User talk:BlackJack/Archive15

Guildford and the RGS

When I received a notification that both of those articles now contained references to Harry Altham (whose article I originally created), I guessed that it must have been you, and when I looked at the articles I saw that I was right. :) Thanks. A couple of the other earliest known definite references to cricket come from within ten or so miles of Guildford (one from Ash and one from Stoke, IIRC), which makes me wonder if the game could have originated in west Surrey rather than a bit further east in the Weald, as is usually supposed. Of course there's no hard evidence. Having been born in a Guildford hospital and still living not far away, I can't help hoping that this area can take the credit, though. JH (talk page) 18:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Jhall1: I don't see why not. John Arlott argued for the Weald and then PWT wrote his "Weald to World" history but Bowen, who was remarkably perceptive about many aspects of the game's origin and development, began his history by saying that, after the earliest references are encountered, "the game was widespread and popular amongst all sections of the community in southern, or rather, south-eastern England". I've always maintained that the birthplace must have been somewhere south of the Thames and east of Hampshire, which gives us three counties, not two, but most chroniclers say it was in the Weald. Their argument is logical, but logic isn't always right. Wherever it actually did begin (and we'll never know), there is no doubt whatsoever that Guildford is where it was first definitely played. Of course, when it finally got up north it was never played better than in Yorkshire . All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of cricket to 1725 into Newenden. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. I wasn't aware of that requirement so thanks for advising me. I am effectively the sole author of History of cricket to 1725, however, certainly of the sections on the 16th century law cases, so do I need to do anything re Newenden and similar articles? Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are the sole author, attribution is technically not required. However, as our copyvio bot is picking up and listing such edits, it's a good idea to mention the source article in your edit summary at the destination article regardless, so as to save patrollers from having to check further, and to save yourself from receiving unneeded messages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite the piece as I should have done in the first place instead of being lazy. I found a couple of additional citations too. Thanks for your help, Diannaa. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Meymott

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Charles Meymott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such artyicles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. United States Man (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

My bad. That person did not seem very notable at the beginning, but I went back and saw that it is an area you edit in. So you probably know what you are doing here. Apologies, United States Man (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorisation of redirects

Hello, I see you reverted my categorisation changes with the rationale that "we don't put redirects into categories". I can see it's a moot point anyway, now you've now created a separate article for Chelsea Common – fast work! To be honest, I wasn't sure how correct your assertion was, but a bit of digging led me to WP:INCOMPATIBLE, which shed some light on the issue. While redirects shouldn't be categorised when they are merely alternative names or misspellings, they can be when the article redirected to doesn't fit the category. I think this would be relevant to instances such as this, e.g. an article for a geographical place appearing in a "wrong-looking" category such as a cricket history one. Hope that's useful. Jellyman (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jellyman, I must admit I've never seen WP:INCOMPATIBLE before so it is useful. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Million Dollar Backfield – good topic?

Are you familiar with good topics? And if so, do you think Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) would be eligible? Once that article is a GA, of course. My main concern is that the articles aren't really "linked together, preferably using a template". Lizard (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Lizard. I really know nothing about WP:GT and I didn't even know there was such a concept. You'd probably be best to seek advice from someone via WT:GT. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Cricket collectibles

"This is a category categorizing various articles pertaining to collectibles such as action figures, cigarette cards, ephemera and other items related to the sport of cricket." Given the three articles that have so far had the category added, I think the description could do with amending to explicitly mention annuals - and perhaps magazines too (maybe even books?). JH (talk page) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John, I agree. That description was copied from a similar category for ice hockey so it can be amended and expanded to suit cricket. It should include The Cricketer magazine, certainly. I recently acquired a full cigarette card set and I think a list of all fifty items would be useful here, similar collections to be listed in due course. My collection is 1928 County Cricketers. All counties (17 then) are represented, Surrey by Hobbs, Sandham, Fender and Jardine. A very sad inclusion is "The Late Roy Kilner", who died just weeks before publication. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Al-Shorta SC good article nomination

Hi Jack brother. Recently I nominated Al-Shorta SC (an Iraqi football club) to be a good article (I am the main contributor to the page) and I see that in the past you have reviewed a similar article (Al-Talaba SC) and gave it a good article status and I think your experience with reviewing a football club page before would be useful if you reviewed Al-Shorta page too. If you have time are you willing to review Al-Shorta article? It would be very appreciated, thank you. Of course if you do not want to or not able to then do not Hashim-afc (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc:. I honestly don't think I'm going to have time, Hashim, unless it can wait until the second half of February. I'm going on holiday tomorrow night and I'll be very busy when I come back. I'll keep your message, though, and let you know if I can take it on. Thanks and all the best for now. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Long time, no chat! I was wondering if you know of a handy summary which says when 19th century Australian cricket matches were retrospectively given first-class status (or the whole "first-class" story)? I'd imagine there is something by the ACS somewhere, but I was hoping you could save me a long and tedious search! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Sarastro1: good to hear from you again and I hope you are well.

As far as I'm aware, the ACS since the 1980s has recognised Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 as the inaugural first-class match in Australia. It was the inaugural intercolonial match too, which seems to be the key factor. According to Chris Harte on page 32 of his History of Australian Cricket, there was no official definition of first-class in Australia until the ICC meeting in 1947 which broadly underlined and globalised the MCC/Counties agreement for Great Britain in 1894. Even then, there was uncertainty about which Australian matches should be first-class retrospectively. Apparently, and I didn't know about this previously, there was another ICC meeting in 1981 at which it was agreed that Australian intercolonial and interstate matches before 1947 should be considered first-class (plus Test matches and colony/state v tourists). Chris Harte himself strongly disagreed with the intercolonial limitation and argues that many matches played by the Melbourne Cricket Club and the East Melbourne Cricket Club were "palpably first-class". Harte says that Melbourne Cricket Club "were stronger than Marylebone" (his opinion, as he acknowledges) and that the EMCC "was the Victorian Cricket Association under another name". He points out that the players involved in the 1851 match were completely aware that it was the first intercolonial match and a historical event.

I hope this is useful. Please let me know if I might be of further help.

All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thanks for that. Which edition of the book is it? ((the ISBN would be perfect!!) I'm a bit hazy on first class status: did the ICC provide the definition and the ACS decide which matches meet it? And do you know of any ACS articles that might shed further light? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, @Sarastro1: the book's ISBN is 0 233 98825 4. It was published 1993 by Andre Deutsch. I have the first edition but I don't know if there were later ones. I'm afraid I can't help with ACS articles myself but if you contact them direct, they may be able to assist. The definition originated in 1894 by agreement between MCC and the County Championship clubs, effective from the start of the 1895 season. The ICC globalised it in 1947 (i.e., in the six Test countries at that time). Following on from the work of Roy Webber in the 1950s, the ACS (formed in 1973) commenced a study of pre-definition matches and their initial findings (including an extensive matchlist) were published in 1981 – this was for GB only but I know they later did the same for the other countries and I believe they have always used 1851 as their start date in Australia. Elsewhere, they selected 1864 for New Zealand; 1865 for West Indies; 1889 for South Africa (this match was also their Test debut!); and 1892 for India. I hope all this is useful. I've added a bit at the 1851 match talk page and it will be interesting if Lourdes can find more in the Australian archives. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Postage stamps of the United States template

Last October User:Jax 0677 started this template Template:Postage stamps of the United States (plus some others one of which has already been deleted) but, I think mainly due to his lack of philatelic knowledge and how to construct complex templates, it remains a real mess with terrible structure and essentially useless with links just thrown around any old way. I eventually got some time to make something worthwhile and it is currently in a sandbox of mine at User:Ww2censor/sandbox#Template test. I'd appreciate your input on it and am asking some other philatelists their opinions. Suggestions accepted, such as additional links or formatting, on my talk page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AFD

The AFD of this Bijay Ketan Swain hoax is currently going on. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Celestina, if we must go that way then I'll certainly contribute. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unmatched <small> tags

so, what was the reason for reverting my edits on

• ‪1785 English cricket season
• ‪1784 English cricket season
• ‪1783 English cricket season
• ‪1782 English cricket season
• ‪1794 English cricket season
• ‪1797 English cricket season
• ‪1781 English cricket season
• ‪1780 English cricket season
• ‪1779 English cricket season
• ‪1778 English cricket season
• ‪1777 English cricket season
• ‪1776 English cricket season
• ‪1774 English cricket season
• ‪1775 English cricket season

? you provided no edit summary for the revert. my edit was to fix the unclosed <small> tags which will be problematic once the HTML tidy postprocessor is disabled. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have explained that when you altered the tables in the first place. What we saw was a table with borders that suddenly had broken borders. Anyway, all of these tables are being redesigned. We've already done about 25 and the rest will be done in due course. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cricketers

Hi Jack. I've added a few more from the missing list of Middlesex/Notts/Surrey. Can't be too many left now! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts. That's right. I think we're down to 90. I was surprised to find Michael Ellison in the list, though he was better known as Yorkshire President than as a player. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Baggallay

Good morning Jack. Please double-check the articles for Thomas Baggallay and Robert Bagguley - I think you have put the opposite articles to the opposite name. Letting you do the job - then you can make sure you've done it right - I trust you more than I trust myself!

All the best. Bobo. 07:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bobo. Dearie me, you're right. Groan! I knew I was getting tired when I did those few last night. Anyway, hope you are well and I'm sure you would do a much better job than me on the evidence of these two . I'll swap them over. Trying to do too many at once in TextPad, I suppose. Best regards. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

All is good. Looks like the lists are getting completed efficiently. Don't worry - we've all made mistakes, especially when names have been similar - or even the same. I know I've made dozens in the past! Stay well. Bobo. 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made scores! LOL! I'm glad all is well with you. I'm fine, too, especially since I at long last retired. Never even think about work except I still use the computer a lot to do something positive. Tell you what, I'm much busier and three times more active since I stopped working. There's just so much to do now! Jack | ^{talk page} 09:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dates in list articles

I'm wondering if abbreviation the years is necessarily that helpful? I sometimes search articles for a specific year, generally if I'm looking for someone who played in a particular era. I wonder if it would be easier, from that perspective, which I think is a possible use of a page, to keep the full date. It's,easier to search for, say, 1914, than 14. What do you think? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Hello. I'm thinking you've made a couple of very good points and that I've done it the wrong way. It's one of those areas where, depending on who made the entry, the range format is either ccyy–ccyy (as you would prefer) or ccyy–yy. I thought we should try to achieve consistency but I think now that the ccyy–ccyy format is, as you say, more helpful. Something else that's occurred to me is that, because of the excellently thorough job done by AssociateAffiliate on the Hampshire lists, we should consider Hampshire to be the standard: those lists are all tabulated with the debut and last dates in separate cells and, therefore, written in full ccyy format. I don't suppose it will ever happen but we should ideally aspire to having all the other club lists comply with Hampshire. Anyway, I'll undo the date changes. It didn't take long to do it so little time wasted (the only tedious bit was copying and repasting each one to put it through the process). Thanks very much and I'll get on with that now. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll freely admit to really, really disliking the way the Hants pages are done! It's getting too statistical for me at that point and there are just so many pages. I guess it's simply how I'm using the lists - to me an alphabetical list is of much more use than a chronological one - it helps find families for example. From a usability pov I much prefer the relatively simple lists and I certainly prefer the lists to include all cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move completed for History of cricket (1726–1763)

Hello,

The requested move/retitling has been completed on this article. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 17:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Category closure

Hey I saw you closed the discussion of your own nomination, however without implementing the closure. First, it's not allowed to close discussions regarding your own nomination, although in this particular case it doesn't really harm because there is overwhelming support anyway. Second, you haven't really implemented the closure and this is really confusing. When an admin will check the open discussions (that may take another month), he or she will think "this one is closed already so I won't have to take a look at it". So either you implement the closure yourself (which, again, would actually be out-of-process but in this case it doesn't harm) or you'd better revert the closure at the CfD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Thanks for the good advice. Yes, I really should leave closure alone so I've reverted it, but we've done the category moves anyway given the consensus. CfD is a pain in the wotsit and always has been. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Well, that certainly confused me, because I came to close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 1#Category:Presidents of Kent CCC and found that it was already implemented. I left a note there about it. As Marcocapelle says, no harm done, but please don't do this again. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Ouch! What I need to know now is the best way to cook this trout (I've just made a shepherd's pie this afternoon because my missus has been unwell, but that's simple and I don't suppose knowing how to do that will help me cook a trout).

Actually, CfD is a sitewide issue because it is frustrating to use and that has always been the case, especially as you often go there and find yourself in some sort of parallel existence where common sense is unknown and the inhabitants do not understand that the purpose of categories is to provide our readers with a useful navigation system. Quite often, as we've seen again recently, CfD just doesn't work. It's a shambles. Anyway, point taken so thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Try Foodista.com.

CfD has problems, including shortage of participants and shortage of closers at the moment. However, you seem to be referring to thoughtless participation and thoughtless closures. Feel free to point out cases in point, if you think that anything could and should be done about them – or underlying causes. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, I really would welcome your specific views and feedback on what makes CFD hard, especially if there's anything fixable. Please don't allow me to think that you just can't be bothered... – Fayenatic London 09:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, but it would be time-consuming to find specific cases so it is, shall we say, a strong perception based on multiple visits to CfD over twelve years and on comments I have seen in forums such as WT:CRIC by other editors who have been frustrated there. Categories provide navigation to enhance the reader experience and that is always their priority. For example, a related article may not have a direct link from the one the reader is using; therefore, a category must be provided that takes him there in two clicks instead of one. It's as simple as that and I have long experience of creating such systems in real life. Whenever I have been to CfD, I have been appalled by the number of times I see comments by people who do not understand that essential function of categories and, because CfD has relatively few participants at any time, you can easily find that you are against a consensus of ignorance. For example, I've seen cases where people have argued that a category should be deleted because it has the same name as one of its articles and therefore all the other articles (which are related to the key one) should be categorised elsewhere! I kid you not. The backlog is an availability problem and perhaps more admins are needed to monitor CfD but the real problem at CfD is people who don't understand the purpose of and, from that, the need (or not) for categories. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stuart Surridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fielding. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

done Jack | ^{talk page} 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Rae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Littleborough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

done Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Swarm ♠ 03:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Swarm. You've been a great help. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi BlackJack. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. Thanks very much indeed and I'll read all the info. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo fixing

Hello. Was wondering how you can reasonably reassess articles from C-class to Start-class at a rate of up to twenty a minute, and why you'd be using an edit summary of "Typo fixing" when you do so? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2: Hello. "Typo fixing" is probably not an ideal action type but it seems the best one from a limited choice on AWB. It is the reassessment from class=C to class=start that is the meaningful part of the edit summary. What I'm doing is rectifying poor or invalid classifications by people who apparently think that C is the equivalent of start and even stub. We had 1,200 items in the category and the vast majority were invalid because the articles simply do not qualify. So, what I've done is to exclude from my AWB list the articles that are known to have been assessed formally and, given the volume of articles that are dubious at best, I'm moving all those back to class=start so that they can be reassessed properly in due course. We have revised our criteria for B-class and C-class at WP:CRIC to set better standards that we can use to measure an article's progress towards GA and, perhaps, FA. Although most of the incorrect classifications are due to inexperience or lack of knowledge, I know that there are a fair quantity of "rogue" assessments by certain individuals who should know better or who may have some ulterior motive. Anyway, I'm nearly done. If, obviously, I have re-classified something that is a genuine class=C, then I'll be happy to reinstate it. Hope this helps. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Once I had a quick look at some of the ones you changed and saw they were all cricket-related, I assumed it'd be something of the sort. And I see what you mean by inappropriate classifications: I just reduced this one-liner to Stub-class. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a classic example. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, BlackJack. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm ♠ 04:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Swarm. As a matter of fact, I've got an RM on the go at the moment but I'll let the discussion there run its course. I'll make sure I read everything and will let you know if I've any questions. I'm sure I'll have a good use for the functionality because WP:CRIC is a somewhat, shall we say, mobile project and page moves are happening on an almost daily basis. Thanks very much for all your help. Best wishes. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Double redirects - I just cleaned up a bunch of double redirects for Arthur Day. When you move pages it's important to check for these as they break the links - easily forgotten I know. Iirc there is a guide on what to do when moving pages that includes this and how to do it. Fortunately in this case there weren't too many to pick up. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

These are not double redirects. Arthur Day (cricketer, born 1885) redirects to Arthur Day (Kent cricketer) so the changes you made are only avoiding redirects. A double redirect is an entirely different thing. Thanks anyway. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer clean-ups

Hi. I'm not convinced this type of edit is useful, as "first-class" is linked in the very next sentence and "English people" would fail WP:OVERLINK. And this should def. not be done via AWB, per the rules of use (rule 3). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Lugnuts. I was trying to emphasise the notability aspect by saying as soon as possible that the man is a first-class cricketer and not just a cricketer. It's something I've noticed in AfD when someone tries to have one of our stubs deleted: they pick up on the article not specifying the notability. I think you're probably right, though, so I'll leave off. It's tedious, anyway :-) Jack | ^{talk page} 12:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I was about to come to say the same thing! The ones I watch I'll revert which is why there will be a tonne of reverts in your top bar :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted one of these where the first sentence provides a link to cricket and the second to first-class cricket, but you'd altered the first link to be the same as the second. Doesn't make sense to me. Johnlp (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't one of my better ideas. :-( Jack | ^{talk page} 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in England in 1902

Hi. I see that you've flagged this article as needing additional citations. As someone who did a lot of work on the article back in the day (when perhaps things tended to be less rigorous than they are now), I wonder if you could indicated where you think additional citations are needed? The "References and notes" section currently has as many as 63 entries, but if there are any glaring omissions I'll try to rectify them. JH (talk page) 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Hello, John, I hope you had a great holiday. What struck me about this article was that there is no obvious citation for most of the narrative paragraphs and only a CA link in each result line. As CA don't provide narrative, other than the occasional helpful comment, I wondered if the narratives had come from Wisden. Hope this helps but let me know I can help more. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a very good holiday, thanks. Sam Vimes did most of the work on the article, and then I subsequently added to it after he sadly disappeared, expanding the intro and descriptions of the Tests and adding the county matches at the end of the tour that Sam hadn't got around to. I think that for the county matches the narrative only uses information that's included in the CA scorecard that's linked to. For example, for the 7–9 July match of Warwickshire v Australians, there's a note at the end of the CA scorecard that says "Only 40 minutes play was possible on the final day due to rain", and that information is used in our narrative. For the Tests, we made use of Wisden, as IIRC their Test reports were available online at Cricinfo, but I don't think their county reports were, and I don't have the 1903 Wisden. For the Tests I also made use of Barker and Rosenwater's excellent book. JH (talk page) 09:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I've removed the attention tag as, looking at the article again, it would benefit from some more inline citations but the attention tag isn't really appropriate. I'll look at the article myself when I find time as I've got some material about that period, not specifically about the tour, though. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960–61

I see that you've rated this article as Start class, when you yourself had rated it as B class back in 2008. I've been away on holiday for the last ten days or so, so if there's been any discussion in thew WP of the reason for this then I've missed it. JH (talk page) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we had much different standards then and we really need to be seeing B-class now as a step away from GA-class. This article needs a lot of citations and some work on the WP:MoS side too: e.g., there are several single-sentence paragraphs which re deprecated at MoS now. Again, if I can help, please let me know. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Whatever the MoS may say, I think there are occasions when single sentence paragraphs are appropriate, but of course they should be few and far between. When time permits, I'll take another look at the article, especially with a view to seeing where citations are lacking. JH (talk page) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer AfD

Hi Jack. For info, the subject has a slightly different spelling for their bio on Cricinfo. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant, Lugnuts. I did look at CI but couldn't find him. I'll add this to the article as a second reliable source. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of AfD, I found this from ten years ago (!) when I was looking at the Indian cricket team in England in 1952 article yesterday. A (very) belated thank you for starting that article :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts. Yes, I vaguely recall that AfD because I was snowed under at work and couldn't do much at the time to help the two guys who started the expansions. I see that I pitched into the 1946 article a day after the AfD was closed, fortunately in our favour. I know we did temporarily lose some tour articles because they had been set up as one-line place-markers and the AfD mob objected. That was in the days before inline citations, too, so we often had to justify the books in our biblio sections! I think nearly all the tour articles (certainly those involving one of England or Australia or both) were started in the early days but most of them weren't developed until much later. There was just so much to do: all fields round here then . All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No probs! Just to note, on changes like this, there's nothing else really to link to and having two links on a stub isn't too bad. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Aagh! Sorry, Lugnuts, it's that sodding AWB thing again. I'm going through all 02blythed's new articles this year to see if I can correct his sourcing (both of Basheer and Shah are his). I notice that he always writes "first class" so I'm going through the Pakistani cricketer category to correct that, using AWB. Trouble is, it looks for other things it can clean up and I didn't know it adds attention tags. I'll watch out for those and remove them if it creates them. It saves a lot of the tedium in multiple simple changes but it shouldn't be doing extra work. Thanks for letting me know as I wouldn't have seen the tags. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Jack! I wrote an article that's under afd. Would be great if you could have a look and chime in if you've got some time. Thank you! Climate7298 (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Climate7298. I agree with you. The article should have been tagged, not hauled into AfD. It should be okay now, though. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Jack! Climate7298 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MCC

Whilst I admire your energy and industry, these lists of players for 'ad hoc' teams seems difficult to justify. Most MCC players post say 1939, were just those players available because their county was not playing, a genuine England A type selection or a bag of members and others. The professionals contracted by the club would make an interesting list though it would be lengthy their being often thirty each year. The same for North and South, bearing in mind that some of the titles from c 1870's are not all that certain and post say 1890, they were make-up or festival teams. I think CP Buckenham could not have been very fast as he had some stumpings. Kortright as a matter of interest has the keeper no more than about fifteen yards back in the famous picture, in fact more like twelve. As someone who stood at slip to several fast medium bowlers, 20 yds was the minimum! Ontario Railway (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about the standard of numerous MCC players. I knew MCC had used a lot of members and minor counties types but this exercise has revealed many more than I expected. I won't be attempting to convert any redlinks from these lists, btw, because we've got articles now for all county players and I don't think these guys justify articles unless they're notable for something outside cricket. Personally, I think county cricket (and equivalents) should be the criterion for notability but it would never be accepted: too much support for all first-class.

The purpose of the lists is summary information but they are also aids to research because they help identify anyone who's missing and they provide a measure of navigation for readers looking for other players from that club (categories aren't always up-to-date and are not easy to plough through, which is a design issue). Then there is the question of completeness. We've done all the counties and universities so why not MCC too? Moot point. The big problem with MCC is scale. They have used over 3,000 players and none of the counties have even 1,000 (I checked Yorkshire and their total is 669).

I don't think Kortright can have been too quick compared with modern pace bowlers who are stronger, fitter, much more athletic. Even Trueman doesn't look that fast when you watch film of him now. The old legends about fast bowling have to be tempered by asking what sort of speed they were used to at the time. Brett and Harris were "express" bowlers in the 18th century but in fact their speed (bowling underarm, too) might not have been much greater than the quicker balls of Warne or Swann. Who knows?

I never fielded at slip, always at cover or mid wicket: I used to be quick on my feet, a long time ago! I remember a school match when I actually ran someone out after my usual wayward throw hit one of our close fielders and ricocheted onto the wickets! Jack | ^{talk page} 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment

"You have just assessed xxx article as C-class when it is unquestionably start-class only." No, assessment is a matter of judgement it is not "unquestionable." WP:CIR: "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." Please read the essay pages you refer to and refrain from leaving patronising messages on mine and others' talk pages. People give up their time to work here. I've been editing here since 2001 and most people seem to think I'm competent, see my talkpage. I'd be grateful if you communicated with me as little as possible and don't revert changes to my talk page. thanks Tom B (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tpbradbury: Read each project's assessment criteria before you change classifications in future. Assessment is a matter of judgment, yes, but based on a sound understanding of set criteria about which you are apparently ignorant. Your assessments of numerous cricket articles were way off the mark; you were even awarding B-class to some that were not much more than stubs and to others which were statistical records in breach of WP:NOTSTATS. My messages were not patronising: they were honest criticims of someone who is creating extra work for other people who have given up their time to work on here. You clearly believe you are above criticism and I suppose your talk page will present an impression of support if all critical posts are deleted. I have no desire to communicate with the likes of you at all but, in future, assessments you make of cricket articles will be reverted immediately because I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to do the job right. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Laws

Thanks for all your work on this. One thing that might be worth adding to the historical section is the introduction of sides being able to declare their innings. JH (talk page) 07:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, John. I believe declaration and follow-on were both subject to several changes before they finally settled on the present criteria. There is also roundarm and overarm to be included; and I think bodyline too. Then there are all the lbw issues. I'd like to find out exactly how many codes MCC have released but not having much success with that. Do you know of a good source that references all of them? Jack | ^{talk page} 16:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dates in Cricket History, an article that used to appear in Wisden every few years, had a section on the evolution of the Laws. See http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153476.html. But that doesn't really answer your question. Barclay's World of Cricket might have something. A quick search on the Web has turned up this useful page, which links to all the versions of the Laws from 1884 onwards: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/index.html Even better, if you click on the 1884 link, for instance, the page that comes up has links to all the revisions between 1884 and the next full edition. JH (talk page) 09:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll make use of those, certainly. One article I've found in Wisden 1963 is "Evolution of the Laws of Cricket" which is on pp. 184–187 if you have that edition (the 100th). There is a bit in Barclays written by Jack Bailey which is useful but it is a summary and I'm not sure if he's covered everything. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately my first Wisden is the 1964 edition.

Rohan Rangarajan

Hello BlackJack. I seen this article Rohan Rangarajan. Why its not notable? Can you settle the issue. Will be Thankful. Greenbörg (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Greenbörg: Hello there, Greenbörg. Thanks for letting me know. It's always best with these to post a notice at WT:CRIC. You are absolutely right about the RfC result. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000. Since you had some involvement with the Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Loopy30 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Result (cricket)

I see your point, but just because an article is rated as Top-importance to a particular project, that doesn't necessarily mean the article belongs in the topic's parent category. If you take a look at Category:Top-importance football articles, you'll see 40 articles, but only five are included in Category:Association football because there are more appropriate sub-categories for the others to go in. – PeeJay 17:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Well, true, but we agreed in CRIC (long ago, don't know when) that we would limit the root category to those articles which are integral to the sport and therefore top importance by default. Part of the agreement was that no players or clubs can be included. In fact, we included it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Assessment#Importance_scale, although I see that's a little out of date as there are now 28 top articles, not 26. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to limit the parent category to only Top-importance articles, but that doesn't work both ways. Just because an article is Top-importance doesn't mean it has to go in the parent category. – PeeJay 17:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking at FOOTY's two lists and I think it is the better method. Something like cricket bat is an obvious component of cricket whereas History of cricket, though directly related, is a subject in itself, as is Geography of association football, for example. Okay, I agree. Let me have a look at all those articles because I see you have already had to take some like cricket pitch out of the equipment category where it definitely doesn't belong. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Philately project listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Philately project. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Philately project redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Magioladitis (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Octavius Eaden

The article Octavius Eaden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

low-level cricket player, no claim to notability made

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NSPORTS and gain some experience before you propose any deletions. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cricket

I'll try to pop along, but I'm under some strain IRL now. Then again, it's been dire for this long... --14:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dweller. Sorry you're having personal problems and I hope all works out for you. No pressure with the article, that's just a "whenever". Take care and all the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I've left a note on the cricket talk page with an idea or two. Always good to hear from you! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

MfD suggestion

If you foresee multiple additional cricket nominations with rationales so similar they almost can be copy/pasted, can you consider using a single nomination via the process outlined at WP:MULTIAFD? Less paperwork for everyone. Thanks for tackling that pile, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr. You're right but the problem with this stuff is that you don't know from a cursory glance if they should be removed or renovated. It's only when you investigate the sources that you can see there is probably a problem. I've actually finished with the drafts now so I'll try and bundle the ones already in MfD. Thanks and all the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• While I was searching for sources, many reliable sources about the subject could be convincingly discovered.While I would gladly take your stand at any AfD, in my experience, SNG almost always manages to overrule GNG.Thus, I think it would be better if you could withdraw the MFDs for the time-being.Searching for sources from mobile is really problematic!.With warm regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 14:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• And please avoid the copy-paste nomination statements in any further venture at any cost.And I would be sincerely hopeful that you will amend the nomination statements soon; because they would very-probably mis-lead any closer.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Winged Blades. I think I should leave them all alone as other people have commented on each one. Best to let the process run its course now. I won't be adding any more, though. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades has identified sources for a few that may show they meet the relevant SNG. Would you be willing to revisit those noms and express an opinion on whether you think they should be deleted, kept as drafts, or moved to main space? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, VQuakr. These sources are the same ones already named in the articles. They show a lack of information about these players and I strongly suspect that the names may have been incorrect on scorecards, since the sites are normally very good at matching names to verifiable individual people. I believe there is more than a reasonable doubt that other players, probably with similar names, took part in the matches concerned so the nomination reasons still stand, I'm afraid. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification! VQuakr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Cricket in the United States by state has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cricket in the United States by state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Million Dollar Backfield good topic

I've nominated Million Dollar Backfield for good topic status. Since you were the reviewer for all four of the biographies and are already familiar with the subject matter, your input at the nomination page would be appreciated. Lizard (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Great stuff, Lizard. You certainly have my support. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

12 years ago, today

Hey, BlackJack. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Test match summaries

I think the Wisden commentaries are useful, though I probably myself won't be adding them in just yet. I am combing through the series to do summaries and have got up to about 1954 (which only means the first 400 Tests, as opposed to nearly 2,300 played to date). I will probably get bored in the 1960s and start doing the curious representative matches at that time, eg Pakistan v MCC or India v Commonwealth XI. It is certainly something to bear in mind. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You sound like me . I can very easily get bored and go off looking for something else. The summaries are good, though. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your user page

Could you please use Category:Wikipedians interested in World War II Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder No problem. Done. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Great. He's cute. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Highest score in cricket

Jack, I know we've clashed on a couple of things lately, but at heart we are both content creators, so hopefully on that we can find a common purpose. I've been working on a draft for the "highest score in cricket" (though I haven't done so much on it lately). It's in one of my many sandboxes: User:Harrias/sandbox2. You are the resident expert for "ye olde cricket", and I wondered if your sources agreed with the early progression list, and whether I had made any silly mistakes due to my lack of experience pre-1880s? Harrias ^talk 10:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ben. I'm always happy to find common ground and I have full respect for the work you do. This piece is a very good idea. If you are starting with the earliest known century, then the instances up to Ward are spot on. There are, however, some earlier "known highest scores", although not all are 100% certain. These are the details we have, as included in List of first-class cricket records:

• 1744 – John Harris scored 47 for Slindon v. London at the Artillery Ground in the match which has left the oldest known scorecard. This is the earliest match from which individual scores are known. The oldest known team scores date from 1731.
• 1745 – Richard Newland scored 88 for All-England v. Kent at the Artillery Ground, almost certainly in the second innings of the match, but there is a slight possibility that it was his match total. This is the highest known score recorded prior to the introduction c.1760 of the pitched delivery and the straight bat.
• 1767 – two Hampshire batsmen (believed to have been Tom Sueter and either George Leer or Edward "Curry" Aburrow) recorded a first-wicket partnership of 192 against Surrey, but there is no record of their individual scores, although at least one of the batsmen probably made a personal century. It is the earliest known century partnership.
• 1768 – John Small scored "above seven score notches" for Hampshire v Kent, but it is not known if this was his match total or his performance in the second innings. If it was his match total, he could still have made a century in either innings.
• 1769 – John Minshull (listed as "J. Minchin" on the scorecard) scored the earliest century in all classes of cricket of which there is a definite record: he made 107 for Duke of Dorset's XI v Wrotham at Sevenoaks Vine (although the location is not certain), but the match is generally considered a minor one.

As it says, the innings by Newland and Small might have been match totals depending on how you interpret the contemporary source wordings but I think Newland did score 88 (this was before pitching began). Harris and, of course, Minshull are definite scores. Sueter, who was a wicket-keeper/batsman, invariably opened for Hampshire so it's a safe bet that he was one of the two in 1767 but Leer and Aburrow are only the likeliest of his partners. Small later scored the earliest known "first-class century" as per your list.

The match in 1806 is what I suppose you should call "borderline first-class" as both teams were notable depending on who was playing in a given match: some people say yes, others say no. The same is true of the 1820 match although there is a greater consensus for, given that a county team was involved. The two Hampshire matches are universally recognised as first-class.

That's about it, really. Details are sparse and we can only use what is there. If you would like me to check any of the old sources for anything, always glad to help. Good luck. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for the heads up. It's sad that clarifying a guideline by quoting another has become unacceptable practice and renders each one illogical. In any kind of logical world, that would negate both... Bobo. 06:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Rest well mate

However much of a break you wish to take from the site, I hope you rest well. Recent events have made me question why any single person such as myself, you, or AA, even wishes to contribute to the site any more. People would soon moan when activity was suspiciously low... Bobo. 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We might as well escape while we still remember the good times before people forgot what the point was of Wikipedia! ;) One of those camouflage suits is in order.

"Daphne's been using some concealer.... um... Daphne, where are you?!" --Milton Jones. Bobo. 12:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things

Hello. In respect of the various discussions at WT:CRIC and AfD, I dropped a note at the WP:Sri Lanka talk page to see if any of the participants there are in a position to help with some of the more obscure cricketers who are being threatened or have access to sources in Sinhalese. I don't hold out a lot of hope, since the project there seems to be in decline. But we will see. On another point, I don't see, in WP:CRIN or in the First-class cricket article, a clear definition of when domestic matches (at the highest level etc etc) in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were considered to have been first-class – we single out England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and West Indies in WP:CRIN, and I assume that India includes Pakistan for the pre-1947 period (maybe that applies to Bangladesh too) and therefore by extension from 1947 onwards too. Did domestic cricket in Sri Lanka get accorded first-class status in the 1980s when Sri Lanka was elevated by the ICC to Test status? Some matches in Sri Lanka were patently first-class well before that, but they mostly seemed to involve touring teams on their way to and from Australia, or matches appended to tours of India. I think a problem is that, with the apparent transience of some of the Sri Lankan clubs in their premier division – promoted one season, relegated the next – the status of some matches isn't immediately clear. What do you think? Johnlp (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John. CRIN is talking about "domestic cricket played before the first-class definition: this applies only to matches in Great Britain and Ireland, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies" which means before the ICC ruling in 1947. After 1947, each ICC full member has decided which domestic matches are first-class and Sri Lanka began in 1988 when they upgraded their national championship. International matches like Ceylon v India in 1945 are non-domestic and so the ruling doesn't apply to them. Matches before 1947 in what became Pakistan and Bangladesh are included in India, as you say. I can expand CRIN and the FC article if you like. The FC article could perhaps use a list of early first-class matches per country for each of the post-1947 Test nations. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it might help CRIN to have some precise dates for Sri Lanka etc inserted after which individual cricketers and domestic teams can be presumed notable and therefore worthy of an article. Johnlp (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, leave it with me. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Richmond CC

Hey Jack. I stumbled across Richmond Cricket Club today and I noticed some of the changes you made back in March. My initial reaction was that there should be a dab page Richmond Cricket Club and that the article on the 18th century club should be renamed. I was going to just be bold but luckily I noticed Talk:Richmond Cricket Club, Surrey before I went through with anything and, having seen that it's been discussed a bit in the past, figured it was better to bring it here rather than go full steam ahead. So, what was your thoughts on the primary topic? My gut reaction was that although the 18th c. club might be the most notable it is probably not more notable than the two modern clubs combined, both of which seem to play at a reasonable level (I could be biased though because my initial thought when hearing the term will always be the Melbourne grade club). Then, if you agree about having a dab page, what should the historical club article be renamed to? I'm not sure "Richmond Cricket Club, Surrey" because it might be ambiguous with the modern club which seems to have been associated with Surrey for a large chunk of its existence -- or so it seems to me but then again I might be wrong because English counties have always confused me. On a similar note, "Richmond Cricket Club (1862)" may not be the best name for the modern club but I'm not sure of a better one off the top of my head -- maybe some reference to the league they play in?

I notice at the top of your talk page it says you're on a bit of a break (I'm just coming back from a long one myself) so only respond to this when you have a chance, obviously it's not urgent. Also pinging Spike 'em as they were involved in the previous discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

From memory (and checking through the current versions / talk): There was the Richmond Cricket Club, Surrey article, which had details of both the historic club and the modern one. Jack helped split out the two parts. At some point before, the grade team was renamed to Monash Tigers and Richmond Cricket Club left as a redirect. I think I've fixed any links to RCC that should go to MT for Australian players.

To confirm one major point: Richmond is now part of London, but historically was part of Surrey and as such Richmond should probably play in the Surrey Championship but they made the choice to play in the Middlesex County Cricket League (which makes it the furthest journey for most teams they play!)

As to naming, I'd be inclined to have a DAB to split them out. I see Monash Tigers has had the most page views this month than the 2 English teams combined, but not sure how many of them would have come from the About link, so wouldn't necessarily justify taking the name back. Spike 'em (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think any disambiguation / article titles should reference the age / level at which the team plays.

As an attempt at explanation for Jenks24, Middlesex no longer exists as a county: 90% was subsumed into London at various times in the past, so all the teams in the Middlesex League (other than Richmond) are now in North / West London. Much of southwest London used to be in Surrey, so some of the teams in the Surrey League are now in London. Northeast London has teams in Essex League and southeast in Kent League for similar reasons. All of Surrey, Middlesex and Kent play games within the borders of London.

To Jack: As part of looking into this, I see there is a similar situation with Sunbury Cricket Club : 1 article covering both a historic "important" team and a modern one playing ECB Premier League. I'll check through the other teams listed in Template:English_cricket_teams_in_the_18th_century to see if there are any more that may need a split. Spike 'em (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jenks and Spike. Yes, I think you are right that there should be a DAB for Richmond and Sunbury. The 18th century clubs were first-class so they have a primary topic claim but I think clarity is the more important factor here. Apart from Mitcham and some club called Marylebone, we don't know the foundation dates of any 18th century clubs so I would use Richmond Cricket Club (18th century), Sunbury Cricket Club (18th century), etc. Exceptions to this, however, assuming there are modern equivalents must be London, Hambledon, Slindon, Dartford, Chertsey and perhaps one or two more because they are primary for their historical importance. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I've gone ahead with the Richmond moves. Everything seems in order, although I'm waiting for Special:WhatLinksHere/Richmond Cricket Club to clear of all the template transclusions to make sure there aren't any links going to the dab. I've also replied on my talk page re the AfD/CRIN stuff, not sure I was much help though... I'll have a chat to Rhadow if the AfD nominations keep coming and he keeps doing things like citing WP:BLP1E when that clearly states NSPORTS is not subject to it. Or saying CI/CA isn't independent. If I can get motivated that is, that sort of stuff has never been something I'm particularly good at or enjoy doing. If we want anything seriously done though it will probably be into the AN/ANI cesspool. The joys of Wikipedia... Jenks24 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jenks. As it happens, I've issued a warning to Rhadow about BLP1E and NSPORTS. He is someone with an agenda and unfortunately has about three supporters. I can certainly see ANI on the horizon if these people don't stop trying to misrepresent guidelines. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Re the present day club, I've started a RM at Talk:Richmond Cricket Club (1862). I'd appreciate input from either of you if you're interested. Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

George Dupuis, a bit of OR for you

I see this eighteenth-century cricketer is on your to-do list. I recently did a stub for George Dupuis (cricketer, born 1835) who played eight times for Cambridge University and the Gentlemen of England in the 1850s. Second GD is the son of a George John Dupuis, vice-provost of Eton, who is in turn the son of a Rev George Dupuis, rector of Wendlebury near Bicester. Is the Rev George your George Dupuis, and therefore my GD's grandfather? There seems to be an Etonian connection, and of course the name's the same. But I can't see anything that positively makes the connection. Perhaps Haygarth or some such has a mention of a later George Dupuis? Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John. I'd say the percentage is very high, especially as the older man was a reverend, but there's no personal history in any of the sources. All I can see is that he played in those matches and is mentioned as a reverend in one of the team lists. I think you must be right but I'm afraid it's without absolute confirmation.

I have, however, found a mention of G. R. Dupuis in Altham's history. On page 114, Altham is talking about how difficult it could be for the two university clubs to field their best teams in the 19th century. He says: "Some of the University authorities were far from recognising the importance of the occasion and G. R. Dupuis recalls how he was refused leave by the Dean of King's to play in a University match on the score (sic) that the proper place for a scholar of King's on a Saturday afternoon was in chapel". The citation for that is <ref>{{cite book |last=Altham |first=H. S. |authorlink=Harry Altham |title=A History of Cricket, Volume 1 (to 1914) |year=1962 |page=114 |publisher=George Allen & Unwin |location=London}}</ref>

Sorry, then, that I can't help with your actual question but I hope the extra bit is useful . Let me know if you think I could be of further help. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I might add that anecdote at least to GR Dupuis's article. Johnlp (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

History of English cricket from 1919 to 1939

I seem to recall that you have some but not all Wisdens from this period... so if you need a reference or two at any stage on this one, just shout. I'm intermittently around at present, but will get to it. Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, John, no, I don't have any pre-war Wisden. My earliest is 1948. I would therefore be very happy for any help you can give me with this "mini-project". Thank you for the kind offer. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Tell me where you need a citation and I'll try to find one. I'll be away from my Wisdens for 48 hours after tonight, but back at the weekend. KR. Johnlp (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks again. Have a good break. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John. I've not made as much progress with this as I would have liked to because of the real world (too busy of late) and I'll be offsite soon for several weeks so, if you would like to take over, you're more than welcome. I've got a basic structure in place so it's expansion that's needed. I would think an additional section will be added for off-field events. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not going to promise... but I'll see if I can nudge it along a little. But I imagine there will be plenty for you to do when you return. I think an off-field section would be useful to take into account the changing demographics of first-class cricket in this period (some county clubs all but fully professional, others still operating like some Edwardian country-house party) and the economics (Leicestershire, Somerset and Hampshire and probably a couple of others hovered just above penury for much of this period). Johnlp (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was meaning. I think the game reached a turning point at this time from which it moved forward after WWII. The clubs where professionalism had taken hold were essentially northern but there were some southern captains like Frank Mann (and later Stuart Surridge, of course) who had a professional approach which raised standards at clubs with an otherwise amateur outlook. I've got Charles Williams' book about the end of amateurism and he talks a great deal about county finances. He says that, between the wars, common practice at certain clubs was based on the maxim that "it was always cheaper to play amateurs than to keep professionals on their books" (page 99). Jack | ^{talk page} 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm enjoying reading this as it develops. As I'm sure you're already well aware, there is a lot of stuff that's going to need supporting citations once the article reaches a finished state if it's not to be challenged, even though I personally don't disagree with any of it. That's most noticeable with the bit on Bodyline, but also where you say things like a county captain being "charismatic" and Rhodes and Robinson being arch-professionals. JH (talk page) 10:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Some of the adjectives should be taken out but for now I've just banged in the basic information and ignored the site guidelines. As it happens, you've written to me just as I've finished the initial development and I've decided to call it a day as we have a lot of preparation to do before we depart for warmer climes. My wife's sister and her husband are moving in while we're away and we need to make the place presentable before they arrive. So, anyway, I'm going to shut all this down now and if you would like to help the inter-war article along, that will be great. All the best to you, John. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, BlackJack. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

See you soon

See you soon, my friend. I think we all need the rest, and I know for certain I'm not even going to venture into cricket-related article mainspace again. This site has become a parody of itself and 13 years of work is going steadily down the drain through the fault of people who care none for the site. I still visit the site of course but there is no point contributing to a broken project. Bobo. 11:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BlackJack. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disturbing development

Hey BlackJack, I am not certain, but by the looks of their recent activity, I think you drove Blue Square Things into retirement with this comment. By the looks of it, you two obviously have had some heated history; whoever was actually "right" is not why I am here. I hope me saying this does not create animosity between us but I think an experienced editor like you knows better than to insult another person and, most likely, be the catalyst for their departure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Grace. Sorry for not replying sooner but I'm a long way from home and not much time to spare.

Never my intention to get into arguments but it was the last straw where that user was concerned. I could go into detail but breach of WP:OR is as serious as it gets and he had overwritten factual sourced material with it. He has created problems for other users too. This is not a rookie or newbie who has misunderstood things and needs a helping hand; it is someone who is invariably disruptive either by design or through incompetence.

Anyway, nice to meet you as I'm old enough to remember Jefferson Airplane in their prime. Your namesake most certainly is unforgettable. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A proposal from User: DemocraticSocialism

Hello! I can see that you oppose the merger of the List of Roman emperors and List of Byzantine emperors articles. I support it, but I propose merging the two and titling the articles and naming the new article "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors". I added "Byzantine" to the title to appease those editors like yourself who oppose the merger. Anyway, I've been going around trying to get support for the idea, and I wanted to know if you support it. Please write back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, I agree with Silent Resident so I've altered my !vote comply with his. He makes a very good case, especially around the origin of the empire's name. Thanks anyway. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)