Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25


Cricket categories

I've been thinking a bit about the cricket categories. First, let me say that I think our categories are basically very good. Nevertheless, there are a few changes I would like to make. All of these have come up before, so won't be new to long-standing members of the project. But the discussion has usually petered out in typical Wikipedia fashion, so I wonder if this time we can reach some sort of consensus. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one should be in both Category:English cricketers and Category:English Test cricketers

... and similarly for all other countries, and ODIs as well as Tests. Generally, articles should not be in both a parent category and a child category. Although it's not completely clear-cut (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories for guidelines), I think in this case we should follow the normal rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support -- Ian ≡ talk 12:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Marlon Brando example quoted on the page you linked to fits perfectly here. There's no category for only "English cricketers who did not play international cricket", and there shouldn't be either. However, a category listing all cricketers from England is useful. Sam Vimes 11:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We still have List of cricketers grouped by country, and all English cricketers would effectively be in Category:English cricketers, only some would be in the sub-cats (Test & ODI) without being in the parent and others (non-International) would be in the parent cat. The page seems to imply that incomplete sets of sub-categories are OK. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason the Marlon Brando example feels different to me is that the number of Best Actor Oscar actors is relatively small compared to all Film Actors. So it's worth completing the Film Actor category. But in the cricket case, the number of non-international cricketers is small, so it won't look as if the parent category is nearly complete but just missing a few people. If that makes any sense. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've also noticed Categories of players that have taken part in a World Cup. For the test nations and Kenya these categories are useful but not for the other teams where their players have only played international cricket because of one tournament. They should be deleted (although many ODI status teams may participate in more international matches in the near future). GizzaChat © 11:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support People can be in more than one subcategory of a parent category. All English cricketers should be in their county's/ies' subcategory. English Test cricketers should be in that category. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete categories by skill

The categories such as Category:English batsmen suffer from a fatal flaw: there is often no consensus which category a player belongs in. All bowlers are required to bat sometimes, and lots of batsmen also bowl a bit. There is therefore no clear division between batsmen and all-rounders, or between all-rounders and bowlers. The consequence is that many (most?) players don't use the "skill" categories at all. In addition, some all-rounders are listed as batsmen and bowlers too, and some just as all-rounders. I would do away with the whole lot.

The only question is whether wicket-keepers should stay. These don't suffer from the same problem, because it's much more certain whether a player is a wicket-keeper or not.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12#Cricketers by skill. (But no consensus about wicket-keepers, so I'm not proposing them). Please make your comments there if you want them to influence the debate! Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Category:Cricket subcategories

This is the most controversial, because it survived two votes for deletion in the first half of 2005 (see Category talk:Cricket subcategories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Category:Cricket subcategories if you want to read all the arguments). But it's always annoyed me. It seems to me that its only purpose is for people who are too lazy to browse the category tree properly, and it messes up the Category: namespace. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The usefulness and the non-wikistandards-ness of this has always puzzled me. It seems to be a catchall category which is not universally applied anyway. If anything I think it confuses people. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Ian. I never use it. Sam Vimes 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per Ian/Sam. It amazes me that there are so many "subcategories" in that category. GizzaChat © 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there is no view in tree form in standard Wikipedia category usage. You just have to guess whether or not there are subcategories under the subcategories you can see, or guess what the parents of the parent category might be. So it isn't necessarily a matter of being "lazy". It does serve one other useful purpose—highlighting that overcategorization which Gizza finds so amazing. Gene Nygaard 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's completely non-standard and I see no evidence that it's useful. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12#Category:Cricket subcategories. Please copy your comments (or make different comments) over there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Gene's point about the lack of a tree form is a good one, and one that has been on my mind for a while. I tried to do one last year for Trinidad-related cats (here), but it was an awful lot of work and it's now hopelessly out of date. It's a useful visualisation tool, IMO, but it has to be updated manually. I was wondering if it might not be useful to convert the subcats cat into a tree and stick that page somewhere in here - because, quite frankly, this is useful information. In its current form it's just a pile of unsorted cats. Done properly I think it could be useful. Guettarda 13:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Guettarda 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I started mapping out a proposed category tree yesterday at User:Ianbrown/Sandbox2 but am now too busy to continue with it because of other commitments. If anyone wants to finish it off, feel free to do so - I think it would be a handy bit of documentation to have somewhere inside WP:CRIC. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate categories for deletion

I found two categories which duplicate other categories, and I've put them up for deletion. They should be uncontroversial, but feel free to come along and support/object:

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Now they have been depopulated, I could just delete them for you, you know... -- ALoan (Talk) 16:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC
  • My understanding was that you couldn't do that unless the category had been empty for several days, to avoid someone emptying the category and immediately speedying it. But maybe I'm too much of a stickler for process. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming?

  • Yes, it probably should (certainly "one-day", I don't much care whether it includes "cricket" or not). There was another category with "One day" instead of "One-day" too: I think it was Category:One day cricket. Also lots of "first class" (as well as some "first-class"). I just haven't got round to listing them all yet. Feel free to do it if you want to... Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is One-day International with both the hyphen and the capital I. The categories should be the same. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking to cricket portal

I've got plenty of time on my hands at the moment, because I'm lying in bed with shingles. Which you're not meant to get when you're only 35. :-(

Anyway, I'm gradually working my way through little things that bother me... Today, I want to talk about links to the cricket portal from cricket articles. This was already on my list, but has become more pressing because Blnguyen has recently added quite a lot more.

It seems we have no consistency about how to do this. I count several different styles:

  1. Link at the top of the article, like a dab link. This is the most common style. The links can be:
    1. Italic and indented1
    2. Bold italic and indented2
    3. Bold italic and not indented3 (Blnguyen's style, and the most common, though I think it should be indented)
  2. Using that little jigsaw thingy:
    1. At the top of the article4
    2. Near the top of the article5
    3. In the References6
    4. In the External Links7
    5. In the See Also8
  3. As a text link in See Also:
    1. Piped9
    2. Unpiped10
  4. From the History of cricket template.11

Some articles have more than one of these.12

Is there a standard for this? Myself, I don't like the dab link. I may be influenced by the fact that I'm not a big fan of portals (yes, I'm probably in the minority on that), but it feels a bit spammy to me. Do we really need to trumpet the portal at the top of the article? I also don't like "overloading" the space used for dab links: it's confusing to use the space for different purposes, and it causes problems when we need a dab link as well.13,14. So that's my least favourite way.

Any other views? Or any citations of a standard?

I'll let Blnguyen know about this discussion.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I never realised how many methods there are to link to the portal! Like Stephen, I think the dab link is a bit distracting. Yet it won't serve as much purpose when it is very low down in the article, like in the See also section. I prefer the box in the top right corner where it catches the eye but doesn't make the reader offguard. Perhaps this issue should also be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Portal. Then a standard can be reached about linking towards all portals. GizzaChat © 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, maybe a more central place would be best. I'll move this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, I think. Can we continue the discussion there? Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked Ianbrown about why some articles have this or not, and he said ([2]) that showcase articles on the portal should link to this portal - I was wondering whether I should spam articles with the portal links to two that I had created, (Portal:Eurovision and Portal:Swimming) because it could possibly considered bad form wrt vanispamcruftadvertising portals which I had created. So I proceeeded to advertise the portal on the showcase articles. I'm fine with whatever is decided - formatting, obtrusiveness, etc. ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've made the suggestion that the article Orange Free State cricket team be merged with Eagles cricket team. What do you guys reckon? QazPlm 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC) WS

No, because they're two separate teams. Orange Free State still play as Free State in the second tier of the South African domestic circuit. Andrew nixon 10:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Based on the response, I've removed the merge notice. QazPlm 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Maharastrian people

I've noticed that Rahul Dravid and Gautam Gambhir are listed under this category. As far as I can tell, they were born in Madhya Pradesh and Delhi respectively, and are not based in Mumbai or Maharashtra for any cricketing purposes. So what is the basis for classifying them as such??ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, remove them from the category. Both play for Karnataka cricket team and Delhi cricket team respectively. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Nichalp says that Dravid is there on account of ancestry. Won't this create big problems, when people start "claiming" their favourite people as being of "their" ancestryand squabbling over classification. Would Kevin Pietersen by in Category:Dutch people, or Michael Kasprowicz by Category:Polish people?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Have you told Nichalp? We all know that there are no aborigines in the Australian cricket team, so does that mean that all of the players should be categorized based on what country their ancestors came from? We can't go back into ancestry or people will start categorizing other people as all sorts of different things. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have replied on the Indian topics noticeboard, where I also posted it. Generally I think ethnicity is often only pointed out in the case of Indigenous people, of which Jason Gillespie is. Categorizing Monty Panesar and the like as Category:British Asians is clearcut at the moment, but what happens in 400 years time when somebody in England is categorized as such because they are called "Singh" but may have ancestors from many different non-Indian groups?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
All in all, my view is that nationality should be based on where you were born or at most where their parents were born (or where the person in particular has spent their life in). Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, your username comes up all white for me at times, at other times it comes up as white with blue highlighting, is this intentional? Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I hadn't noticed for so long, it is a blue rectangle with white writing in greek letters.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's do away with categorisation of people based on their ethnicity. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Barnes

Can someone who know the subject please confirm if [3] and [4] are correct. I have heard that Barnes could break both ways, but don't know if he was predominantly a leg break bowler. Tintin (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He bowled leg breaks, but he wasn't a leg spinner as the term is understood, in the Warne-Benaud-Hollies?-O'Reilly mould. He bowled fast, with seam, swing, cut and spin at various times. But it isn't accurate to put him with leg-spinners; he fits far better with fast-medium bowlers. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a good description here at Cricinfo, which describes him as a "right-arm fast-medium bowler" who bowled a leg break as his stock delivery at a pace similar to Alec Bedser, who we call a fast bowler, although Barnes apparently described himself as a spin bowler. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

History of the Indian cricket team

This is the only thing that the Indian cricket team article needs before we put it up for peer review. But I find the task a little intimidating. At least to begin with, if someone could lay the building blocks, take the first step, and add a couple of generalized paragraphs. It would be good. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Test cricketers and List of ODI cricketers

Does anyone use List of Test cricketers and List of ODI cricketers? I update them occasionally, but I feel that they're not very useful given that we have List of cricketers too. Last time I asked this, in December, only jguk said he used them, but he's now left us. Does anyone else care about keeping them?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes - they perform several useful functions, I think we should keep them. Add some references and we can have them all (and the national lists) as featured lists. I am frankly amazed that we have articles on so many thousand international cricketers. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    I doubt that these would ever be accepted as featured lists, because they are just a list of links with no annotation.
    And I would love to know what useful functions they perform that are not performed better by List of cricketers on the one hand, or the national pages, List of English Test cricketers etc., on the other hand. I have never understood this. What am I missing?
    Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't feel strongly, but I think if we aim for completeness as an encyclopedia, then we ought to keep them. List of English Test cricketers etc are chronological not alphabetical lists; List of cricketers does not differentiate between Test and ODI cricketers (though it could be adapted to do so). People in the cricket project might not use them much, but non-cricket people wanting to look someone up might start from here. Is there a way of generating them automatically when we update other lists, so their upkeep isn't a chore? Johnlp 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Completeness doesn't mean we have to make every possible list. I don't deny that there is information in them which is not obtainable from the other lists, but I still can't see why anyone would miss them, as long as we keep List of cricketers.
I do update them semi-automatically, so it's not a big chore. I just think it's best to get rid of them if they're not useful.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If they contain information "which is not obtainable from the other lists" (or at least not easily obtainable), and as they already exist and don't take much to maintain, then I see no merit in deleting them. I can certainly see trivia-type questions where these lists would provide the easiest route to answers, and simple lists like these are much less daunting and more easy-to-navigate than List of English Test cricketers etc for non-specialists in cricket or for newcomers to Wikipedia. Johnlp 15:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Barlow

See these very interesting edits : [5] Tintin (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tintin, saw that yesterday, but not the bit at the bottom. At the time the top part didn't seem particularly ridiculous, but seeing the bottom makes me not trust the top part of the edit.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But what she has written is probably correct. The link 'reference to Barlow's wife' [6] gives the impression that he was married to Helen at the time. But this link written right after Barlow had the stroke says that he was married to Cally then. Tintin (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, while many articles say that he had a stroke in 2000, there are also some like this BBC link which attribute it to brain haemorrhage. Tintin (talk)

My username

FYI, he who was User:Ianbrown now trades as User:I@n -- I@n ≡ talk 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Player table stumps user

Hey there. I noted that Jason Gillespie info table listed that he had bowled something like 14180 test overs and about 5000 ODI overs. As he in fact has bowled that many deliveries in each form of the game, I attempted to change the info box but I can't seem to be successful in this regard. Can someone kindly point me in the correct direction to how I can fic the table in the future? Cheers --Roisterer 07:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That infobox was written before there was a major change to the structure - hence the oversORballs field isn't used anymore. If you want it to use balls, write
balls = true |
if you want it to overs, don't use the balls field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Vimes (talk • contribs) .
I must say, it's extremely confusing that you have to use test overs= and ODI overs= even if it's balls. I know this was meant to simplify the coding, but it's very confusing to the editor. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ronnie Irani

Guys,

The edit history for Ronnie Irani is very interesting. (We really should notice things like that!)

Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahendra Singh Dhoni

People might like to put Mahendra Singh Dhoni on their watchlists. It's OK at the moment, but it's attracting a lot of ... enthusiasts. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Season article titles

There's a discussion going on at WikiProject AFL about how to name season articles - should the year be at the start or end of the article title. Has this issue previously been discussed here? -- I@n ≡ talk 05:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll vote start, such as 2003 Cricket World Cup. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Start as I said in the AFL discussion but there should be redirects for the end. GizzaChat © 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to canvas votes or splinter the other discussion, I just wanted to know if this has been discussed here. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling we have and it's in the archives somewhere, but I haven't got time to hunt for it now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I found something. Here's the link. That discussion also talks about whether "-" or "/" should be used in season dates. GizzaChat © 12:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Completed ODI Bios of East Africa!

Finally I'm back! I'm sure some of you thought I had quit completing the list midway & gone, but here I am, back in business! I was on a wikibreak & could not even think about adding new articles. But now I probably will try & complete the ODI Bios list in the "near future" (ambiguity intended!). Any expansion/improvements to the created articles will be much appreciated.

Cheers & belated Happy Easter to all

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Category sorting

I'm a bit confused by this. Why shouldn't we sort these by last name? - brenneman{L} 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See long discussion here. But in short, the first name is the family name, and the second name is the person's given name. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone check the problem in International_Cricket_Council. The image seems to be okay but it is not displayed properly. Tintin (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Something to do with the power failure last night/this morning. Wikimedia was down for a few hours and when it came back on, all the images were doing that. I'd imagine it'll fix itself soon. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fetured portal removal candidate

Portal:Cricket has been proposed for demotion from featured portal status at WP:FPRC. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with updating the news section, but I would like someone to put the box in its place first, because I don't want to make the layout go bad.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And that's part of the problem. Unfortunately the cricket portal was one of the first portals built and done before Wikipedia:Portal#How_to_create_a_portal was setup. New portals built with the portal skeleton are much easier to maintain (each box as a separate subpage with their own edit link). Rebuilding the prtal with the skeleton would be a nice project for a clever person :) . I'm not confident enough to add a box either. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#WikiProject_Cricket

Our cricket awards are being discussed here. They are planning to phase out the oldest cricket bat and only keep the barnstar. GizzaChat © 12:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I wondered why Evrik had removed the bat from the WikiProject page. (I think his edit is factually incorrect, in relation to the "Cricket Star".) He even swapped the bat for the barnstar on various user page, FCOL. Well, I've put them right back.
WhoTF are they to tell us what awards we can and can't award. I couldn't care less whether they list our bat or barnstar on their daft page (and there seems to be some controversy over whether we can even call is a barnstar) but it would have been nice for them to let us know when they started discussing it a month ago. Honestly, some people really ought to find better things to do.
Noone is going to stop me awarding gold stars when I want to. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
ALoan frustrated?! That's a first! =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gillespie 201* leading to POV

Hello. I think this article has veered into POV, following the recent century. Almost half the article is about the Bangladesh tour, and the following gives the impression that he is a genius batsman

Jason Gillespie's highest test score (201*) is better than those of such well recognised Australian batsmen as Steve Waugh (200), David Boon (200), Ian Chappell (196), Darren Lehmann (177), Damien Martyn (165) and Mark Waugh (153*).

It also almost exclusively addresses events only from the Ashes onwards. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes me laugh. :). Gillespie is way better than Waugh, Chappell and Boon. Gillespie for Prime Minister. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been keeping out of this article until the fuss has died down. I thought we could go in and clean it up in a week or so. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've removed that suggestive line above.
Only Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, and Jason Gillespie have scored a double-century in test cricket and taken 250+ wickets.
This might also have to go, because it seems to suggest that Gillespie is a great-allrounder, perhaps better than Keith Miller, Imran Khan, Andrew Flintoff, Shaun Pollock? Should it be removed? ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cricket article style guide

I added a couple of extra points:

I hope these are not controversial, but let me know if anyone objects. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike "One-day International": I prefer "one-day international". But maybe I'm weird. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm - just noticed that the ICC seem to prefer "One-Day International". I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, but we should be consistent. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ALoan, I agree with the two new sections. Well done. -- I@n ≡ talk 14:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian cricket team Good Article Candidate

Just to inform the Project that Indian Cricket Team is a Good Article Candidate. If someone can prove they are impartial and they have not made significant contributions to the article then I guess you can review the article. It's been on the list for a couple of weeks now without any comments. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

India in ICC

This is what four major references say about India's admission into ICC :

  • 1926 : India admitted to Imperial Cricket Conference

Rowland Bowen, Some dates in Indian cricket, Wisden 1967 http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152361.html

  • In 1926... the Imperial Cricket conference was meeting ... (Lord Harris) decided unilaterally that Robertson and Currie should be allowed to attend the conference as India's representatives (p.53).... By the time India was admitted in the Imperial Cricket Conference in 1929, the impetus was gone ... (p.61)

Mihir Bose, A History of Indian Cricket

  • When the Imperial Cricket Conference met in England in 1926, delegates from West Indies, New Zealand and India were invited to attend. Later that summer, Lord Harris presided at a second meeting at The Oval, where it was agreed that the membership of the ICC should comprise, ‘governing bodies of cricket in countries within the Empire to which cricket teams are sent, or which send teams to England.’.... The meeting effectively created three new Test playing nations, West Indies, New Zealand and India. West Indies played their first Test in 1928, New Zealand in 1929/30 and India in 1932.

History of ICC, http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/1909-1963.html

  • As the chairman of the ICC in 1926, it was Harris who ruled that the two Indian delegates, who had no right to attend since India had no governing body of cricket, could join the deliberations. (p.11)

Richard Cashman, Patrons, players and the crowd

According to Rowland Bowen, it is 1926; Mihir Bose has it as 1929. Sources 2, 3 and 4 talk about Indian delegates being 'invited/allowed to attend' in 1926 - reading icc-cricket.com, one may get the impression that India was admitted in 1926 (but note that there was no governing body in India till December 1928, and the BCCI president and secretary represented India at the ICC meeting in 1929), Cashman's quote hints at the opposite.

What year is one supposed to assume ? I am attempting to add some of this stuff to the early history section in Indian cricket team.

Our International Cricket Council uses 1926, but that probably came from icc-cricket.com Tintin (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

At one level, it does not matter: we don't have to resolve the ambiguity - can't we just cite the facts as stated in the various sources, with attribution?
Anyway, it seems pretty clear that two Indian representatives attended the ICC meeting in 1926 but the official Indian governing body was not formed until 1928. Assuming that the Indian governing body did not become an official member of the ICC until 1929, it seems odd that "India" could be considered to be a member of the ICC from 1926 to 1929 without an official governing body being in existence. However, I should have expected that we could trust expect the ICC to know - see [7] ("Full Member since 31 May 1926") and [8] - the latter looks like a cut-down extract from Bose (it goes on to say The meeting effectively created three new Test playing nations, West Indies, New Zealand and India. West Indies played their first Test in 1928, New Zealand in 1929/30 and India in 1932.) See also List_of_International_Cricket_Council_members, with dates (source uncertain). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping to add '*the* correct year' to the article :-) So we should now just add the confirmed facts - about the two ICC meetings and the formation of BCCI. Maybe include the ICC link ('full member since 1926') as well, since that seems to be the most authentic, but avoid direct mention of any year as the year of joining. This section will be too small to explain the confusion but we can do that if & when History of Indian cricket team is written. Tintin (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Name pronounciation

I was just going through some NHL player bios & noticed that many of them have name pronounciations. I think this will be extremely useful for cricket articles (especially for bios for the subcontinental players like Laxman Sivaramakrishnan). I just spent my whole afternoon recording the names of the entire List of Indian Cricketers & I'm proud to say that I have recorded all 294 of them! I tried uploading them right now but the Wikipedia servers are busy so I'll try again in a couple of hours. I have uploaded audio for a few articles like Ajit Agarkar. Please review it & tell me what you think.

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I went through the first few. You are adding it faster than I can check ! A couple of comments : (a) I think Bharat Arun should be pronounced Bhaarath Arun (as in the name of the country, not the mythologocial character) (b) Apte could be 'Aapthay' rather than 'Aaptay'. Please get a second opinion on both. Tintin (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to go through the articles. Yes the suggestions you have given can be correct. I added Bharat instead of Bhaarat as Bharat is a more common name than Bhaarat. As for Apte, which is a Marathi surname, I asked my mom who knows Marathi & she said that Aptay is more commonly used. Anyway due to there being umpteen ways of saying a person's name in India(I bet many people have had & will have trouble saying my name too!), only Bharat Arun & Arvind Apte will know how exactly to pronounce their name! I request anyone finding any mis-pronounciation in the names I have added to report it to me as Tintin has. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Good work, but the person's name should be kept in bold, not wikified with the audio file. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have followed the example of an NHL player Peter Forsberg. But what is the problem in wikifying the name (it remains bold, it's only wikified). Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the {{audio}} talk page about whether or not to wikilink the name. --Muchness 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A big Thank you to Muchness for stopping me from creating a huge mess with the title of the cricket bios (although I have created a small mess!). Anyway now I'll follow the recommended style on the template talk page. But after that I've got to do some serious clean-up of the articles I've already added the pronunciations to. *Banging forehead on PC monitor* ! Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yohannan should be pronounced Yo-huh-naan. Commentators usually say Yo-haah-nun which is incorrect (on this, I can talk with some authority !) Tintin (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded new file. Let me know if anything else is wrong. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks. Tintin (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricketers by skill

This category now has only has only 2 subcategories Category:Cricket captains and Category:Wicket-keepers. Captains is not really a skill (but was probably the logical place to have it when we had all-rounders, batsmen, bowlers etc) and "skils" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Propose to move both of them as sub-cats of Category:Cricketers and remove Category:Cricketers by skill which will simplify the category tree a bit more. Thoughts? -- I@n ≡ talk 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Done -- I@n ≡ talk 10:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Completed Name pronunciations for Indian Cricket bios!

Whew! That's all I can say! 294 bios in all finally recorded, uploaded & linked. I've got a sore throat & aching wrist (constant mouse clicking!) but atleast the joy of having completed the job I started (I'm notoriously bad at that!). Anyway I request all Indian members to please look these up & tell me if something's wrong (Thanks Tintin for already doing so).

Cheers

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉)

Ok. I went through some 100 odd files. (Others like Ghulam Ahmed or Ajit Pai don't need a review !).
There is one error. The first name of File:Pochai Krishnamurthy.ogg is Pochiah - the error happened because the title of the page was also incorrect. I also have a comment that it may have been better to use the initials where the player is known by them (CK Nayudu, ML Jaisimha, CD Gopinath etc). For most of the audio files, though, I am not qualified to give an opinion (like whether it is Veng-sarkaar or Veng-saarkar) Tintin (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now changed the sound file to . I hope that is better. As for using initials in pronunciation for players popularly known by them, I thought anyone can spell out the initials of a person but it would be a help if the the name, the initials stood for, would be spelt out. As for everyone else (like Vengsarkar) I too am not qualified, so we can change it if anyone who is absolutely sure says that the pronunciation is different. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. That's fine. Tintin (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We got a mention from Cricinfo!

Well sort of... In this article about Kallis the consistent batsman they link their article to ours concerning Standard Deviation. It was time our most valuable cricket source trusted us! GizzaChat © 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought they mentioned one of the cricket articles :-( Tintin (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they would mention any of the info on the cricket articles since half of it is thanks to them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a post to the mailing list about Cricinfo using (and crediting :-)) Wikipedia info.--Commander Keane 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Inzy

The Inzamam-ul-Haq article has just been added with a section called "Humour". This section, although written & wikified relatively well, violates NPOV & is uncited. Certain statements though if cited probably can be added like the statement about his tiff with a spectator.

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making fun of him on Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia. Perhaps it would be better to create a controversy section and then talk about the incident. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the section. The first paragraph and most of the second has no place in an encyclopaedia. Tintin (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone has re-added the section. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Give the anon that keeps re-adding it a day or two to try and make the section better, if it doesn't look better in a couple of days then remove it again. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ranji Trophy teams

All of the Ranji Trophy teams now have articles. I kind of left my work half-done and today came and remembered, so I finished the rest. The best examples at the moment would be Mumbai cricket team and Baroda cricket team (which are still not that good). The Famous Players sections need a lot of filling in, because barely 20 players have so far got their names associated to their respective domestic circuit teams. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. But isn't Kerala cricket team left? --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Kerala and Jammu and Kashmir cricket team are the only two remaining. GizzaChat © 10:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, didn't notice them seeing they weren't on the To-Do list, I'll do them today. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationalities of West Indian cricketers

Charles Matthews writes in a post to WikiEn-l:

<blockquote>A quibble I have is that you find things like Viv Richards introduced as 'West Indian cricketer'. Well, he is; but he is Antiguan by nationality. He played for the West Indies team; and I suppose if you go back to the time of the British West Indies then there is some further discussion to be had.

Is this something that we want to look at? Viv Richards's Antiguan nationality is implicit from the article (we have 'born St John's, Antigua on 7 March 1952') but not explicitly stated. -- Nick Boalch 09:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cricketarchive

I noticed it because Loganberry fixed it in a page - Cricketarchive has changed the naming format of their scorecard pages. Previously the links for different classes were in different directories, now they seem to have been integrated. So links like http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/f/1/f1739.html have become dead and been changed to http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/2/2043.html . We'll have fix them as we find them. Tintin (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Completed ODI Bios of Sri Lanka!

Finally I got the motivation back to complete this list once & for all! Most probably by tommorow I will complete the remaining bios of Pakistan & Zimbabwe.

Cheers

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/cricket/ashes/2005/about.htm I@n ≡ talk 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Makhaya Ntini

Is it just me or do the recent anon additions to Ntini's article smell like some kind of copyvio text dump. We could use it I guess, if it was rephrased, with the magazine style NPOV-ed out.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. It was from two places. I've reverted it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_19&oldid=1143731722"