Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

List of English Test cricketers

I was going to put this on jguk's Talk page, but I think he deserves wider recognition so I'm putting it here: List of English Test cricketers is building into a tremendously useful page, especially for those of us who do a lot of biographical articles! So thank you very much - this is going to save me a lot of time and effort, and (even in its current incomplete state) deserves to be widely known about. Loganberry (Talk) 22:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So good, you had to mention it twice at some point. ;) Have to agree, though, splendid work jguk! Sam Vimes 23:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And thank you to you as well for expanding it so much of late! Loganberry (Talk) 15:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I've got a spreadsheet for doing it, though, so it hardly counts. ;) On this, though, Ian has done some splendid work on List of Australian Test cricketers, but unfortunately there's some inconsistent formatting. While I agree that including catches and stumpings are useful, the measure of an over has changed so much over time that using it will automatically result in problems. Someone who bowled 677 overs in the 1920s, for example, bowled more balls than someone bowling 800 overs in the 1990s. So I think we should have some kind of consistent formatting for these pages - which needn't be the option used on either page, but some kind of compromise. It needs to be done quickly, though, before we continue to add things Sam Vimes 20:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Must admit I rather prefer the Australian list's formatting on the whole, though it would be a shame to lose precise first and last Test dates. But I agree with you that it would be much better to use balls rather than overs throughout, especially since the Aussies had eight-ball overs until comparatively recently. Loganberry (Talk) 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I had the Aussie one half done in excel format from a project I was working on from some time ago. From memory the data came mostly from here and here. I agree that balls would be preferable to overs (howstat reports overs), but I can't for the life of me find a table with that data. You'd have to go to Crincinfo for each individual I suppose. Unless someone can point to something specific, can we agree that we'll change the Aussie table to balls at some later time. I had a go at including a few other columns like 50's and 100's for batsmen, and 5wkInns and 10wkmatches for bowlers but there was just not room as it started to get very cluttered. As per formatting differences (career start/end dates, catches/stumpings, headings) it's a matter of opinion of course, but I think I prefer the Aussie table. - Ian ≡ talk 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well - I think I've figured out a way of including the dates - take a look at User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox. That unfortunately removed maidens and runs conceded, but I don't think they're vital statistics. Point is that I'd like to get a format hammered out before we start on the other eight lists Sam Vimes 08:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Had a look at your Sandbox table, and I think it's very nice. As for balls bowled, I suspect that in the end those doing the tables will indeed have to go to Cricinfo for every single cricketer, which is going to be boring and tedious but I can't see any other way to do it. I'm happy to agree to make "balls" the aim but leave it in the Aussies' case until there's time to edit it. Loganberry (Talk) 15:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the way I did it for the English - my spreadsheet means that it in fact it's rather quick to do, I can manage 40 in 15 minutes if I concentrate. Tedious, yes, but most tasks are in the end :) Sam Vimes 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that the dates look awful! I can see why you've done it that way but I feel that a year would be adequate if they're going to have to look like 1877-03-15. If someone wants more detail they can always click on the player name link. I agree everything else though. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

List of cricket commentators

I've been working on an edit to the List of cricket commentators to make it look nicer and provide more useful information -- see User:Ngb/List of cricket commentators. Before I move it into the main articlespace I would value any edits from people who can fill in any missing information or add other well-known commentators, particularly about writers and commentators for non-English broadcasters and newspapers (who I have, unfortunately, only limited knowledge of). --Ngb 08:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where's Foxy Fowler gone? The problem with this list is I imagine it'll be impossible to complete, though if expanded it would probably be quite an interesting list. I think "first-class playing career" should replace "professional playing career" - not because I'm a fan of Blowers and want his performances for Cambridge to be added, but because I imagine many amateur cricketers would have done some commentating in the early days, though I could be wrong, jguk 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed on both counts. By 'impossible to complete' do you mean it will never be completed with every commentator, or never with full details of each commentator? In either case I think a near approximation is better than the blank list we have now. :) --Ngb 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A point about the nationality flags you've used: I'd have thought that if we're going to use "cricketing countries", then we should use West Indies instead of Barbados, Jamaica etc; but if we're going to use "official nationalities" then the English people should be listed as British. Related to this, I'm not sure we can really say that the BBC, Sunday Times etc are distinctly English organisations. Loganberry Loganberry (Talk) 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd have used a 'West Indies' flag if there was one... --Ngb 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't [[Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.png]] do? It's not strictly a "West Indies flag", but it's what we use for West Indian players.

Changed. --Ngb 08:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Photos of cricketers

I have an idea. I'm not sure if it can be a success but here goes. Since free images of cricketers are rare, I thought that those of us with digicams can click a snapshot (w/o flash) of a particular cricketer on TV. Poor quality yes, but at least we'll have an image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. On the same lines, there a lot of video clips of cricket matches floating around in the net. Even stills from them can be used. Tintin 17:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm wary of that, since I understand that under US law (which after all is what we're going by on Wikipedia) the "fair use" exemption is actually considerably narrower than most people think. I Am Not A Lawyer and all that, but as jguk mentions below, TV images are copyright the station. On a technical point, if anyone had a TV card on their computer, that would produce better pictures than a photo... though going back to the copyright point, I believe that in some cases at least, the higher the resolution of an image the less likely it is to be acceptable as "fair use". On top of all that, I wonder whether Wikipedia may at some point cry "enough" and insist that all images used are explicitly under a proper free licence, and say "no more fair use pictures". Loganberry (Talk) 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[1] came out pretty well. Too bad it cannot be used. Tintin 03:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

IIRC they already have tried to stomp down on it - there was a bit of a fuss about a month ago - but I can't remember where it was. Sam Vimes 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but see the quote from Jimbo Wales I've mentioned in reply to jguk below; JW goes on to say, "As of today [19 May 2005], all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight." Loganberry (Talk) 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That'd probably be the one I thought of, yes Sam Vimes 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The TV station will have copyright on its images, and we can't claim fair use unless we're actually discussing the TV programme. Though, of course, we could have a picci of David Lloyd, say, and put the description "David Lloyd is now a cricket commentator for Sky Sports". Perhaps we should try writing to and/or emailing clubs and individuals to see if they would be willing to release something, jguk 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The main problem I can see with that is that very few organisations are likely to permit free commercial use of their pictures - and non-commercial-only pictures are not made welcome on Wikipedia. To quote Jimbo Wales himself: "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_." [2] Loganberry (Talk) 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The comment under [3] calls itself fair-use Tintin 05:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know, to be honest. The fair use article has a lot of information, but it seems clear that much of what is generally assumed is not written down and has not been tested in the courts. Personally I don't intend to upload any pictures not under a clearly defined free-use licence, and I'd prefer it if we didn't use them, but if I'm in a minority there then I'm not going to go around deleting any that others put up unless there's a good reason to do so. Loganberry (Talk) 22:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It's believed, AIUI, that a shot of a copyrighted TV program is only fair use to illustrate an article about that program -- so Image:Wcta-prematch.jpg would only be fair use if it was used in an article about the Nine Network's cricket coverage. Fair use is inherently dodgy as it's so ill-defined, so I now try to avoid uploading fair use stuff unless there is a cast-iron case as laid out at Wikipedia:Fair_use. --Ngb 08:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Godfrey Evans

At 91 Tests, is Evans the most-capped player not to have a Wikipedia article? We should be ashamed of ourselves! One of the greatest wicket-keeper batsmen ever (along with Engineer and Gilchrist) - surely it's time we rectified this.

The lists of Test cricketers will probably throw up more anomalies like this. In the medium term, I think we should aim to have articles on all cricketers who have played at least one international match - but in the short-term, those who've played 10 or more Tests, say, should get articles, jguk 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Syed Kirmani is another (with 88) - clearly there's an anti-wickie systemic bias on the project. And yes, Evans is the most capped player without an article (though Desmond Haynes barely counts...he played 116 Tests, and all we care is four lines!) Sam Vimes 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a stub for Evans. Could do with expansion. --Ngb 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

With Evans now added to Category:English test cricketers we have now reached the landmark of having articles on 200 English test cricketers, a total that includes all 75 test captains! jguk 08:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A nice landmark! Looking at the list, though, I notice that the two articles at Jack Hearne (John William Hearne) and J. W. Hearne are about the same player. A merge would seem in order, but which article should be kept? Loganberry (Talk) 14:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

John Stephenson(s)!

A small problem is approaching with regard to John Stephenson... or rather, Stephensons. As things stand, the page is occupied by an American voice actor, but I think that since we have a John Stephenson (JP) who played Test cricket, "our" man is notable enough to get equal billing, so I've asked if anyone would object to having John Stephenson (voice actor) (currently a redirect page to John Stephenson) and John Stephenson (cricketer). However, there are three other John Stephensons who have played first-class cricket. Two didn't do very much so can safely be ignored, but the other (JWA) is more notable, since he captained Essex, for three games at the end of 1939. He also took 9-46 for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's in 1936, which I think is the best innings return by one of the Gents in this fixture. Some guidance on where he might be placed would be useful. Addition: apparently John Stephenson (actor) is preferred for the "other" JS, as he wasn't only a voice actor. Loganberry (Talk) 01:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

John Stephenson (actor), John Stephenson (Essex and England cricketer) for JP, John Stephenson (Essex cricketer) for JWA? John Stephenson (cricketer) could disambig between the two or simply redirect to JP. --Ngb 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few of those. From the list of England Test cricketers I can remember two David Smiths and two Jack Russells, too... Sam Vimes 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

And there are four international Mike Smiths: for England there are MJK of course, one-Test wonder AM Smith and ODI-only MJ, and there's also an MJ who's played ODIs for Scotland. Loganberry (Talk) 12:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

And there were there were 3 Edward A'Beckett's that played first-class cricket in Australia. Only 1 played in Tests. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

18th Century Cricket

I'm particularly interested in this era of the game's history and have nearly all the relevant sources. I would like to create a sub-category for it in the history section. Does anyone have any particular opinions about scope, approach, integration with other categories or projects?

--Jack 09:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a start on this by creating History of cricket to 1700, which is already a well-developed article; and History of cricket 1701 - 1800, which is still a stub. Re the former of these, I've put together a lot more material and will shortly expand the article up to 1730. This is the same document I've placed on the ACS site and it'll be updated on there too.

I'm also creating bio-stubs for the early cricketers. These can easily be included in the county categories but I think we should also have century categories. So, while John Small (Hambledon cricketer) is in the English cricketers and Hampshire cricketers categories, I would also have an 18th Century cricketers category, or perhaps an underarm era category. It would be a logical development to have a roundarm era category for such as Mynn, Pilch and Felix; then one for each of the later eras. Anyone any thoughts about this suggestion? --Jack 11:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

A 18th century cricketers category certainly sounds okay to me, though. One thing I can say from the History of cricket to 1700 article (which otherwise looks very good) - don't sign articles in the main namespace with four tildes to get your username up. It would be a right mess if everyone did that, for one thing, plus people who are interested can find out who wrote it through the edit history anyway. Sam Vimes 11:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bowlers' Personal Stats

I think a bowlers height is key to the way they bowl. Today during the Ashes, Edgbaston test I had an urge to compare the heights of the English bowlers and I was shocked to find the BBC seems to be the only site that has height as a statistic. Consequently I've searched the web for the heights of all the bowlers I was interested in (Flintoff, Harmison, S Jones, Hoggard and Giles) and added a one sentance paragraph to each person giving their height, and I've added a 'height' variable to their repective InfoBoxs', (below picture), incase this row is added to the template later. As indicated on Template_talk:Infobox_Cricketer I've not added the Height row to the infobox, instead I'm suggesting it here.

--Sibaz 20:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

By all means add details of height, where known, to the article. I agree that it can be interesting - no doubt it is key - but both Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner were very successful. I'd rather not see it in the infobox though. We have lots of those abouts, and details are unlikely to be readily available for a great many cricketers.

Also, I see you haven't signed up as a participant on the project page yet. You'd be more than welcome if you joined "officially", as it were, jguk 20:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have them, have a look in copies of the Playfair Cricket Annual, which give players' heights in the county registers. Might save you a good deal of time. Loganberry (Talk) 22:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we propose "Cricketbio-stub"?

I notice that several sports have a specific stub for biographical articles, for example {{Baseballbio-stub}} for baseball and {{Footybio-stub}} for football (soccer). What about having a {{Cricketbio-stub}} for cricket? Looking at the guidelines about new stub categories, it would seem to fit all the criteria mentioned there:

• 1. Is there a stub for this topic already? - no; we only have the base {{cricket-stub}}.
• 2. Will the new category be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? - yes; "biographical cricket article" seems pretty well defined to me.
• 3. Does the new category cover ground not covered by other categories, or create a well-defined subcategory that does? - yes; it's a well-defined subcategory as mentioned in point 2 above.
• 4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? - undoubtedly. There are several hundred cricket bio articles in existence already, and the number is certain to grow further.
• 5. Would your new category overlap with other categories? - not as far as I can see, since there's currently only one type of cricket stub; for example, cricket-stubs are not sorted by country in the way geo-stubs are.
• 6. If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? - yes, for the reasons mentioned in point 4 above.

Given the above, and the aforementioned fact that a number of sports have already created a subcategory for biographical articles, I would think that {{cricketbio-stub}} ought to have a fairly easy ride in Stub proposals, but I'll hold back for now in case others feel this would be a bad idea. Thoughts welcome! Loganberry (Talk) 02:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need for a separate bio stub, but maybe we should go a step further and have {{cricketbio-aus-stub}}, {{cricketbio-eng-stub}}, {{cricketbio-ind-stub}} etc etc. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on that idea, for several reasons. Firstly, it's "jumping a subcat" - maybe we could do it if {{cricketbio-stub}} itself got unmanageably large, but not yet - I can't see there being the support for, say, {{cricketbio-zim-stub}} given the small number of Zimbabwean cricketers written up so far, and subcats are only supposed to be created in response to existing, not potential, need. (Having special subcats for some countries and not others might also be rejected as unnecessarily confusing.) Secondly, other sports don't do it (even those like football with large numbers of bios), so we'd be going against convention. Thirdly, there seems to be a slight bias in the Stub proposals arena against long stub names ({{horseracingbio-stub}} has run into a little trouble for just that reason). And fourthly, it would mean having to have two stubs for people like Kepler Wessels. Loganberry (Talk) 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've just proposed cricketbio-stub, since even if we do end up with the country-specific stubs further down the track, we're going to need this one anyway. Apparently there's now a week's wait while the folks there decide whether or not to tear the idea to pieces... Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cricket images

To get a global snapshot (pardon the pun) of what cricket images we have available, I created a new category Category:Cricket images. If everyone adds the tag to any images they come across, you may find we have images you didn't know about. I found a couple. Going through the list I came across some with dubious licensing, but I'm not worrying about that here :) Regards - Ian ≡ talk 08:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It would certainly be useful to know which ones have unverified sources or dodgy fair use claims, since then we can look at replacing them. Can we create a Category:Cricket images with unverified copyright status? --Ngb 10:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that should be done to separate the two. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Could we call it Category:Cricket images unverified to be a little less wordy? - Ian ≡ talk 11:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

how about: "Unverified cricket images"? What about poor quality images. I've taken out some poor quality ones of Eden Gardens and Bombay Gymkhana. Should they be added too? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Any image is better than no image, but the one of Eden Gardens (captioned "Floodlights of Eden Gardens" but essentially a crossroads somewhat distant from the ground) is particularly poor. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't get a closer shot as I was in a taxi. Hopefully someone could get a better image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I understand how hard it is to get good images, and sa I said, having anything at all is better than nothing (just that that one is really "distant floodlights in the haze"!) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Update - There's now two categories:

• Category:Cricket images and
• Category:Unverified cricket images --- Ian ≡ talk 05:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

ODI rules

If I'm not mistaken the ODI rules were modified to allow subs and new fielding restrictions. But in the current India v Sri Lanka match, the old rules of 15 overs are being enforced. What's happening? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Indian Oil Cup organisers and teams agreed to use the old rules because the tournament started before 1 August, when the rules were officially in place. I think that's what happened, anyway. Sam Vimes 14:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Indian flag

I believe Indian cricket players should be placed under the BCCI flag (light blue, dark blue and yellow with their emblem in the centre) instead of the Indian flag. The BCCI had publicly stated in the Supreme Court of India that the Indian cricket team plays for the BCCI and not the government of India. Team India plays for BCCI, not Govt. In simple words, it is a private team and represents the club, not the nation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well...that flies in the face of the way sport works everywhere else in the world, but I don't know much about it, so I won't argue against it if it happens. Sam Vimes 19:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

on a somewhat related matter, Indian F1 driver Narain Karthikeyan was told by the government not to use the Indian flag on his helmet. Don't the Indian players have a little flag on their batting helmets though? AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 21:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: Naraian Karthikeyan can now use the flag on his helmet. The laws were changed last month. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

How does this compare to the former custom of England playing as MCC outside Test matches? Loganberry (Talk) 22:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Nichalp. I think this is a case for using the principle of least astonishment. That is a legal nicety that really is irrelevant to the building of an encyclopedia. The image is not to show who the team represents, just a graphic to illustrate the name. Look at a Test match scorecard. The team is India, not BCCI. The same principle applies to Loganberry's point – they played as England in Test matches, but as MCC in tour matches. They now play tour matches as "England XI". So to summarise my point, in legal terms, the team represents the BCCI, but in cricket terms they represent the country. (IMHO) [[smoddy]] 22:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The government of India and the BCCI had a dispute over lucarative television rights which went over to the Supreme Court. The BCCI was pushed to the corner and had no choice. Had they said that had represented India, the government would have meddled in the working of the BCCI. If you look at the venues hosting India matches, its always the BCCI flag which flutters on the flagpole. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

To me, that is a political/legal argument rather than a sporting one. The team that plays Test matches is "India". This is fully in line with the rest of the world. To be a Test-playing nation, the governing body for cricket must be a full memeber of the ICC. The BCCI is that. India is the team that plays. Look on Test scorecards, record books, and the like. India is the team, not "a team representing the Board of Control for Cricket in India". The point is certainly very valid (and interesting) for inclusion in the article about the team, but probably not for the illustration of a player. On top of that, there is the copyright situation with the logo of the BCCI, since this use would almost certainly not be fair use. [[smoddy]] 09:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder - is our use of the WI Cricket Board flag (presumably just as copyrighted as the BCCI one) acceptable fair use...? Loganberry (Talk) 12:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would assume so, as it illustrates the team. I doubt Sky Sports pays anything when they use the WI flag in their coverage, for instance. Sam Vimes 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with smoddy. Whatever the political or legal situation, the little flag is only intended to help readers of the encyclopedia know the nationality of a player without having to read the text. Stephen Turner 09:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the precedent is where we've used Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.png for West Indian players -- but that's a case where the team doesn't match up to a country rather than an issue of politics. --Ngb 09:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is an issue of politics: the British government is very wary of getting involved in cricket matters (thinking, for example, of leaving the decisionre on recent tours to Zimbabwe to the ECB, or more historically the decisions over Basil d'Oliveira were made by the MCC). Of course, there was a West Indies Federation for a while, now defunct, but the West Indian Cricket Board predates that substantially. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's not as if the England team represents the United Kingdom in any official or legal sense. The same would certainly be true of Australia or New Zealand. Stephen Turner 11:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If we put a BCCI flag, how many Indians - forget the rest - would be able to identity it ? Tintin 10:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

But not many can indentify with the WI flag either. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

But West Indies can't be put under under the flag of a single country. Union Jack and MCC flag are better comparisons. Tintin 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant

Apropos of nothing, I have been nominated for adminship and would appreciate the support of you guys. :) Thanks! --Ngb 07:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New Infobox proposal

Temporarily removed example while I try to make it work like Infobox Pope

I've developed a slight refinement to the Infobox system because (a) I was worried by the fact that the variety of different infoboxes is quite confusing and (b) I was annoyed, when I chanced to look at Garfield Sobers, that the first-class and List A stats are shunted out into the text and get in the way.

My new system is only slightly different but the idea is that you can build up an infobox that's as simple or as complicated as you like, that can be easily expanded, and that goes all down the right hand side of the page -- so it can be as quick and simple as the example here or as complicated as User:Ngb/New Infobox Proposal which has full Test, ODI, first-class and List A stats, and a source.

Any thoughts? --Ngb 16:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - I suppose we can make Infobox/Tests & First-class as well, for the historic ones. Do you happen to know how much Jimbo turns it, though? ;) Sam Vimes 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice, but the padding in the cells could be cut down a bit (it does look a little overwhelming). I have two issues.

1. Will be huge on articles where the text is short. We'll have two screens of infobox, half of that with nothing to its left. This needs to be addressed. The optimum would be for every cricketer to have a FA, but that may be unlikely...
2. Related to Sam's point above, it may be better to have it as first-class and Test at the top, with List A and ODI below. That makes the various permutations superfluous.

[[smoddy]] 16:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, in addition, might it be possible to make this follow the rather nice precedent of Template:Infobox Pope? [[smoddy]] 17:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat an old question. Why do we have 5 WIs for ODIs and 4 WIs for List A ? Tintin 17:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Haven't the foggiest. I know I made the ODI one, and someone else the List A one, so that could be a reason. This should be changed if Ngb's changes are implemented. [[smoddy]] 17:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Ashes

Someone's changed the Ashes picture to incorporate a St George's Flag. Even to an Englishmen, this doesn't seem to be an appropriate amendment, only I can't see how to revert the change. Could someone else have a go? Thanks, jguk 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a revert bug. I uploaded the old version over it instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)