Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Chris Taylor

We have two articles for the same player!

Obviously one article should be reduced to being merely a redirect to the other. But which should stay and which should go?

How about merging the two articles into a article?? Rakuten06 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks as though some kind person has beaten me to it and has done the necessary. JH 10:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Underarm bowling

Anyone who knows and understands anything about cricket will agree that underarm bowling is a key historical topic whose importance in that context completely outweighs the ludicrous and typically Chappell incident in 1981. But, as I would expect, there are some who insist that this incident is far more important than the fact that cricket would never have begun if people in the distant past had not used an underarm bowling action to try and knock over a two stump wicket.

I have therefore followed precedent where a controversial incident is deemed worthy of inclusion on the site by giving it its own article so that Underarm bowling can reclaim its rightful place as a historical article to be developed according to its context and perspective in historical terms and not in the terms of modern media sensationalism.

Incidentally, I doubt if underarm bowling was used much (i.e., legitimately), if ever, by first-class teams in Australia or New Zealand, hence the article does not belong in the categories covering the histories of those countries.

The new article is called Underhand bowling incident 1981 if anyone can be bothered to read it. --BlackJack | talk page 19:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite right and well done. Though I'll leave to those with a greater interest in the 1981 incident whether that should be "underhand" or "underarm" (and they can do the Chappell etc links which now go to the wrong place).

BTW, the underarm bowling piece isn't entirely correct in saying it had virtually died out by the 20th century. George Simpson-Hayward, whose biog is very stubby, was the England hero of the 1909-10 series in South Africa with his underarm bowling: reference books often seem to refer to him as the last of the lob bowlers, but other descriptions suggest he was a ferocious under-arm spinner of the ball, getting immense turn off the pitch through a fairly low trajectory, rather than being a true "lobster". Perhaps someone knows whether this is accurate. Johnlp 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right: GS-H's Wisden bio, repeated on his Cricinfo profile says that he "seldom flighted the ball like the ordinary lob bowler" and was "quite unusual with the speed at which he could make the ball, delivered with low trajectory, break from the off". You're also right that his article is unacceptably stubby at the moment for a Test player and county captain. Since he was a Worcestershire player (among many other things) I'll get to him at some point if nobody else does, but I have a lot on my plate at the moment (non-Wikipedia matters) and most of the time can't really concentrate for the sustained period necessary to write a long bio. He is on the list, though! Loganberry (Talk) 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As I type this, Jack's edit has been reverted, which is a shame as I think he was right. However, I suspect that this will happen again if he repeats the removal. One possible solution might be to include a short (one-para) summary of the 1981 incident in Underarm bowling and use the {{main}} template to direct those interested to the article dealing specifically with 1981. As for the title of the specialist article, I think the use "underhand" is very clever, but I do wonder whether someone's going to protest that it's POV! Loganberry (Talk) 04:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added GS-H to the underarm article as he belongs there. I've also sent Chappell back to his own article and said why on the article's talk page. --BlackJack | talk page 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Jack's version of the article was better too, although I also agree with Loganberry's suggestion that it should have a paragraph in Underarm bowling, and use {{main}}. I also don't like "underhand": it's witty, but the article title should be a plain description. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The incident is both important enough for its own article, and insignificant enough to not dominate the main article. It definitely should be covered in the modern game section, although I'd rather see it integrated with teh rest of the section, as it was this incident that led to underarm bowling being officially not allowed by playing conditions and ultimately to a change in the laws. JPD (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Howstat

My (rather short) stub was deleted a couple of weeks ago because its Alexa ranking is not high enough. I think it is notable enough to need an article so have restored it, but I anticipate AFD will be coming along shortly. I wonder if CricketArchive or Cricinfo would meet their criterion. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Alexa criterion was deleted from WP:WEB some time ago. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Cricketarchive is at 309K. Judging the importance this way is ridiculous. Tintin (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as a recreation of a deleted article, it falls for speedy deletion. Hopefully it won't be spotted by such, but really this is a case of going to the requests for undeletion page. Howstat is an important page for cricket statistics (after cricinfo and cricketarchive). That is where it gets its notability from. Its Alexa ranking is irrelevant in that regard, as all of us WP:Cricket people can, if necessary, attest, jguk 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrug - I suppose we can go through the rigmarole of WP:DRV or WP:AFD or whatever if someone insists. As you say, this is one of the three most important sites of cricket statistics on the internet.
In case people don't want to dig around in the edit history and logs, NawlinWiki's comment in the deletion log on deleting it on 28 October was "A7" - in reply to Tony fanta's comment when adding the CSD template easlier that day of "fails wp:web, alexa of 366,204". On undeleting, I said "Alexa is not the sole judge of whether a website is notable". I have now added a comment to the talk page-- ALoan (Talk) 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think since it was not deleted by an AfD discussion the recreation of deleted content criterion doesn't apply. Someone could attempt to delete it under the same CSD that was used last time, but I think since the opinion here is that it doesn't apply then there would at least have to be a proper AfD debate.--Cherry blossom tree 13:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates for individual tournaments

User:Madbassist has been adding templates to the biographies of cricketers who appeared for individual teams in the 2003 World Cup. He seems to have been doing the same on football (soccer) biography sites but has been asked to desist. My inclination is to ask him to stop adding to cricketers too: if we added templates for every series or competition that prominent players took part in we'd start very quickly to look like a telephone directory rather than an encyclopedia. But before I dive in, what do others think? Johnlp 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A player's participation in a particular tournament is likely to be mentioned in the text of the player's article anyway, but I can see why it might be interesting to know which players were in the squad a tournament. Perhape a category instead, or, even better, a separate article listing the members of the squads at the relevant tournaments, which matches they played in, their performance, etc? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is what categories are for, isn't it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The bare bones of which player was in which squad for which tournament? Yes, I think a categories would be better; but there is much more that could written (what was their team number, how diud they perform; were they injured or replaced). But I think we are agreed that a surfeit of infoboxes or navboxes is unhelpful. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting them deleted might be tricky tho. WikiProject Football have been trying that unsuccessfully for quite some time. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Problems getting a consensus at WP:TFD? Can you provide some examples? Who is defending these things? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people. They got about 30 keep votes in August: [1] Single templates have been deleted, but mass nominations don't work. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. 1990_FIFA_World_Cup_squads is precisely the sort of article I meant, by the way. How many of these draft templates are people proposing should decorate a player's article - European Cup, World Cup, domestic competitions.... Daft. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty stupid. I think the fact that it was the Football World Cup, biggest tournament of the Coca-Cola® Universe™, etc. might have swung the decision somewhat. Just to mention a cricket version of the football squad above: 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads. I think that is a reasonably good translation (well, I would think so, I made it). Sam Vimes | Address me 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes - featured list material, there. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really excellent, Sam. I took a different approach in English cricket team in West Indies in 1953-54, which does the same kind of job.

To return to the template question, at present new templates have been created only for half a dozen teams in the 2003 cricket world cup and, I think, only Bangladesh in the 1999 world cup. So for now they have been attached to only 60 or 70 biographical articles. But if these are taken as a precedent, it wouldn't be unreasonable to create such templates for all Test match series, ODI tournaments etc. And IMHO that would be grim. Without deleting the template as such, though, which could prove tricky, we could delete the template where it appears on biog articles. I asked User:Madbassist to hold fire on more applications of his templates yesterday, pending a consensus view. He's done that, and in fairness we ought to go back to him to tell him what the consensus is. Suggestions? Johnlp 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea that is being used in the wrong place. I find these sort of templates very handy indeed and I'm using them in the 18th century season reviews but in that place they are useful because the links are all valid to each article without necessarily being mentioned in the article and, the key point, each one has only a single usage within the season article. The trouble with using squad membership in a biog article is sheer repetitiveness.
Supposing I were to create a template for Yorkshire CCC squads per season since the club was founded and placed one on the biog page of each player for every season he played in – Wilfred, for example, would have a stack of some 30-odd templates. It is one of those things that is great until it is repeated (a bit like a joke, I suppose!).
As for where you would use these 2003 World Cup templates, I think the only suitable place is in 2003 Cricket World Cup. I would not even use them in articles about the national team or in a generic article about the tournament. You could perhaps add them to an article about the season during which the tournament took place, but that's about it. --BlackJack | talk page 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as we are discussing boxes, what about the stack at the bottom pages like Ian Botham? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is overuse and the info in two of the boxes is the same: the detail in the "triple" box being incorrect. I think the 5wI box should be in an article about Test match bowling only; the caps one in something about English Test cricketers only; the 3000/300 box should stay but also be corrected and the other two all-rounder boxes should go as the "triple" box supersedes them. The captaincy box is okay. --BlackJack | talk page 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability again

I've had John Days tagged by an anon editor with the {{notability}} template, with an edit summary of "Is Wikipedia the dumping ground for all Wisden trivia?" I've pointed to the notability guidelines for sportspeople (I suspect pointing to our own guidelines would have elicited "But you're biased!" or similar) and will certainly fight any AfD listing. Yes, the Days article is a stub, but it's not all that stubby.

The editor in question has replied on my User talk page thus: "There appears to be no lower limit on what counts as "notability" in Wikipedia therefore. It's one huge dumpbin of crap where actual notable knowledge and history is diluted to homeopathic undetectability. The fact that John Days is even mentioned is because he's in Wisden, but then lots of people are - it doesn't make them notable." Loganberry (Talk) 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore him, and don't take his comments personally. He's out of step with WP:BIO. I've removed the template. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would ignore him as well. He's been putting notability tags on things like Haiti en Marche too; I'll readily admit that the article is poor and that I had no knowledge about the newspaper before, but surely you've got to go pretty low before a newspaper with considerable circulation and so forth isn't notable. Sam Vimes | Address me 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is probably heresy here, but I do think that he has a point. Days would merit an article in a hypothetical cricket-only Wiki, but I'm not convinced that he does in a general encyclopaedia covering all subjects. JH 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think my reply to you would be the old "Wikipedia is not paper" one. If Britannica had the effectively unlimited space that Wikipedia does, and if accessing such information were as easy as it is here, and if they had an editor who was willing to write such articles, then I rather think someone like Days would be included. (I know Britannica has a website, but they still have the staff problem.) Loganberry (Talk) 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as he is in keeping with the WikiProject guidelines, you can assert notability. That won't save an article from an AFD, but it's grounds to disagree with a {{notability}} tag. That said, we don't need to have articles on every single player that we could have (though personally I think it would be in keeping with the broad goals of the encyclopaedia project - after all, re-users don't have to include all of our content). Guettarda 18:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
First-class cricket is good enough.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be encyclopaedic but it does need limits and this is where the notability concept steps in. In cricket terms, any person or team that has played major or first-class cricket at the level of the team being at least representative of a major county (or the acknowledged overseas equivalent) is deemed notable. If John Days had only played at 2nd XI level or for a minor county, he would not be notable in terms of playing achievement; but he has played for the 1st XI of a major team and so he is a notable cricketer and should be included in an encyclopaedic coverage of cricket. --BlackJack | talk page 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's likely to be of all that much interest, but the anon in question posted a follow-up to their criticism on my User talk page. It looks to me as though they're simply a general deletionist rather than a specific cricket deletionist. Loganberry (Talk) 14:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A picture I had to share

Geraint Jones picks another ball off the ground.....

I took this photo along with many others of the English team training at Adelaide Oval yesterday. I'm sort of tempted to put it on the encyclopedia article, but that would appear POV since this is a training incident when he was hitting balls with Chris Read. Anyway, it's here for public viewing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work on providing so many free pictures, Blnguyen! Thanks! Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Diver

I just found a new stub re this All-England batsman and once again someone had stuck a notability tab on it. I've expanded the article a bit using what I know of Diver and I've removed the tab. --BlackJack | talk page 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack, it would be useful if you could make a note of your source. If you always do this, it should lessen the number of notability tags you get, jguk 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't my stub. I found it with the notability tag already attached. I didn't recognise the original author's name and it seems the basic info was lifted from a talk page somewhere. My source for what I added is me: I just wrote what I know. Anyway, I've got Diver in my list of 19th century players to be researched so I'll keep an eye on him and add more in due course. --BlackJack | talk page 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added the Cricinfo and CricketArchive pages about Diver as external links. With a few exceptions (see the John Days discussion above!) putting those in tends to keep the notability tags away, since it does at least prove to a non-specialist reader that the person existed! Loganberry (Talk) 22:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Aussie pictures

I have added a link to this picture to the page on Joy Liebert. The photo was clearly taken in 1934/35. The link says that the picture may be reproduced for research and study (which isn't enough for WP) unless permission is applied for and given. However, this link says that in Oz, copyright in piccis taken before 1 May 1969 only lasts for 50 years from when they are taken. This suggests the picci is already out of copyright in Oz. Does that mean I can add it to Wikicommons direct and add the picture to the article? jguk 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia (and its talk page). Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia template {{PD-Australia}}:
explains it in a bit more detail. Basically, copyright has expired on any photo taken in Australia before 1955. The NLA's notice is out of date. — Moondyne 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Old English photos

Re the above, that is fascinating. Does the same rule apply to photos taken in GB before 1955? If so, I will start downloading some. --BlackJack | talk page 09:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not, only photos taken in Australia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Pity. What is the rule re British photos? Is there a cutoff date or are they all subject to copyright for evermore? --BlackJack | talk page 10:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've mentioned this in passing before, but is there any chance that any British cricket photos might have been Crown Copyright? If so, the cut-off for that is 50 years, and so it would be acceptable for 1955 and earlier photos to be used, regardless of the photographer's status. Conceivably some sort of tub-thumping "What makes Britain great" publication from WW2 or the immediate post-war period might have such cricket pictures? Loganberry (Talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I have bookmarked this PDF — http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf — which (if accurate) suggests that it's 70 years after the death of the photographer, if the photographer is known, or else 70 years after first publication. So photos published before 1936 would be OK if the photographer is not known. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The real reference is the Copyright Act (as amended) and statutory instruments made under that Act (which in turn apply EU directives). I believe Stephen is right though - it's 70 years after the death of the photographer, if known - otherwise from 1 January following the date on which it was taken, if unknown (with this date changing to 70 years after the death of the photographer if you later learn who he was). jguk 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That "known" could be a problem, since as jguk points out, if the photographer's identity in the case of a particular copyrighted image becomes known, and if that photographer died in 1936 or after, we will presumably have to instantly remove that image (unless fair use can be claimed). But, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld: how known does that "known" have to be? In other words, how much effort is "every effort" to determine a photographer's identity and date of death? Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket for the possible deletion of an article about Adnan Ilyas, a cricketer from Pakistan who plays for the Oman national team. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That one looks very non-notable despite satisfying our norms. Maybe we should take another look at the eligibility criteria. Tintin (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I sometimes rather wish the ICC Trophy had not gained List A status; then we wouldn't have this problem! I've settled on "weak keep", though, since I don't think it does any harm to have an article about him, and since whatever people might think of the ICC's decision (I'm not happy about it), their granting of List A status to the 2005 Trophy means that the man has played seven such games. Loganberry (Talk) 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879

Sydney Riot of 1879 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please help bring this article to current featured article quality. --RelHistBuff 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:VivRichardStadium 01.JPG

This image is tagged with CC-ShareAlike 2.5. This is obviously not true, as it's been nabbed straight from the World Cup site: [2]. I'd like to delete it straight away, but this is apparently not the done thing...can anyone with a bit more guts or knowledge of the image tagging rules sort that out? Thanks! Sam Vimes | Address me 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:PUI, I've tagged it with {{PUIdisputed}} and listed at same. Thanks. — Moondyne 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that there's no need for WP:PUI any more, because "Blatant copyright infringement" can now be deleted by an administrator on sight. I've listed it at CAT:CSD. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Project goals

I'm posting here after a very long time. Just wondering what the project's current goals are. We seem to have run out of new featured material. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any risk of running out of things to do. Many notable players and events still only have articles that are stubs, in some cases no more than a couple of sentences, whilst many significant players who never played international cricket still don't have an article at all. JH 09:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm working on getting at least a workable stub together on all women international cricketers. See List of English women Test cricketers for progress to date. Anyone wishing to help would be most welcome. And once it is complete, we should have some more featured lists. jguk 12:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
When dealing with international cricketers, perhaps one of the best places to start is any player red-links in the articles in {{National women's cricket teams}}, in particular those who hold records. Andrew nixon 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See Category:English cricket in the 18th Century, Category:English cricket seasons from 1816 to 1863 and Category:English cricket seasons from 1864 to 1889 for ongoing projects. We particularly need player articles (stubs will do) for the whole century from 1787 to 1889. These projects are just about English cricket: we need to do the same for all the other first-class countries, especially season reviews, tour reviews, players, clubs and venues. It's a case of information first, features some time in the future: lets get the necessary articles up and running so that people have something to work with. --BlackJack | talk page 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding venues: even one or two Test grounds still have either nothing or only very short stubs, and once you add in ODI and domestic grounds the list becomes far longer. This goes for even venues with a substantial history (you'll remember that I had to create College Ground, Cheltenham very recently). Loganberry (Talk) 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment guidelines

Could I have some input about the importance standards that I have proposed so far. Ansell 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

They seem reasonable to me. JH 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It is fine for players in the last 30 years or so. For the rest, it may have to be more subjective. Tintin (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is mostly good but a little too rigid in the players area. Chiefly, I'm not sure that 50 tests is necessarily a good marker - it is much easier to play 50 tests now than it was in the past. In the other player sections there are many examples of those who fit the same criteria whilst being of massivley unequal importance. I'm less concerned about these, however, as the scheme does allow for some (enough?) flexibility. --Cherry blossom tree 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
How about an international career spanning 10+ years and including at least 80 % of the Tests played in that time? (A little too rigid and hard to check, maybe, but it would translate the 50+ Tests criterion nicely.) Sam Vimes | Address me 11:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice idea but as you say, it would be awkward to calculate and it would exclude someone with a 20 year career who only played in 75% of tests in that time. How about having a sliding scale going down from, say 100 tests if a player debuted in the 1990s to 20 for the 1870s? It will still throw up some odd results, I imagine, but should be fairly simple to apply once the scale has been decided. Any thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The worst thing about trying to setup these guidelines is trying to emphasise to myself (and others) that we are not bound by the guidelines, but they are an initial indication. The ratings are meant to help with the project, not to hinder it. Thanks for the 50+ comments by the way. I almost did not put that one in, but I went through my evaluations of players and found that 50+ was where i possibly was putting them in a higher than "low" class. I don't think the player criteria will ever by sufficient to put into "bot" mode. I have just found that it is a little hard when a page exists as a stub with just an infobox with raw numbers to decide on things.
If one could estimate how many tests a player in a certain decade would be likely to play in a year, there may be a starting point. That statistic should be published somewhere. A frequency distribution of official tests by decade would be a starting point. Ansell 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


As Tintin says, you can only rate players on a subjective basis otherwise we will end up with the usual syndrome whereby anything that happened in the last 30 years outweighs everything that happened in the previous 300 years. Trying to rate players on a number of Tests basis is a non-starter. --BlackJack | talk page 16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to say that players who have played a lot of Tests are (almost always) significant. What one can't say is that anyone who only played a few - or no - Tests is insignificant. As well as Tests being generally less frequent in days gone by, there are all sorts of other reasons why an important player might not have played many Tests. Most (or all) of his career might have occurred before his country first played Test cricket (eg George Challenor). In the days of amateurism, his other interests may have restricted the amount of cricket he played (for instance Stanley Jackson was never able to spare the time to tour Australia). His country may not have played many Tests during his career (Vijay Merchant). Or he may have been a rebel whom the authorities were reluctant to select or who made demands that they would not accept (SF Barnes). Of my four examples, Barnes would probably be rated as "Top" and the others as at least "High". JH 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Impact on the game can not be measured in Test matches. Though players with high test counts are likely to be of higher importance many players with a massive impact on the sport have played relatively few matches. It would be hard to name a batsman more fondly remembered than Ranji, or another bowler that made the political impact of Larwood. And, barring Bradman, you'd have to look long and hard to find finer batsmen than Pollock or Headley despite their low test counts. Surely its going have to be done on a player by player basis taking 1st class record, test count, impact, feats, context and performance etc into account. --LiamE 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I removed the mention of number of tests, and also the mention about low number of tests being a generalisable thing, so that should not be a problem with the list at least. Are there any other generalisable criteria that can be put on the list to aid in future assessments. Ansell 04:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for captains is fine as is, but the assessor should not automatically give someone a high rating just because he was the captain. People like Chris Cowdrey, Donald Carr and Datta Gaekwad are more in the low-mid than the mid-high range despite being captains. Tintin (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Liam about the player's impact on the sport. Take this player for example: William Clarke. So far he's only got a very small stub which doesn't even mention what he did that he is famous for (though there is a clue in the categories)! I admit I for one have overlooked him even though I knew the article is tiny. But this bloke had a massive impact on cricket and in many ways can be seen as a creator of the modern game, certainly as a mover and shaker. I've got loads of stuff about him and I'll write him up soon. --BlackJack | talk page 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Category:MCC cricketers

This category is in danger of being swamped by people who made occasional appearances for MCC. I see Graeme Hick is in there, for example.

The value to be gained from a category like this is by designing it for players who played principally for MCC when it took part in a high proportion of matches per season. So you would expect it to include amateurs like William Ward who were resident in London and played most of their cricket at Lord's; and MCC ground staff bowlers like Fred Morley who were for part of their careers employed full-time by the club. --BlackJack | talk page 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some simple criteria for inclusion are needed. I'd suggest the following: Anyone who has captained the MCC at any level or anyone who has played more than a third of their first-class matches for the MCC, not including matches where England was playing as the MCC on test tours. Andrew nixon 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I see Jack's point, but for normal clubs we include a player who's played a single first class or List A match for them. I realise MCC is rather different, but might it be confusing to have a special criterion for them? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Until 1976-77, all matches played by England cricket teams overseas against non-Test opposition, such as the other first-class matches on a tour, were MCC matches. So anyone who ever toured with England in the first 100 years of Test cricket would qualify. A simple policy might be not to add this category to players whose deeds for MCC don't merit mention in the main text of their article. But I agree with Stephen that it's difficult to make a special case, especially for a club that emphasises the continuity of its existence, even though its role has changed markedly over the years. Which leads me on to a related point...
...Jack cites William Ward as an example, and has added Ward to the Hampshire cricketers category. But of course the Hampshire that Ward played for isn't the Hampshire CCC that most of the others in this category played for. I think Jack's right and that Ward belongs in this category; but it shows there are anomalies here that can't be sorted easily and that we probably have to live with. Johnlp 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ward played mainly for MCC but he also played for Hampshire. With MCC we have to be careful that it was the player's main club for at least part of his career or we will end up including everyone who ever played a single game for the club: Hick is a good example because he is a Worcestershire player who has made guest appearances for MCC, as a "given man" to use an old term. You cannot apply criteria - Mike Gatting captained MCC in its bicentenary match but you could not describe him as an MCC player, only as a guest on that occasion. --BlackJack | talk page 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But Gatting has continued to captain MCC after his first-class career finished. He was captain on tours to Argentina and to India (including a game against Afghanistan) this year. I think it's fair to say that he is now an MCC cricketer.Andrew nixon 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The point being that he is no longer a first-class player: only first-class players pass the notability test. During his first-class career, Gatting played for MCC as a guest only and should not be included in the MCC category as we would have to include 1000 other players as well who have made an occasional appearance for them. --BlackJack | talk page 07:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclusionist on this, and rather object to the category having been deleted from players such as Hick. I agree with Stephen Turner above that "for normal clubs we include a player who's played a single first class or List A match for them" - a good Worcestershire example being Bill Athey (who played one List A game for them in 1999); should he be excluded from Category:Worcestershire cricketers as a result? And what about the more recent example of counties signing players on very short-term contracts (eg Shoaib Akhtar's handful of games for Worcs)? You couldn't call Shoaib "a Worcestershire man", yet I think it would be ridiculous to remove him from the Worcs category.

I accept that MCC are a bit of a special case, but I'm not happy about bringing in different criteria for different teams - this for counties, that for MCC, the other for DH Robins' XIs, and so on. I think that if a cricketer has played at f-c (or LA) level for a f-c (or LA) team, then that alone is enough to qualify him for inclusion in the appropriate category. I don't think having minor MCC players "drowns out" the others any more than having minor Gloucestershire players "drowns out" Grace. Loganberry (Talk) 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MCC is a special case. It uses players as guests or "given men" who normally belong to a county team (e.g., Hick, Gatting). If we seek to include every single player who has ever represented MCC then I would estimate it will be about 75% or more of all the players in category:English cricketers and that would be ridiculous, not to mention impossible to achieve.
I believe "MCC cricketers" should be limited to players who for a significant part of their careers were primarily MCC players. This would include the likes of Ward, Winchilsea and Lennox as prominent amateur members of the club; and also staff bowlers like the afore-mentioned Fred Morley, who also played for Notts. It would also include interesting cases like Arthur Conan-Doyle who played only for MCC.
If we include everyone who has ever set foot inside the Long Room then the category will be devalued and will be of no use whatever to researchers who want to identify people who were primarily MCC players.
Incidentally, I would exclude given men and guest players from all team categories. Given men were common in the early days of cricket and if you look at the career of a player like Lumpy, it seems that at some time he played for every team imaginable (including MCC, I think, just after it started). But Lumpy was a Surrey player and even though he played occasionally for Hambledon and for Kent and for everyone else, it would be wrong to include him in "Hampshire cricketers" or "Kent cricketers".
There is a clear difference between someone who played regularly for MCC and someone who is brought in for an occasional match, providing the latter does play regularly for some other first-class club. If a minor counties player plays in a single first-class match and it is for MCC only then I suppose that makes him an "MCC cricketer" for our purposes.
The important point is that MCC is a special case: it cannot be treated like other first-class clubs. --BlackJack | talk page 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I think your points regarding the MCC are good ones and I've moderated my views a bit. I don't think the "75% figure of all players in category:English cricketers" can be accurate, simply because there are a lot of minor players who made just a few f-c appearances and who will never have represented MCC. But a sizeable proportion, certainly. As for "given men" for counties... maybe we should have specific categories for (eg) "Kent CCC players", meaning only those who played for the county after the formation of the present county club. I can and do easily accept that the current CCCs and the county sides of the mid-19th century and earlier are not the same thing.
Having said that, I like to use the categories in a slightly different way: I browse through them occasionally and think, "Oh that's interesting; I didn't know [player] had played for [team]", and it would be a shame not to be able to do this for MCC as well as for the counties. Yes, this is a minor objection and it doesn't beat your arguments, but it's worth mentioning, I think. Loganberry (Talk) 12:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise, we could have a sub-category within MCC cricketers for players for whom the MCC is not a significant part of their career. I'm not sure what it'd be called or even how you'd decide who goes in the sub-category though. Andrew nixon 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cricketer

Terry Alderman shows he bowled 10,181 overs which I think is wrong. Could someone check the template parameters as the label should say Balls, not Overs. I cannot see what's causing that (no doubt it'll be obvious). — Moondyne 07:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It looks like someone changed the syntax of the infobox so you now have to write balls=true instead of oversORballs=balls. I see this happened on 15 January although I wasn't aware of it. It's probably an improvement, but they never announced it here, or changed it on all the cricketers who are using the old syntax. I'll try and get CricketBot onto it some time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It was mentioned, here, but unfortunately I don't think anyone picked up on it much. If you are able to perhaps count how many still use oversORballs compared to updated ones, it might be worthwhile changing back to oversORballs now that there is a method for "if" statements in templates... – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. There should be no oversORballs=balls left now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's arguable, but think that most cricket-lovers would find the Overs a more useful variable to cite. After all, innings and match figures aren't analysed using balls. --Dweller 15:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, if you use balls then you don't have to worry about how many baals there were in the over, a particular problem if a player's career spanned a change in the number of balls per over. JH 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

English/England cricket team

Just noticed that English cricket team has been moved to England cricket team this morning. I thought we were having consistency on this, and having it as English cricket team, same as Indian cricket team, Australian cricket team, Canadian cricket team, etc. Andrew nixon 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary for the move says "correct name for the team, and consistency with other sports". It's true that we have (for example) Wales national rugby union team, rather than Welsh etc, so in that sense the move makes things more consistent... but as far as I can see none of the other teams have had their names changed, so that makes it less consistent! Not that it matters that much, I suppose, so long as there are redirects from all the common wordings, but still. Loganberry (Talk) 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have always thought our name was wrong. And it's been raised several times on this page, so I know I'm not the only one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. --Dweller 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
When did we discuss it last? If I remember correctly, no one was sufficiently bothered to do anything about it.
We should be consistent, whichever we choose. England cricket team (and India cricket team, and Pakistan cricket team, etc) are probably better than English cricket team (and Indian cricket team, and Pakistani cricket team, etc). Fortunately New Zealand cricket team seems to be the same either way. We need redirects in any event, though, and it may be worth asking a bot to sort out the wrong references.
Do we need "national" in the name - such as England national cricket team (currently a double redirect, incidentally)? Compare England national rugby union team and England rugby union team. That does not work for West Indies cricket team / West Indian cricket team, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I take the point about West Indies, but they are quite often referred to as a "cricketing nation", including by West Indians. (See this Google search, for example.) And "Ireland" (in the all-island sense) isn't a nation either, yet we have Ireland national rugby union team. Loganberry (Talk) 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have found:

-- ALoan (Talk) 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability problem

I've created a stub on Kashif Ahmed and someone has questioned his notability. This is a player who has played 37 first-class and 21 List A matches, played for Pakistan at the Commonwealth Games, and played in the Intercontinental Cup for the UAE. Now I think this is notable enough. However someone obviously disagrees with me. Can someone set the person straight? Andrew nixon 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not the best wording "set this person straight", but I do agree that there are no issues with being able to write an article about the person. Hence I removed the tag again. Ansell 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, this keeps coming up. You just need to cite WP:BIO which says that "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing" are automatically notable. And our own guidelines which say that for cricket that means a first-class or List A match. But it's probably better to concentrate on WP:BIO because that's a project-wide guideline, so can't be portrayed as biased towards inclusion of our favourite topic. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. Last time this came up, I think someone pointed out that including good references can help to convince the casual reader that the person is notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. With film stars etc, pointing to the IMDB entry for the person helps. The Cricinfo equivalent probably will too. Fact is that a huge proportion of Wikipedians are American and cricket seems to be a joke in that culture. I'd guess if I read that someone represented their county at, I dunno, erm, ploughing, I might question notability. If cricket is deemed trivial, then our 1st class cricketers are probably unfathomably irrelevant. --Dweller 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I recently created stubs for all participants in the cricket at the 1900 Olympics, and I had someone question the notability of one of the British players who, of course, won the gold medal. I mean, I'd have thought being an Olympic gold medalist was considered notable! It was settled thoughAndrew nixon 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worthwhile having some sort of template to subst onto the talk pages of all 'minor' cricketers. It could read something along the lines of what Stephen Turner wrote above. Hopefully that would save the effort of having to explain things every time someone complains on the grounds of notability (which seems to be quite often). Ollie 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a big deal. Someone claimed that Dulip Samaraweera with half a dozen Tests was not notable, so just remove the tag and tell them.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

team colours

I'm thinking of including team colours to the Infobox Test team and Infobox non test cricket team. How does this sound? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Make sure you point out that the colours only refers to ODIs and not Tests. GizzaChat © 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is test specific. But isn't it true that the team wears their colours on helmets and the borders of sweaters? =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The Aussies wear (baggy) green caps in Test cricket, but their ODI pyjamas are yellow. Ollie 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Its a bit more complicated than that now that their "shirt" is green. Also the Indian helmet is dark blue instead of the ODI lighter blue. GizzaChat © 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Logos

I have attempted to draw some logos in the svg format:

Feedback appreciated. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

They look very nice! What's the copyright situation, though? The {{logo}} tag says that to claim fair use, logos must be "low-resolution"... but how does that criterion apply to vector images such as those in SVG format? Loganberry (Talk) 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I had raised the issue with Raul and Brad Patrick (both ORTS members; and Brad our wiki lawyer). Brad's reply was in typical legalspeak... nothing explicit. So, from the context of what I understood, he had no clear idea on the legal issue of vector formats. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What does ORTS mean? Loganberry (Talk) 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry spelling error. It should be OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System) See OTRS. Its the team that responds to public queries and comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bodyline delisted as FA

I see Joelr31 has delisted Bodyline as a featured article. (I thought Mark Pellegrini dealt with FA matters, have things changed?) This is disappointing, particularly as the article had added a number of inline references in recent days, these were being added to - and the article was actually referenced, it was just that the references were given at the bottom of the page rather than in "inline" style. There were a number of objections to the delisting on the FA.

I'm concerned that Sydney Riot of 1879 is going the same way as it seems pretty automatic that once something is put up for featured article review, it gets delisted after a month regardless of whether objections are or are being addressed. Anytime something is fixed, those supporting delisting come up with yet another minor issue that they see as essential if the article is to remain a FA.

Recently Nichalp asked why we were not producing new featured material. If it is to be a chore to maintain something at featured standard because people come nit-picking afterwards, and delisting articles despite comments supporting the article remaining as featured, I see no incentive to write FAs. jguk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit creep can be a real problem with featured articles, and disillusioning for the experts involved with them. But I would have thought that nless the quality of the article has degraded over time, the article should not have been de-listed (or not listed in the first place).
Unfortunately, as is pointed out on the discussion page If articles don't meet FA criteria after an FARC period, they're defeatured. All I can suggest is that the article is brought back up to featured article standard and goes through WP:FAC again. Ollie 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved Bodyline out of the "featured articles" section on the project page and put it in a "former featured articles" section. It seems a shame to delete it all together from the page, and it might attract the attention of some editors willing to do the remedial work required to get it back up to featured standard. Ollie 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
By the end of today, thanks to Dmmaus, the article will have full inline citations for every claim made!!! It gets delisted on Sunday and added straight back to FACs on Monday. Great. jguk 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It may be quicker to add it back to FARC (as the improvements are continuing) rather than going via FAC. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations has been a sticking point for Bodyline, which is no longer a featured article. If lack of inline citations is going to be a reason for articles losing their featured status, it would seem that History of Test cricket (to 1883), History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889) and Cricket could be in trouble in the near future. Perhaps we could pre-empt this by starting some remedial work now, checking against the criteria at WP:WIAFA? I am going to have a go with Cricket at some point soon. Ollie 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its time to start increasing the quality, not quantity of cricket related articles now. We already have a page for every international cricketer, whether he played in Tests or ODIs. A shift towards keeping the current FAs and creating new ones needs to be done. GizzaChat © 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. We have not provided anywhere enough coverage even in "stub" terms of cricket as a subject, especially from the historical standpoint. Instead of worrying about features to try and claim a few kudos, why not think about the readers who are looking for information about certain players, seasons, clubs, events and cannot find them because we haven't done our job yet? What is needed is a full set of articles in all categories, even if the vast majority are two-line stubs, to give us all something to work on and then develop towards "feature status", which to me means a completed article.
I notice that The Ashes was once a featured article and this is outrageous because it was completely inadequate and, despite recent efforts by several people, it remains very incomplete. The fact that this article was selected proves that the "judges" do not understand what they are reading and are in no position to make judgments. Lets forget this nonsense and get on with providing the readers with full coverage. --BlackJack | talk page 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Nearly every photograph available online or in printed media (books, magazines, newspapers) is protected by copyright. This stands in the way of efforts to create high-standard biographical articles on Wikipedia. However it is highly likely that many Wikipedia editors have personally-taken photographs of players and this project would be advanced greatly if more of those photos were "donated" under free licence. Darcyj 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Flickr can be useful, if you're careful to use the advanced search and to tick all three of the Creative Commons boxes at the bottom (otherwise you get non-commercial-only pics, which are no use to us). Searching for "cricket" brings up these results - lots of pictures of insects, but plenty of our sort of cricket too. I found the picture used on the Twenty20 article there. (NB: there appear to be a couple more hoops to jump through with Flickr images now than there were when I uploaded that one.) Loganberry (Talk) 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New articles created at their talk page

Someone (from IP addresses in the 210.55.X.X range) is creating new articles for cricket players at their talk pages. See for example, Talk:Amandeep Singh and Talk:Abe Bailey among many others. I moved one, but don't want to spend the time fixing them all, especially since I don't know if the information is good. I've asked at the help desk if there's any way to contact this person and teach them how to create pages properly. You can find the pages by looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles and following the red links. Ingrid 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You've taken the words right off my keyboard. Yesterday I found John Willes in its own talk page but, as this player was on my to-do list, I expanded it and stored it as an article. There have been recent examples with Diver and carpenter that I know of too. --BlackJack | talk page 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Barrie Meyer is another example, but I didn't think there was much point moving it until the article could be expanded from its current substub size. JH 10:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, that means the vegan vandal is back. He completely ignores any attempt to educate him. And in the past some of his edits have been true vandalism, particularly adding Category:Vegans to random people, and adding nonsense to Darryl Strawberry. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

H'mm! I suspect it is the same person who added drivel to Thomas Lord back in March and got away with until just now. The IP address of that one was 213.78.88.50. --BlackJack | talk page 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bodyline references

I've just gone through and added a heap of references to Bodyline, hitting all the citation needed spots. However, there are still a couple of statements in there that will probably be picked out before we can get it relisted as a Featured Article. Please check the Talk:Bodyline page and see if you can help get this page re-Featured. -dmmaus 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_24&oldid=945309970"