See here for the feature on our project. The editor wrote to Dweller and myself first because we are the heaviest contributors to this forum and I extended the invitation to several others. Thanks to everyone who took part and lets hope it creates some interest that might bring in new contributors to tackle these Bobo lists that we all seem to be agreed upon! ----Jack | talk page06:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you want me to create any more lists? Which am I missing? I'm certain I'm missing some Australian teams. Please list at will - with my limited time at Wikipedia I'm perfectly willing to spend extra time to create more lists. I would much prefer them to be "place-name teams" or league teams rather than compiled teams, however. Bobo.13:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well done to all who participated. Though I'm tempted to add a "citation needed" tag to the claim that "It might come as a surprise to some that cricket is the world's second most popular sport, after Association football". :) JH (talk page) 10:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted articles
Hi all. Two articles which I created - those for Gerald Yorke (CA) and Vincent Yorke (CA) were tagged as speedy delete and hence deleted from Wikipedia this morning. I have queried the pages' deleter, User:RHaworth, to ask if he would permit me to re-add them as they both pass WP:CRIN notability standards - though I am yet to do so at the moment. Not sure how that passed me by... Bobo.13:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Both first-class players so there is no problem with them and you can reinstate. Do you still have copies of your text? ----Jack | talk page14:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup. They're both available on the deleted version of the pages concerned. I shall do so if and when I get confirmation from the admin who deleted them (RHaworth) that he would be happy with my doing so. Bobo.14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The deleting admin seems to disagree with WP:CRIN, so I would advise that any admins here who do agree with it should just restore the articles, and keep a close watch on the new articles created by "operation redlink" below, especially if they are one game wonders. The-Pope (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Didn't want to do anything too rouge without notifying people that I was doing so first and foremost. I've just re-created both articles. Bobo.23:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's never happened to me before - I just got PM'd by CorenSearchBot telling me that I had copied material from another website - one which mirrored an earlier version of Wikipedia! Bobo.23:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include more references in these articles - Cricinfo and CricketArchive should be included on all player bios in my opinion. To be honest, I can see why the articles were deleted in their current state. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What about the notability of venues that have not been used for first-class or ListA matches but are or have been in regular use, especially if long-term, by clubs that are themselves deemed notable? I have in mind Barrack Field in Woolwich, the home of the old Woolwich Cricket Club that is still in use in the Kent League, albeit by another club. Woolwich took part in some important matches before first-class statistics could begin and so the club is deemed historically notable but at present the ground is only discussed in a section of the club's article. Then there are the grounds used, often very long-term, by clubs in the Minor Counties, Lancashire Leagues, Bradford League, Aussie grade cricket, ECB Premier Leagues, etc. Some of these have articles already as they have occasionally been used in first-class or ListA, but what about the rest?
I suppose the essential question is that if a club is deemed notable, is its venue equally notable? We don't mention venues at all in CRIN and, whatever level of notability we decide upon, we do need to amend CRIN again to state a venues guideline. ----Jack | talk page06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say that if a notable club used a venue regularly, rather than just for the occasional game, then that venue was notable. JH (talk page) 09:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd support that. My gut feeling is that a named site, with a fixed geographic location, is marginally more notable than a club, for reasons beyond WP:CRIC. –Moondyne10:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point, Moondyne. A venue is a more permanent entity and I think people are more attached to a place than to an organisation. ----Jack | talk page10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Not bloody likely :) Seriously, it probably should be suggested - I am sure the 2006/07 and 2009 series made ITN. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Chris Tremlett bowls Michael Beer to complete England's 3-1 Ashes victoryDoes a picture help with In the News? Here's one I took of the decisive moment that finished the series. Johnlp (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, it was in the ITN section when the Ashes were retained after the 4th test; the 3-1 series victory was suggested at ITNC but turned down on the basis that one mention per series was enough. BencherliteTalk20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal of Rearranging of spin bowling section
Hello all.
I would like to propose a reorganisation of finger spin and wrist spin. At the moment there are several different pages covering the various variation deliveries - slider_(cricket), armball etc, but a lot of these pages are stubs. One such page was the one on the topspinner - an important and common variation in both the wrist spinner's and finger spinner's arsenal. However user user:Neelix (with good intentions no doubt) deleted this page and redirected the link to the tennis article on topspin, which now includes a brief section on its use in cricket, and he refuses to allow me to rewrite the cricket specific article, as he claims it does not warrant its own page. I'm inclined to agree with him on this, however its now a complete mess that some relatively rare spin deliveries have their own page when other more common variations do not.
Instead, I propose merging all the variation delivery pages into separate sections within finger spin and wrist spin. This way we will reduce the number of stubs, reduce the amount of clicks it takes users to browse the full arsenal of each bowler, and reclaim the article on the topspinner as part of the cricket section. I would also rewrite some sections, with references from a variety of coaching manuals. Obviously any change would be subject to discussion on the talk page. Would this be an improvement do you all think? Py0alb (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I like it too. We'd need a brief summary then in the overall page for, say, topspin, with a section hatnote pointing to the cricket page. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not delete Topspinner but rather redirected it to the appropriate section on Topspin. I would also be quite glad to see a cricket-specific article about topspin, but contend that it should be located at a title such as Topspin in cricket or Topspinners in cricket rather than at Topspinner because "Topspinner" is a term that is used to describe balls with topspin in general, not cricket balls with topspin specifically. I fully support Dweller's assertion that the new article, whatever it be called, have a corresponding summary on the Topspin article that has a hatnote linking to the new article. I would also suggest that the new article contain a certain amount of reliably sourced information before it is split off as the current cricket section on the Topspin article is both short and completely unsourced. I look forward to seeing the new article when it is developed. Neelix (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
How do I access the topspinner page, because I keep getting redirected to the tennis page? The topspinner article will be located at wrist spin and finger spin, which is where I think "topspinner" should redirect, seeing as its pretty much 100% certain that anyone typing "topspinner" into the search engine is thinking of the cricket term Py0alb (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Topspinner should continue to redirect where it currently does. Not only is it very likely that users will type "topspinner" into the search bar looking for the concept in general rather than its specific application to cricket, but it is misleading to have a general term redirect to an article on a subtopic. All the information that was contained on the Topspinner article is now located in the "Cricket" section of the Topspin article; nothing was removed in the merger. Neelix (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"Not only is it very likely that users will type "topspinner" into the search bar looking for the concept in general rather than its specific application to cricket" Says who? Any evidence for that claim? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A simple test would be to type "topspinner" into google and see which sports come up in the results. Google is a pretty effective way of judging what context a word is most often used in, and hence what wikipedia users would most likely be looking for when searching for the word.
So: I just did this, and looked through the first 100 results. Well over half of them are specifically about the cricket delivery, and no other sport is mentioned at all not even once I think that is pretty conclusive evidence personally. I invite all other users to try this for themselves.
Anyway, topspinner is not a "subtopic" of topspin at all, any more than "slider" is a subtopic of "sliding", or flipper is a subtopic of "flipping". What an utterly ridiculous notion! If its a subtopic of anything, its a subtopic of "cricket deliveries". Py0alb (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
All of the following sources use the term "topspinner" to refer to a topspinning ball that is not a cricket ball: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. "Topspinner" is a generic term for a ball with topspin. Py0alb's argument that "slider" is not a subtopic of "sliding" demonstrates the source of confusion here; "slider" and "sliding" are words, not articles. Topspin, however, is an article because of which an article called Topspinner would be redundant; there is not sufficient difference between the encyclopedic information that would be written on articles called Topspin and Topspinner to justify two separate articles. This is why Topspinner should continue to redirect to Topspin. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to create articles on subtopics, particularly on those that relate the main topic to specific sports. This is why Topspinners in cricket would be an appropriate article to create and link from the "Cricket" section on the Topspin article. Neelix (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's absolute rubbish. Topspinner is a cricketing term, used to describe a particular technique of delivery used by off spin and leg spin bowlers, and its strategic usage within a game of cricket. It's therefore up to the cricket project members whether we wish to include this within a page on spin bowling variations of give it its own page, not an outside editor with no interest or knowledge in the sport of cricket. Please ensure that you do not make any changes to any cricket pages without first reaching a consensus on the matter. Whether or not there is enough specifically cricket related material about the topspinner for it to warrant its own article is a matter for the members of this wikiproject to decide. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that the determination of a page's content should be decided based around the most common usage of that word. In the case of topspinner, far and away the most common usage is in a cricketing context. As a Canadian with limited exposure to cricket, you may find this surprising, but I am afraid your personal opinions on this matter are entirely irrelevant.
Your ability to find the occasional source with the word used in a different context is also irrelevant. I can find many usages of the word "slider" within cricket, but this gives me no right to interfere with the the baseball slider page because that is its most common usage. Py0alb (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have done due diligence in this and have discovered that wikipedia guidelines recommend the use of a) the "what links here?" tool and b) google in determining the primary topic of an ambiguous title. If one usage is greater than 50% on both sources, then it is suggested that that takes precedent. As the cricketing usage of topspinner is comfortably over 50% of the top 100 good results, and claims every single one of the 84 links, whereas Neelix's proposed usage doesn't even appear once in either set of results, then this debate is concluded. Topspinner is a cricketing topic. Py0alb (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Stating that my opinions are irrelevant because of my nationality is neither polite nor accurate. According to Wikipedia policy, "personal attacks based on... nationality... of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted." I have already made what I believe to be a solid case for retaining Topspinner as a redirect to Topspin. I will not continue to participate in a discussion where my arguments are dismissed because I am a Canadian. Neelix (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
While calling your opinion "irrelevant" is impolite and incorrect, to call it a "personal attack" is to be seen as very thin-skinned indeed. If being called Canadian is a personal attack, we are setting the bar pretty low IMO. It is sadly quite common for editors from North America to dismiss cricket as a sport played in England by tophatted gentlemen drinking tea and saying "tally ho, old chap" rather than the major, worldwide sport it is. Your unilateral decision to redirect a significant term of cricket terminology to an article based on a term with a slightly different meaning and based around the term as used in racquet sports smacks of this sort of thinking. I don't doubt your good faith, simply your judgement, on this matter. Of course you can find the term "topspinner" used elsewhere, but I would agree with Py0alb that most people using the term "topspinner" will be referring to the term as it is used in cricket. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I fully and unreservedly apologise if you thought my mention of your nationality was a personal attack. It was not intended to be, I was merely making a (perhaps unjustified) assumption that not coming from a nation with a history of following cricket, you would not be in a position to judge the importance of the article within the context of the sport. Please correct me if you are wrong and are in fact a devoted cricket follower. Reading back my comments,I don't believe it comes across as a personal attack.
Apology aside, the due diligence still stands, and the article topspinner is still an article that should be about the cricket delivery and is therefore under the "juristiction" of the cricket portal according to Wikipedia:primary_article. If you want to change policy, then petition the administration, but I'm afraid the guidelines are on are side in this matter. Py0alb (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me apologise on behalf of the cricket project for what I'm sure was an unintended slight. We have members from many nationalities in the project and that is one of our strengths. My feeling with the wider dispute which has come on to these pages is that the wholesale and referenced revision of the whole Spin bowling article that User:Py0alb proposes should be done before we get into more detailed discussion about where Topspin should go. My own observation is that table tennis probably uses more topspin than any other sport: thankfully their lobby is not a particularly vociferous one. Johnlp (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid my phrasing was rather clumsy and I apologise again: when I said "your personal opinions on this matter are entirely irrelevant" what I meant and should have said was "personal opinions on this matter are entirely irrelevant" - by which I mean that if there are specific guidelines covering a case (as there are here), then its doesn't really matter what any of us think. Py0alb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
Thank you for your comments, Johnlp. Also, thank you for your apology and clarification, Py0alb. My concern with the guideline you have cited is that it does not apply to the current case. I believe the guideline to which you refer is the disambiguation guideline on primary topics. According to this guideline, a primary topic should be located at an undisambiguated title and one way of determining the primary topic is by determining which topic has the most incoming links at that title. Once the primary topic is identified, the other topics that may be referred to by the same name are linked via a hatnote on the article about the primary topic. In the current case, however, there is only one topic: balls with topspin. "Cricket balls with topspin" is a subset of "balls with topspin", therefore the former cannot be the primary topic. To select the former as the primary topic would be analagous to selecting "Australian rules football in Australia" as the primary topic for "Australian rules football" simply because the sport is most commonly played in Australia. Just because topspinners are a more important aspect of cricket than they are of other sports doesn't justify the selection of a subtopic as the primary topic. Neelix (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that topspin should redirect to topspinner. I'm saying the two ideas - topspin the mechanical concept and topspinner the cricket delivery are sufficiently different to deserve separate pages. There are many ways and reasons to put topspin on an object. You can't possibly be suggesting that we should cram all these extremely different ideas onto one page simply because they have one small factor in common? All this stuff about "this is a subtopic of this" is just subjective opinion. You should also note that your two examples both have their own pages, which appears to undermine your own argument. 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs)
Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently clear. I am not arguing that there should be only one article dealing with topspin. I would be quite glad to see a well-developed article specifically about topspinners in cricket. What I am arguing is that such an article should specify "cricket" in its title. It is not, as you have argued, my subjective opinion that "cricket balls with topspin" is a subtopic of "balls with topspin"; it is the case. It is possible that you object to this statement because you recognize that "cricket balls with topspin" is also a subtopic of Delivery (cricket). It is quite possible for a topic to be a subtopic of multiple articles. For example, History of education in Japan is a subtopic of History of education, Education in Japan, and History of Japan. Because "topspinner" is a generic term for balls with topspin, it should either be the title of the article about balls with topspin in general (not specifically cricket balls) or else it should redirect to that article, the article which is currently located at Topspin. According to Wikipedia's naming conventions for subarticles, subarticles are "an exception to the common names principle for article naming". Instead, these articles "should be named independently", as per Wikipedia's naming conventions for subsidiary articles. The example given at that guideline is that "an article on transportation in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" – use Transportation in Azerbaijan." In this case, therefore, the article on topspinners in cricket should either be called Topspin in cricket or Topspinners in cricket. Neelix (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Re the recommended naming conventions, they are again short-sighted. I agree that Transportation in Azerbaijan is preferable to "Azerbaijan (transportation)" but, using a couple of examples cited in this discussion, should we change Delivery (cricket) to "Delivery in cricket" or, even worse in contextual terms, "Deliveries in cricket"; or should we change Slider (cricket) to "Slider in cricket"? I see nothing wrong with Topspin (cricket) and I do agree that there should be an article about topspin that is specific to cricket. ----Jack | talk page07:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
My strong preference would simply be to leave the topspinner article at topspinner and stop this unconstructive meddling, seeing as it fulfils the "primary article" criteria for that page perfectly acceptably. If not, then topspinner (cricket) would be acceptable, but isn't really necessary seeing as there are no other pages called topspinner (something) like there are for slider (cricket) - in fact there are no other articles with the word topspinner in the title whatsoever - because topspinner is virtually exclusively a cricketing term, NOT a "generic term for balls with topspin" at all. That statement is simply incorrect. As both internal and external studies verify, tennis players and table tennis players talk about topspin forehands or topspin smashes but virtually never about "topspinners".
Let's be clear: no one is arguing about the tennis orientated topspin page, that's perfectly fine as it is for people wishing to learn about the uses of topspin within racquet sports; we just don't want the topspinner page unnecessarily and detrimentally merged with it. Py0alb (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No one is arguing for a merger, Py0alb. Neither does the term "meddling" apply to a situation in which someone who is not a member of a particular WikiProject participates in a discussion falling within the scope of that WikiProject. Users who are interested in the general improvement of Wikipedia as a whole need to be involved in discussions on diverse matters so that the entire project can be unified and consistent.
Jack, you have convinced me that Topspinner is a valid title for the article about cricket balls with topspin. "Cricket balls with topspin" is a subtopic of "balls with topspin", but the term "topspinner" has a different definition based on whether the term is employed in cricket or in tennis or in table tennis. A summary of Topspinner should remain on Topspin because Topspinner is an explanation of the relevance of topspin to cricket. Neelix (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
On a similar vein, could someone with some knowledge of cricket have a look at the current edit war going on at spin_bowling. I attempted to improve the page - it wasn't perfect I admit, but I was about to do some further work on it this afternoon - but my proposal has been rejected on the grounds that cricinfo is not a valid source, which I contest. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate any help in bringing the spin bowling page up to scratch. Thanks Py0alb (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Not quite sure why they're being so officious: to my knowledge they aren't members of this project, so their interventions are probably procedural rather than based on any interest in the subject per se. To avoid their attentions, you could copy the whole article into a sandbox and work on it there uninterrupted until it's ready. Johnlp (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
My advice would be to remove the CricInfo reference which has nothing to do with spin bowling and insert several inline citations from books which describe the concept of spin bowling in detail and which also verify the particular skills of the players who have been named in the articles. ----Jack | talk page20:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but giftiger wunsch specifically said that I had to give an individual reason for each bowler I didn't remove from the list or he would block any change. Finding a concise yet "factual" reason for each spinner wasn't easy. If you think of anything better before I get a chance, please go ahead and make the change! Py0alb (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that you need to have a reason listed on each line for each player - a set of clearly defined criteria for inclusion, with a REFERENCE on each line, rather than a description, would be sufficient in my opinion. My criteria would be >XXX test and/or ODI wickets, or top 2-3 for each country that doesn't have one >XXX wickets, or credited with "inventing", changing or something else very significant, such as ICC Hall of Fame membership (as a spinner) or selection in a significant Team of the century or equivalent. Without looking into the stats, I'm not sure if it should be 100, 200, 250 or 300 wickets as an inclusion point, but I'd say you wouldn't want the list longer than 3-6 per country. Maybe a country will have a much longer list, maybe additional criteria will need to be made, but I think that a consensus on criteria (which should really be developed on the talk page, not here) needs to be obtained before you do much else.The-Pope (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Subjective lists of "notable spinners" are out of order and cause enormous maintenance headaches because of the inevitable arguments. I've already deleted that list and I would strongly recommend that a narrative approach is taken in which certain individuals are mentioned because of innovation. Historically, this starts with Lamborn and goes on via Bosanquet to Murali, for example. As AA rightly says, fanboy worship is unacceptable (per WP:NPOV) and there is absolutely no need to mention every single spinner who took 100 wickets in Test cricket. In terms of achievements, it would be fair to note that a turning pitch (having thoroughly discussed what causes this condition) can heavily favour spin bowlers and the classic example is Old Trafford in 1956. The article is about a style of bowling and, in terms of players, the scope must be limited to those who were instrumental in the subject's evolution, like the three I've mentioned; not those who once got Sachin out in a T20 match. ----Jack | talk page07:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent idea. I do think the page would benefit from some kind of history of spin bowling, with important practitioners and innovators mentioned in correct context. Why don't you have a shot at putting something together? The only reference I have is Derek Birley's Social History of English Cricket, but I will have a look what that has to say about it. Py0alb (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see it ever being maintained. It's another like the England batting stats that was deleted last week. I would vote for it to go. ----Jack | talk page08:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Please can someone edit this to include the start and end date parameters? It was one of the first things I looked for in the 2011 Cricket World Cup article. They are in the infobox, but don't show. I did a quick edit with a preview, but it didn't seem to work. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not too catchy a name I know, but to the point! Anyhow, some of us recently did interviews for The Signpost, during which most of us said getting more of those redlinks turned blue on Bobo's pages would be great, so maybe the project could do a consensus on how many of those to links to turn blue per week? Any suggestions of how we can coordinate more to be done??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we can only do it on the basis of people picking up a few at a time and progressing those. The constraint is availability. I've been digging around in the 18th century and early 19th century again to see what has been overlooked and have found a couple of likely suspects thus far. There are some more via the to-do bit at the top of this page. So I'll work in that area and move forward chronologically, but I think we do have nearly all players who were active before 1825 and it's a case of spotting the ones who've slipped through the net. I'll put a status report on here at some point. ----Jack | talk page17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, doing it "gently but thoroughly" seems to me a better option than a dash that emphasises quantity over quality. The aim with the biographies, in my view, should be to create as many properly rounded articles as possible, not merely to replicate in prose form the kind of statistical data that Cricketarchive and Cricinfo are so good at. In many cases, of course, it's difficult to get other biographical material, and some will inevitably remain as stubs, but I think we should always try: with some of the more obscure first-class cricketers, their cricket careers represented only a very small proportion of their lives as a whole, and I'm sure there are some hidden gems (such as Gerard Hodgkinson) waiting to be discovered among these people. What I would find useful from others in the project is a list of "other sources" for this other material: I use, for example, the London Gazette files for military careers and some school and universities rolls for academic details, plus peerage and landed gentry lists. Johnlp (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I tend to use whatever references I can find in the cricket books that I have, plus Wisden obits (which conveniently are almost all online at Cricinfo), plus whatever a websearch turns up from reputable sources (obits from newspaper sites are particularly useful). Of course the big snag about Wisden, and cricket books in general, is that they tend to concentrate on the person's cricket and almost ignore anything else of note that they might have done. JH (talk page) 20:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll make starts on atricles, just to get them off the ground and find out basic things (I'm really not too good at finding the things you guys can). If only that bot which documents new articles was working, then we could all find out what has been recently created and add to it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I pretty much just hit Google and see what I can find; like Johnlp says, it's amazing the weird things that you can find, especially about the Victorian era amateur cricketers. Harriastalk13:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If the player was in the armed forces at any time, you can often get some interesting info through those sources. My favourite in that regard is Alexander Wilkinson, who has a life that reads like something you'd make up. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wilkinson is a really good article and a great subject. I wonder whether anyone else will ever manage 89 first-class matches without a regular first-class team to play for? The cynic in me suggests that Kevin Pietersen might try... Johnlp (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that some wouldn't mind if Pietersen got shot in the hand like Wilkinson... I do think that article is the sort of thing that Wikipedia does well. No where else would you get an article going into that much depth on someone like him. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Requested player infoboxes
As the list in existence seemed a little haphazard to me, I've now made a pretty comprehensive list using AWB and players by nationality. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes now lists (as far as I can tell) all the cricketers who have Wikipedia pages, but do not have infoboxes. Not to put anyone off, but to list the English players alone there are 2,895. Added to that plenty of others: well, it'll be a task and a half to get them all done!
Listing purely those who have played Test/ODI/T20I cricket, the list is a lot shorter, only 49 of those to get through: I'd suggest those players should be our priority. Harriastalk14:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - the previous lot was mainly ones that had been spotted, or any specifics people were working on. A complete list is a good idea. Very sobering - we always knew there would be a lot! Good job it's a marathon not a sprint eh?
Once we've done the internationals, it might be a good idea to draw up a list of those that use the deprecated boxes and get them moved over before tackling the ones that have none at all. That way we can also get the deprecated ones finally deleted.—User:MDCollins (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Andrew is right; for now, just use "columns = 0". It still shows the Career Stats header, but as part of Jack's "early cricketer infobox" TfD I said I'd get that looked at; (see below). Alternatively, if meaningful stats can be drawn up using CA for WCL matches, I see no reason why we can't use it as a stats column where higher forms of the game are not available.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be how I prioritise the columns, but I'd put T20I to the left of FC/LA if that is all they have played, purely because I list international stats first. So normally: Test, ODI, FC, LA, but sometimes ODI, T20I, FC, LA or T20I, FC, LA. If that all makes any sense.Harriastalk19:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it was agreed as you've suggested Mr.Apples. Personally, I would keep the T20 stats (dom/int) to the right, i.e. I would still prioritise FC cricket over a 20-over slog, but I don't think it really matters.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, but I prioritise international cricket. 4 column infobox: Test, ODI, T20I, FC. Non Test cricketer: ODI, T20I, FC, LA. Non international cricketer: FC, LA, T20. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As part of the TfD Infobox Early Cricketer debate (regarding a simplified box Jack had created), I noticed that one of the only stumbling blocks I could see in reverting back to the Infobox cricketer was that when the stats were hidden, the Career Stats header remained. It should be a simple task to edit the syntax in the template a little to place the header rows inside the "switch" for the number of columns required, so that when columns=0, the header is not shown. However, I'm very tied up at the moment, and can't get around to it. If anyone can have a look, I'd appreciate it. I've noticed that Jack also created Template:Infobox Early Cricketer Stats, which to my mind should be rendered unnecessary too. If anyone can spot any function that it fulfills that Infobox cricketer doesn't, we should be able to merge that one back too. For the record, everything in Infobox cricketer should be optional without breaking the template; if dates/place of birth/death are unknown, or only approximate, "partialdates = true" turns off the age calculator, removing that obstacle too.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
A bloke called Bearcat deleted the article on England women's test cricket Megan Lowe, claiming she was non-notable. I've recreated the article. Hopefully it will survive this time. Nick mallory (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The article had been vandalised. It had basically been rewritten to be about a 9 year old school girl. Still, it was sloppy work by the deleting administrator not to check the article history before speedy deletion. The article could possibly do with a history merge now, to bring back the deleted edits. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Restored the deleted edits, minus the vandalism. Given that the article was clearly deleted out of process, I don't think a restoration was out of order. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone has faster, more convenient access to good statistics than I, can somebody please check that I've made the correct changes to List of Pakistan national cricket captains - I altered the sections for Test cricket captains and Men's One Day International Captains - a relevant prior diff is here, to show where the tables had mis-aligned.
I have just created an article on one-game-wonder Evan Gulbis. I am a little confused by CricketArchive, however, and hope that editors here who now that site works can help me. As far as I can tell, there are two listings for young Evan this one in Australia and this one in the UK. Am I missing something or this the way CricketArchive works? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
These stats are collected from scorecards on CA, so occasionally they may have duplicates or misspellings based on how the scorecards were created. If you check with them (I remember one of their editors posted here a few times regarding some questions we had, at least one of which was similar to the above -- to do with one of Bobo's creations I think), they are quick to respond and correct them if needed. Unless someones a FC/LA regular they don't track scorecards down for variations of name. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff09:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Categorised as an [[Category:American cricketers]] and [[Category:New South Wales cricketers]]. I can find no mention of him on CA or CI, a quick google search using a number of terms doesn't bring anything relevant up. Nonsense or am I missing something??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP in question was merely removing the bluelinks from some of my pages. I don't mind that happening. I guess it streamlines the process. Bobo.12:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Now it's morning and I'm more awake, I've done a detailed google search and it's come up with no results referring to him either playing cricket for the US, or indeed for NSW. Considering CA definitely has all the first-class players on it's site, I will for now assume it is patent nonsense and remove the categories. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Both of these were updated recently following now archived topics in this forum. Could you please read the new versions and be sure you are okay with them. Please make any minor changes of wording as you see fit. If there are any significant changes you would like, we can discuss them here. Thanks. ----Jack | talk page05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts are likely to be as welcome here as a rabid dog, but here goes.....If I understand it right, the notability guidelines have been expanded to basically have an article on anyone who has competed at this level or higher. Can I just ask what the basis for this is? Specific notability guidelines are supposed to be a guide for when someone is likely to meet the GNG. However, when I looked through articles on players there, I hardly found any sources other than CricketArchive or Cricinfo (e.g. Adil Hanif, Ashraf Mughal, Imran Awan, Nicholas Northcote). Most of the articles are simply statistics written out as text. There may well be some people who do meet the GNG who play in this competition but I see no evidence that people playing in them would usually meet the GNG.
I noticed on the signpost coverage that there is an ambition to 'complete' this list. A cursory look through shows lots of people, many of whom could well be living, who have only played one or two matches. Again, where is the basis in the assumption that having played one game makes someone notable? If there were lots of well sourced articles on such people then I could believe that such people are generally notable. However, all I have seen in these cases is articles constructed from cricketarchive, with no evidence of any other coverage. Quantpole (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all you are very welcome here and, if you have cricket sources at your disposal, you would be very welcome to join the project and help to improve our articles, especially the very many stubs we have.
Our discussion about notability at WCL5 and above has been archived now but you can read it here and in the topic headed "WP:CRIN" not far below it.
Although it is true that there have been thousands of players who played in only a single first-class match, that does mean that they qualify for notability under the terms of WP:ATHLETE as people who have competed at a high level in a professional sport, cricket being the world's oldest professional team sport. I would add that, within WP:GNG there is WP:NTEMP which rules, quite rightly, that notability is not temporary. In other words, you can have your 15 minutes of fame and so be notable.
Personally, I see CricketArchive as a useful startpoint for an article as a WP:STUB but I always look for a reference in a book to go with it; you can always find something if you know where to look. For example, I've created a lot of biographical stubs about players in the early history of the sport and, yes, I have cited CA but I also cite books like Scores and Biographies and Fresh Light on 18th Century Cricket which are not only classics but also the books that CA got its info from. ----Jack | talk page19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I did read those discussions but they don't seem to address the point I was trying to outline above which is whether these specific guidelines are relevant to someone meeting the GNG. I agree that notability isn't temporary, what I disagree with is that playing one match makes someone notable at any point in time. Notability is shown by sources, and I haven't seen significant coverage of people who have only played one match. Feel free to prove me wrong! My concern in this is mainly BLP. There are lots of articles on people who are or could still be alive who have played very little cricket, and are very low profile. Articles on people who are dead I'm not as concerned about (though I would still question their notability). Quantpole (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
And I'm sure you're all lovely here! I'm just quite aware that my thoughts on this run counter to most of those involved in the project. Quantpole (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the argument in the past has been that a cricketer who has played in a first-class match (or the limited overs equivalents) will almost certainly have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. This would be above mere listings on scorecards and would include press coverage in national and local newspapers which a search through the microfiche at a library would turn up. That said, I do have my doubts about the wisdom of creating articles based on nothing other than scorecards and averages. As BlackJack said, at least one other reliable source soure with significant coverage would be the minimum that I would prefer. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the big advantage of making the minimum requirement a single first-class or List A fixture is that it is clear and unambiguous. If you don't have a guideline like that, then in many cases a player's notability would become a matter of opinion. As for printed sources, the scorecard of the match, if it took place in England, will have appeared in the relevant issue of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. If the player is dead, then a brief obituary will almost certainly also have appeared in that publication. I always check for an obituary for articles I'm involved with. Conveniently, copies of the Wisden obituaries are avaulable online at the Cricinfo website. JH (talk page) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I say I would be more willing to believe the argument that they would have been subject to lots of coverage if there were articles on such players which demonstrated the coverage! The vast majority of articles on players who have played few matches the only sources are to the stats sites. Wisden obituaries are a reasonable source, but I don't think that constitutes "significant coverage" particularly as for the more obscure players they are often only a sentence long. An example of the sort of articles I mean is Neville Shelmerdine. This person hasn't even got a one line obit in Wisden, and all the article does is reconstitute the stats into text form. If this went to AfD it would be "Delete" all the way if CRICN was discounted.
I understand that the "one game" rule is a nice and easy way to differentiate between notable or not-notable but notability is rarely such a black and white issue. There may well be people who have played one first class match who are notable whilst there might be people who have played 5 who aren't. I am suggesting setting the guideline at a level where it really is clear that people would meet the GNG. I'm not sure what that would be - 10 games, a season, whatever - but at the moment it is so wide open that there must be hundreds of articles on non-notable people. If there are notable people below this threshold then there can always be an article if there is decent coverage. It may actually help to improve coverage of players and go beyond what is on the stat sites!
I would also hope that at AfDs there was more consideration of the sources rather just CRICN. The few AfDs I've seen on cricketers have simply been a pile-on of "meet/doesn't meet CRICN" with no sources looked for or discussed. Quantpole (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you analyse the Neville Shelmerdine article, it contains a lot of non-statistical information such as his dates of birth and death, the fact that he was a Mancunian and details of the type of player he was (i.e., RHB, OB/RM). All of this came from CA which is generally an excellent source; though by no means perfect as I demonstrated recently in John Wood by reference to the type of source that you advocate, i.e, S&B, though everyone knows that too is far from perfect. The thing is that articles do not have to be long and if little is known about a player due to lack of data, the article will of necessity be short and remain a stub. As JH said above, we must have objective measures of notability and the fact that Shelmerdine played first-class cricket puts him in the frame without any kind of subjectivity. It could be argued that by playing against Yorkshire, then the powerhouse of English cricket, he achieved notability in subjective terms. The main printed source for Shelmerdine is Wisden 1946, which is where CA got most of its info from. If someone could cite the precise page number, we could add that as the main source in the article. ----Jack | talk page21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't Wisden mainly a stats book anyway? I know they have some articles in there but I thought it was mainly just batting/bowling figures. I don't know what you mean by subjective notability. The whole reason for the GNG is to avoid it being based on opinion but on actual coverage. If someone is notable for playing one match then surely that match would be equally if not more notable? I somehow doubt that every first class/major match is deemed notable yet for some reason every player in each of those matches is.
All I can suggest is that you consider whether Shelmerdine would be kept in an afd debate if it were judged by the GNG not CRICN. I firmly think the answer is no which either means there is something wrong with the GNG or CRICN. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Jack, and can add the relevant Wisden data for Shelmerdine if wanted, but would be interested in views on whether this is in actually "better" than a cricketarchive reference: essentially, it won't add any more information and it wouldn't be a clickable link. I tend to add Wisden (and other printed source) attributions where they contain information that isn't available to peruse on-line, but go for cricketarchive for scorecards etc where available so people can follow the links. Johnlp (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Well they are essentially the same source as cricinfo is based on Wisden anyway. But that's not the point surely-if appearing in Wisden is deemed significant coverage to meet the GNG then why bother with the one first class match rule? There is just as much info on many other players who haven't played first class. Quantpole (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think, above, on "subjective notability", Jack was joking: as a Yorkshireman, he may perhaps tend to the view that playing cricket for Yorkshire is instant conferment of notability bordering on celebrity, while, for non-Yorkshiremen, playing against Yorkshire is about as high an accolade as they can hope to achieve. His view is widely shared within the boundaries of Yorkshire, but strangely little outside those boundaries. I think in your note here you are unfamiliar with what Wisden contains: there's a lot of material about minor cricket (non first-class/List A) and its players, particularly in old volumes, that does not meet notability criteria, including CRIN. The "one first-class match" cut-off criterion has the merit of being instantly verifiable and all but indisputable: it's been applied here consistently for, to my knowledge, more than five years and has occasioned discussion (including some fairly recently on extending notability to a new set of cricketers). The view in this project has by and large been that CRIN is aligned with WP:ATHLETE. It's also a clear line in the sand, so we don't end up with disputes about people who've played "some, but not many". Johnlp (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
John, I'm sure Sarastro will back me up when I say t'old Emmott will be spinning in his grave right now. Joking about cricket? Nay!
Quantpole, re one of the points in your last post but one, every first-class or major match is deemed notable although we would never attempt to create articles about every single game. If someone does create an article about one match, we would look well beyond CA and insist on extensive coverage in books and other media which proclaims that match as extraordinary in some respect (e.g., the Tied Test at Brisbane in 1960). I know that articles about individual games have been deleted (more so football than cricket) because they did not have this special quality. But we cannot treat players in the same way as the match they have played in. People are more important than matches and matches are only as good as the people make them, so we must create biographies rather than match reports. As John says, we must have that line in the sand so that we have an objective measure. The difficulty we had recently is in how to judge players who did not play Test cricket but who are nevertheless international, which means they have a claim to notability in their own countries at least. Again, using our knowledge of international playing standards, we were able to draw a line with which we all agree (or, apparently, none of us disagree). At the end of the day, it comes down to consensus and, within the terms of WP:ATHLETE, the threshold for a cricketer can only be the level of cricket in which he has taken part. ----Jack | talk page09:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm a Yorkshireman too, and still live 10 minutes away from Headingley so I can understand (I've still got a water bottle Fanie de Villiers gave me on the 94 tour)! I think I'm getting to repeating my point here so there's not much point going round in circles, but to summarise what I think: (1) There doesn't appear to be much consideration to how the one match cut off relates to coverage, in particular, bios of such players in general only seem sourced to stat sites. (2) I am concerned about the BLP aspect of bios of obscure people who have only played a few matches. (3) The line could be drawn at 10/20/whatever number of matches and be just as clear and unambiguous a cut off, but would provide a better guide as to them meeting the GNG. People below the line could have bios still if the coverage could be shown. (4) Could the information be presented as lists to preserve the info, and articles created if significant coverage can be found? Quantpole (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of our articles now have a lot of squad templates -- participation in the 2-4 ODI world cups, 2-3 World T20s, IPL teams and so on. The bottom of the articles (e.g. Virender Sehwag) look like rainbows now with all these collapsed templates. Can we consider having one master template for ODI world cups for each country and just listing that. Something like first row 1975, next row 1979 and on, all the way to 2011? I think the template also begins to have some value then as one could look at it and see which players played together for how long and so on. I can work on a few if there's agreement to do it this way. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff09:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to see an example, it sounds a good idea. One thing I'm not sure about is the relavance of the 2011 squad to the one player who only player in 1978; however for those players who have played in multiple squads, this must surely help.—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Or why not get rid of then lot of them? I'm not really sure what good they do and habitually remove them if I ever edit an article with one of them on. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Spot on, Andrew. I really cannot see the point of squad templates at all and Spiff is right about the "rainbow effect" which looks ridiculous. I vote for complete removal. ----Jack | talk page16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
In response to the above, I did think of just wrapping these all into one box like on Ian Botham, but then it'll still require maintenance of individual templates. As far as whether we should have these or not, I'm neutral, I see the benefits especially in low visibility articles (I created many of the INdia women cricketers courtesy of the redlinks on the templates User:AMBerry created) where these are the only incoming links to them at all. However, for players of the likes of SRT/Ponting/Strauss there are sufficient incoming links and these don't add much value. But they still add value to ones like Badrinath (IPL CSK template) or Jhulan Goswami (India women's world cup squads) and so on. I'll create an example for consolidated version, I'm thinking along the lines of {{BBC Sports Personality of the Year winners}} cheers. —SpacemanSpiff16:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree completely. The squad templates are an excellent way of linking to other players and I think they look very good at the bottom of pages. They are done for nearly all sports too. By the way, the templates of all sports always just have the surname of the player. There is a user User:Wiki id2 who seems to think that both names are added and is changing all the templates. I have tried to ask him nicely to not do it but to no avail. What is done about this sort of thing? Nowoco 12:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I was wondering that can we add the first names along with the surnames on the templates as well, only reason is because I think that it will be easier to identify the players, it doesn't look that big of a template so just wandering if we can keep first names in the template as well As for articles such as Virender Sehwag we need we need to create a collapsible pane that lists all of the world cups he's played in. Also one collapsable pane for a domestic teams were all of Sehwag's current domestic teams can be listed, one current example could be if you have a look at Muttiah Muralitharan's article he's got collapsible panes for all of the world cups he's played in (1996-2011)(Wiki id2(talk)14:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC))
I think these templates are worth keeping. They are a useful navigational tool, as they help you to get around between the members of different squads. There should be some restriction on what we have squad templates for though. Perhaps only first-class club sides and World Cup squads (ODI and T20I)? – PeeJay17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A couple of days ago, User:Ashwinikalantri edited Template:Limited overs matches (without prior discussion) to include a parameter that would indicate whether a limited-overs match was a Day/Night game or not. I have no problem with this, but the user made it so that the Day/Night indicator was this icon. As I understand it, Wikipedia has guidelines against using icons in cases where text would perform the job equally well (or better). Therefore, I changed the icon for text. Now the user is accusing me of deleting content without prior discussion and hence of being a vandal. Some of you may have seen my edits around WP:CRIC articles, and you'll know that all of my edits are in good faith, so clearly the vandalism issue is a non-starter. Still, I would like some opinions on whether you guys think Template:Limited overs matches is better with the Day/Night indicator as an icon or as text. – PeeJay17:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
On my font setting on Opera, the D/N parameter displays on two separate lines, making it look somewhat awkward. Not really a problem, just an observation. Bobo.17:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll try to sort that out. I'd just like some sort of consensus here that I can use to get Ashwinikalantri off my back! – PeeJay18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think plain text is preferential: although an icon with appropriate alt text would probably serve just as good a purpose. Harriastalk18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
User:PeeJay2K3, I was never pressing on keeping the image. All I asked was that we discuss the issue before jumping to conclusions. If you had discussed this here before instead of trying to insult me, things would have worked better! You should try reading WP:LOVE before getting into your next argument here. Anyway, as I can see most of us prefer text to image, I have made the changes.--ashwinikalantri(talk • contribs)22:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cricket and the railways
For UK readers: Tomorrow's (Tuesday's) episode of Michael Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys on BBC2 is going to include an item on how the development of the railway network in Victorian times facilitated the spread of cricket. I imagine that the item will only last for five minutes or so, but it could be interesting. JH (talk page) 19:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if they'll all be awarded OAMs? Also to commemorate 40 years of ODIs and to reflect the popularity of Twenty20s, I think that the Ashes should be awarded to the winner in any form of the game. It's only fair. The-Pope (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to Australia's women. You can call me a reactionary if you like, but I think that to award the Ashes for limited overs matches would mark the beginning of the end for Test cricket and I'm totally opposed to it. JH (talk page) 10:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
These were mostly written by one of our former editors, User:Sam Vimes, who was a prolific contributor in the early days, and very possibly our only ever Norwegian cricket correspondent (he's still around occasionally, though not on this project). At that stage, it seemed possible to create articles that covered current cricket in some detail going forward while "back-filling" from the history: I suspect we'd be more conscious now of the scale of that task. Also, as you've gathered, the project as a whole was less careful then about "editorialising", about recentism and about full in-line references, though Sam was better than most of us! I'd counsel against wholesale slaughter. Some of the articles on individual counties' performances in 2005 have been followed by other articles covering the same counties in different years (one WP:Cric contributor has done a lot of Derbyshire seasons, for example). There are many precedents and later examples of Xxxx Ashes series and Fooian cricket team in England in Xxxx, for the simple reason that one covers the Tests only while the other covers the tour as a whole. There are articles on many, if not most, individual English cricket seasons from the mists of history onwards, many of them courtesy of User:BlackJack, and much of the information might be redirected into this kind of article, rather than jettisoned. You say "clearly something has to be done": but these articles have been sitting there for five years doing little harm (little good either, probably). They patently took a lot of work to assemble and though it's good you've drawn them to our attention, I don't think there's any need to rush to sort them out instantly. See what can be reworked or repositioned first. WP is not paper: we've got the space. Johnlp (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that the club seasons should be deleted. I'm just saying that perhaps there should be some streamlining of the articles. Like I said earlier, there is a lot of overlap in the coverage of the international matches. I find it interesting that the 2005 NatWest Series is covered in both Australian cricket team in England in 2005 and Bangladeshi cricket team in England in 2005, but one would have to read both articles to get an overall summary of the series. As an example of the trimming I believe is necessary, I would suggest that the coverage of the series should be cut down to a summary in each of the Australian and Bangladeshi tour articles, and a new 2005 NatWest Series article should be created and linked to from those articles. And yes, I have noticed that there are many "YYYY Ashes series" and "Fooian cricket team in Boo in YYYY" articles around Wikipedia. In fact, I've edited quite a few of them extensively myself. I was just taken aback by how there seemed to be very little consideration for WP:SUMMARY when it came to writing some of these articles. Perhaps I'm unaware of the order in which they were created, but the whole thing just looks a bit messy to me. – PeeJay20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine. Sounds eminently sensible. It's probably messy because it was created pretty much on the hoof as it happened, I think. Johnlp (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but User:Karyasuman seems intent on adding attendance figures to various cricket articles. Now, as far as I am aware, attendance has never been a particularly important stat for cricket matches, but I left the attendance figures in the 2010–11 Ashes series article alone because the info was recorded at Cricinfo.com. However, I cannot find attendance figures for most other matches, so I'm wondering if attendances are stats that we should be including here on a regular basis. Any opinions are welcome. – PeeJay14:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Most Australian games report attendance, especially first days of Test matches. Some of our grounds use barcodes on tickets and have a live updating number on the scoreboard. Maybe this is something that should be allowed if the data is accessible, but not searched for if it isn't. The-Pope (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Attendance at Australian cricket matches is widely reported and easily available. It must be of some interest as it gets flashed up on the scoreboard during each match, including domestic T20s etc.. The amount of publicity surrounding the crowds for the Ashes series and the Boxing Day Test in particular was incredible. This appears to indicate that this is a matter of some public interest. I support including it if it is available. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I say. If the attendance has been recorded, why can't we add it? It has a great importance, specially in Australian cricket.--Karyasuman (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Was just looking at some Argentine cricketers for a project I'm working on for CricketEurope, and noticed that the father of Donald Forrester, a current Argentina player, who has played List A cricket, played first-class cricket for Argentina in 1937/38. This got me wondering - is there anyone else who played first-class cricket before the Second World War who has a son who has played major cricket in the 21st century? Andrew nixon (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Had a good old think about it, none come to mind. I've explored a few possible ones, but they came up as dead ends. Maybe Forrester has a unique cricketing claim to fame! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There are copyright issues associated with both flags. Consensus was that it is better to have no flag at all rather than an historic (but copy-free) one that is now incorrect. Incidentally, unless you are making a very small edit (spelling or suchlike), please try not to mark your talk-page edits as minor as some people have minor edits turned off on their watchlist and may not notice your questions/replies.—User:MDCollins (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If they are copyrighted, then how do other media like newspapers and TV channels use them? The Times of India carried a full page world schedule with all the country flags including the Irish and West Indian. Can you help me understand that? --ashwinikalantritalk17:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The same reason that they can use logos of cricket teams and football teams, and images in general: they can pay to use them, or more generally, are simply gven permission to use them. In this case, the onus is on us to prove that an image is copyright free, we have to assume copyright. Harriastalk18:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Predictions for the future: the sun will rise and set, there will be taxation and someone will once again propose Bill O'Reilly, the American I've never heard or seen mention of outside of Wikipedia, fulfils WP:PRIME. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
With the world cup coming up we have a lot of sites that are trying to find their way on to the WP articles on the cup, the stadiums, teams and players. It's probably time to keep a closer look and revert these additions. I've removed one dubious site on schedules -- we have our own article, so anything that needs linking externally can be done to the ICC site or maybe Cricinfo. Also removed a photogallery link for the tournament that hasn't started yet. —SpacemanSpiff19:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on about what to have in the matches section, it had been in this form for quite a while but Ashwinikalantri says that it should be in the current form that is is in now. Which form is the better quality, more readable and most appropriate for the article?--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the older format was better. We dont need to give all the info about the match on the main page. Its better if we have main info on the side pages and let the main info remain on the 1st page. Please change the page back to the older version. It is better.--Karyasuman (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say remove the match numbers from the main article, we don't need that. Keep the score summaries in the main article and details of each match should go to the group articles for example in 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage. Besides there is no point in having just the list of matches in the main article. Its better to have a similar format for all the WC articles. Invite other members from WT:CRIC for consensus. --- Managerarc talk10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Managerarc I am in the process of keeping all the articles consistent, which Karyasuman has offer to help with, and the matches that the current version has will change to the score of the match once it has been played.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Just the list of matches is no use. Either complete summery or nothing (with match summaries pushed is a separate article for each group). The summaries are consistant with older World Cup pages. Also is there a need for a tabulated key in the group section? The group table is quite self explanatory. Also the key doesnt serve the purpose as it is located away from the tables (specially table for Group B). As for the match no, I dont mind not seeing them.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not just a list, it is a summary of the matches, as I told you earlier. There is no use, or any point in having the same thing on two pages. Leave the Limited overs matches template for the spin off articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Blackknight12, Please dont revert the changes till there is a resolution. Please note that you dont own this page. I have started a discussion on WT:CRIC also, so that we reach a settlement. Just because a resolution hasn't been reached doesnt mean you can have your way. The match summaries are consistent with the earlier world cup articles. Thanks for the patience.--ashwinikalantritalk11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are you saying the same things that I said to you, I accuse you of doing something because you are doing it, stop being childish! And I'm afraid you are the one who is being disruptive, as also seen in the Template:Limited overs matches heading of this page. You are the one who is proposing to add the controversial information, therefore that needs to be discussed before it can be added. So Do Not revert Please. Those articles are all out of date, that is why I am in the process of updating and cleaning them up. And in case you haven't noticed, the reason why they have the full information for each match, instead of a summary on the main page, is because they do not have any spin off articles, except for 2007. You have still not stated why the version you are proposing, with the full Limited overs matches template, is better than, more readable or most appropriate for the main article than the summary version, care to explain?--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The ODI template has been discussed on this page and you can see the details a few sections above. Its time you stop making controversial changes before we reach a resolution. If the community feels your way of representation is right, I will be more than willing to help you do the same, as I have done in the ODI template. Those article are not out-dated, they have been that way because people have discussed the best way to represent them is that way. I agree with you that the matches should be present on the main page. But in the format that the old articles show. please show some patience. Let us not fight here, this is a place where we can discuss. Thanks for the cooperation. As for the reason, I feel that the ODI summery template gives more information in a very concise form.--ashwinikalantritalk12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you get it your the one making the controversial edit yet you say that I am?
Again please stop copying what I am saying and make up your own arguments.
I am not making edits, I am preventing you from making them. Please stop counter accusing. If you decently discuss the matter at hand, maybe we can get to a resolution. If those articles aren't discussed, then thats because everyone complies with the way it looks. Is it too much to ask for when I ask you to be patient and discuss? Just hear out a few other fellow editors. Lets not heat this discussion. Show some WP:LOVE!!! Cheers --ashwinikalantritalk13:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should stick to minimal summaries only in the main article, with complete summaries in the specific group stage/knockout stage articles. – PeeJay14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with having a minimal list of results for the group stages, but would have the fuller template for the semi-finals and final at least. Also, I'm not entirely convinced about this particular list, as it isn't immediately obvious of the winner: maybe a similar list with the result to the right? Harriastalk22:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually Harrias I would say it isnt that hard to read who the winner is because it is just like the football (soccer) or rugby matches, except the cricket scores might go into the hundreds. Therefore many people who are comfortable with the football or rugby summaries should be comfortable with this and cricket fans should know how to read the scores like this.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If we dont wnt to use the ODI template here, atleast we should come up with a better way to represent a match in a single line. A template perhaps? This is how the proposed change looks like.
I have made a new template for this Template:Cricket Match Summary. I feel this is a very concise way of presenting match data in the main article. Suggestions? This is how it looks.
You are already adding this template that you have made to articles, it has not even reached a full consensus, please wait until it has been agreed for use.
This is the full one, as opposed to the one suggested by Ashwinikalantri. There is not much difference at all, just the removal of the lower two rows. There is not much point in that, the reader only really needs to know the scores of the game in the summary, and who's playing ofcourse.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not different because it is consistent with it! It has to be in a similar format if it has to readable. The new template takes almost the same amount of syntax as the table. Its easier to use even for new users and will be universal. Its just two lines which state everything about a match that someone needs to know - who played, when, where result and scores - the game in a summery!. And it can also be used for tests. I dont see why you have a problem with it?
Can you tell me when will you reach to an agreement? There are many more things going around the most celebrated festival of Cricket. You have made a mockery of it by indulging in such small affairs. Moreover, we cannot even edit the World Cup page now to feed in more information about the World Cup--Karyasuman (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Its not a football match. The way scores are presented in a cricket match should be runs/wickets (overs) eg: 300/7 (50 overs). In other games a comparative score like Team A 3-0 Team B is fine as it give a good idea about what happened. But in cricket we dont say Team A won 300-289, do we? I feel individual scores and final result is necessary.
The reason I am pressing for the template is that if a template is used, its easier to use even by a new user. And as the code is universal, the format will not change from article to article. Tables are difficult to design and understand.
Let me explain what the template design is - The Top row is the date, teams and the result. The Second row is in a small font size and has the link to detail scorecard, the scores of the two teams and the Venue. From a design point of view, it is clean and clear. For the contents point of view, it is concise. What I dont like about the table apart for the fact that its difficult to use, is that the data isnt arranged properly. The date is a separate row all together. That makes the design not uniform.
According to WP - Help:Template,Templates are to be used when repetitive material needs to show up on any number of articles or pages. Quite clearly, this is a repetitive information that needs to be on a lot of articles. Shouldnt we use a template now? We can then discuss how the layout needs to be later. We wont even need to change the articles once the template is included. Just changing the template will automatically change it in all the articles. --ashwinikalantritalk11:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this issue needs wider support from WP:CRIC before anything is implemented. Perhaps start a new thread summarising this discussion? Most of it this is taken up with two users with differing opinions. If what I gather is correct, you feel the full ODI template is too much on the tournament main page summary, and should be kept for the sub-pages. This seems sensible. Ashwini has drawn up a condensed template omitting some of the detailed information so that it looks consistent with the full page. Blackknight prefers a wiki-code table (which to my mind looks unformatted, and is open to mistakes in coding). If his style is preferred, I would suggest drawing up a template to mimic this to make editing easier. For my tuppence, Ashwini's simplified full template looks a lot cleaner.—User:MDCollins (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I havent separated the scores by this "-" but by this "|". Thus it looks just like a cricket score. The new template Ashwinikalantri has made is the same as the one made before. If we don't add the additional info in the old template, it would just look just the same--Karyasuman (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And "-" or "|", makes little difference. This is not how cricket scores are reported. I have made some subtle design changes to the summery template when compared to the ODI template. Try using both together and you will see the difference.--ashwinikalantritalk02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Table - The template is nothing but an imitation of the full template, (without the last two lines). The table it self is concise, easier to use and universal as seen in the football and rugby articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Template but... - Tables are dangerous and easy to go wrong. The template looks infinitely better and is consistent with the full template. Whatever happens it should be made clear when to use the shortened template and on which articles to use the full ones. However, Karyasuman makes a good point, you could just use the exisiting template with the guideline to omit the best batting/bowling information.
Template - When adding the score summary to pages, I don't want to have to go back to another page and copy+paste the table structure. Templates are easier to use and are the only way to ensure that the same structure is used in all the places. Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
User Blackknight12, still doesnt seem to understand. Now apart from the main WC article, he has started to use various fancy tables. Could WP:CRIC explain it to him that the consistency is lost the moment you use these tables. Cricket articles should look same through out. It makes easy readability. Where ever we need to list matches, we use Template:Cricket Match Summary template and the Old ODI template for details. Thanks. ashwinikalantritalk14:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Template, concur with the template; it's easier to use and has all the information required (and to my eyes, it looks cleaner and more attractive too, but that's all subjective). Lankiveil(speak to me)07:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
I thought it would be a good idea if we standardised the honours sections on the team pages. There are a few different ones being used at the moment so which one do you think looks best? Here is a sample:
[I've taken the liberty of correcting the bullets in your third example to match the source (T&T)]. Don't really mind, but the linking is nice wherever possible; I'd keep the shared titles in chronological order (unlike option 2 as it stands); the formatting of the "intro" to the list doesn't bother me, although if I were pushed, I would go for this, on one or two lines with linking of dates too,(bold, number in brackets, colon, no dash):
I like this last one by MDCollins with the competition linked and the colon. I suppose the seasons could be linked where possible, but may be overlinking and I'm not sure what linking to the appropriate season would add to the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Expect him to be lecturing the Reaper about his scything technique. Fond memories, particularly of him endlessly tipping Kent players as England prospects, particularly Mark Benson. I've had a squint at his article. It would be nice if we could add to it some graphs of his achievements. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sad news. Though his Test career was marginally before I started following cricket, he became one of my heroes. I also greatly enjoyed his insightful comments and sardonic sense of humour on TMS. JH (talk page) 17:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- : I've just been watching highlights of the 58/59 Ashes series and was thinking "Christ, that Bailey is a slow scorer". Hard to get out and a useful looking medium pacer though. --Roisterer (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
He was quite a tearaway fast bowler when younger, but by the 1950s he'd slowed a bit and others were faster, so he tended to be used as first change in Tests. He continued to open the bowling for Essex till the 1960s, though. Johnlp (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Not out/asterisks
A friendly US Wikipedian questioned the asterisks next to some scores on Wazir Ali's rather undeveloped article, not being familiar with their use to denote a not out innings. I've changed that article, but I'm sure there must be other instances. Is there any quick way to find them and deal with them? Johnlp (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. Something to watch in future. I guess you could use AWB or similar to search and replace any * with [[not out|*]] which would be a start, but that would also keep it in prose. I always link it in infoboxes (it's often hard to tell it's linked at all, so it needs doing in every column), and try to remember to write "not out" in full when in prose.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have that book, but if you'll say what the quote is it's possible that I can provide an alternative citation for it.
It's more that I have some doubts about a quote's existence AND context - it's the one by Sobers at Floyd Reifer. Just seems odd that such a prosaic and wrongheaded quote should be included in such a book, unless it's for the purposes of ridicule - and I find that unlikely. Just puzzled overall. --Dweller (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've decided (with Google's help) that the book doesn't exist and the spurious quote was indeed just a hoax. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, everyone, my understanding is that the warm up matches don't even have List A status. I don't have anything but OR to back that up though, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
{{England Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup}}User:Rzafar has created this, and also for India, Pakistan, New Zealand and Australia. I can just about cope with the ones for the senior competition: but for Under-19s? Seriously? Harriastalk10:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Played one first-class match in 1920 for the Royal Navy. Google search shows he was a rear admiral, so if there are any history buffs here who know where to look for details about him who can help expand the article! I've posted a comment on the military history project wall to the same degree. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is an official account of the campaign in East Africa in the First World War (Lewin and HMS Princess on the third page). And here is his promotion to rear admiral in 1925. Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to have had an obituary in Wisden, or if he did I can't find it on Cricinfo. A Major-General Ernest Lewin died the previous year and has an obituary, and I wonder whether they might have been brothers. JH (talk page) 10:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Charles la Primaudaye Lewin (1875-1952) was the younger brother of Brigadier General Henry (Harry) Frederick Elliott Lewin CMG CB (1872-1946).[10]. They are mentioned in Kipling's letters.[11][12] Charles and Harry were the sons of Commander William Henry Lewin RN (1843-?).[13] Their grandfather, William Charles James Lewin (1805-1846), served in the East India Company's Bengal Artillery, and married Jane, daughter of Stephen Laprimaudaye (hence the unusual middle name - I wonder if there is a connection to Pierre de La Primaudaye - sounds like his relatives could have been Huguenot refugees).
The Lewin brothers were cousins of William Terriss (1847-1897) (whose original name was also William Charles James Lewin)[14]; he was the son of William's brother, George Herbert Lewin, barrister (1808-1857). William and George's parents were Thomas Lewin (?1753-1843) (private secretary to Warren Hastings in Calcutta) and Mary Hale (1768-1837), a daughter of General John Hale (1728-1806) and Mary Chaloner (1743-1803). Hale commanded the 47th Foot at Quebec - under Wolfe - in 1759, and raised the regiment that became the 17th Lancers.[15]
Charles Lewin's brother Harry served in the Royal Artillery, in Egypt in 1901-11, during the First War, and commanded the Royal Artillery, Northern Command from 1925-1929. His wife, Ada Lewin, 3rd Countess Roberts (née Ada Edwina Stewart Roberts) was the daughter of Field Marshal Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts, VC. Their son, Freddie (1915-1940), was a Lieutenant in the Irish Guards, and was killed in action in Norway in the Second War.[16]
The other Lewin referred to above, Major General Ernest Ord Lewin CB CMG DSO (1879-1950), was the third son of a barrister, Frederick Albert Lewin (1842-1887). Ernest also had an elder brother, Charles with similar dates to the rear-admiral (1872-1947). Their father, Frederick, edited "A Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts" written by his uncle Thomas Lewin (1805-1877); this Thomas was the fifth son of Spencer James Lewin, vicar of Ifield and rector of Crawley.[17][18][19] Frederick's father was Robert Lewin - presuambly Thomas's brother. I have not managed to find a connection between these Lewins, and Charles and Harry.
Great work! Having searched on Google for "Admiral Lewin", I turned up lots of hits for Lord Lewin, and like you was wondering if there was a connection to Charles. Lord Lewin's newspaper obituaries don't appear to mention one, though. JH (talk page) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could someone have a look at this article. I would suggest it's a fairly important topic but it currently has no in-line references and just one external link. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, not needed. "The 2003 Cricket World Cup matches were attended by 626,845 people, while in 2007 it sold and distributed more than 570,000." - Were the crowds in 2007 invisible? Guess that accounts for the empty seats. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth taking to AfD, but at the very least it needs a substantial trimming. The sections on mascots and logos are almost entirely unsourced, not something you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia ("An elephant, who is young, enthusiastic, and determined individual. He Loves playing street cricket, and would play 24 X 7, if he could"), and a gallery of non-free content without sufficient justification. The attendance section seems tangential to me. Once all that is gone you're left with a couple of sentences on television rights and sponsorship for the 2011 and 2015 World Cup, which would be better located in those articles. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The uploader of the above file claims it's in the public domain, but I'm struggling to see why. Am I missing something? Nev1 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio, I couldn't find the image on ndtv.com or cricinfo, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist there. It's probably the standard confusion between "public domain" and "available to the public for seeing on a website". The confusion is a lot more common with Indian images than other images. —SpacemanSpiff07:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The onus is on us to prove that it isn't copyrighted though: as yet no-one has presented sufficient proof to show that. Harriastalk15:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Here link is a discussion on the deletion of the flag. This issue has cropped up MANY times and User:Andrwsc, who is concerned with the Flags Project on Wikipedia, has been very diligent in making sure this flag is not used. As you can see from the discussion, a consensus has been reached that the flag is not copyright and so the decision has been made that it can be used in Wikipedia articles. Waterhogboy (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not believe the image was beneath the threshold of originality to be ineligible for copyright, so I nominated it for deletion on Commons. However, the meagre discussion on Commons resulted in the image being kept. Therefore, we can use it on en.wikipedia for flag templates. If consensus on Commons changes in the future, then that would affect usage here. But for now, all is well. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 07:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm still a little surprised we still use the flags at all at WP:CRIC. Surely even flag supporters can see that unless you zoom in, the Ireland flag displayed above is completely ineffective, and is nigh on impossible to discern anyway. The only argument for flag use that makes me think twice is that they aid quick identification in lists/tables. This surely does not.—User:MDCollins (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Simple flags such as England and South Africa are easily recognisable at such a small size, but Sri Lanka's isn't and I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between Australia and New Zealand. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Flag icon for the West Indies team, copyright considerations and a potential solution
From numerous discussions, there is agreement that the West Indies cricket flag is protected by copyright and that whether or not we have permission to use it on wikipedia, we are prevented from doing so because the relevant license has not been obtained. The current flag has the current West Indies logo on it. The flag prior to the current West Indies Cricket logo was introduced had the previous West Indies Cricket logo on it. That logo was likely introduced in 1927 with the formation of the West Indies Cricket Board of Control although there is definite evidence of usage that I can find for 1933 (more in Evidence of Usage below). The logo (example here) was very similar to the modern logo and also most often placed on a maroon background. Both the 1927 date and the 1933 date mean that this logo is out of copyright.
With regard to copyright, Although 1 January 1923 is the current cut-off date for the Commons and is oft cited, the 1923 date does not apply to all copyright. It is a line in the sand that says that anything published before that date is in the public domain regardless of such considerations as whether the author is still alive. Then we need to ask if the logo/flag was first published in the US, and it was not, which would mean we have to defer to the copyright laws of the source country. This would be the country in which it was first published or if this is unknown the country which has the most significant contacts with the work. The West Indies has no copyright law as a single entity. Rather, the many constituent nations have copyright law. The West Indies Cricket Board is based in Antigua and Barbuda, so perhaps this would be the domain that we should look to for copyright law. Antigua and Barbuda copyright applies for fifty years from the end of the year of death of the author, editor or creator and if that is not known then fifty years from the end of the year of creation. Therefore, the case is strong for the original design being in the public domain.
With regard to evidence of usage, the logo is likely to have been created in 1927 when the West Indies Cricket Board of Control was formed. I have pictorial evidence of its use in 1933.
Proposal: We use the logo as used up to 1999, detailed above, on a maroon background as the basis for the icon we use for the West Indies cricket side. The logo is extremely similar to the current logo and at flag icon size would serve the purpose of representing the West Indies without causing confusion. Also, it has the excellent quality of being an official emblem of West Indies Cricket and therefore has not been made up, or an association invented. There is also some level of precedent for this approach in the strikingly similar case of the flag used for the Ireland national rugby union team where the icon used to represent the team on articles is the 1925 logo on the same background used in the current official flag.Kwib (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Is anyone from the West Indies Cricket Board seriously going to take legal action if we use the flag? I doubt it. At the very most they may request that the image is removed, but even this is unlikely. Bazonka (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
How is that relevant? We aim to comply with our own free content rules for our own reasons that relate to the very core of this project and not just because we don't want to be sued. Besides, it is unlikely I would face legal sanction for downloading pirated music but that doesn't make it OK. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Mattinbgn, this is all about risk management. We should stop the hand-wringing where the risk is miniscule and just get on with making articles look better. I understand your point about downloading music, but there you are potentially depriving the artist of income; here that's not the case. (PS I am involved with intellectual property law in my day job so I do understand about these matters.) Bazonka (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not proposing using the current flag. The proposal I have made above takes into account wikipedia's free content rules and is compliant with them.Kwib (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It is most interesting that the use of the logo predates the formation of the WI Cricket Board of Control. Can you please clarify what you mean when you say that you're rather surprised that the copyright status of a logo is the same as the one of a picture? I am not sure I am following what you are referring to?Kwib (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expext in copyright status at all. But, if the logo of a company (for example) become "free", it means that anybody can use it for whatever purpose, even competitors. I thought (but it's only a guess) that companies could have a mean to "renew" the copyright status of their logo to avoid such a case. (I'm probably wrong, it is just what I thought). OrangeKnight (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing copyright with trade marks. In a nutshell (and there are nuances that I won't go into and don't profess to fully understand), copyright is a protection of artistically created stuff (e.g. a book or a picture), whereas a trademark (which may be a logo or a word) protects a company's right to market their products using it. A logo, for example, may be protected by both a trademark and copyright. Bazonka (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The SVG for the pre 1999 West Indies flag, which is in the public domain, has been created. The use of this would result in a flag icon that looks like this: . I think that, as per the points made above, this would be acceptable to use. From what I have read above, there appears to be no objection to the use of the flag (only objections to use of the current flag); this is public domain, there appear to be no legal or copyright issues. Therefore, I propose that we should go ahead and use this.Kwib (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Statistical tables
The article on Shakib Al Hasan is currently a GA candidate, and at the reviewSarastro1 (talk·contribs) commented on the unusual stats tables in the article ("I'm not a big fan of the two stats tables, but that could just be me. It may be better told in prose."). They're the ones with the titles [20] "Shakib Al Hasan's statistics on 1 October 2008", "Shakib Al Hasan's statistics on 22 January 2009", and "Shakib Al Hasan's performance in Tests in the term covered by the Wisden award". As I explain at the review:
They contain statistics at key parts of Shakib's career, so: 1) before New Zealand toured in October 2008, at which point he was considered a "batting all-rounder" 2) the day he was first ranked the number one ODI all-rounder, showing a substantial change in figures between the two dates and 3) his stats that earned him the Wisden award. For me, the tables marked an easy way to highlight what I thought were important figures without bogging down the article with more "scored xyz runs at an average of wx,yz". I've not seen this done anywhere else (well not in article's I've not edited, I've tried something similar to this elsewhere) and thought it was worth the experiment.
I thought I'd bring the issue here over how useful they are as GAs can form a template for how newer users expand articles. Nev1 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nev, a nice experiment. However, I'm not sure. It could look like the tables are there set at arbitrary dates; glancing the article does tend to draw the eye to them, and without reading the context properly it may well seem a bit random (presumably what Sarastro was leaning towards). Looking at the article in the manner I just have, I would say they aren't necessary, and they are too spaced apart to allow any meaningful comparison. All that said, I have only looked at the article with a very general eye to see how it looks, and without reading the prose properly. If I had done so, they would probably have made more sense.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
On a similar note, I've been reworking the article on the Bangladesh national cricket team and was wondering what people's thoughts are on what kind of stats (if any) should be included at the end of the article. The closest we have to a Test team GA is India which is a delisted GA; it doesn't have stats at all. At the other end of the spectrum is New Zealand which seems to be about two-thirds stats tables, so there's quite a range here and I'd like to aim for some consistency between articles. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the input guys. It seems that opinion is against the tables so I'll take them out. Worth a try I suppose. Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Umpires
I have noticed that a lot of articles on umpires have a relatively long controversy section combined of alleged (and not so alleged) wrong decisions. I was wondering if there was a guideline or rule-of-thumb used to decide what to include beyond WP:BLP and common sense. WP:RS is a given, but match reports tend to delight in highlighting the mistakes. I was thinking that poor umpiring decisions should not be mentioned unless it results in a sanction or reprimand from the ICC or at the minimum a formal complaint by a team (although those seem to made quite readily). I made a start on Billy Bowden, Daryl Harper and Steve Bucknor (diffs highlighted). If no one disagrees with the diffs I will work my way through the rest using the same approach. Regards AIRcorn(talk)08:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. Most of them will be written as recentism as they happen anyway. We need to be balanced - how many of Billy's "correct" decisions are mentioned? None. The only ones that are really newsworthy are those events such as ball-tampering-gate at the Oval.—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Also the highest run chase in World Cup history and the highest total by an associate against a full member, beating (in both cases) Zimbabwe's 312-4 against Sri Lanka in 1992. We're very happy at CricketEurope, as you can imagine! Andrew nixon (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well done Ireland and especially Kevin O'Brien. As an England supporter, I found myself very torn in the closing stages, half wanting England to win and half wanting Ireland to do so. For a while I thought we might be going to see another tie! JH (talk page) 18:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Surely everybody must have read (or heard) Trent Johnston the other day when he wisely pointed out that Ireland needed a first-class domestic structure before they could play test cricket? Just to quote: "I think Test cricket is probably a good while away," Johnston told ESPNcricinfo on the morning after Ireland's win. "We need to get things set up back in Ireland, the infrastructure and first-class setup and that sort of stuff."
It's really kind of shocking that supposed cricket enthusiasts don't seem to know this and think that just because a team beats another in one-day cricket then it automatically means they should play test cricket. At least Johnston seems to be looking in the right direction; if he hadn't been then it would surely have been the case of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (both of which had 3-day domestic cricket years before becoming test nations) being the last test nations as the rest of the cricket world continued in (blissful?) ignorance of the fact that first-class cricket (3- or 4-day cricket) is a pre-requisite for playing tests.72.27.24.211 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Very true Andrew. Wouldn't suprise me if Ireland were next door to India, India would be touting for their promotion to Test status. Also, had a look at the page views for KOB and on 1 March 98 people viewed it, yesterday 18,400 did!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well done to Ireland; I'm still a bit shell shocked. I wanted Ireland to do well, and it's great they've embarrassed the ICC with their cynical structuring to prevent upsets and the exclude Associates next time round, but why couldn't they have beaten Bangladesh instead of England! Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted it to an edition from last November which seems to be the latest with no vandalism in it. Even the recent reversions hadn't picked up everything! Johnlp (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
A bit of a dissenting opinion from this corner. I don't think it is the worst way of bringing these lists together. There are Category:Lists of lists so these types of pages must be used usefully somewhere, although this one needs the redlinks removed - for a start. I suspect that an AfD for this list would likely close as "keep". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
To me the main benefit of lists over cats* is that they allow sorting, trackability (easier to see additions/deletions), more info than just article title to be shown and sub catergorising on a single page, rather than on many pages. In this case only the last criterion applies, but IMO, it's enough for a hypothetical !keep from me too.
I've just removed this oddity, mainly because it was unsourced and read peculiarly. It seems that it's been in the article since 2006. I used Google but was unable to find anything on the matter. Does anyone know if this is a hoax or just obscure? Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Project page
I've had a bit of a go at reformatting the main page for the project. If anyone is severely opposed to it, I won't be offended in the slightest if you just revert it back to the older version. The aim was to introduce an article alerts section, which hopefully we'll be able to use to monitor some of our articles more closely, and to get control of the list of featured material, which was quickly over-running the page. Harriastalk17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm compiling a list of Hampshire first-class records of which I'm currently on the partnerships section. The record partnership for the 11th wicket (it was a 12 per side match) in the match between Hampshire and MCC in 1880 is unknown. I've looked through numerous possible sources and found nothing - can anyone solve this enduring mystery???? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It may well be that the score at the fall of each wicket was not recorded by the scorers, which I believe was not uncommon back then. I had a look at CricketArchive's version of the scorecard, and none of the FoW scores are recorded. We can put at upper bound on the last wicket partnership of 56, as the highest Hampshire individual score was 31, the number 12 made 9* and the innings had 16 extras. Hampshire CCC and/or MCC might still have the ordiginal scorebook(s), so if you want to know badly enough you could write to them. JH (talk page) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
via National Library of Australia eResources link to 19th C British Newspapers I've found that The Hampshire Advertiser published on Saturday 28 August 1880 carries a report on the match.
"Acton who came next made the highest score of the day, viz., 31, ...Lucas and Blundell only mustered three between them, and after Jellicoe had made a single time was called, the score standing at 169.
At noon on Thursday play was resumed. Harris and Jellicoe the not outs added 12 to the total of the previous night, and when Harris was despatched for a capitally made 28, the score stood at 181."
My reading of that is Jellicoe came to the crease just before stumps with score at 168. Therefore on the next morning the last wicket partnership was extended to 13. If you know of anyone with access to other local papers published at that time they'll probably be able to confirm - of course, info from a scorebook would be best source of all if it still exists. RossRSmith (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't think the National Library of Australia link to the 19th C newspapers database works unless you are a local resident.
Either I'm being stupid or... well I'm probably being stupid, but the picture of the 1998 Test has no border around it and no caption; can't figure why! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's sorted now. You'd just forgotten to make it a thumbnail. On the subject of Corky, I left a question on the article's talk page a while ago if anyone has an opinion. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Was me being stupid then!!! On the talkpage note, I didn't realise it was that small a difference. Maybe needs rewording to mention it was a marginal difference. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded Dominic Cork's article. If anyone has spare time to read through it and correct any errors it would be much appreciated. Also, reference number 60 is odd and at this late hour my mind it too tired to work it out! I'll add a little bit more in the Derbyshire section tomorrow, relating to his 1999 struggles with them. If anyone has additional sources/info they can add it would be much appreciated. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
He's the fitness trainer for the Indian cricket team? Personally I'm erring toward it being unnecessary and non-notable, but I thought I'd see what the general feeling is here? Harriastalk11:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is Category:Oxford UCCE cricketers really needed when Oxford UCCE is pretty much Oxford University Cricket Club in all but name. Surely Category:Oxford University cricketers is suffice? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Oxford UCCE teams can (except in the University Match) include players from Oxford Brookes University as well as from Oxford University, and these are two seperate institutions (though not very far apart geographically). So strictly speaking, I think that for the period since the UCCE side was created players should be categorised as Oxford UCCE rather than as Oxford University. Similarly for Cambridge. JH (talk page) 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point actually, I hadn't thought of that! You're probably right that they should be separate categories in that case.Harriastalk18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
My first so no idea whether or not I've done the process correctly. Here is the review, I'm not after any type of GA or anything like that, just for it to be checked through. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother everyone again, but I'm having issues with User:Ashwinikalantri... again! The problem is again at Template:Limited overs matches, except this time it involves some unilateral edits that the aforementioned user made and I objected to. You can see my objections and Ashwinikalantri's responses at Template talk:Limited overs matches. A third opinion would be very useful, as I don't think any final decision should be left to either Ashwinikalantri or myself. – PeeJay21:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is Ashwinkalantri doesn't understand WP:BRD. As this needs to stop immediately and be resolved through the talk pages, if either of you makes another revert over this I will block the relevant party. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I didnt know WP:BRD. As far as Template:Infobox cricketer is concerned, I had reverted my changes and added a discussion topic after User:Harrias's comment. I was only trying to add T20I, a major form of international cricket to the stats. And I will try to be more careful with the minor edit (The problem is that it is checked by default, and I often forget to uncheck it. --ashwinikalantritalk22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no complaints over ashwinikalantri's conduct at Template:Infobox cricketer: as soon as I reverted his edit and suggested that he discuss it, he did exactly that. This user should be praised for his attempts to update some of our templates, but it is important to understand that discussion and consensus is generally needed on these important and heavily used templates. Harriastalk22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It can be extremely frustrating trying to discuss an article when the other party is changing it to their preferred version in apparant disregard for other's opinions; aside from issues of disruption, it conveys the impression that you are unwilling to talk. I can understand why PeeJay might be annoyed. And if the minor edit function is going to be an issue similar to how your usual edit summary is "update" regardless of content of propriety, I suggest you change your default settings so it is not always checked. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it does, which is why it is why claiming to be unaware of WP:BRD doesn't sound like a good excuse. To even the newest of editors, the futility of repeatedly reverting, even when there is parallel discussion, should quickly become evident. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of the CWC, it would be good to expand the match summary reports for the group stages. I've started to expand a few or add notable achievements for each match. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just a note to say that Peter Loader, former England bowler died earlier in the week. If someone has the time, the article might need some work. Related to this, in the past when a player represented an England touring team they were officially playing for the MCC; does MCC get added into the infobox as a club? Hack (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Boycs
Could we get some consensus on the latest drawing ([22]) or at least decide what we want to do with the photographs in the article (please someone take one!) cause one person puts it on and then another takes it off unilaterally. --S.G.(GH)ping!19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like he has been smacked in the side of the face with a potatoe! Looks nothing like him. Remove!!!!! I'll try and catch a snap at the Rose Bowl Test match later in the year. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Former first-class cricket clubs
Considering we have teams like Burma, Cayman Islands, USA, Nepal ect, who were first-class at some point, should Category:Former first-class cricket clubs be renamed Category:Former first-class cricket teams? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not too sure about including national teams in any such cateogry - theoretically at least all those teams could play first-class cricket again in the future. All but Burma could qualify to play in the 2013/14 Intercontinental Cup, assuming the current structure remains in place. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
See your point Andrew. What is our definition for a club? Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club which played first-class until breaking apart was obviously a club! But what about say... the South of England cricket team? Is that a club or a team? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a cutting from the Westmorland Gazette and if you put Wheatman into the search engine on the Gazette's home page there are other references. Johnlp (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks a bit of a random trivia section to me. If there are referenced records, then they can probably stay due to existing consensus. A POV list probably shouldn't. One error I spotted: I don't think Kapil Dev scored 4 consecutive sixes against the Turbanator, but I could be mistaken ;-)
Hi all. I'm attempting to put together a list of the BBC's Stump the Bearded Wonder episodes, and am doing rather well... up to a point. Does anyone have a master list handy - or the links to the episodes I am missing?
Specifically, the episodes which I am unable to find via a Google search are:
Episode 51 (sometime between May - July 2003)
Episode 52 (as above)
Episode 63 (sometime in November 2003)
Episode 67 (January - February 2004)
Episode 68 (as above)
Episode 71 (March(?) 2004)
Episode 73 (April(?) 2004)
Episode 77 (June - July 2004)
Episode 78 (as above)
Episode 80 (July - August 2004)
Episode 82 (August - September 2004)
Episode 87 (November (?) 2004)
Episode 97 (April (?) 2005)
Episode 151 (July - Setember 2007)
Episode 152 (July - Setember 2007)
Episode 153 (July - Setember 2007)
If anyone can assist me in finding any of these on the BBC's website, please provide some links - and/or some relative slaps on the forehead if necessary..?
CRIN suggests that for administrators and such like you have to assert the notability with ref to cricket pretty high up in the article. Wouldn't have thought that was a problem with him. There's a cricket administrators category he can go straight into. Go for it. Johnlp (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Devon cricketer who served in the British Army. I've googled him, searched him on the London Gazette and found nothing. Anyone else going to have better luck? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Nothing from me. Found a Harold Miles of Instow, which isn't too far away, but he seems to have died in the 1930s, so it would appear to be someone else! Harriastalk21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Nah, scratch that, found the article from Life magazine, and this Harold Miles was a founding member of the Hurlington Club in 1888! Possible relation though. Harriastalk21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There's eight references to him in the London Gazette. Here's the list (you can safely discard the final one on it). He ends up as a Lieutenant-Colonel in WW2. Johnlp (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The venue table is most tournaments is a huge table with photos of most of the stadiums and other irrelevant info that is often of little value to the article. There is a discussion if the format be changed to a more concise one here. ashwinikalantritalk21:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Of the age where he could have served in WWI, but I can find no trace of him on the London Gazette nor any mention on his obit. Is it just me looking in the wrong place, or did he just not serve in the military! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Jennings played for Warwickshire as a professional. Though it wouldn't be certain, there's a strong likelihood from this that he would have served in "the ranks" rather than as an officer in the First World War, in which case he'd probably have to have won a medal to get any mention in something as august as the London Gazette. Johnlp (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Come the end of his career he reached the rank of Brigadier, found some sources via google and on the London Gazette for him, but there has to be more out there, just struggling to find them. He served in WWI as an officer, later in the mid-twenties went to India, before commanding the Devonshire Regiment in the 30's. In WWII he was in charge of part of the home guard in Northumberland, before retiring and becoming a reserve officer until the mid 50's. So.... just a case of trying to fill the gaps in between. If anyone can find any additional things about him that would be fantastic. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added sporting information to this man's article but it keeps on being removed. I'm mainly interested in his rugby career, but he seems to have been involved in cricket as well, although there is some argument right now as to just how high up he got in cricket.
I've given my comments - I hope they help - don't know if any others here have a view. As far as WP:CRIC is concerned, he was a first-class cricketer, so would be notable for inclusion by our standards.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this (and the other people who participated), it's what I suspected. I have already had to replace the sporting information several times. It's annoying, as I think this man was a notable multi-talented sportsman, and would have probably gone much further if his legs had not been amputated. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC) p.s. I think the nadir was probably reached when an editor protested that he was not playing "pro-level" rugby union in the mid 20th Century!!!
Khalid Butt
An article on a Khalid Butt was deleted in the last day. I have since turned the page into a disambiguation page, listing two notable persons of this name. Can someone with admin access tell me which Khalid Butt was the subject of the deleted page? If it was the Kuwaiti Khalid Butt I will be recreating the page as he is notable under WP:CRIN for playing ICC World Cup Qualifiers in 2005.[23]Hack (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It was the Kuwaiti cricketer. My understanding of WP:CRIN is that the World Cup Qualifer refers to the main event, which in 2005 would have been the 2005 ICC Trophy in Ireland. The tournament he took part in 2005 was a build up to this event, but is not notable in its own right. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
For qualification for the 2007 World Cup there was a World Cup Qualifying Series which was a qualifier for the 2005 ICC Trophy which was a qualifier for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Amusingly the notability criteria seems to have a bit of a flaw which excludes 2005...
has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire
The 2005 ICC Trophy was the qualifying tournament for the 2007 World Cup. As Andrew points out, the tournament Butt played in wasn't the actual qualifying tournament, but was a build up to it. 2005 ICC Trophy is notable for being List A, previous ones only the final we count as notable, pre-qualifying tournaments we count as non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
IPL
The IPL games are not listed in the Current event/Sports portal. With the amount of impact that this event has on the cricketing community, I think these games are quite important. Atleast as much, if not more, than NBA or NASCAR, which are purely based in the US. I have started a discussion here. ashwinikalantritalk08:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, and consensus was against it. It is after all just a domestic competition (and a mostly poor one at that, despite the hype) - if the IPL is included, we should include all domestic competitions from all ten full members, which would be ridiculous. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a good obituary in today's Daily Telegraph (and I daresay in other newspapers too). Hopefully we can expand the current very brief article into something more worthy. JH (talk page) 08:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Chick Cray
I'm in the middle of creating the article on Stanley James Cray, known in cricketing cricles as Chick. He served in WWII, spending time in India, but I can find absolutely no information about his service record on the London Gazette or on google. Either I'm looking in the wrong place, or his military exploits didn't receive any coverage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, he may have not been an officer, and in any case I think many of the British Indian Army records are not yet on the internet, and he may be lurking in there. You should enjoy writing up Jack Davey when you come to him. The reports and occasional scorecards giving him a second forename (J. J. Davey) are not accurate: the second initial was a mischievous creation by the writer Alan Gibson whose campaign to embellish Davey's name even extended to the production of a commemorative tie, in Davey's testimonial season, with the initials JJ on it. Johnlp (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The history of cricket on the Internet
Thanks to a poster on the rec.sport.cricket newsgroup, I've discovered a fascinating history of Cricinfo here. Because cricket on the Internet and Cricinfo were almost synonymous in the early days, up until the mid-1990s it pretty much amounts to a history of cricket on the Net.
From User talk:Alex Bakharev#The Bot: "Unfortunately, the machine I used to run the bot on has died. I have a backup for the source code but reviving it will require some work as it is sensitive to the version of Perl and installed packages. I will fix it ASAP Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)" Harriastalk10:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In expanding the article for Gerry Alexander, I happened to notice that John Waite's article only runs to a single sentence (plus an infobox). That's pretty poor for someone who played 50 Tests. Do we have any volunteers to expand it? JH (talk page) 19:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm gathering some info on Harry Downer in order to expand his article. The London Gazette says he served in the Intelligence Corps in WWII.[24] A google search also brings this result up. Given that Downer played for Hampshire after the war, according to this website a Harry Downer helped at Dunkirk and lived in Newport, just across the Solent and that the picture on the site shows a man of Downer's age, with a son that looks just about the right age, would you logically assume it is him? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. You'd have thought most sportspeople would be too busy doing the one job to have time to do the other. ;-) Johnlp (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Andy Goram played cricket for Scotland, but not as a wicket-keeper. He did play as a wicket-keeper in club cricket though. That's just a bit of trivia though, so yes, there is no reason for Wicketkeepers to be a sub-category of Goalkeepers. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Barney Gibson has become the youngest person to play first-class cricket in England today, playing for Yorkshire against Durham MCCU. Certainly worth an article, and a potential DYK if enough info can be gathered. Cricinfo story. I love the quote about missing triple science, double maths and RE, though as a Lancastrian, I'd rather do that than play for Yorkshire! Andrew nixon (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And so Charles Young's 144 year record falls! Interesting and amusing to see the Pakistani comments on Cricinfo, quoting the dubious age claims of the likes of Raza. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
CricketArchive already have a page for him. (Since we have two sections here for the same subject, I've merged the two into one. JH (talk page) 09:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think me and Nick both posted at the same time! One of his opponents in the match - Jamie Atkinson - has an age related record of his own as he was the first player born in the 1990s to play ODI cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we can push this up to the size required for DYK reasonably easily if people have the time. The article was created yesterday so we have a couple of days before it becomes "too old" to submit (if I recall the DYK rules correctly)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just checked, we have five days from article creation to come up with 1,500 characters of prose. Right now we're on about 1,000 but we haven't mentioned how he's getting on in his first match, so I think we can easily push this past the required marker. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I noted that you still have a few redlinks on this template, and just out of curiosity googled up "cricket sport argentina" and "cricket deportes argentina".
For a while the articles about cricket in England in 2005 have been bothering me. I've been looking through them, and have a few ideas, but wanted to run them through here before doing anything more definitive.
Although some of these games are first-class, I'm not convinced about whether this is needed: there are no real matches between the university teams (except the Oxbridge clash) and so most of the information is already provided on the county's pages. Personally, I'd suggest an AfD for this too.
The game against Warwickshire is notable, the game against the International XI, far less so I would suggest. Again I don't really see the need for this, and would suggest an AfD. (In fact all five of these are lacking in references, so a PROD could be attempted.)
(In fact given the lack of inline references, all four of these could be PRODed.)
The individual county pages may as well be left in position, although they could probably all do with a clean up, and similar for the other competitions not mentioned: although they are in a similar state to these articles, they at least have the correct naming conventions. Harriastalk20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I wonder whether we should maintain/create the individual articles for Bradford MCCU and Cardiff MCCU, like we do for ECB Premier League clubs. Although not first-class, they do play first-class teams. Thoughts??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Word is that Cardiff and possibly Leeds/Bradford will get first-class status from next year. I think they should stay anyway - whilst they're not first-class, a number of players of that standard have played for them. This year alone, both have fielded players who have played ODIs. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Brett Lee and "Bowlers who have taken 400 wickets in Test cricket"
Can someone have a look at Brett Lee, and the info-box "Bowlers who have taken 400 wickets in Test cricket". Lee has not taken 400 Test wickets, and if you go to edit the box, he is not there, but on the info-box on his profile he is, along with others, Lillee, Botham for example who have not achieved this feat. I have tried purging caches, to no avail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.91.105 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I started the article for Colin Lever at 21:40 and at 21:41 it has been PRODed for deletion because it didn't have a source. I had started it, left the edit summary "started" and a minute later some trigger happy user wants rid of the brother of Peter! All in the space of 60 seconds!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's irritating when that happens. I guard against it now by always having a basic Cricketarchive reference from an old article on my clipboard whenever I start a new article, paste it in at an appropriate place, open Cricketarchive in another window, then update the reference to the correct player and stick a reflist in before saving. Tedious, but it seems to work. Johnlp (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It was a WP:BLPPROD, not a standard PROD and therefore was entirely appropriate. It is really a simple concept - ALL BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PEOPLE MUST BE REFERENCED. Think of it as the "pitched outside leg" rule in LBWs. It is black and white and completely unrelated to importance, notability or article quality. If you don't think you can supply a reference with you first edit, then why the rush to create the article and should it be in your userspace instead until you can? The-Pope (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Point being I had saved it to go offline for a little! I know things need referencing, but 60 seconds for something which meets notability and is obviously going to be referenced is not constructive! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but both the points raised above are useful to note, i.e. always just have a simple link to Cricket Archive or Cricinfo, and when constructing pages from scratch, save them to your userspace and move them over once they're ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Error?
Working through the Bucks redlinks, I'm onto Bruce Perry. It says he played an MCCA Knockout Trophy match for Wiltshire in 1995, understandable as he could have been loaned to them. But a closer look at the Trophy fixtures he played shows he played this match for Wiltshire on 11 June 1995 in Trowbridge, but at the same time was playing for Buckinghamshire up in Cheshire!!!! Must be an error! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it has to be a mistake. The people at Cricketarchive are very friendly if you point this kind of thing out to them. Interestingly, Percy seems to have taken two catches for Wiltshire at Trowbridge: must have been very big hits, perhaps carried south from Cheshire on a stiff northerly wind. Johnlp (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Might be worth a few of us watchlisting his article - he's apparently the boyfriend of new tabloid sensation Pippa Middleton. Yes, until a week ago, I'd also heard of him and not her. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"His name" has been "linked romantically" with Pippa, but what about Alex himself? Is the Daily Mail really considered a reliable source? I'd consider it nothing more than a gossip rag, and would hope that if this tidbit is retained in the article a better source with a higher standard of journalism and research is found. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've compiled a list of notable Bucks cricketers who haven't played List A cricket. The list is here, so if anyone wants to knock a few off, please feel free to! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
"Donald Steel - notable golf course designer" - ISTR that a Donald Steel used to be golf correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph. I wonder if it's the same guy. JH (talk page) 17:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ireland and 
West Indies respectively. The flags are missing. Shouldn't they be added? --ashwinikalantri talk 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Just the list of matches is no use. Either complete summery or nothing (with match summaries pushed is a separate article for each group). The summaries are consistant with older World Cup pages. Also is there a need for a tabulated key in the group section? The group table is quite self explanatory. Also the key doesnt serve the purpose as it is located away from the tables (specially table for Group B). As for the match no, I dont mind not seeing them.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
New Zealand
. I think that, as per the points made above, this would be acceptable to use. From what I have read above, there appears to be no objection to the use of the flag (only objections to use of the current flag); this is public domain, there appear to be no legal or copyright issues. Therefore, I propose that we should go ahead and use this.Kwib (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)