP rules, policy, guidelines, whatever, be bold and ruthlessly edit it.  ;-) --BlackJack | talk page 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
plus the dozen or so Golden Age ones that jguk put so much effort into. Oi. If you're thinking of 1890 English cricket season to 1902 English cricket season, I wrote those. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the question at hand: I think it's obvious we're not going to get a consensus, and it's really something you don't want to think about when you're writing (if you don't write dots anywhere else, it's a bit tricky to remember it on Wiki). A key point though, in my opinion, is that
Individual articles should use the same style throughout.
It looks much more professional that way. People might not remember from article to article what's the Wikipedia standard, or not care, but they're going to be annoyed if they read MJK Smith in one place, M J K Smith further down, and yet further down M. J. K. Smith. Agreed? Sam Vimes | Address me 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll sign up for that, yes. My point wasn't that I particularly object to Jack's format in the first place; what I object to is changing an existing style, that's all. However, I will certainly apologise to Jack - and indeed to everyone else - for being so grumpy; that was unfair of me. Loganberry (Talk) 23:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Loganberry has no need to apologise to me. It's me that must apologise to Sam: I should have checked the histories of the Golden Age articles.

I agree that an individual article must have a consistent format throughout and it is something I tend to address along with typos, bad punctuation and the like but without really thinking about it. All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

H. D. G. Leveson-Gower points to HDG Leveson-Gower now. Should point the other way. Tintin (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear - I did not see this conversation before I reverted some of User:BlackJack's changes. Some were good (for example, he changed [[Patsy Hendren|EH Hendren]] to simple [[Patsy Hendren]]); some were bad (for example, he replaced J. T. Hearne with J T Hearne, which goes via a redirect). I'm not sure why Duleepsinghi and MJK Smith were left as they were, when Ranjitsinhji was changed. Anyway, I have put most things back the way before they were changed. It is rather wearing that BlackJack keeps pushing for his preferred version without a consensus for change.

And I have only just noticed that BlackJack has also, for example, moved C. B. Fry to C B Fry, and Jack Russell (Essex cricketer) to C A G Russell. I think he has recognised above that both are wrong now, and I will be moving them to the dotted-initials versions. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please ensure that Russell is shown by his initials to prevent confusion with the other Jack Russell. The trouble with C. A. G. Russell is that he was always called A. C. Russell in his career and several books call him that: he is one of the most confusing cricketers I've ever come across!  ;-) By the way, my name isn't Russell! --BlackJack | talk page 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is what Philip Bailey said in his old column in Cricinfo : "He appeared in the scorecards of the time (when initials were given, which they were not always for professionals) as AC Russell, but his birth and death registration record his initials as CAG so that is the version we use." Tintin (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope everyone is happy with the way I have left these articles? I suppose any "Russell" is almost bound to become a "Jack" - see Jack Russell. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:English cricketers

I would like to ask if this monster category should be cut down to size? We also have sub-categories for English players in terms of place and time (though the latter is currently established for the 18th century only). Perhaps players should be restricted to those because the big category is not easy to use and could be off-putting to readers. Obviously that would pose the logistical problem of removing Category:English cricketers from hundreds of articles. Something to discuss: I have an open mind about it because of the difficulties a change would invoke. --BlackJack | talk page 11:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We've previously agreed (but never implemented) the suggestion that Test cricketers and ODI cricketers shouldn't also be in the parent cat, English cricketers. This might be the simplest solution, although it's so long since that discussion, people's views might have changed now! Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Having one overarching category is important: it means you don't necessarily have to know something about the cricketer you are looking for in order to be able to find him through the category system. If you don't find the category useful, then you are not obligated to use it (you can delve into info through subcategories) - but it is particularly useful for seeing whether we have an article on a less well-known cricketer whose article might go under a variety of names. Note that Cricinfo and CricketArchive both keep full alphabetical lists of their content, jguk 09:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. JH 09:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whites and Flannels

Neither of these have disambig links to cricket-related articles. --Dweller 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Now they do. --Dweller 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of links to whites that previously automatically redirected to white people. You need to get someone with a bot to go through and change all these instances to [[white people|whites]], jguk 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I do that? --Dweller 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be to leave whites redirecting to white people and use one of those templates at the top that says "Whites redirects here. For other uses see Whites (disambiguation)" (sorry, I don't remember the name of the template at the moment). Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, {{redirect}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sledging (cricket)

Hi. Someone may like to fix this is up. It is basically a load of OR and somebody's essay. Also I blanked out the parts about the famous sledge comments as they would contravene WP:BLP as some of the alleged comments are obsceneetc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bodyline

Bodyline is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The main issue seems to be inline citations - if anyone has copies of the hardcopy sources referred to, please would they consider going through the article and adding some page numbers to support the article's assertions (the quotations would be a good place to start). It may also need a light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
How much time do we have to fix it ? Tintin (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If nothing more is done, it will probably move from the top half of FAR (review) into the bottom half (removal candidate) in 1-2 weeks, and then be removed a couple of weeks after that. If futher progress is being made, it can hang around on FAR for longer. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away for the past week. I have Bodyline Autopsy, if page refs are still needed. Please post a note on my talk page with specific requests for refs - I won't have time to trawl through and find what might be required myself. -dmmaus 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo mosaic

Is there a nice green image of cricket that could go here [7]? --Dweller 14:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the lead image for cricket is Image:CricketSCG1.jpg, which is pretty green. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Bah. I'm too stupid to work out how to insert the dang thing. Anyone out there who has a brain? --Dweller 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with Wisden 1965?

If so, can you give me a page number for the obituary of Peter, the Lord's cat (or just add it to the relevant footnote in the article). Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it for you. Incidentally, as far as I can recall, I'm not registered at Cricinfo, but I can access Peter's obituary at [8] JH 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

David Frith

Great chunks of the Frith article are identical to those on this page of Bob Woolmer's site. What I don't know is whether a Wikipedia editor took the text from BW (in which case it's a copyvio) or vice versa (in which case BW should acknowledge it). This also leaves a very obvious inconsistency in our article, which says that Frith was born in 1937 but returned to England at the age of 28 in 1964. If he was indeed born in 1937, Frith's 28th birthday would not have been until 1965! Loganberry (Talk) 03:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The error re. the age of 28 is mine. I added it from an article about Frith's retirement from WCM. As far as I remember, that article too said he was 28. At that time, the article gave his DoB as 1936, so we'll probably need to check whether he indeed born in 1936.
The rest of the section in the Woolmer article appeared in wikipedia June 2004. I am pretty sure that woolmer.com was launched in late 2004 or early 2005, a few months after he became the Pakistan coach. The woolmer article is dated 2006-09-05 anyway. Tintin (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Oxford Companion to Australian cricket (also known A-Z of Australian cricket), Frith was born on 16 March, 1937. I have removed the age of 28, but this figure disagrees from the DOB of March 17 that we have in the article. Tintin (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reputable source for 16 March but not for 17 March, then I would suggest changing the article text to say 16 March. If you have sources for both, then I'm not sure. Loganberry (Talk) 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

CricketWatch

All cricket related categories (ie. including and below Category:Cricket) are in the process of being tagged with the new {{CricketWatch}} template. From this, WatchlistBot generates a full list of cricket related articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles. The purpose is to be able to track the project history using related changes (or related watchlist which only shows the last change for each article).

WatchlistBot will refresh the Articles page every few days to once a week.

This will make (the manually maintained) List of cricket topics somewhat redundant. — Moondyne 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

W. G. Grace's relationships with Fred Spofforth & Bob Thoms

Do any of you have anything on this topic, which came up on our Usenet thread recently

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/b430bc08e2372e42/34f494825a9ac7b3

Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow

Help needed from an admin

Could one of you with admin functions please have a think about category:English cricket from 2001 which is now in speedies as I would like to add the word "seasons" as per the convention established in the discussion about the Golden Age category which I have quoted in the nomination. Perhaps I am too keen to get things done quickly but I find it somewhat pedantic that someone has objected to this change, especially as it was overlooked when the other category was renamed. If it really shouldn't be there, let me know and I'll put it in the queue. --BlackJack | talk page 09:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid he's right. The speedy criteria is for a few very specific cases which this doesn't fall into. It is pedantic, but thems the rules. — Moondyne 10:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename category discussion opened

Thanks Moondyne (Ian) re the above. I've moved this nomination to:

[9]

As you can see it simply meets the convention agreed in a previous discussion and this should have been done at the same time as the first but was overlooked. Please support the change because I guarantee some clown will come along and insist the category should be deleted for having no articles about chirping insects in their mating seasons. --BlackJack | talk page 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of Cheltenham College ground?

CricketArchive reckons it's College Ground, Cheltenham but there's no article here under that title, which surprised me given that it's hosted over 300 first-class games. College Sports Ground and Thirlestaine Road draw blanks as well. We do have an article under College Ground but that turns out to be one in Loughborough that hosted a grand total of two f-c matches in the late 1920s. Do we actually have an article on the Cheltenham ground under another title? If not, where should one go? Loganberry (Talk) 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheltenham College Ground is also a redlink. Why not create an article with redirects. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The absence of an article is especially remarkable considering the ground was the location of the first triple century in a county match (the second in overall first-class cricket). [10]Andrew nixon 18:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now written a stub, which I've put at College Ground, Cheltenham (with redirects from the others) since that form of the name seems to be much more popular than the alternatives. I've also changed College Ground to a dab page, since there's also the College Ground, Bulsar which hosted five Ranji Trophy games in the 1970s. Loganberry (Talk) 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Britcher

I've just added an article about this man who is a significant historical source for the period from 1790 to 1805. He is believed to have been MCC's first official scorer and he produced an annual series of match scores until, it is thought, he died in 1805. No personal details are available as yet including his DOB. Britcher's scores were not easily available for study until a few years ago and Keith Warsop of the ACS&H has made some interesting discoveries which he has reported in the ACS journal this year.

The Britcher article is a stub, naturally, but I'd be particularly interested if anyone does have info about him and can expand the article. --BlackJack | talk page 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Darrell Hair

This article needs some serious WP:NPOV trimming. — Moondyne 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

W. G. Grace

I've asked the Biography project to complete their boiler plate for this article and we should do ours. We need to rate it for quality. Being completely unfamiliar with these things, I also wondered how close the article is to FA status; should we request a peer review? If you could pick just (say) 5 cricketers from all eras that should have a FA biog article, I'd argue that most people would include Grace... --Dweller 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely hopeless at rating articles in that way, but I suspect it wouldn't make FA at the moment. It doesn't have any footnotes for one thing; I can't remember whether they're compulsory for FA but they certainly seem to be preferred to this sort. The "Records and statistics" section may also be considered to have too many subsections, and I suspect that phrases such as "when, as some consider, bowling was maintained at a higher standard" would also be highlighted by the harsher judges. Loganberry (Talk) 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice

A quick notice that our resident scorekeeper on International cricket biographies, User:Shyam Bihari has offered himself to the community for RfA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_23&oldid=791870911"