Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Irish cricket clubs: notability

Good day. I note from the guidance on the notability of clubs, teams and venues, that "It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure," but that such a view has only be taken thus far in relation to Great Britain and Australia. In relation to Ireland, the de facto position that has evolved is that clubs competing in the top division of each of the three provincial leagues (i.e. the top level of club cricket) are, by definition, notable. This seems reasonable, as clubs at this level invariably employ professionals, and first-class and Test cricketers have emerged through these leagues.

My specific query relates to Cork County Cricket Club, an article about which was previously deleted (see here). The article was deleted on the ground that the club was not playing at the highest level of club cricket in Ireland (namely Division 1), but rather in Division 2. My request arises now because the club has now been promoted to Division 1, and thus the reason for the previous deletion is no longer valid. There are articles for all the other clubs in the top division. I have consulted the deleting administrator, who has directed me here.

Grateful for a consensus view on my proposal to create an article on Cork County. Mooretwin (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My view is you should go ahead: not a problem. Johnlp (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it now passes the notability threshold, so be bold and re-create it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a problem, of course we now also have the Inter-Provincial Championship, which I've heard will be granted first-class status in 2015, not sure if this is true though? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that, if clubs are frequently promoted and relegated between the top two divisions, articles will keep on being created, removed and then created again, which wouldn't make a lot of sense. Can I suggest that, if a club reaches the first division, that should make it notable indefinitely thereafter? JH (talk page) 20:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that is sensible. In effect the notability (for Ireland at least) is that the club "plays or has played" at the top level of provincial club cricket. (This is similar to the criteria for football clubs at WP:FOOTY, which applies to a club that plays or has played in its national cup competition.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To note - I've now created the stub at Cork County Cricket Club. Would there be any objection if I updated the project page to reflect the apparent consensus here as regards notability of Irish cricket clubs, i.e. clubs who play or have played in the top division of the relevant provincial league are considered notable? Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Harrias ^talk 13:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As there appears to be consensus and agreement, I've added the criterion for Irish clubs. Regards Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Place of attendance

Seems like there are a lot of confusions regarding the position of mentioning the attendance. Some people prefer to write it below the wiki scorecard and some others prefer to write it below the venue. While all other sports include it under the venue position, I think we should mention this under the venue. Please share your thoughts and let's come to a decision regarding this. Itz arka (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Before agreeing a placement for this, is this snippet of trivia needed at all? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course needed. As I said, every other sport mentions their attendances in their scorecards. So why shouldn't cricket do it? And Wikipedia is about having facts, so this kind of a very less kilo-bites facts will not make the articles unnecessarily lengthy. As I say, cricket has got the pessimists everywhere and that's why this is the most unfortunate sport in the world. Wiki cricket people are reluctant to mention attendances while the football and rugby users are mentioning it in their articles. Itz arka (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for any reason why to not include it is for multi-day matches, as what number is relevant? Each day's attendance (will take up lots of space), the total (will multiple count some people) or the max? Of course any number needs to be reliably referenced. And whichever number or position, please avoid making sweeping accusations and claims of what we are and focus on this issue. It's only a number of a page. It isn't that important. Which game(s) are you interested in? Is there a game results template that you could use and is position fixed in that, or do you want to change the template? The-Pope (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Itz arka: What do you mean, "Of course needed"? Who says? Football and rugby articles record attendances because the attendance figures are commonly noted in the media for those sports. Cricket attendances are rarely recorded. We shouldn't be adding information just because we think it's relevant when most of the media does the opposite. – PeeJay 10:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay So you say that you think that media doesn't pay attention to it. How did you know? You know the recent T20I matches played in Australia against South Africa had some poor attendances but well over 20k, and it made news all over the Aussie media. From Sydney Morning Herald to Herald Sun to Daily Telegraph all went on to search the reason behind it. And that's how it gets media attention. Also ESPN Cricinfo keeps attendances record of some specific tournaments. So here I want to say that if you have that figure for some specific matches, then why not to put it? And for test matches, we can use a separate wikitable format at the end of the article to record those figures. while checking the articles, people may have the curiosity to know how the attendance was. So why can't we provide it being Wikipedia users? Itz arka (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The-PopeOf course not accusation or anything else, but here we can keep attendance records for the World Cup, Big Bash League, IPL (although BCCI don't publish it officially, still if we get any referenced source), popular test tournaments like those in England and Australia. If we can change the template for it, then it's rather good. For multi-day matches, we can use wikitable format at the end of the article to mention the daily and average attendances. If possible, then also we can modify the templates to include it in an organized way. But the worst idea is to simply ignore it unlike anything else! Itz arka (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The only match attendance figure worth noting, is a new record at the MCG on Boxing Day. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not the other figures??? What are the lacks in those? Itz arka (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If we can get figures, and if they're noteworthy, then fine. But as a matter of routine? I don't think it's that important. For some matches, when a Test series has "grabbed the collective imagination", TV viewing figures might be a more pertinent stat. Cricket isn't the same as soccer or rugby: people wander in and out of watching, I've myself several times been to a morning and evening session of a game and missed the afternoon, and in these days of corporate hospitality many of the "spectators" don't seem interested in the cricket at all. If it's noteworthy – a new record at MCG, full house every day – contemporary reports will note it and we can follow. But there's a danger of OR here and it's really not that important in my view. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you that it should not be a matter of routine. But if someone gets and puts the figure on, then there is also no point in deleting it. There have been instances where I have put on the attendance figures but those have been deleted instantly! Doesn't make any sense. Why to delete it as you are not interested when someone who found out the actual figure and put it on previously? That's my point. Itz arka (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

But no WP:OR. Johnlp (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Again you didn't get the point. I didn't mean to say that the person found it out on his own original research. I want to say that if he/she finds out the attendance from any reliable source, then if he/she puts it, then why to delete that??? Itz arka (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you don't get it. OR doesn't just refer to material you have sourced yourself, it also refers to the addition of material that is not routinely presented by reliable sources. Reliable sources do not routinely present cricket attendances, therefore for us to do so would be original research. – PeeJay 22:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that that comment is OR, or possibly location specific. In Australia, crowd figures are regularly reported. The-Pope (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Australian media, but even if that were the case, is it wise to let one nation's practices inform the way we present cricket info on Wikipedia? – PeeJay 10:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not only one nation thing, attendances are also recorded during the cricket world cups every four years. While only BCCI is reluctant to report the attendances. Itz arka (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not one country trying to influence anything, it's just information. If it's reliably sourced, then it's fine. Can't believe this is even being debated. The-Pope (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay it may not be worth debating, but it will be a rather wise decision not to delete any attendance info if someone puts it on from a reliable source. Itz arka (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Rohit Sharma

Appreciate a couple of extra eyes on his article now he's broken the ODI score record. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability Criteria

According to Wikipedia:CRIC notability criteria, a player who plays FC or LA cricket is notable, but a player who appears in the U-19 World Cup is not notable. But that kind of a player will be notable as per Wikipedia:GNG. So there's a dispute and confusion. According to media and television coverage, an U-19 WC player is more popular than an FC or LA player because an U-19 WC player gets the coverage both in online and offline media. So do you people think that the guidelines in Wikipedia:CRIC should be modified and the notability for the U-19 WC players be included in that? Itz arka (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. If a particular U-19 player or team passes GNG then the project's criteria are irrelevant. GNG always overrides any project specific criteria; or in other words a project's criteria can never be used to exclude a subject that passes GNG because project criteria can never be stricter than GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming that a player that appears at an U-19 World Cup meets GNG, but I don't think that's automatic. I'm sure some would, but equally sure that many would not. My understanding is that subject-specific notability criteria are supposed to comprise of criteria where one could safely assume a subject would meet GNG. Don't think many U-19 WC players would meet GNG, although some certainly would. So no, I don't think notability criteria should be changed. -- Shudde ^talk 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually after the last U-19 WC, there was a dispute over the existence of the article Aiden Markram in Wikipedia because at that time he hadn't played any FC or LA cricket but was the captain of South African U-19 team and led his team to win the world cup. Also he scored back to back hundreds in that tournament which was a record. A voting was done after that article was nominated for deletion, but most voters voted in favour of keeping the article. So it stayed. Although he played FC and LA cricket later, but if such happens again with other players, then will it be proper idea to have a voting every time? Itz arka (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My view is that Aiden Markram was an exception in that because of the extensive coverage of what he did as a U-19 cricketer he just about qualified under GNG. I see no reason to have a vote every time: in fact, I can think of no other U-19 cricketer that has had such coverage. The WP:CRIN line is clear-cut: FC or List A is above that line; U-19 is below it. GNG can confer notability through the extent of coverage whether or not a player qualifies under CRIN: I argued in the Markram vote that his notability rested (at that stage) on GNG and I considered then (and now) that he did not at that point qualify under CRIN. A. E. J. Collins is in my view a similar case. Johnlp (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Collins is the classic case in point because of his remarkable achievement in a schools match which received wide publicity at the time and is mentioned in numerous books. The definition of notability we use in CRIN was agreed several years ago after a prolonged discussion and, though it has been subject to minor amendments subsequently, there has always been a clear consensus that anyone taking part in major cricket is notable while others such as writers, scorers, administrators and minor players must have their notability explained and verified. I really don't think an under-19 tournament can be classified as major cricket. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG is key. If they initially fail to meet WP:NCRIC, then each article should be looked at to see if they pass WP:GNG. If in doubt, make the project aware of the discussion/article to help decide its future. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Collins (who died on 11 November 1914; lest we forget) would it be possible for someone to undelete File:AEJ Collins.jpg and File:Aejcollins.jpg, and put them back in the article? They must be PD by virtue of age, surely?

List of Centuries

A few months ago, all the cricketers' articles used to have their list of centuries tabulated in them. but for last few months, it's been seen that some of those have been removed suddenly. I was inactive for last few months, that's why I don't know whether any discussion has gone on regarding that. List of centuries has been removed from articles of Virat Kohli, Chris Gayle and some others. Please share your opinions on this. Itz arka (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's because they've been spun out into their own articles, such as List of international cricket centuries by Virat Kohli, so it's not needed in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh T20I lists

I found this category and it's mainly full of articles for Bangladesh against every country they've played a T20I against. Does one entry make a list? Anyone have any objections if they were merged into one all encompassing article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem until the merged single article doesn't become too much long to read. Itz arka (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need lists of matches? We're not Cricinfo... PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Gloucestershire CCC players

Unless any have slipped through the net, I believe we now have an article (a stub at least) for everyone who has played in a first-class match for Gloucestershire since the club was formed c.1870. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes

I have updated the Phillip Hughes BLP re his being taken to hospital in "critical condition" after being "knocked out" by a bouncer at the SCG today. [1] May need a few watchers to prevent him being prematurely declared dead by trolls.--220 of ^Borg 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The incident is disturbing to say the least and I'm sure all genuine CRIC members are hoping for good news about Phil Hughes. I don't think players duck as much now as in the past because generally the ball striking the helmet does no harm, but one thing that must come out of this is an inquiry into overall helmet safety, especially the back of the helmet. As for the article, I've added it to my watchlist and I agree several of us should do the same. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @BlackJack:. A few dopes misguided IP editors did declare Hughes dead in the next <2.5 hours after I updated his page, see [2] and [3]. Though the first one was pretty quickly removed by another IP editor! [4], and the next mostly by another new editor. [5] I also notified on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and the page was then semi-protected. The point about the helmet, I removed some details about that because the media reports seem to vary about exactly where it hit. Some said at the back as you note, beneath the helmet; others said the side IIRC. The event was also on the Sean Abbott and Bouncer (cricket) pages, so they may need to be watched particularly for premature 'death' announcements! (Just saw it was removed from Abbott's page about 10.5 hours ago. [6]) I must admit I'm actually not much into cricket. :-| --220 of ^Borg 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nepal national cricket team

Can people keep an eye on this (and possibly related pages such as player pages) regarding the first-class status of two matches played by Nepal on their recent tour of Sri Lanka. Nepali media reported that the two three-day matches were first-class, and I've had an e-mail from the Asian Cricket Council stating that the matches were first-class, but both Cricinfo and CricketArchive list them as not being first-class. I say we go with the latter two as they're our main sources. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually this raises an interesting point as your sources are presumably reliable and could be cited as verification that the matches were first-class. I'm always conerned when CricInfo and CricketArchive are taken to be definitive sources because they are both flawed in many respects. CA and CI should not be seen as the arbiters of which matches are or are not first-class if another reliable source disagrees. There are numerous cases where CA or CI go against the views of another source and indeed where they do not record certain matches at all. So, I disagree. I believe we should accept this tour as first-class, subject to the alternative sources being reliable, but perhaps note the views of CA and CI per whichever site policy it is that says we must present a balance. Can I just say, though, that I accept the views of CA and CI on status if there are no other sources that differ. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the Asian Cricket Council have the right to determine what is and what isn't a first-class match or is that the province of the International Cricket Council? CI and CA would presumably (eventually) follow an official ruling in this area and don't determine these things themselves. But they are the main secondary sources that I suppose we ought to take our lead from. Johnlp (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As the match took place in Sri Lanka, the status is the decision of Cricket Sri Lanka. I only e-mailed the ACC when I got no reply from Cricket Sri Lanka. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Further to this - I've received an e-mail from the ACC who have confirmed that Cricket Sri Lanka declined the request to grant the matches first-class status. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems clear enough. Not first-class then... at least until someone changes their mind. Johnlp (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That's good enough. No doubt a change of mind will happen one day. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, Kerry Packer always dreamed of having the WSC Super Tests granted first-class status, and while Cricket Australia was firmly opposed, there was talk that Packer would provide the West Indies Cricket Board (where some Super Tests were played) an offer they couldn't refuse to grant the matches there first-class status (at the least; I'm sure Packer's ultimate aim was for the matches to be granted Test status). With his passing and his heir Jamie showing little interest in cricket, I suppose the matter rests, although it would be nice to think that at some point in the future cricket administrators will recognise that, for example David Hookes's 116 against a rampart West Indian fast bowling attack, should be considered at least as important as his century against a woefully undermanned Sri Lanka a few years later. --Roisterer (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)