Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

West Indian cricket team in England in 1900

I'd appreciate comments/style issues on this (or even better, make changes yourself). I've use an Infobox which doesn't really fit the bill. I could do with one for a tour rather than a series. (not relevant here but for most tours you might want to list say leading first-class run scorers on the tour as well as leading Test run scorers in the series). Also used a minor variation on the new score template which lets me put in little more than the scores - planning to add more later. Have currently preferred West Indians to West Indies, the latter being traditionally reserved for representative matches (eg Tests) Nigej 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good effort, sir. There are a few areas were it needs a bit of stylistic tweaking, and I will have a go when I have time, but the content is the thing, and this wins in spades. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) promoted

Hello all, just a quick note to say thanks to everyone who helped, supported, commented (and even objected!) to the promotion of Bill O'Reilly to FA, the article was elevated yesterday evening. Good work everyone. The Rambling Man 07:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The mischevious side of me thinks it might be a good idea to get it on the main page on 10 September, the other Bill O'Reilly's birthday... Andrew nixon 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL! Excellent idea! I suspect Raul654 would like it. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work, all.--Eva ^bd 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job!--THUGCHILDz 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Henderson (writer)

The article on Robert Henderson of "Is it in the blood" infamy has been nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Henderson (writer). The opinions of WP:CRIC members, for and against, may be useful. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fourth umpire

Should this be merged into third umpire? —Moondyne 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced they should be merged in to third umpire but I do agree they should be merged in to the same article, perhaps to Reserve umpires? AllynJ 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good article title, since the third umpire is not a reserve in the usual sense of the word. Loganberry (Talk) 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As there is a distinct role here that is not performed by the other umpires, perhaps we should keep it as a very short article, but make sure that there are references to it in both umpire (cricket) and third umpire. Johnlp 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Same view as Johnlp. Tintin 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Johnlp.--THUGCHILDz 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Saqibul Hasan

Both Cricinfo and CricketArchive have changed the name on their profile's of this player to 'Shakib Al Hasan'. At the moment I have that name as a redirect but do you think we should move our article to that page? He still seems to be refered to on TV and elsewhere as Saqibul. Perhaps this is a case similar to Younis Khan where he has recently come out and said that the press have been saying his name incorrectly. Crickettragic 22:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

During the recent ODI series with India I noticed his shirt had "Al Hasan" on it, and the South Asian broadcasters were also calling him "Shakib Al Hasan" (on scorecards) - I must admit I would be more likely to believe their spelling than the one used in the World Cup, where he was Saqibul. I'm not sure what to do about it, personally... I'm thinking Shakib Al Hasan would be more correct, but I have no experience with Bangladeshi names nor language. AllynJ 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Change it, if his shirt says Al Hasan than it's more likely to be Al Hasan and since cricinfo and cricketarchive changed it, it should be more clear, plus he might have just changed his name to Al Hasan so just change it.--THUGCHILDz 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the page, seemed pretty clear that he is going to be refered to as Shakib Al Hasan from here on in. Thanks guys. Crickettragic 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Johnston

Another of the 'Invincibles' is gone. His page will get a few hits today I bet, a pity therefore that the link goes straight to an American tennis player, rather than the cricketer! Is there anything to be done about that? Nick mallory 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I will upload my upgrades now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanded. I wonder if any newspapers will copy my obit. They used Polly Umrigar by Tintin last year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrific work Blnguyen, well done. Nick mallory 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear, great job. There's now just five invincibles remaining: Neil Harvey (b.1928), Bill Brown (cricketer) (b.1912), Sam Loxton (b.1921), Arthur Morris (b.1922) and Ron Hamence (b.1915). —Moondyne 09:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've upped his importance rating from "low" to "mid", which I think is the least that it should be. JH (talk page) 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags & Template:300 ODI wickets club, etc

In the above template and all of the others of that ilk, the country names have been replaced with those lovely little flag icons. I'm no fan of them, and I don't like them in the templates, but I though I would see what others opinon of them were. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It might just be my tendency to lean on the side of minimalism, but I like them. A flag is just a synonym for a country when I read, maybe it's just me. AllynJ 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I created the Elite Umpires template, I did look at a version with flags and without flags, and I must admit I think they look better sans flags. The problem with them, in my opinion, is that they draw the eye away from the names and make the template look more cluttered than they could be. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the flag versions, but I do agree that the templates are better without them. Apart from visual clutter, we shouldn't be using images alone to convey information. If the aim is to communicate which country the players are from, it should be in text, and the flags, if any, used in addition to the text, which would defeat the idea of minimalism that AllynJ speaks of. JPD (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think adding flags would cause a debate, but it's nice to see people noticing. The reason I added them was because I felt having a person's country written in text in brackets next to their name looked a little clumsy. From what you are saying it seems the problem is not the look of the flags themselves but the clutter they cause (mainly when there are many players/umpires in a template). Maybe if the template's are altered so that they are all of a uniform size - resulting in nearly all being larger, as opposed to how they are now - sized relative to contents, then the flags wouldn't appear to be cluttering as much? Also I'd like to point out that in case of templates like the All-rounder's double/triple you already have text right of the name for how many tests it took for player to reach the landmark, which seems alright to me, but having (ENG) or whatever in addition to that would look worse in my opinion than a flag to the left of the name. Regardless, if the most people aren't fans of the flags I'll be happy to switch back to the text. Muzher 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the flags much better than the abbreviated country name. I think the templates look better now than before. Kalyan 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now made all the templates relating to players/umpires in the cricket navigational boxes category of width 80%, and also formatted the code better so it easier to see/edit the list of players/umpires for each template. I think the templates now look less cluttered with the flags thanks to the increased size, but I would like to hear what others think. Also I'd appreciate it if someone could check the templates to make sure I have made a mistake. Finally, I've noticed that the templates, for players/umpires, aren't all consistent in the ordering of people. Some have the names ordered alphabetically, some from highest to lowest (for wickets,runs etc.) and some are ordered differently (I can't see how). We need to agree on a way to order the names, so that all the templates, for players/umpires can be made conisistent with each other. Also some have small text indicating the amount of caps/tests for that player to the right of their name. We need to agree whether to include each person's number of wickets/runs/matches/whatever in the templates. Personally I think there are two possibilities: Order alphabetically without any small text indicating wickets etc. or order by number of wickets/runs/whatever and include the small text showing the number of wickets/runs/whatver. Your thoughts? Muzher 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My objections don't end with clutter. Who knows and can spot the difference between and ? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Squad template

User:Crickettragic seems very keen on these. I think they look ugly and add nothing to an article, except maybe during a tournament, especially as such things as playing in the World Cup should be mentioned in the article anyway. Can we come to a consensus on this? Andrew nixon 08:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should all be deleted and replaced by categories. Categories are a much less intrusive way to convey the same information. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this before, and I still agree with Stephen Turner that these should be deleted. A player who takes part in several tournaments ends up with several of these intrusive templates. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see how many 'click throughs' these templates actually get. The editing community seems split over the idea, but we have no indication of what the readership thinks. I wouldn't want to see a useful navigation tool (if that is what these templates are) gotten rid of. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Steady on soldier! I wouldn't say I was 'keen' on them .. I've only made a couple. I have previously made one for Bermuda and today I created one for Namibia from the 2003 WC. Now the players from these sides are unlikely to feature in many World Cups in the future so there is little to no danger of them piling up on a page. Also there is obviously less to write about on Namibian and Bermudian player's pages so I'd like to think the template adds something to what are generally very short articles.Crickettragic 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this issue has resurfaced again. There is absolutely no reason to have these templates in existence - we are essentially being selective and NPOV in which tournaments we decide to make squad templates for (against WP policy). They serve no useful purpose on pages other than the specific Cricket World Cup (or otherwise) squad pages. That's the only place we should see squad lists shown, and that's the way it should stay. As for your point Crickettragic about having just some boxes depending on article length, well, it can't really be like that unfortunately. Consistency is the best thing to have - we either have every squad template or none. mdmanser 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no NPOV in deciding the tournaments to have the squad templates. It is used consistently with WC sports like football (check Ronaldo). Kalyan 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against removing these templates. Can someone give me one good reason why the templates for WC participation removed? These players were part of the squad for the WC and hence the boxes should be retained on their wikipage. For example, please look at the Football - Ronaldo has entries from his participation in '94, '98, '02 and '06 WC. Asthetics cannot be used for removing a squad box - if so, we should never have template boxes in not only cricket but in any wiki page, just categories. Kalyan 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, the soccer pages would be better without them as well. Just because they have them doesn't mean we need to use them. Having said that, WC participation is less relevant to cricket than soccer, anyway. JPD (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, please tell me one sport where you support using squad boxes. Kalyan 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is wrong with having categories instead of the templates? Andrew nixon 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong in having categories, but for WCs, other sports do use Squad boxes. we can have cats for CWC, but in addition to squad boxes and not as replacement. Why no objection when football / rugby uses squad boxes but object for cricket. Kalyan 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to them there too, but I don't edit those sports. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist; it's quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. - but what if the article under question is a Featured Article? The corollary is also true - Following FA article leads helps one in arriving at a GA/FA level article. Please check Bill Russell - FA article. Look at the number of squad boxes in the FA article. Once again, let me state this - the squad boxes we have are non-standard in size and are not "hidden" mode by default. If we make these changes to the squad box template, we can ensure that the boxes remain non-intrusive. Kalyan 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd still rather debate the merits of the templates rather than say "they do it, so should we". Bill Russell looks a mess to me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall I mention my favourite example of navigational templates gone mad? You know who. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And he's missing his three World Cup squad template boxes! Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have that many anyway. He has English Test double (1000 runs/100 wickets), All-rounder's double (2000 runs/200 wickets) and All-rounders triple (3000 runs/300 wickets). He should only have the All-rounder's triple, since it covers the other two. Likewise he has two boxes for the sports personality of the year, there should only be one. Muzher (Talk) (Forgot to sign)

Actually, English Test double is not redundant. Remember the point of the template is not to list his achievements (which is better done in the text) but to list other people with the same achievement.

I think we should have 2000 runs/200 wickets or 3000 runs/300 wickets but not both. (And whoever made the 3000/300 was confused what the "double" was in the title of the 2000/200).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Schofield Report

Should there be an article on this? [1] The report itself seems pretty sensible to me, for once, in wanting to toughen the England team a bit and reduce the one day stuff. I'm glad they didn't come out advocating anything ridiculous like getting rid of counties, 'regional cricket' or any further reduction in four day first class cricket. Nick mallory 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was contemplating posing this very same question. :p Yes, I definitely think it passes any notability questions, and that it should be created. AllynJ 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone remember what it said in a years time? Five? I just don't think there is anything radical enough there to warrant an article (bar killing off pro40, which could go in the relevant article). That said, I'm not particularly opposed to the idea of an article - I'm sure a decent one could be written. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone remember what it said in a years time? Five? That's a good question. Who now remembers the Clark Report from the 1970s, which had an enormous amount of publicity at the time? (Though admittedly most of its far-reaching recommendations were rejected.) It wasn't even mentioned in David Clark's own article until I added something on it a week or two ago. JH (talk page) 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FLC on Indian national cricket captains

Hi., i re-submitted the above list page for FLC after ensuring that the data is upto date till May 22, 2007 as well as added atleast one para pages on all players who have captained India in various forms of the game. I want to ensure that the article re-possesses its FL status. Please provide votes by clicking here.
Thanks - Kalyan 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dicky Rutnagur

I've written a stub for him, but does anyone know what his initials, DJ, stand for? I imagine that "Dicky" is a nickname rather than his real first name. JH (talk page) 15:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir Ian Botham!

I think ALoan should have the honour of changing the name. Nick mallory 16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

I'm concerned about just how closely Richard Miller (cricketer) resembles [2]. It seems to be an almost word for word copy. I hope that this is an isolated case. JH (talk page) 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Of the three players that I chose at random, all of them were virtually lifted from that page. They're all created by User:BlackJack too, but he's wikibreaking at the moment so we can't ask him whether he had permission. The author does say that Information on this site may be used in other published material on condition that my authorship is clearly acknowledged, but I don't believe that is compatible with GFDL (and we aren't currently giving credit!). →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I looked at the "From Lads to Lord's" site towards the end of April, it contained a rant about Wikipedia, but that now seems to have been removed, so it may be that the two of them have since made their peace. I left a message on BlacjJack's talk tage at the time: User_talk:BlackJack/Archive 4#John_Leach.27s website and he responded (rather cryptically) on mine: User_talk:Jhall1#From Lads to Lord's JH (talk page) 20:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack has said that he will be back in the autumn. As the articles are properly referenced there should be no problem that can't wait for his return. Johnlp 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rash comment removed. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was trying not to say that... and now you haven't either. Johnlp 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly rash, but enlightening. It has put my mind at rest. JH (talk page) 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a case of an author freely granting his material to another publication in which he has an active interest. It is not a breach of copyright because he is the author and he has chosen to publish it in three different places (all free to readers, incidentally). It is not original research because it has been published elsewhere and he does always quote Buckley, Waghorn, Haygarth & Co. as his sources. Unlike Waghorn, Jack will always give a primary source such as an 18th century newspaper if he knows it.

Note also that, as in the case of Richard Miller, where "From Lads to Lord's" is mentioned it is given as an external link and not as a reference or even an external source.

The rant about Wikipedia was unfortunate and was written at a time when he had a major dispute with Wikipedia over an admin matter which resulted in the loss of a substantial piece of valid work that had to be redone. Unfortunately he forgot to remove the rant immediately afterwards and it was User:JH who pointed it out as stated above. Jack made his peace with Wikipedia several weeks before he went abroad in April. Indeed he may be back on the site quite soon as he returns to England this weekend, although he has said he wants to spend the summer pursuing another project. I am looking after his material in the meantime, when I can, and trying to reduce his stubs. It is not easy! --GeorgeWilliams 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, George, for that very full explanation. As you no doubt realise, I hadn't realised that the two people were one and the same until I followed up the link in the "rash comment" and light dawned. From what you've said, I asssume that it's no longer a secret that they are the same person. There's a risk that someone else in the future could make the same mistake as I did, but might take it straight to WP admin rather than raise it here first, which could be awkward. JH (talk page) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It has never been a secret, JH. When he joined Wikipedia he used his real name for a while and then changed it to BlackJack which has a family connection. I wonder if he were to put something in his own site to the effect that permission has been given for his material to be used by Wikipedia, would that head off any possible problems about copyright? --GeorgeWilliams 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea. JH (talk page) 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is. Hello everyone. Thanks for your help here, George. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FL nom? - List of Cricket World Cup records

Is there any reason why this wikipage has not been nominated for FL already? I found the article to be current and am planning for a FLC once my current nomination - Indian national cricket captains passes FL. On the same topic, i have seen a lot of FL level lists in Cricket. Can we put in some effort and get all of these thru at the earliest? Kalyan 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason is nobleeagle who was the user who made the list and did an excellent job at that, left before he could nominate it or update it accordingly to the 2007 cwc but yeah go ahead with it.--THUGCHILDz 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is this?

[3]. I am guessing its Errol Hunte in the 1930-31 WI tour of Australia in which case its probably a useful public domain photo. The source seems a bit unsure so I was looking for another opinion. —Moondyne 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

KP

Hi,

Just thought I'd let you all know the Kevin Pietersen has had a lot of work and attention in the last couple of days and is surely near to a FA push. If anyone can take a look and give some views it will give a focus on what needs to be done. It is now substantially referenced. I feel quite a bit of attention now needs to go on the prose as well as some general copyediting and fleshing out of some of the shorter 'series' paragraphs.

–MDCollins (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. It's the first thing brought up in any FA candidacy - right now it's one paragraph, and sums up where he was born, what his role is as a cricketer and a few records. That's not a enough. It needs paragraphs worth of information in it. If you want me to copyedit I can do that sometime in the next 48h, but you definitely need to expand the lead heftily first. Sorry if it's a bit blunt but it's an area where a large majority of FA candidates are brought up on, even when they're much much longer than this. Thanks. AllynJ 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I began work on this article at about the same time without realising someone was already on it. The lead obviously needs work, but it's normally easiest to do that after the rest of the article is finished. As you said, a little more detail in some of the subsections, and a good copyedit should weed out most of the problems. I spotted a few, but there's probably some more hyphens instead of dashes in the text (WP:DASH is a pain sometimes). But it's coming along nicely. Trebor 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of info about the race quota in RSA, and why Pietersen left. Especially since he condemned the UCB of RSA a lot and then they told him off as well, and his hostile debut in RSA. Also there should be more about the much discussed psychology of Pietersen and how he pees off the Australians with his counter-agression. As Well, didn't he have a big fight with his first county team - the one before Hampshire? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All valid points - I was aware the lead needed rewriting. The fall out with Notts is mentioned already, could be expanded a little, as can the quota - although a detailed study of the quota system doesn't belong here. –MDCollins (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest not trying to get it promoted too quickly. Give it a peer review first before going for FA. HornetMike 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Done that! –MDCollins (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent deaths

I added a new box on the project page. —Moondyne 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need it though?--THUGCHILDz 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful as a centralised announcement spot. If you think not, I'm not bothered. —Moondyne 05:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I would think the portal would be a better place but the INT there should cover it.--THUGCHILDz 06:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Portal and ITN are announcements for readers. The project page is for editors. —Moondyne 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea. The cricketer's profile is bound to get more hits when he dies and extra stuff gleaned from obituaries can be added. As was noted before on one occasion it's an ideal time to make sure the chap's article is as good as possible and this box is a good place to check up on an article which may need improving. Nick mallory 07:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Archer

Ron Archer died yesterday. See BBC report. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian cricket team in Scotland in 2007

Was switched yesterday from a redirect page to Indian cricket team in England in 2007#India in Scotland to a seperate series article about one ODI. I don't really think that's necessary, do you? Switch it back? HornetMike 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it all on one page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Put it all on one page and change the title to India tour of England and Scotland. Andrew nixon 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup group stage - Is this an article or list?

Hi., i was wondering if this is a list page or article page. I am bent towards marking it list because inspite of the commentary and all other data, this is the list of matches as well as the summary of results for the group stages. The same is the case with 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eight stage wikipage. I think that these articles look great in current shape and can be listed for FL/FA candidature, if we get photos added. Let me know your thoughts. I am not inclined to wait for another 4 years to close these articles and get them thru FA/FL cycle.Kalyan 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say they are articles but I guess it could be bent towards Lists. Anyways let me know what kind of pictures you would like, I'll look for them.--THUGCHILDz 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for as many WC2007 photos. Since my current interest is with the indian team, i noticed that apart from Dravid and Bhajji, most of the current and even past indian cricketers dont even have one photo. can you please upload as many cricketers snaps as possible. Kalyan 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe they are articles as opposed to lists; they are not just lists of results and statistics, they're analysis of the matches. Maybe it's me. *shrug* AllynJ 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see talk page of similar article. After i saw the comment, i was OK with it. I reviewed all the 2007 cricket articles, atleast as an overview. If you think they are good to go for GAN, i think you should submit them and i can review and post them as GA as appropriate.Kalyan 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One Test Wonder

This slowly seems to be turning into a sub-list of list of Test cricketers - those who have only played in one Test. Presuambly there are several hundred... If this a useful thing to be doing? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be little more than a collection of trivia. I wouldn't oppose a category designed for it, but a page devoted to it? Hrrm, I say no. AllynJ 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless. Should be deleted. --GeorgeWilliams 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At best, it wants renaming to List of cricketers who have played only one Test match, and when you give it that title it becomes more ovbious that it wants getting rid of. The term One test wonder might warrant inclusion in List of cricket terms, but it's a bit neologism-ish for me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have edited the "lead" section (the meat of the article), adding some references, etc - the term is used by multiple sources, from the Bearded Wonder to Cricinfo. But the list is problematic, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What if they played one Test and didn't do any good. Some guys played one games and have 0 runs, wickets, catches. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the article and its name, but the list should be replaced with a link to Category:Cricketers who have played in only one Test match. —Moondyne 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a list of players who made a single appearance because if so then there is no point unless we are going to have other lists of players with two appearances, three appearances, 132 appearances and so on. If the list is of one match players who are deemed to have been "wonders" then we are into POV territory, which is where Blnguyen is coming from. The only thing to be done with this list is to delete it. If Cricinfo started this off then they should find better ways of spending their time: they might try editing some of their "historical material", for example. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to have an article on the term "One Test Wonder", like we have one on the term "nightwatchman". It is not my fault that people feel impelled to add an ever-expanding list to it. (Somewhat bizarrely, I see nightwatchman has its own list...) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

can we add a subtitle - Review to the "To do" section on top of the Talk page that would consists of the current FAC, FLC, GAN, FPC and other nominations. This would provide a reminder for people accessing the talk page on the current nominations to which reviews are requested. Let me know your thoughts. Kalyan 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just add them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FLC Annoucement - 2007 Cricket World Cup squads

Hi., i have nominated 2007 Cricket World Cup squads for FL. Please share share your thoughts here. Thanks. Kalyan 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist

Anyone noticed this ([4]) edit?

I was thinking about annotating this as "occasional", but:

1. Does his bowling even qualify as occasional (rather than never!)
2. With this edit, the fact that he plays as a wicketkeeper is missing from the info box

Views welcomed. --Dweller 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, 2 overs were bowled in this match!!

I'd revert it. While many wicketkeepers may bowl very very occasionally, I can't think of any you'd describe as bowlers. The odd instance in which he may turn his over might be added into the prose, but as the infobox is a snapshot of a career, my view would suggest WK should prevail.

With however a batsman who may occasionally bowl, and may occasionally keep wicket a problem may arise. For example Marcus Trescothick has bowled his medium pace (possibly spin as well?), but was also a useful reserve keeper.

This could lead to a seperate, optional, field for Fielding Position/Wicketkeeper, which could I suppose be expanded to allow the inclusion of Slip field specialists (Warne) or Cover specialists (Rhodes) for example.

That's my 2p... –MDCollins (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember him having also bowled for Western Australia on one occasion. Wicketkeeping should definitely have precedence in the infobox, but I don't see why it couldn't say something like Wicketkeeper (occasional right-arm...). JPD (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Les Ames was quite a useful bowler, although he didn't get much chance to bowl for obvious reasons. --LiamE 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the box big enough? And could the field still say Bowling?? (He's actually bowled 38 balls, including a spell of 0.1-0-0-1 (for Young Australians).!–MDCollins (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it the 38 balls are in first class matches? I think it should be put on two lines within the one field. Any mention of wicketkeeping in infoboxes is already in the field labelled bowling. Maybe that shoudl be changed, but I'm not really that keen on a fielding field. Apart from the subjectivity of when to include it for slips fielders, etc, wicketkeeping is on the same level as bowling, not being a cover specialist, so using the same field for both doesn't seem right. JPD (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well how about we add an optional with something like specialist fielding and the field would be used for 'keeper most of the time as I don't think anyone was ever a specialist fielder other than being a 'keeper.--THUGCHILDz 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Hannibal mask"

Thought you guys might be interested... see Simon Guy, Yorkshire's wicket-keeper. --Dweller 09:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that was interesting, wonder what he'll do if the ball hits him in the head, though most times it shouldn't.--THUGCHILDz 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jardine Woodfull.jpg

I uploaded this yesterday and added it to Bill Woodfull and Bodyline. however an anon altered the caption because they don't think that the person on the RHS is Jardine. I am not sure. It doesn't look like the Jardine pic in Douglas Jardine, but then again, it is definitely Woodfull even though he doesn't look the same without his cap. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is Jardine. I would have gone with it if the picture of him on Douglas Jardine and this one were separated by a number of years, but they are claiming to be from the same year. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian fast bowler Tim Wall? --Jpeeling 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It is Tim Wall. And the guy on the left is definitely Woodfull. But what you should really be asking is the identity of the old boy in the middle. He's a legend. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Clem Hill ? Tintin 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but same era. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong ? But he was much taller. Tintin 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And broader. From another photo I have which was taken around that time, I reckon that is the one and only Monty Noble. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricket tour stub types

There are now over 600 stub articles about cricket tours, so these could do with being split someway, I have proposed at WP:WSS/P to split it by country toured as this was the only way that I could see them split in the permanent category. However it has since been pointed out that they are also split by the country doing the touring. Any views as to which way would be the most useful split would be very welcome. Waacstats 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to this at the project page and suggested they go with the country toured view as Waacstats has taken the trouble to create all the redlinks. Other than that, it doesn't really matter which view is used as they are only managing volumes at this level. At permcat level it is of course very useful to have the dual view. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding community generated content to cricket project

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Participants →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good day to all WikiProject Cricket Participants,

I'm employed and for this instance represent a website featuring community generated content on various content, including Cricket.

I believe our content can be a substantial reference for most cricket articles on Wiki, but I do not wish to barge in putting up links and generally would rather consult with wiki veterans rather than making mistakes.

Who can I contact for consulting? is there a leading editor\director to this project?

Feel free to add a messsage or simply e-mail me at tr@sportingo.com

All the best

Sportingo 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can use your site as a reference per se, as it is user generated content just like Wikipedia - therefore it is not considered reliable. You could link to relevant pages under the External links heading though, as long as it keeps within the external links guidelines. Just my interpretation of policy though, don't take it as gospel. Thanks for taking the time to ask first! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your reply - it actually brings up some more questions to mind: 1. I thought it's not acceptable to add external links to your own site as you suggest here, am I wrong about this? 2. The content on Sportingo is actually very reliable - since it goes through a professional editorial process (the editorial process is not by the community), facts are verified and the content is even published on some well knows news sites- I would safely state that it is as reliable as any other sport\news website. 3. I will take a second look at the external links policy, any further advice\information will be greatly appreciated.

Sportingo 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's generally considered poor form to add external links to your own site, the thought being that if it's "good" enough someone else will have added it. If the content goes through a professional editorial process to check for inaccuracies, then it could be useful as a source; you may wish to look at our reliable source guideline to see if your site appears to fit. Trebor 13:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now know the site and so like Trebor said if it's good enough other people will use it anyway, so no worries there. But I don't think you should use links to your own site.--THUGCHILDz 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say that, especially since you are a paid-up representitive of the site, this could look like an attempt at linkspamming. The combination of the url and your username will flag it up to the uninitiated quite quickly. It's also worth pointing out that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags on all it's external links, so you wont gain anything in terms of search engine ranking by adding your url.

Having said that, if this is a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, I won't oppose it. Personally, I see no issue with adding the site as a reference - as long as it is a valid reference, i.e. a proper footnote citation to a specific article in support of a specific fact.

However, I only speak for myself there, you might well find others feel differently. If you do decide to proceed, I'd do it cautiously. I would also suggest that you read this guideline And of course, a good way to convince others that you are not just here to promote the website would be to fnd some other jobs to do as well! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian team - tech. incorrect to call it a representation of national colors

"The Indian cricket team is an international cricket team representing India.' is the first statement in the wikiarticle Indian national cricket team. I think this representation is incorrect. The Indian crickte team does not represent India but represents only BCCI, a private trust (there was a Madras High court case sometime back). The only team that represented India was at the 1998 Asian Games in KL. Also, the BCCI is completely independent of Govt of India action - the Sports ministry has no authority over BCCI.

The reason i added the note here is that i am sure that this might be the case for some of the other cricket teams as well.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vimalkalyan (talk • contribs).

It's always seemed strange to me that this is an issue in Indians' minds, because the situation is exactly the same for every other country. I don't think any country's team represents the national government rather than the national cricket board. That doesn't stop us saying that the England team represents England, even though it represents the ECB not the British government. I have never understood what the issue is here.

PS Please sign your messages on talk pages. Thanks.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ueah I don't see the issue there, almost no team represents the government of a country but it still does represent the country.--THUGCHILDz 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know a lot of Indians and they would certainly say their team represents 'India' without a second thought. This one's a storm in a teacup. Nick mallory 12:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to sign-off last time around. i dont know if other countries' have sports ministries with nominees from the Ministry of Sports being part or overseeing the operations of the boards of respective sports. In India, all major sports incl. Tennis, Hockey, Football has Ministry of Sports nominees in their board and hence they technically represent the country. The confusion with cricket is two fold - (1) BCCI is registered as a private trust and the country's laws doesn't have a definition for sports trust (as in UK and Aus) (2) In a court judgement a few years back, a state high court ruled that "indian national cricket team" does not represent the country but represents the board and hence the confusion in the mind of indian fans.
But since the topic has already whetted quite a few times, the case stands closed for me. Thanks for the clarification - Kalyan 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the same way for most international sports, no. In the USA, our national hockey team is chosen and administered by USA Hockey, but the teams are representative of the United States. Likewise, our cricket team has been chosen and administered by the USACA, but it is representative of the entire country. Seems like a non-issue to me.--Eva ^bd 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The key point here is that representing a country is not the same thing as representing the government, whateverthe high court says. This is particularly true in a sporting sense, where "representative" usually means that it is selected from all the players in the country. No government involvement is needed for this to be true. (The ECB represents an area that doesn't even have a government corresponding to the area it represents! The Indian government may only allow things such as flags and so on to be used when there is government involvement, but that has nothing to do with the basic sporting use of the word "represent". JPD (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

creating Articles

I am starting to create articles but I have only created the appropiate infobox. Please do not delete the article as they all fulfill the notablity criteria. The reason why I have just created the infobox is because I have little expereince on writing articles and writing prose is not my forte, so if you come across one of my articles can you please expand if possible but please do not delete Thankyou 02blythed 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles must state why a subject is notable in the body of the article, and I don't think an infobox does that satisfactorily. I fully expect any infobox only articles will be nominated for deletion, and sorry to say it, but I'd support their deletion. All that is needed is something like this...

Player X is/was an nationality cricketer/former cricketer. A (right/left) handed batsman and whatever style bowler, he played x Tests and y One-Day Internationals for Whatever cricket team between 1st date and 2nd date. Wikified and notability clearly stated. Andrew nixon 19:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this article surfice so as to not get deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdur_rahim ( am unable to find out if they are a right/left ahnd batsmen and also there bowling type and also for some their date of birth) 02blythed 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, blimey - played in one List A match in 2000-1; out for 0 in his only innings, and did not bowl. Are we really saying that he is notable? (If so, it would help to put him under a title with the correct capitalisation - Abdur Rahim - rather than Abdur rahim with lower-case "r".) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I've moved the article and tried to clean it up a little. Unsurprisingly, the article is an orphan and given Rahim's lack of any sort of achievement it may well remain so. He does, just, satisfy the notability criteria... but "just" is the word! Loganberry (Talk) 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed you've made half a dozen pages today including, Ahsanullah hasan, Abu khaled, Abdullah al mamun and Adil ahmed. It's great work mate but please remember to spell their surnames with capital letters. Crickettragic 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While no one from here may delete the article, it is very likely that someone outside would. To avoid trouble, may I suggest that articles in this format be created in the user-space and moved to the main space only after some text is added. Tintin 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll write the prose, you do the info boxes, we're desperately short of articles on Bangladeshi first class cricketers so this should be encouraged as much as possible. Nick mallory 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)