Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 76

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

→

1835

Shall we try this again? Saves me slapping myself with a wet fish... ;)

Bobo . 01:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1840

Bobo . 05:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1837

Bobo . 05:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1841

Bobo . 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1842

Bobo . 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1843

Bobo . 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1846

Bobo . 04:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

More digitised old cricket books available online

The person who alerted me to the old Wisden's now available online had now come up with a whole load of other notable old cricket books freely available online:

Enjoy! JH (talk page) 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking a break

Taking a break from list-writing at the moment - it's sort of driving me insane. On my own personal list I'm up to 1871 - if I can, I'll make sure they're all disambiguated and post them all on User:Bobo192/Debutantes. Stay well, all. Bobo . 00:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, Bobo. I'll try to chip away at the redlinks over time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Charles MacKenzie

Hi all - any idea how to disambiguate this chap? Lord MacKenzie clearly won't do... I'll settle for Charles MacKenzie (cricketer) for now, but if anyone has any bright ideas, feel free to fix it when I post the names. Bobo . 19:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In List of historic Senators of the College of Justice there's a redlink for Charles Kincaid Mackenzie, who I imagine is the same guy. So I suggest going with that. Looks like he may have been one of those cricketers who was more significant through other aspects of his life than cricket. JH (talk page) 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Cheers. As you can tell, I haven't posted the names yet, so I can fix them without even having to cause any problems! As it happens, I'm still busy working on 1876 as we speak. Bobo . 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Will Rhodes

Just created a stub article on this promising young cricketer. Does anyone know if he's related to his fellow Yorkshireman, Wilfred?

Also, anyone who fancies turning the redlink in the article blue is more than welcome. It's a bit of an omission not to have at least a placeholder this far through the English summer. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No relation of Wilfred. Will Rhodes comes from Nottingham, in fact. Not Kirkheaton. He's the third W. Rhodes to play for Yorkshire. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Second one was this chap from Bradford who played in one match in 1911. Slightly confusing on the scorecard as it was a match in which Wilfred wasn't playing. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In time there'll be need for more disambiguation, as Billy Rhodes[1] who played for Nottinghamshire was born in Bradford and played as a junior for Yorkshire. But he doesn't have an article yet. Johnlp (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, chaps. Do you think the pre-existing article on William Rhodes (cricketer) might be an unhelpfully vague disambiguation now? --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to move it over the next few days, I'll do a brief stub article on Billy Rhodes (who was also the father of Steve Rhodes). Johnlp (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Now done as William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1936). Very stubby. Johnlp (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot edits

A fairly wide-ranging bot has been sweeping through articles of many kinds doing the small-scale corrections and style preferences that make us a more orderly place. Most of its work looks pretty much on the spot, but I've noticed a couple of perhaps more contentious points:

On biogs, where dates of birth and death in lead paragraph/intro also contained the places of birth and death, it seems to strip out the detail and put a birth phrase at the start of the main text without a capital letter for the start of a sentence. The death details are put at the end and sometimes the grammar is a bit stark. I've redone Nummy Deane, which is on my watchlist, without undoing the sensible changes, but if you track back through the changes you can see what the bot is doing. (In the case of Gilbert Parkhouse it created a different grammatical error.)
It seems to replace all hyphens with en dashes between two sets of figures, which is right for cricket seasons and lifespans etc. But I noticed on Gentlemen v Players (and probably elsewhere) that it had done it also with bowling analyses and that to my eyes looks odd (but not so odd that I reverted: I thought I'd bring it here first).

What do others think? Johnlp (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

H'mm. Interestingly, in GvP it has made an endash change in "13–144: AP Freeman, Lord's, 1929" but not in "13-?: FW Lillywhite, Lord's, 1835". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I presume it looks for two consecutive numbers separated by a hyphen and then replaces the hyphen. I think I'm more bothered about the grammatical errors it makes and the American English it introduces in terms of "born 25 December 1906" and "died 25 December 1906" when British English (which a lot of cricket articles should be) would say "born/died on 25 December 1906". As the bot owner claims to be doing this in the interests of WP:TIES, it's a strange outcome. If it's done all the cricket biographies like this, it'll be a massive job to undo these errors while retaining the sensible changes. Johnlp (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've left the bot owner a note asking him/her to drop by. Johnlp (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is a script, not a bot (that you'd leave to run unsupervised). Is this an example of "bowling analyses"? 13–141: T Richardson, Hastings, 1897. Tony (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edits were script-assisted, and the changes to the lead were done manually to eject birth and death dates to the body of the article. These were done to leave a cleaner lead where there is a minimum of non-essential biographical information. In a manner that does not excessively impact my productivity. But actually, I'm actually more concerned at what has been apparently identified as "Americanism". The "Hubert Gouvaine "Nummy" Deane (21 July 1895 – 21 October 1939)" thing is a MOSBIO convention, we don't do "born/died [on 25 December 1906] in [London, England]", as it's taken as read, or otherwise redundant; the places of birth and death don't belong in the lead. The I'm ignorant about the cricket scoring notations, so I'm prepared to accept that the script may not render these in a completely 'correct' manner, and will modify the script and run another pass to fix these. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss. I think there are two strands going on in your reply, one to do with the script-assisted changes that were made, the other a wider point about MOSBIO, on which I'll perhaps open another thread here (though I'm busy workwise today). The "Americanism" I noticed was in the main text (not the intro) on Hubert Webb (cricketer) and it may of course just have been a one-off glitch: I don't follow all that many cricketer bios on my watchlist (and not all of them are named "Hubert"). But on Nummy Deane, Geoff Lomax and elsewhere the paste of the birth place/date details left a paragraph starting without a capital letter and on Gilbert Parkhouse it created a grammar problem where there was none before. The bowling analysis style change prods at one of our areas of weakness and inconsistency as a project: I remember discussion here maybe seven or eight years ago about whether it should be 9-63, 9/63 or even 9–63 or 9—63, but I don't remember the outcome (I think it was to standardise on 9/63) and we probably have all of these varieties and more littered somewhere around the collection of articles. That's why I brought that here for discussion rather than directly to you: we probably ought to decide that here first. As User:BlackJack points out above, your edits introduce an anomaly into at least one article... but I suspect we have a lot of anomalies already. So maybe leave your script modification on that until we've sorted ourselves (if we ever do...). I'll come back on MOSBIO later, because I think there's a point to be made there as well. Thanks again for discussing. Johnlp (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I recall the discussion about bowling analysis format and I'm sure we agreed on the Aussie style of 9/63 but it never became a recognised standard and it looks as if 9–63 has tended to dominate in practice. I think the consensus was reached because someone suggested that bowling analysis should visibly differ from innings total, hence 9/63 and 903–7 declared, though I don't think the Aussies liked that last one too much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already done all the cricket bios that I needed to do, so you may be relieved to know I won't be back again with those for quite some time. But let me just say that for my decanting to "Born 12 October 1925, Swansea, Wales, Parkhouse was educated" as I did at Parkhouse, I really don't consider that to be an error of any sort. The story needs to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Thus, I find it weird not to see any mention of the death at the end of the article in a logical place because it's a show-stopper. I believe the ejection of "He died 10 August 2000, Carmarthen, Wales." to the end is a logical move because it kind of puts a chronological cap on the biography. That's not to say there shouldn't be other sections after that to cover other specifics. However, I think it's more problematic to move the birth and death places to the end of the lead. I believe it is structurally incorrect on two counts: they really aren't important enough to belong to the lead, and what's more the info doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. In the same vein, the revert of Deane, whilst apparently corrected a minor grammatical error introduced due to the lack of initial capitalisation, actually reintroduces the structural problem that I mentioned also existed in Parkhouse. The longer time that has elapsed since the death, the less relevant are the exact dates of birth and death, that explains the difference in treatment to Parkhouse in that connection. I do apologise for the laziness for not capitalising the 'B'. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Parkhouse article after your script left it read: "Born 12 October 1925, Swansea, Wales, Parkhouse was educated at Wycliffe College at Stonehouse in Gloucestershire, Parkhouse appeared in wartime non-first-class matches for Glamorgan and also in fixtures arranged for the 1945 season." You need to read right to the end of the sentence to get the grammatical problem of two main clauses in the one sentence. I was going to open a MOSBIO discussion in a separate tab, but as you've made your point here, I'll respond here. I think where you have a relatively brief biography – as most sports biogs will tend to be – that relies for notability on a passage of a person's life that's probably quite a small percentage of the total, then the job of the lead/intro is to summarise the whole life, identify the historic era in which a cricketer played, and place the claim to notability in that context, so birth and death info can go (succinctly) in there. If, as you seem to want, you add birth details under a heading that says "Cricket career", then that's misplacing it to my mind. For full-scale longer biographies (and we have some very good ones of those in WP:CRIC, many of them courtesy of User:Sarastro1) then the full chronological approach you favour is of course justified. But for these more limited biographies where we're merely filling in an often-brief cricketing heyday and there's seldom much more to say because notability was fleeting, I don't think you need to be so prescriptive about the, er, batting order. Johnlp (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, the obvious place for birth and death details is in the lead immediately after the person's name. Putting it in the cricket career section is nonsensical, especially when there are non-cricket sections which discuss the person's wider life. Either Confucius he talk rubbish or there is something wrong with site standards. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, my view is that sections can always be added and headings can always be changed to adapt to the content. The lead is to summarise, and you can't summarise what isn't there in the rest of the article. Places of birth definitely belong in the body of the article where these are known – if these are considered potentially notable enough for the lead, they are notable enough for the body. Of they should be cleanly removed if there are no sources to support them. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you've redone Gilbert Parkhouse and I don't like getting into edit warring. I can accept that being born is a necessary prelude to playing cricket, so maybe that's rationale enough for having his birth in the section that deals with his cricket career. But frankly your argument doesn't impress. Maybe we just take a more commonsense view of biographies at WP:CRIC than you do at WP:BIO and tailor our articles to cater for the limitations that biographies of lesser lights are always likely to have. Johnlp (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Retirement

Hello all! It is with regret that I have to say I am retiring from editing. Unfortunately I'm not in a good place in my life right now, so I haven't the energy or motivation to do all that much! It's been a pleasure though, I hope you all keep up the good work. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Take care, thanks for everything you've contributed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dweller (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

a great shame; you've contributed a great amount to Wikipedia's cricket information. --Roisterer (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Thanks for all your good work. I hope that before too long things will improve and you'll feel able to return. JH (talk page) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

... and when you come back, as I hope you do, there will still be plenty of work to do! Johnlp (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope things get better for you soon. Nev1 (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

All the best, AA. Hope everything turns out for the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

From Blackadder - "Sticky had been out for a duck, and the Gubber had snitched a parcel sausage-end and gone goose-over-stump frogside." Hope things work out and see you back here one day soon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this from you. Hope you'll reconsider your retirement someday. Zia Khan 18:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox changes

User:Pigsonthewing has altered {{Infobox cricketer}} (and various others) to display the subheadings "— Cricketer ♂ —" or "— Cricketer ♀ —" underneath the player's name in the infobox (although the gender parameter is optional). Personally, I think these changes are ugly, unnecessary, and distracting, but maybe it's just me. Either way, it'd be good for more people to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes, given the infobox is used on 12,000+ pages. Thanks, IgnorantArmies 12:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a really bad change, IMO. Too much emphasis being put on the individual's gender. In times of equality, this is really unnecessary. – Pee Jay 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How about making a long-overdue, worthwhile change?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Category question

Hello. This might sound like a stupid question, but what is the reasoning behind the categories Category:English cricketers of 1946 to 1968‎, Category:English cricketers of 1864 to 1889‎, Category:English cricketers of 1919 to 1945‎, etc in the cat Category:English cricketers? Why the breakdown by these years? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

These are my own guesses for the reasons, so might be wrong in some instances. 1864 was when overarm bowling was legalised and the first edition of Wisden was published. 1890 was the first season of an official County Championship. 1919 was the first season after WW1, and 1946 the first full season after WW2. The significance of 1968/9 is less obvious, and it may have been chosen as a dividing point to very roughly equalise the number of players in the preceding and following periods.

Inauguration of the Sunday League was in 1969, and the 1969 County Championship was the first, I think, with the current points system introduced. Overseas players were allowed for the first time in 1968, and Yorkshire's dominance waned too. Apparently. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rationale was to delimit categories by using historically significant years rather than century or half-century years. 1969 was the season in which the CC was drastically reduced in scale. Much earlier, 1787 was the year when Lord's and MCC were founded: this was a real watershed in the game's history whereas 1801, for example, meant little. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I guess what I was driving at was if these are actually defining or not? I didn't want to waste time at CfD if they actually serve a purpose. From what I can see here, they aren't really defining to the individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you mention CfD I take it you want to propose these categories for deletion? They define which "era" of the game the cricketer played in and as such I think they are slightly more useful than some such scheme as 1850-1899, 1900-1949, 1950-2000. For instance if you want to use Wikipedia to research those cricketers who played between the two World Wars, you can use the appropriate category to get a list of names. JH (talk page) 16:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would think they are all worth deleting. None of them seem to be defining to the individual, which states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". For example, in the cat Category:English cricketers of 1919 to 1945 none of the biographies I checked mention in the lead that they played between 1919 and 1945. Their infobox might hint at this, but I don't see it as being a necessary category structure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Players from about 1890 onwards will tend to be defined fairly readily by the teams that they played for, which is why relatively few have been put into the later time-based categories. For earlier cricket where there was a lot more ad hoccery about the composition of teams, these are extremely useful and well-populated categories and the time divisions are sensible, representing important dates in the development of the game. I'd counsel very strongly against taking this as a set to CfD; and it is not credible to nominate just some of them for deletion, as if the later less useful ones get deleted then the earlier highly useful ones are likely to go too. Our previous experience as a project with the folk who hang out at CfD makes me very wary about taking anything there. Johnlp (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would ask Lugnuts if he has forgotten that the primary purpose of categories is to assist the readers and period categories do help them to see which players were active during a certain historical period. I accept that the categories are nowhere near complete but we are working towards that. You say that articles do not say when a player was active? I think you will find that the majority do say so. Even where they do not actually say so, the span of a player's career most certainly is "appropriate to mention". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How can Category:English cricketers of 1946 to 1968 and Category:English cricketers of 1969 to 2000 be defining to the player? Surely there are dozens and dozens of cricketers who played in 1968 and 1969 and just happened to transcend both categories? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. Which is more important to the readers of this site: useful categories which, when all are complete (as the two earliest ones already are) or your view about a pedantic rule called WP:Define? The span of a player's career is a key biographical point which really is mandatory in any article about that player. If the article does not state the years he played that is due to bad editing and the problem is with the article, not the categories. Yes, of course there are players who played in two and even three eras. So, we include them in more than one. Take Herbert Sutcliffe who was in some ways the archetypal between-the-wars player. Clearly he belongs firmly in the 1919 to 1939 category, but he also played one single, final match after the war so he qualifies for that period too. I suggest you stop reading pointless rules, especially as there is always an equally pointless rule somewhere with complete polarity, and think about how you can help the readers. As for that CfD crew, they are one of the chief banes of WP. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Being useful doesn't help your arguement to keep them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What a very silly thing to say. If we're not trying to make this encyclopedia useful and helpful to readers, then why are we here? Johnlp (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you can't add anything without comments like that, then it's best for you to shut up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think after a comment like that, it would be best if you were to shut up. Your entire argument is illogical and completely misses the point that we are here to provide information to readers and also to assist them by using categories, templates and other devices which help navigation and searches. If you can't see that, then I suggest you are an unsuitable editor. As I said above, if some cricket biographies do not state the span of a player's career the problem is in the articles not the categories. If you look at the 18th and 19th century players, I'm confident that the vast majority of these articles say when they played and so, although this "define" thing you're quoting is pedantic claptrap, those articles comply with it. As for the 20th century players, we will deal with those in due course. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsuitable editor? Ha, don't make me laugh. Your edits are nothing to write home about. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that timespan-defined categories with dual membership for careers that overlap boundaries have been imposed elsewhere --as for American novelists and women writers, for two examples that Jacqueline Woodson#External links illustrates. That biography footer also shows several other non-defining categories and multiple membership categories (indeed, category collections, American people by city and American writers by state or something like that). --P64 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For a partly-British illustration and category classes defined sensitively rather than by round-number dates see CfD: Novels set in Roman Gaul touching on four categories in a big collection for historical fiction by setting. The particular book article discussed is now in two of them but the discussion implies support for membership in consecutive or overlapping periods too. --P64 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

CfD nomination

Project members might wish to know that there is a nomination to delete these categories now open for comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_17. Johnlp (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:English cricketers of 1701 to 1786

Category:English cricketers of 1701 to 1786, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merge. 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. Oculi (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

CfD

I thought I had seen it all but the Lugnuts proposal to try and delete the cricketers by era categories for non-compliance with a "guideline" that is based on a non-existent word lowers the bar on the limit of my Victor Meldrew tolerance. No, I don't believe it. How many of you know the word "definingness"? None of you? Hardly surprising as it doesn't exist and yet it is the fundamental concept of a guideline called WP:DEFINING that according to Lugnuts takes precedence over providing useful navigation/search facilities for the readers (readers, who dey?).

I am totally pissed off with all this pedantic, bureacratic claptrap so I've made formal complaints under sections entitled WP:DEFINING about the CfD/stupid rules thing to User talk:Jimbo Wales; Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization‎. If any of you feel equally strongly about it all, please join me and have your say too. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tool

Not sure if this has been used for CRIC yet. It is a new cleanup listing tool that produces a list of articles within a specified project that have been tagged for action. Our percentage is higher than it should be, I think, and probably less than it would be if someone were to examine all 20k+ cricket articles. I'll put the link on the project page and in the to-do section attached to this page. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignore this. We've already got it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the list though! Glad someone else has noticed it, although the sorted by category list is generally more useful as a working list. Unfortunately they no longer automatically track any "by category" count changes, but you can see the history of the overall project cleanup totals here. I think most of the decrease had been in the quasi-cleanup categories of orphans and persondata descriptions. True cleanup is very slow unless the target of a few dedicated editors or a task force/cleanup drive. The-Pope (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What is a "double hat-trick"?

Our article on Albert Trott includes the following text:

In his benefit match in 1907, he took an amazing double hat trick (four wickets in four balls), and then followed up with a second hat trick later in the innings (the feat of two hat-tricks in an innings has been repeated only once in first-class cricket, by Joginder Rao).

I had to read that three times to be sure I understood it. I've never previously heard of four wickets in four balls being called a "double hat-trick", and intuitively I'd expect the term to mean six wickets in six balls or two hat-tricks in an innings. In this instance, it was only the fact that the text mentioned another hat-trick in the same innings that made it clear that the "four wickets in four balls" was explaining the word "double", rather than expanding on the term "hat trick".

So I looked in our article on hat-trick. Sure enough, in the cricket subsection, was the following:

Four wickets in four balls is referred to in cricket literature and record books as four in four but the term double hat-trick has also been used in the media, as it will contain two different, overlapping sets of three consecutively dismissed batsmen. This is not cited. Searching Google for "double hat-trick" I struggled to find RS using the term to mean four in four, with this being the best.

Questions:

Is this a notable term or a non-notable neologism?
If it is notable, is it common usage or not?
If it is not common usage, is it worth replacing in the Trott article and elsewhere for being ambiguous?

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick search came up with quite a few reliable source mentions of four wicket in four ball hat-tricks. Hack (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The first three results I checked all mean six wickets in six balls. The fourth (which is the one I linked, above) means four in four. The fifth means six in six. Which just goes to show what a mess this is. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Double hattrick for 4-in-4 is not common or IMO correct usage. Using the same logic, you score a double century if you make 101 runs. Tintin 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly illogical, but I think it's long been used in English cricket (perhaps not in other countries?) to mean four in four. It's so open to confusion that I agree that it's best avoided in our articles, apart from a definition in our hat-trick article (where people who have come across the term elsewhere and wonder what it means might come to look it up). JH (talk page) 09:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly can't remember Andy Cole's five goals for Manchester United against Ipswich Town being referred to as a treble hat-trick (to use an alternative analogy)! In fact, I remember I had a soccer sim in which one of the lines of commentary after an individual player had scored six goals was "You couldn't ask for more - a double hat trick!" Edit: Having re-read the original text as written, Dweller, I think what the writer was trying to say (unsuccessfully) was "He scored a double hat trick - a hat trick earlier in the match and a hat trick later in the match". Bobo . 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, since the writer explicitly defines a "double hat-trick" as four in four. – Pee Jay 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Afghanistan cricket tours abroad

Hey guys, looking at Category:Afghanistan cricket tours abroad, it seems we have a tiny bit of inconsistency regarding the article names. I'm pretty sure the name of the touring team should use the demonym of that country, not the country's name itself, i.e. Afghanistani cricket team in Kenya in 2010–11 or Afghan cricket team in Kenya in 2010–11. Obviously not all of the articles in the category follow that format, and I know they need changing, but what should they be changed to? "Afghan cricket team..." or "Afghanistani cricket team..."? – Pee Jay 23:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As per our style guide I believe it should be Afghanistan cricket team in Kenya in 2010–11... —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

~~I'm an idiot. Yes, you're right. That clears things right up. – Pee Jay 09:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)~~ Actually, no, that's wrong. The New Zealand example in the style guide is a really bad one since the adjectival form of New Zealand is New Zealand. Every other country uses the form Australian cricket team in England in 2013 or English cricket team in Australia in 2013–14, so surely we should use "Afghan" or "Afghanistani"? Therefore my question from before still stands about which one we should go for. – Pee Jay 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

AIUI "Afghan" is an ethnonym and "Afghanistani" is the demonym. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Although the Afghanistan article lists "Afghan" as the demonym. – Pee Jay 10:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, you are right, I just looked at the categories and see that they all invariably use the adjectival form. —SpacemanSpiff 11:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Should I unprotect this page?

Please see the dialogue at User_talk:Dweller#Consider_unprotecting_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket and discuss it here. I strongly encourage everyone to think carefully about DNFTT and BEANS before they comment. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Been a while, let's try it; FWIW the request is from across the pond. —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The particular problems of a year ago do seem to have gone. I'm for openness wherever possible... isn't that what WP is about? Maybe review in a fortnight to see how it's working? Johnlp (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, let's unprotect and see what happens. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you all. extra999 (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Dweller (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1838

1839

1844

1845

Another Bill O'Reilly move proposal

There has been another proposal to make Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) the primary topic of Bill O'Reilly. Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Bill O'Reilly#2013 Requested move. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Having met the cricketer, it's quite amusing to see him described as an athlete. Ah, the Americans. No idea really. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sachin is retiring

Eyes on his article! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow - Cracked.com recently ran an article on "events that would break the internet" and Tendulkar retiring wasn't mentioned but will test the internet's strength. I kinda wish he'd play for ever, but then I also wished the same of David Hookes and look what happened to him. --Roisterer (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the legend's achievements! Zia Khan 23:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bart King to be on main page

In case you've not noticed, Bart King will be "Today's featured article" on the Main Page on 19th October. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If there's anyone around who is knowledgable about the history of swing bowling, I've raised a point on the article talk page about something in the article. Basically, I'm not convinced about something in there about his invention of swing bowling, and the mention of George Hirst. And it's probably better sorted before it goes on the main page. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Legends of cricket template

Some prominent cricketers of the past, such as George Headley, Wasim Akram and Greg Chappell, have been dignified with a "Legends of Cricket" template which appears to refer to an ESPN short video series. I've nominated the template for deletion as I've never heard of the series, and these players don't lack for templates anyway. But perhaps I'm missing something and this is indeed a distinction we should be recognising. Johnlp (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationality categories

Hi all. I've been adding categories to pages lately and have had a couple of people revert my addition of Category:Indian cricketers to pages where they also have an Indian domestic team category. Reason given is that, for example, Category:Railways cricketers is a subcat of Category:Indian cricketers and the latter is just a container category. Obviously it's a required category, as not all of India's domestic cricketers are or have been Indian, so I guess my question then is, should domestic team categories be subcats of nationality categories? Jevansen (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was interested in finding what happened, so I followed you here although I am not active in cricket related articles. I think we should de-link the domestic teams from nationality category. If you see category tree for Big Bash teams or other Australian domestic teams, those are not subcats of Category:Australian cricketers i.e. nationality category. The nationality category have its own subcats based upon state domicile of the players and the same we can do in case of Indian cricketers. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the nationality category should remain. As you point out, a player can play for an Indian domestic team without necessarily being Indian. So to take your example, Category:Railways cricketers should not be included as a subcat of Category:Indian cricketers. JH (talk page) 08:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, agree with the other contributors here. Johnlp (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Just note that this isn't an issue with this category alone: Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team is a subcat of Category:English cricketers though Australia seems to be clean (haven't checked the others). I think a Category:Players in Indian domestic cricket by team should be used as a parent cat for all the teams and Category:Indian cricketers should be subcatted to Category:Cricketers from FOO so that this issue doesn't come up again as this would take care of cases like Hemang Badani who falls under both Category:Haryana cricketers and Category:Tamil Nadu cricketers and will also be part of Category:Cricketers from Tamil Nadu which will nest under Category:Indian cricketers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What about a place for America cricket? I think America has a rising scene and we cannot disregard it. MeghV (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As a current American cricket player in my local league in Washington, I've seen firsthand how the sport has grown and definitely think there is a greater need to add a place for American cricket. Nakamdan (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RAF

Several players are direct as playinbg for the RAF in 1922. This is not true and needs to be altered. The festival game was initially intended to be men who had served in the RAF but includes several - HTW Hardinge for one(He was in the navy) who were not in the RAF. RAF matches should refer to Service games. 1)It's plain wrong 2)It's inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDTPP (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But the match was billed as RAF vs The Rest and has been recorded as such. Thus Hardinge played for the RAF, even though he was not in the RAF. It's not unusual for sides to have guest players. For instance England have had many players over the years whose Englishness might be questioned, from the days of Sammy Woods and Ranji onwards. JH (talk page) 21:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see Daft still doesn't sign his comments... good to see old habits die hard. Beware JH! You have questioned the infallible wisdom of Mark Asquith! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

JH is right: the match is recorded in the 1923 Wisden as "Royal Air Force (Ex-Service) v Rest of England", and the report on the previous match at Eastbourne, North v South, is prefaced with the words "Two matches at Eastbourne promoted by the Air Force..."; the two games involved pretty much the same people (only three players in the first match didn't appear in the second, though they mixed the sides up a lot). User:CDTPP and I were discussing what seems to be an analogous situation only a few weeks ago: George Elliot (1813–1901), the admiral and MP, seems to have been the G Elliot who played twice for Cambridge University in 1831, but there is no record in the official university lists that Elliot ever attended the university, and as a naval man he wouldn't have done. County cricket is littered with people with dubious qualifications to play for the teams they appeared for: Somerset's wily way with Peter Randall Johnson and Tom Lowry is a nice example. Johnlp (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC) PS. The contemporary reports in The Times call the team "RAF". The matches were in aid of the Air Force Memorial. Johnlp (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the final element for me is that it was never included in RAF averages and records when in the old (pre 1990) days of the acs we used to knock those things out. Personally I don't think it's an RAF match per se but as cricketarch has it as such I'd better admit defeat.CDTPP (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please learn the format of WikiProjects, you must use tabs when commenting on an existing topic - this can be done by placing the number of colons as there should be tabs (one tab = one colon, two tabs = two colons, etc) MeghV (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Awards Section Broken

I was attempting to add an award to the Awards section and the entire section became broken. Now the "Awards" content is housed in the criteria guideline section - how do we fix this??? MeghV (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Members Section Uneditable

I'm trying to add myself the the Members section and the link is dead - can we troubleshoot this and figure it out? I'm sure we have not been able to record contributors because they were not able to add themselves as members! MeghV (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's because someone called mani joshi (or similar) broke the darn thing. I've fixed it I think. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it is now fixed! Is there a way to gauge most active members within the community page? Some sort of leaderboard/ranking to call out members that have contributed most? I think that would be an interesting feature to have as we expand MeghV (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? Isn't everyone welcome to contribute as much (or as little) as they feel able to? Johnlp (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing a leaderboard feature helps provide an incentive to contribute. However, one would argue that leaderboards will result in quantity over quality in terms of contribution. Perhaps an improvement in the Awards section instead? isaacK (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a number of people on the member's page who may not be active - how to we gauge active members? MeghV (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to distinguish between the people who are "active" or "inactive". In my experience, for example, in a polar yes/no question, the dissenters are probably more likely to let their voices be heard than the assenters. I make my apologies for not contributing here as much as I should have recently, but we all have our reasons. I could cross-post my first class players' lists arranged by year, alphabetically, by shoe size, etc, and become the most active, but would that make me feel proud? Actually, yes, but that's not the point. ;) Bobo . 02:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree people should contribute as much as they are able to. It isn't a competition to see who has contributed the most. Sijiay . 03:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alick Bannerman

Many years ago I uploaded this image but apparently forgot to add a source (in those days the licensing police were less stringent). I've now been asked to provide one. I don't have a problem with that except that I cannot for the life of me remember where I got it from. I've been through all my cricket books and the likely websites to no avail. There must surely be copies of this image of this famous cricketer floating around (that didn't come from WP). I initially thought it was from 200 Seasons of Australian Cricket but apparently not. On reflection, he looks a lot like Billy Murdoch and I'm starting to wonder if I made a terrible mistake. Have you seen this anywhere or can you enlighten? Moondyne (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Details here. That site gives the Sydney Morning Herald as the source, but looks like it was published in the 1890s as it's an "E Hawkins" photo. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A cropped-in version showing mostly just his head is used in Martin-Jenkins' Complete Who's Who of Test Cricketers and there it's credited to MCC (without specifying Marylebone or Melbourne). No doubt it's Bannerman. Johnlp (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's definitely Bannerman. The NAA page has his name on the picture. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Moondyne (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Cricket Seasons

Hey,

I noticed that International cricket seasons articles only go back to 2004. Is it possible if we can go back beyond that year? Also, I was wondering why "XXXX in cricket" does not have any articles here, it could be a good article because it can include both domestic cricket competitions and international competitions in the same article? There are other articles that already have their own years in sports for example: 1999 in baseball or 1999 in association football?

Any thoughts?

Hisakiwa21 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Cricket World Cup Semifinal: India v Pakistan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Cricket World Cup Semifinal: India v Pakistan 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/2011 Cricket World Cup Semifinal: India v Pakistan 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. – Pee Jay 01:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

More IP fun

An IP that seems to geolocate to Karachi is making edits to several "golden age" cricketers such as Arthur Mold saying that they are among the greatest ever cricketers. It is becoming slightly unconstructive on that article, using a few different IP addresses, and I've already reverted twice. If any passing admins care to take a look, or if anyone else can keep an eye on it as well, it would be greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

William Lillywhite

I've expanded the above, which was a pretty short little article for the player with the best bowling average in FC cricket, but I feel my mind turning to mush with all these figures and can't find much prose to put in to pad out the stats. So if anyone has anything, feel free! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he was extremely good, but I think you can't say he had the best-ever bowling average for the simple fact that full details of so many of his figures are missing... including his best bowling figures where he took 10 wickets in an innings. Johnlp (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Has there ever been discussion about how the early to mid-19th C. career bowling figures should be displayed in infobox, and also in articles ? Full analyses for only a small percentage of Lillywhite's performances are known. Haven't calculated the complete figures yet, but the Cricinfo list of "lowest bowling averages" is a most inaccurate portrayal of f-c history in my opinion - Lillywhite's career for example should be portrayed thus xxx wkts [+ yyyy] @ ave zz.zz, the yyyy of course being those wickets he's known to have taken but no idea how many runs conceded whilst capturing them. RossRSmith (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now tidied the front end and the infobox, so it's no longer saying this, because I think it doesn't reflect well on us as a project (it doesn't reflect well on Cricinfo either). Perhaps someone more au fait with early cricket than I am could check the rest. Most of the early players appear not to have infoboxes, presumably for the very reason that figures are so doubtful. Johnlp (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RossRSmith and Johnlp here, and it doesn't reflect too well on Wisden either if you look here (which contradicts CricketArchive). I seem to remember somewhere (maybe an old Wisden, but I haven't time to check. It was a book rather than online, though) as suggested above: wickets [+wickets], and maybe this is a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The original Who's Who of Cricketers produced by the ACS in 1984 has Lillywhite's figures as "2342—215+1355—10.89—154—54—10/?", which is pretty much what you're suggesting here, but is perhaps now a bit out-of-date. That Wisden list is a joke: David Bush Edwards apparently took 82 wickets after bowling only four balls. Johnlp (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem here might be the ACS definitions of first-class cricket? It seems to clash with Wisden (the printed version) but all online sources are ACS based. Just checking the more recent editions of Wisden, Lillywhite does not make the "1500 wickets" list and, while Alfred Shaw is included, a note states that his figures exclude one wicket "for which no analysis is available". I wonder if there is an easy list of those whose wickets include times when there was no analysis? This is where we need a few more of those early cricket people! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Variations in first-class cricket statistics article covers some of the discrepancies between Wisden and the ACS versions of cricket history and was (mostly) authored by BlackJack, who contributed most of our early cricket stuff and is good on all this kind of thing. I think the gist is that most people accept the ACS definitions of first-class, but Wisden has been reluctant to amend long-cherished stats for leading players such as Grace and Hobbs or to bother about far-distant matches where first-class status has been conferred retrospectively and which pre-date Wisden's own existence. So Lillywhite probably wasn't in their lists for 1500 wickets in 189x and they're not going to change it now. Johnlp (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is why I avoid early cricket! I seem to remember that CDTPP knew a thing or two as well. I wonder if he could help? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Statisticians - the pros so to speak tend to use ACS/Cricketarchive(the same except where things haven't been updated) The fact is that Wisden uses it's own. The problem is that their(Wisden) early historians(Ashley-Cooper's era) lacked sources and, as people do, made small errors which lasted on. Because, and mainly in my and some other people's view, of the historic Hobbs' record innings at Taunton, Wisden was unwilling to change it's WG stuff and thus much of the stuff that went with it. That Hobbs scored 199 fc 100s is a question of empirical fact and all the circumlocution to deny the existence of the games in India that the extra 2 come from, is to my mind(and many others) hogwash. However the WG issue is different and contemporary historians(some of them) gave credence to games that at distance of time seem non f-c - perhaps they were but AT THE TIME, because of WG no doubt, a body of opinion saw them as fc so I think WG scored the number of 100s given in Wisden. The era of Lillywhite is about paying money and taking your choice - there is too much personal opinion about this game and that(pre say 1860) The cricketarchive list is based on most scholarship and is I think followed by Wisden(as it does not conflict with WG!) I'd go with that everytime.CDTPP (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Making Cricket Statistics more relevant and meaningful - Rohit Samarth, Mumbai, India

24.11.2013

Dear Wikipedia Administrator,

I am a regular follower of Cricket statistics published by you on Wikipedia.

I wish to draw your kind attention that in the List of International Cricket Centuries scored by any player say Sachin Tendulkar or Jacques Kallis, in column 5 of the "List of Test Cricket Centuries" under the heading "Test", you are mentioning the number of tests played by the two countries in that series alongside that particular century, which is an irrelevant and meaningless piece of information. Instead, it makes better statistics to mention the total number of Test matches played by the player alongside each century scored by him in this column. For example, Sachin Tendulkar scored his 1st Test Century in his 1st Test match, 29th Test Century in his 110th Test match, 30th Test Century in his 114th Test match, 50th Test Century in his 195th Test match, and so on and so forth. Since Don Bradman scored his 29th century in his 52nd Test match, it makes good sense to compare and analyze the number of Test matches taken by the other batsmen to score their 29th century.

Likewise, in the List of ODI Centuries in column 5 titled "Inn" you are presently mentioning whether a particular ODI century was scored by the player when the team batted first or batted second, which is not so relevant. Here again, it makes better statistics to also mention in the next column, the total number of ODI's played by the player alongside that century scored by him(as indicated in the example above).

I earnestly request you to upgrade your information so that performances of players can be better analyzed and compared.

I eagerly look forward to my request and suggestion implemented by Wikipedia at the earliest.

Thanks and regards,

Rohit Samarth Mumbai, India samarthrohit@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitsamarth (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not meaningless

The stats as put are not meaningless - indeed they make good sense. A list of when the leading players made 20+ centuries could be a useful little article in itself.CDTPP (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

30.11.2013

Either you've not carefully read what I'm saying, or you've not understood what I've written, and you have completely missed the point. I'm not saying the entire stats compiled are meaningless. All I'm saying is the mention of the number of Tests played between the two countries alongside the player having scored a century is a meaningless and irrelevant piece of information, which needs to be replaced by the number of test matches played by the player alongside the century he has scored.

Rohitsamarth (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No I understood perfectly. I just don't agree. .CDTPP (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Carberry's batting helmet

Hello all,
Does anyone know what the go is with Michael Carberry's helmet? It's quite different to those worn by the rest of the English team. I ask this ~~out of idle curiosity~~ because it is vitally important to building a better encyclopedia.
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

development, I guess. From motorbike helmets to the current common style to Carberry's version. If it can be proved to be safer, you will probably see more players have similar shaped helmets, unless contractual issues hold them back. Or maybe he read Dave Warner's tweet about liking turtles and thought he would try to look like a turtle. The-Pope (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't blame you for your idle curiosity Pete, it's about the only thing worth talking about regarding the England team at the moment. :-( But I agree, it's probably a manufacturer who has paid him to try out a new style of helmet, we've seen it from time to time in the past. I guess helmets with grills must have looked strange at one stage, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who remember the days when a plastic jaw visor was used instead. Back in the 1970s ANY helmet would have looked strange. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's an Adidas helmet that Carberry's wearing. James Taylor wore a similar one last time he was in the England team. – Pee Jay 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonably common style of helmet to see on the county circuit: Arul Suppiah has won it ever since I remember, and I think Sangakarra has often sported it too. Harrias ^talk 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added some referenced info to Cricket helmet to ~~satisfy my idle curiosity and for great justice~~ help build a better encyclopedia, though I must admit the newspaper content appears remarkably similar to the article itself. The article still needs a lot of work. (In the 1990s I had a bicycle helmet with a little button that pumped up an inflatable part of its internal fitting pads, like the "Reebok Pump" line of shoes of the same time.) Harrias and PeeJay are right: the scone-protector Carberry currently wears has been around since 2008 in County Cricket - there's a YouTube vid - so "Michael Carberry's batting helmet" is a no-goer as an article. How about "Mitchell Johnson's moustache" instead? Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for his mo, etc, etc. World's worst right-arm leg-spinner aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Old films

I thought this interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24692240. Is there perhaps a website where these things are lodged where we might be able to see for ourselves, for instance, Mold's throwing action? Johnlp (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a link in the article to the Mold film on the BFI website. The Pathe news site also has quite a bit of film of old cricket, although it is a bit random. I'm not sure there's a place to get all the other film mentioned in that article though. It's quite interesting that both Frith on the BBC page, and the BFI page which has the film, say that the film clearly shows Mold throwing. I'm not sure I agree with that, and it is hardly so clear-cut. I know others have used it as evidence that he didn't throw, and he was certainly hardly cranking up the pace. It looks like he could hardly be bothered and was consciously keeping his arm straight. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Give them to Rob Moody to upload. The-Pope (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

When I was researching the Laurie Nash article I read that the National Film & Sound Archive has film of him bowling and then saying a few words to the camera. Sadly not digitalised & not sure if it ever will, unfortunately, as it would have made a great addition to the article. Roisterer (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

List of domestic T20 centuries in articles

Hi, after receiving an angry message on my talk page from Itz arka (talk · contribs) regarding an edit I made on Quinton de Kock's article where I had removed the list of domestic T20 centuries that de Kock has made. So I was wondering what the consensus is regarding lists of domestic centuries in articles. Help and advice would be much appreciated, thanks Ytfc23 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Succinctly? Superfluous fluff. Harrias ^talk 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Harrias. Pretty much unnecessary as if an infobox is in place, it typically duplicates that information contained within the infobox. Wouldn't be missed. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I was rude Ytfc23, actually I did some hard jobs a few months before to get those information collected. It's not only about domestic centuries, it's about a list of all twenty20 centuries. Actually he hasn't scored any century in international twenty20s, so that list doesn't conclude that. If he scores I will add those too in that list. And his two domestic t20 centuries were popular ones, because he scored one of those in Ram Slam T20 and that is the highest t20 individual score on South African ground till now, so its a record. And the other one he scored in Champions League T20, which is a bit popular league also. Itz arka (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

More than one source in an infobox

I've added David Graveney's height and his nickname to the infobox on the woeful article about him. The info comes from the Cricketers' Who's Who book's first edition in 1980, and there are plenty more missing heights and nicknames that could be added from that and subsequent issues on cricketers of the recent past. There is, however, no way that I can see to credit a second source inside the infobox. I added it invisibly at the bottom of the box but that's not very satisfactory. Any ideas? Johnlp (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You could directly cite the nickname using ref tags. Hack (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible. Trouble is that it's height as well, which is two fields in the infobox, so it might look messy. Johnlp (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way of placing the height into the prose? Hack (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we move away from just having a generic source field in the template to having dedicated cricketarchive and Cricinfo refs, and keep the source field for any others? See {{Infobox NFL player}} for an example of a multiple sources in a template, and they use parameters, not full links. So instead of having to write, like we do now,

|source = http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/4188.html Cricinfo

which displays

Source: Cricinfo, 16 August 2007

you could instead write

|cricinfo = 4188 |cricketarchive=492 |source = http://www.bradman.org.au Bradman museum

which would display (once the fields are set up) as

Sources: Cricinfo, Cricket Archive, Bradman museum, 16 August 2007

All would be optional - you could have either or both of the big sites, and it would still work with the current system of all in the source. Eventually, if it works, you could run a bot/AWB run to try to convert them over. I'll have a go at modifying the template in the sandbox. The-Pope (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds very much the way I'd like to go... but I wouldn't have a clue where to start. It maybe isn't helpful that this kind of data (height, weight (!), nicknames etc) tends to be in printed sources rather than online. But it would be great if it could be made to work. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, the sandbox version is at Template:Infobox_cricketer/sandbox (it's only the couple of lines right near the end) and you can see it in use at User:The-Pope/sandDon. Feel free to edit the sandDon box to see how it's used. I know that "Sources" vs "Source" isn't strictly correct when there is only one, but I can't workout how to do conditional if statements based on "AND" multiple conditions, not "OR" conditions! I also know the spacing isn't ideal, but I doubt many infoboxes will need to have all three parameters of CI, CA and a 3rd site. I have tested it on a bunch of cricketarchive numbers and the algorithm holds, I'm not sure if cricinfo have different numbering schemes, but I just tested it on a few and their links seem to work from a single number. I'll leave it out there for review for a day or so, before I copy it into the live template, unless others want to move it sooner. As for non-online sources, I could add a fourth parameter like |offlinesource = that could appear without the [ links.The-Pope (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you: that looks very good. I think an offline parameter would be useful for this as well, and then I suppose I'll need some coaching in how to fill it – these things don't come as second nature to some of us! Johnlp (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Dennis Fisher

user:Hebrides wants to know Wikiproject cricket's views on needlessly removing the infobox from Sussex cricketer Charles Dennis Fisher. (anon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.236.245 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talk page, and also redirected the very small and very recent Charles Fisher (cricketer) article to the Charles Dennis Fisher page. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Runs before wickets or wickets before runs?

Am I right in thinking that any articles about cricket in Australia should use the "wickets/runs" score format? Under "cricket in Australia", I am including all domestic cricket and any tours/series that take place there, but not any ICC events like the Cricket World Cup or World Twenty20. As things stand, I have been following this format for the English cricket team in Australia in 2013–14 and 2013–14 Ashes series articles, but some people have been changing it to the "runs/wickets" format used more commonly everywhere else in the world. I suppose the argument is whether national/regional customs should take precedence over a consistent format that readers unfamiliar with cricket would understand throughout the encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 15:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? – Pee Jay 17:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only confusing if it's something like 6/9 (hello to all the English readers!). 3/230 is fairly obvious. If it's a problem, use words, hyperlinks or notes to make it clearer. Just like our transpacific friends might find colour, neighbour, metres and aluminium confusing, WP:ENGVAR is clear when they should be used. I would do likewise with cricket scores, use the home town format. The-Pope (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. Just to clarify, I'm talking about the {{Test match}} and {{Limited overs matches}} templates, so using words wouldn't be much help. – Pee Jay 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My inclination would be the same as PeeJay's, and use 1/500 in Australia (predicting England's score in the second Test!) but 500/1 elsewhere. But I can see the arguments for using 500/1 everywhere, and I suppose if it came to a big row, 500/1 should carry it as that is what the main sources use (i.e. Cricinfo, CA, Wisden, etc). But if no-one is protesting, I think Australian convention is fine to use in Australian cricket. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A footnote explaining the format could be placed after the first usage. Something to the effect of "this article uses the scoring format wickets/runs e.g. 5/318". Hack (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that overcomplicates things a little, and is part of the reason why I err on the side of wanting a consistent format across the encyclopaedia. But then I guess we have WP:ENGVAR for a reason. – Pee Jay 14:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The only time when it's problematic is when both numbers are below 11. Otherwise, it should be pretty obvious. Hack (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why a note isn't really necessary. – Pee Jay 14:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There are tour articles where progress scores are mentioned in prose. Hack (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think in those instances we have to assume that the reader is not an idiot and can work it out from context. – Pee Jay 14:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the format in 2010–11 Ashes series. I think it should be changed for all series in Australia (does this apply to New Zealand as well?) but there would be quite a few to cover - e.g. Indian cricket team in Australia in 2011–12. St Anselm (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice this is clear and explicit in the style guidelines ("Adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the tournament, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries") but this has been shamefully neglected on many, many articles - South African cricket team in Australia in 2012–13, Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2012–13, West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2012–13, etc. St Anselm (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Article importance

Hey, been looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment#Importance scale and figured a few top-level additions needed. Top-level status is defined : "This article is of the utmost importance to the project, as it provides key information about a major topic that is fundamental to a study of the subject. Reserved for articles that are strictly related to the game: rules of the game, key roles, key equipment, federations, etc." Cool. Pleased to see that individuals are out, even Grace and Bradman, same for teams, venues, competitions, incidents.

"Key roles", though? You had batting, bowling, fielding in there. You did not have umpiring, captaincy, scoring or wicketkeeping. Those are key roles. Must be included so done that. Hesitate at all-rounder, still high. Equally MCC, still high, you have ICC and Laws. So. Fifteen top articles? About right to me but, hey, have your say too. Real concern is status of these "fundamental topics". None too healthy, most of them. Happy to discuss. --Bill (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Cricket career statistics

I'm not a cricket editor but I noticed most articles in Category:Career achievements of sportspeople are about cricketers. Other sports with many articles have a subcategory. I suggest moving the cricket articles to a new Category:Cricket career statistics, or possibly a more specific name. It might have parent categories Category:Career achievements of sportspeople, Category:Test cricket records, Category:Cricket-related lists. Then the articles could also be moved out of the two latter so they don't mix individual cricketers and more general pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Go ahead. Suggest same titling convention as basketball cat already there. So category:Career achievements of cricketers. Hey, why aren't basketball players called basketballers!? --Bill (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found that out when I created an article with a "basketballer" disambiguation. I agree with Category:Career achievements of cricketers. St Anselm (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Done - All the ones from the parent category have been moved, but there are a few entries on Template:International cricket centuries and Template:International cricket five-wicket hauls still to be added to the new category. In fact, there are quite a few lists on the second template still to be written. St Anselm (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let the cricket editors decide whether to remove the articles from other categories like Category:Test cricket records and Category:Cricket-related lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

List of England Test cricketers...

...seems to be in a bit of a mess with various IPs doing partial updates during matches, and some basic stats for current players being wrong. I'm not even clear which would be the version that one could revert to in order to rebuild it in a more orderly fashion. Any ideas? Johnlp (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

County Cricket

Just a "heads up" that this aericle has been proposed for deletion. JH (talk page) 10:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposed deletion? I can't find it and there's no PROD notice on the article page itself. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The PROD has been removed. Harrias ^talk 21:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not surprised - I agree the article as it stands is pretty superficial, but it's a pretty important subject to want to delete. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas all,

Best wishes! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And a Merry Christmas from me to all project members as well. JH (talk page) 10:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck and Good Night

The invaluable Associate Affiliate has taken exception to me making minor adjustments to 13 of his 'edits' in a five month period as well as placing provacative remarks on his own sweet site directed at me and others. His intention is too remove me from the game so to speak through the estimable people who inhabit the dark spaces of this project. If anyone needs advice etc on a small matter, then I'll help out if I can through this page.CDTPP (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"as well as placing provacative remarks on his own sweet site directed at me and others". You're not the sharpest tool in the shed now are you, but thanks for admitting you are Richard Daft, afterall why would this section get your back up otherwise. I guess you'll be regenerating into your 61st incarnation soon? I better update that section for accuracy reasons. Of course, unless you have multiple personalities, I do believe all you'll find is satire aimed at Richard Daft, not sure where the "others" come into it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Scoring_(cricket)#Merger_proposal

Hey, proposing Scorer merge into Scoring (cricket). See discussion open one week. All welcome. --Bill (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, merger complete. Only one comment. From PeeJay who approved. Cool. --Bill (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian first-class cricketers

Hi all, this article points the way to what may be a very useful reference! - Sporting history unearths stories of Australia's forgotten cricketers -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't wait, although without a West Australian contributor (Ken Casellas would have been available, I'm sure) I doubt that players from this side of the country would get much coverage. You also have to wonder, given how it is probably a labour of love, and they surely aren't going to make much money from it, would they have been better off publishing it directly on here, rather than waiting 13-20 years to publish in their own weighty volumes? Original research is unlikely to be an issue, as I they'd be relying on old published sources anyway. Would avoid any need to "limit the whole project to the years pre-2000 to stop having to add players." "Rick Smith of Launceston" mentioned as a collaborator surely must be a relation to our own Tasmanian User:RossRSmith who is also interested in sporting history. The-Pope (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Rick is not a relation of mine, but a good friend and colleague all the same. Have no fear about WA players - I believe the project is meant to cover every player since 1850-51 so all WA players will be mentioned. RossRSmith (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, question about eligibility for articles of people who made single appearances for Oxbridge, or even MCC. Project guideline WP:CRIN definition specifies "major domestic first-class competitions (including) the County Championship", while "major individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be significant, especially if historically significant, by substantial sources". Then a bold instruction to "judge notability by reference to a substantial source that makes clear it is discussing a major player or match in historical rather than statistical terms". That last bit kinda kicks CricketArchive in the wotsits.

Okay, take someone like Charles Aston Whinfield Cooper-Key, born in 1856, who made one single appearance for Oxford against a Gentlemen of England team in 1877. To be fair, seems to have had one useful spell of bowling. But. Match of very dubious quality. Of little interest except it did take place. And yet Mr Cooper-Key is a "first-class" player according to CricketArchive. Reality check, these are just guest players or someone's pal. Remember it from my time at uni. You didn't think, "hey, I'm first-class", you just had fun.

Na? Developing Oxford players list and he goes into that but is he "notable"? Didn't play in an "organised competition". Can't be considered a major player "in historical terms". So. Does he warrant an article? I say no. Realise consensus determines questions like this. Cool with that. But if consensus is that guys like these, albeit statistically first-class, are not notable? Should WP:CRIN reflect that? Should many existing articles be removed?

My view? These players should be listed but not have articles unless they played for a county team. Or took part in the varsity match which probably does assume some historical significance. Floor is open. --Bill (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been something which has been raised many times. I'm content with every first-class cricketer getting an article, be it for 100 appearances or one, for a major county or a one-off XI. I think if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment. But does WP:CRIN say every first-class player is notable? Answer is no. If standard is anyone who's played in what CricketArchive categorises as a first-class match, guideline should say so. It refers to something called "major cricket" but, hey, that is a non-term. Someone should review and revise WP:CRIN. I'll do it if no one else interested. But will ask for HE-E-ELP! too. Cool. --Bill (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We've been round these loops many times before. Perhaps read the previous discussions before diving in. However un-ideal the current wording, it does at least avoid some of the pitfalls we've debated before. Essentially, first-class, List A and T20 cricket all conform to the highest level of domestic cricket and that qualifies anyone who has played one of these games. But WP:CRIN's "authority" derives from WP:ATH and that in turn is a sub-set of WP:GNG... there's a minefield here, and you wander into it at your peril. WP:BROKE also applies here. Johnlp (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we assuming participants in the female equivalents are also notable? Hack (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. There are far fewer women's first-class and List A matches, so we wouldn't be giving undue weight to the women's game by also attributing notability to any woman who has played in one of those matches. – Pee Jay 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnlp (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing to say, and I don't disagree with Bill, is that 'one first class match makes notability'criteria is far easier to rationalise than "X" number of matches makes notability, because what would X be? Who says that someone with fifteen Oxford Uni caps is notable but five games for Kent in the 1880s not? etc. etc. Zero to one is a far stricter and more black/white a definition than 5, 10, 15, and when, for what team, etc. I don't believe that this alone is a fair rationale for keeping the current system, however "in the real world" it may end up being one. Furthermore, many people with one "first class" cap may have substantial club cricket or other claims for notability that can be used to flesh out articles from one-line stubs. Club cricket is not notable on its own to pass GNG, however it can be used to expand articles otherwise severely lacking in content due to single or low numbers of FC caps. Likewise many crickets did other things in their lives, particularly the amateurs that Bill alludes to above. And that can be researched and included. Just two thoughts. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey again. First. All the best to everyone here in 2014. WP:GNG? Deffo a minefield. But! Impacts this project not one tiny jot. Why? CA must be a "reliable source" and if it devotes several pages (my friend Mr Cooper-Key has a baker's dozen or more) to a guy who played in what it terms a first-class match.... Hey, that is "significant coverage" (within the limits of current knowledge) and the guy is notable. Cool. Reading WP:CRIN ve-r-r-r-r-y slowly, I figure you've taken first-class as a given and your real purpose is to assert notability for significant people who didn't play in a first-class match. Yes? Hence the references to Kent players in the days of Queen Anne or whenever. Cool with that. History buff selbst. When I did the Sussex players, only one redlink predating the county club so you guys sure done your history homework. Teacher pleased. Again, I agree with x=1 or next stop is x=πr2 and going round in circles. And, as SG says, GNG does make allowance for extra info like club cricket.

Okay, happy now, next on to-do list is an article for Charles Aston Whinfield Cooper-Key. Bis bald. --Bill (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you had couched this piece in English - without being silly in anyway, the tone you have adopted rather obscures the point you are making.

West Indies women's cricket team T20I record?

ESPNcricinfo says they played 61 T20 matches, won 58 games and no losses [2], [3]. But when I looked the records for the players captained the team, they have stats that lost more than a single game [4]. Can someone figure this out? Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not noticed the Winner column here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

~~There is no "Winner" column on that page. The "Result" field shows 58 wins, two ties and one N/R for me.~~ I see it now. Hack (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The report is on matches involving the West Indies women. But it isn't from their point of view. So 58 matches were won. But not necessarily by the West Indies. If you look at the second link, the "winner" column states which team won: often the WI opponents. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a more useful page. Harrias ^talk 07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I did not noticed the "winners" column, I was focused on the first link that I taught they haven't lost in a match. But anyways, thanks for the help! FairyTailRocks (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

T20I template?

There is a discussion going on at Category talk:Cricket navigational boxes about having a navigational box for T20I cricket along the same lines as Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50. St Anselm (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

English first-class team records

I'm currently constructing a list of English first-class teams who have played first-class from 1772 to the present day. The list will have the first-class span, number of matches played, number won lost, drawn, ect, as well as their win percentage. This is easy to work out for some teams, but others like MCC it might prove hard unless I go through each match and work it out! Does anybody have any up-to-date statistics on how many first-class matches teams like MCC or Cambridge University have played/won/drawn/lost/tied? Also what shall I also include team wise?

Shall I include Scotland when playing matches in England prior to 1992? I currently don't have Scotland on the list.
I've included Wales, afterall it's England and Wales, thus I've also included South Wales and Glamorgan.
Australian Imperial Forces, as it played all its first-class matches in England. Should it and similar teams be included on an English first-class team list?
I'm exluding from the statistics matches that were played outside of England or Wales, such as MCC v Durham in 2010

It's very much a bare bones and a work in progress at the moment, but tips appreciated, particularly as I'm not looking forward to trolling through hundreds of scorecards! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Use the list on cricketarchive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.166.99 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Australian Imperial Forces, as it played all its first-class matches in England. Should it and similar teams be included on an English first-class team list?" I'd say no. Playing matches in England (even all your matches) is not the same thing as being an English team. Also maybe it would be better to make the list "list of British first-class teams", to avoid the problem with Wales and to allow you to include Scotland. (Though there might still be a problem with Ireland.) JH (talk page) 09:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

They were a touring team - see list on cricketarchive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.166.99 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Australian Imperial Forces did not play all its matches in Britain. They did a half-world tour. Played in South Africa and in Australia itself. Touring team anyway like IP says. Their services team in 1945 went round the world too. Need to define your scope. England and Wales? Or British Isles? Must include Glamorgan so Wales is in. Don't see how you can leave Scotland or Ireland out so, yeah, British Isles. Cool. But. Beats me how you'll account for all occasional teams. Good luck. --Bill (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey again. Just looking through teams at top end of your list. 18th century. You have "England" up there and it links to Test team formed in 1877. You need another article for "non-international England" like the category you already have for those guys. One thing. Spotted "All England Eleven" lower down but that isn't same thing either. --Bill (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A possible place to link would be England cricket team#History, which briefly covers "England" teams prior to Test cricket. JH (talk page) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And following some links from that section → Eureka! All-England cricket teams. Needs work but historical basis there. 1739? Wow! Yeah, but this is generic for such teams set up as specifics by Clarke, Wisden & Co. Cool. --Bill (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll remove the touring teams (Aus Imperial and Dominions) and look to expand to include Scotland too. There's a few things that have cropped up though! CA lists the first-class debut of Kent as being in 1806, however I was under the impression Kent County Cricket Club was formed in 1842 and its first-class debut was in that same year. Up until that point various Kent county cricket teams had been the county representative side? The same is true with Sussex as well, which has different dates. All somewhat confusing! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, CA wrong with dates for Kent and Sussex. SxCCC began in 1839. KCCC in 1842. Before that were pre-club teams usually first-class by different organisers. Found Kent teams 1773 to 1796 so how do they get 1806!? CA not good. And crap site for browsing. Stuck with it unless you have massive cricket library to hand. Had to use their lists yesterday to improve All-England cricket teams. They've handled those badly too. Not surprised you confused. --Bill (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's going to make adding up the matches played and working out the win/loss/draw/ect rather difficult. I'm surprised neither CI or CA has an overall results for record for MCC, after all it's played hundreds of first-class matches. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Grace Gates DYK review request

Can someone on the project please give Grace Gates a DYK review? The review page is located at Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Gates‎. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, looks okay after the guy added the bit about moving. Grace has whole category to himself. Added that to GG. Cool. --Bill (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, could you add the green tick to the review page then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Like so? :-) --Bill (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks staying red

Hey. Better red than dead? Point. Better red than blue? Well, Merseyside issue. Did eight new arts for Leics players yesterday, johnlp did Bernard Cromack. Result? All still red in player list. Yet Cromack blue here! Dont matter, trivial. But. Out of interest anyone know why system would do that? Thanks. --Bill (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You may need to purge the server cache for that page - see Wikipedia:Purge. Hack (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Was going to try that but page is okay now. All blues are blue. Will bear in mind. Cool. --Bill (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox oddities

I've updated recently to Internet Explorer 11.0 and cricketer infoboxes now appear for me with the cricket stats section (at the bottom) all centred (all the other sections appear tabularly as they should). In previous IE versions there's been a bug-zapping button near the webpage address that has tackled these presentational anomalies, but this time there seems to be no such convenience. Are others having this irritation? Do we know if it is soluble? Or is it the thing that finally tips me into the arms of Firefox or Crome? Johnlp (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to stop you right there and just say you should be using Firefox or Chrome anyway. Forget about IE and just download one of those. End of. – Pee Jay 01:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

As our watchlist no longer appears to be working, just a heads up that Daft is back and vandalising articles under the 86.138.166.00 IP range, he is targeting mostly articles I have created/edited, but who knows, he might feel the need to attack a few more. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think I may be around and can help, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page directing me accordingly, I'll do the dirty work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TRM, will do :) Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the provocation (which I can see has indeed been severe), the vile rejoinder left on the talk page of one of the offending IP addresses has no place in WP. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What a happy little corner of WP we are. I have blocked both the IP in question, and Howzat?Out!Out!Out! for their interactions. I'm sure I'll live to regret getting involved, but there we go. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your response to some unacceptable behaviour is measured and necessary. You should be thanked, not fearful of castigation. Johnlp (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

For me, a indef block seems harsh, especially as it appears that no opportunity was given for AA to remove this unfortunate post. But he can always request an unblock. Oh, I hadn't seen the "outing". And no longer can, that's not great... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The intention was not for a permanent ban, but I simply wasn't sure of an appropriate length, so indefinite seemed a logical starting point while an appropriate length could be determined. And yeah.. that's the problem with an outing, the fact that it has to be deleted as soon as possible means there is no evidence left! Harrias ^talk 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I can understand from what the IP said (as I can still access that) why AA was bristled. The idiot running around using IPs to exercise some kind of vendetta against him must be very draining for AA. What kind of "guarantee" would you like to see to get this block at least shortened from indef to something manageable? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, my intention was never to ban AA permanently, and I intended to open a dialogue to offer him a route back onto the site. That said, after his recent childish outburst diff, I no longer have any such desire: if another admin passing by wishes to do so, that is their prerogative. It goes without saying that with regards to his baseless accusations, I would have no objection to an SPI or checkuser being carried out on my account, though I can't speak for Johnlp (or can I?!) Harrias ^talk 20:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What an interesting theory that is on the user talk page Harrias refers to. I would, of course, be hugely flattered to be associated, or even affiliated, to such an energetic contributor, but I fear it is not so. And I'm happy to have my account checked to prove it... if anyone actually believes this. Johnlp (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked FLTMW (talk · contribs) as a block-evading sock. Giant Snowman 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion

This AfD may be of interest to a few people here; I came across it by accident. It is closed now, although there is a similar one open. I don't think there is much in there that would directly apply to articles on cricketers, as there are few direct comparisons and sourcing almost any cricketer seems to be easier than applied in that case. But given that notability keeps cropping up on here every so often, there are some interesting arguments on both sides. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Interesting point is recommendation to place surname-only players in this list. Cricket has legion of these guys going way, way back. So. Does WP:CRIC have similar list? --Bill (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand how and why such a list would be needed, given that we have, or are developing, lists of players based on the teams they appeared for. And there are also disambiguation pages for many surnames that should also list unidentified as well as identified cricketers. Johnlp (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, cool. I'd agree really. Thing is. Practicality. Who'd maintain a list like that? And. Note baseball list nowhere near complete. Fuggerrallabahtit, yeah! --Bill (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Queen's Park Oval

I've expanded the above, hoping to get it from stub class to B or GA class. Any thoughts thus far? Still a work in progress. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Queen's Park Oval/archive1/ --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

CofE has kindly reviewed the article. Am I right in saying that we have an MoS about capitalisation of first Test to First Test etc? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been, but personally I think "first Test" is better English than "First Test" irrespective of our MoS suggestions. Harrias ^talk 15:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Any admins around to help?

Please see Pat Cummins. 2.5 days for a speedy G6 move deletion? Really. Almost enough to make me think about running the RFA gambit. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Purple-clad Giants of other days"?

I'm currently reading A Century of Cricketers by Johnnie Moyes (published 1949) and came across the following line about Len Hutton, "When he flashed into action, as to our joy he sometimes did, he rolled back the clouds and gave us again a vision of the purple-clad giants of other days." What on earth is Moyes talking about? The only purple-clad giants I can think of are the Hobart Hurricanes and I'm pretty sure Moyes wasn't thinking about a domestic T20 team founded over 60 years after him putting pen to paper.

To make this post at least slightly encyclopaedic related, the book is 100 short biographies on the best cricketers ever up to 1949 and Moyes does not spare the florid language when praising a player so if anyone working on an article of an old-time cricketer needs a florid quote to fill out the article, I'm sure I can assist. --Roisterer (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly an allusion to classical times when purple was associated with royalty, who in turn often claimed divine descent. It seems a flowery way of saying he was a god amongst men. Hack (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, definitely so. Royal purple is a pigment obtained from whelks. Yeah, really. Used for dye. Romans had it first. Think. Sure Greeks didn't. Roman senators and patricians had it in their togas. Not for plebs. Cool. --Bill (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Moyes was saddened that post-war Hutton was only a shade of his pre-war form. As an aside, Moyes listed Bradman only third on his list of greatest batsmen he'd ever seen, naming Clem Hill and Stan McCabe ahead of him. He admits his judgment of Hill might be slightly clouded as Hill was his childhood idol but Moyes states that Bradman was more a monotonous compiler of runs while the others two were more exciting to watch. --Roisterer (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All of Bradman's detractors were those who saw him bat. We rely only on stats and there he is unbeatable. Thirty years from now, people may consider Chanderpaul as good a batsman as Viv Richards. Tintin 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, anyone reading this thread will think we're getting at Man U: "What on earth is Moyes talking about?", "Moyes wasn't thinking", "Moyes was saddened". Hey, Moyes should have stayed at Everton.......... --Bill (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed his cap number. Was 294 I believe, not 603! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Leicestershire

Hey, all Leics players now have article. Okay, a stub. Cool. --Bill (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Worcs also complete. Essex and Glamorgan finished soon. --Bill (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don’t want to sound curmudgeonly or discouraging (though I am curmudgeonly, of course). But I do see a value in having redlinks to indicate the absence of an article. And I’m not sure I see a similar value in a bluelink that leads only to a bald single sentence containing the kind of facts that should really be in an infobox. I thought we were meant to be about creating an encyclopedia here, not another CricketArchive-style directory. Johnlp (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

John, not to belittle the quantity of work that Bill has done in any way, but if you want to view a fair list of Leicestershire bluelinks, I'll offer you this link to my sandbox. Bobo . 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobo. I have no problem with a directory structure so that we (the readers) can find our way around the project, and your lists and the other lists of cricketers that Bill has been re-ordering are really useful. My difficulty is with "bluelinks" where the "article" content is no more information than one would expect to find in one of our infoboxes or on the front page of each CricketArchive profile. I think that, as an encyclopedia, we should be more than that wherever possible (not always possible, of course), and that we shouldn't be aiming merely to replicate what CricketArchive already does rather well. So I question the value of moving redlinks to bluelinks without actually providing a real article, some context, and at least an infobox. Johnlp (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I see John's point. It's cool. But. There are points to stub concept too. Thing is, article once started is more likely to be expanded than one not started. Starting is always the big hurdle. Think too, better for reader to find something here (including a direct link to CA profile) than have to go off to CA itself and do a search there. Hey, don't want to be contentious but I absolutely do not like infoboxes and won't ever create one – really don't see point of them at all. Add no value and waste of space. IMO. Anyway, my red to blue campaign is ending soon. Finishing the few Essex and Glamorgan ones I've found and then that's it. Want to do something else. Which means there will be about two thousand players from Gloucs, Kent, Lancs, Middx, Notts, Surrey and Warks who have redlinks. Cool. --Bill (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Essex and Glamorgan all done. I'm going off to warmer climes at the weekend, back end of Feb, so not around here till then. Will start something different when I come back. No more redlinks for me, thanks. --Bill (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

Professional Cricketers' Association

What do people think about recent edits to this article? Mr Goldblatt may well have made vaulable contributions to the work of the PCA, but what the article now has about him seems to me disproportionate and smacking of "puffery". JH (talk page) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also unsourced. Johnlp (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to what looks like the last un-aggrandised version. But it still lacks sources. Johnlp (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found an article in "Arlott on Cricket" about the early years of the PCA. It includes a brief mention of Mr Goldblatt, which I've quoted and referenced. When time permits, I'll mine Arlott's piece more thoroughly for stuff than can be added to the article. JH (talk page) 21:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of initials when first names unknown

Hey, have recently seen several instances of X. Y. Zedman where the first names are unknown. In contrast with W. G. Grace where the first names are known and the man used his initials as his name. See the difference? Zedman needs a disambiguation feature in the title. So. Move article to X. Y. Zedman (Countyshire cricketer). Okay, recent examples have been:

There might be only one "PJ Morris" in the world of cricket. But. What does a title like that suggest to the wider world? It suggests someone called Morris known, like Grace or Auden, by his initials. Not so. This Mr Morris is just a surname and two initials on a scorecard. Clarification is needed in title as well as in text. There is disambiguation too. How many people called "J. Bentley"? Including other cricketers?

Another thing. Use of periods after initials. Need to be consistent in this. I would strongly argue for periods. They are a long-standing literary standard and highlight the initial letters. Bill (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair point you make, but it's hard to know how to do this without making titles unwieldy or impenetrable. These unidentified cricketers are, in my view, the ones that are nearest the trapdoor in terms of relegation to non-notability, but because our notability guideline is clear (and I think correct) they are on the right side of the line. We have to hope that someone else will eventually identify them (no OR). On initials, the manual of style is fairly clear: full stops (points) and spaces between them. Johnlp (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I have written names out, I've always done them in the form A. Person (with a full-stop) for players with a single initial and AB Person (without) for those with two or more. Simply because AB Person is the way they appear on scorecards, and A Person, with no full-stop, looks sort of... unbalanced? Bobo . 01:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always interested me how they would find out what the full names are... to use the first example that came into my head, Brian Lara appeared in the same game with an unnamed M. Issac. And of course, nobody remembers everyone they ever associated with, but *he* probably knows what that person's first name was... the fact that it's probably not the first question which would pass through your mind when asking him...

There's probably a way to find out everyone's name (so-and-so knows so-and-so who knows so-and-so...). I was reading recently that the "Facebook generation" have decreased the classic "six degrees of separation" to "five...". But I digress. Bobo . 01:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cricket stadiums

Duplicating Category:Cricket grounds and its relevant subcategories by country etc? The precedent seems to be set by Category:Cricket grounds by country whereas Category:Cricket stadiums in Asia seems to be the only one in existence and is already up for CfD as per my earlier thread. I move that all the articles in the cricket stadiums cat be placed in the relevant cricket grounds per country cat. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cricket stadiums in Asia

If we have cats for grounds per country, does this not make the above unnecessary? Ought they not to be moved to cats for the countries they are in? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, agreed. Pointless category. --Bill (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm boldly removing them - half of them have both Category:Cricket stadiums in Asia and Category:Cricket grounds in Asia as well as the cricket ground in X country ones. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, please take categories to CFD for discussion and don't empty them – except for clear corrections – while the discussion is in progress. In any case, once the discussion is closed, the work of removing the contents is easily done at a stroke by using a bot. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WASP (Winning And Score Prediction)

Hello, I am not sure if WASP (Winning And Score Prediction) is notable enough for an article. There seems to be a lot of questionable references used. Could somebody please send it to PROD if they think it should be deleted. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple pf days ago, I was wsatching the closing stages of a NZ v India ODI, and among the stats shown at the bottom of the screen was "WASP". I had no idea what it was. So I for one will find the article useful, and the stat is being used by at least one broadcaster, which suggests that it may be notable. Having said that, as it stands the article isn't very well-written. JH (talk page) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Titles of tour articles

What is the appropriate way to title these articles, which look inconsistent at present: English women's cricket team in Australia in 2013–14 and English women's cricket team in Australia in 2011. In both cases the tour began in January, so took place entirely in one year, but took place during a season that spanned two years. Should the title be derived from the season or from the actual year of the tour? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The season, per every other article in Category:English cricket tours of Australia. I guess many of those did cover both years, but, for example England Lions cricket team in Australia in 2012–13 does not. English women's cricket team in Australia in 2011 should be renamed. St Anselm (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Or we could move with the times and finally acknowledge that tours no longer take six months, involving a six week sea voyage at either end. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gowerton Cricket Club

Dear cricket experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable cricket club, and should the article be saved? I needs better referencing,but I know nothing about cricket, so I can't do it. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, deleted now, but can be restored if someone knows that this is a notable club. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be in ECB Premier League, so unless there are other extenuating circumstances, like historic status, we probably wouldn't rush to save it. Johnlp (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to check on this. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Misleading nonsense

The Park, Burley-on-the-Hill and Burley, Rutland are both in Category:English cricket venues in the 18th century and the grounds table attached to each article. They need to be cross-referenced and the village article should be removed from the category and table.

According to User:AssociateAffiliate, the Park "was used for first-class cricket in 1790, when an early England national cricket team (my italics) played pre-county club Hampshire". This is misleading nonsense and it is not a one-off. If the editor professes to be a cricket writer, he must know that there was no England national cricket team in the eighteenth century. Having already seen and corrected this same careless error in a biography, perpetrated by the same editor, one wonders how often it has been reiterated? Category:English cricket teams in the 18th century contains All-England cricket teams which has self-evidently been written to describe "England" before it went international (and similar teams since the beginning of Test cricket). One would suggest a sweep of early cricket articles to replace "national team" with "all-England". Furthermore, why write: "pre-county club Hampshire"? A better, simpler rendition is: "a Hampshire county team".

One finds far too many of these errors in the wiki cricket project and it is galling to see them reiterated when other, wiser authorities have worked long and hard to record information accurately in their own publications. Little wonder that your site is considered an unreliable source by SMEs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.125.99 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Two points. First, how about helping to sort out errors, inconsistencies and misnamings when you see them, instead of just sniping from the side? It takes no longer to correct something than to complain about it. Second, a lot of these things come about through a too-slavish adherence to formulaic writing and to the terminology of CricketArchive (which is essentially a database, whereas this is an encyclopedia written largely in narrative). Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

One accepts he meant well, but the person (IP address) who updated The Park, Burley-on-the-Hill missed the point and made it worse than ever. Very well, I will do it myself though, as a non-member reader-only occasional user of the site, one really should not have to. "Sniping from the side"? No, real world calling. I am not a member of your site or your project. I am a reader and, more to the point, a customer. I am therefore at liberty to criticise and it is up to you as a project offering a service to put things right. As for "formulaic writing and adherence to Cricket Archive", you have admitted to a proximate cause of the malaise impacting your project. If your goal is to develop narrative articles then use narrative sources, not a statistical one. I shall correct the Burley articles myself but I am seriously unimpressed by what I see here.

"It takes no longer to correct something than to complain about it". This is true, I grant you, but you are using truth to be evasive. You are saying that the project and its members are above criticism. That one should grin and bear serial incompetence and proceed by making tedious correction after tedious correction after tedious correction. No, your project is seriously flawed because these clumsy errors and, in many cases, personal opinions (cue your oft-ignored WP:OR guideline?) are widespread. You have admitted yourself that formulaic composition, using laughable expressions like "pre-county club Surrey", is a common fault. Why not welcome criticism and respond to it by taking steps to eradicate bad links and bad cliches? Why not apply another guideline WP:STATS and eradicate the mass of statistical non-information that disfigures numerous articles? Why not ban use of Cricket Archive to force editors to use narrative sources? One would recommend use of Cricket Archive purely as a link to a match scorecard, in effect as an "external link" only, no information to be culled from the site and used in the article. You are correct that articles on an encyclopaedic site must be narrative. Therefore, accept criticism and use your project to achieve your goal instead of turning a blind eye to incompetence.

Think about your readers. Your customers. What do they think when they believe they can quickly and conveniently find a piece about early cricket in Rutland, only to be told that the England Test team played there in 1790!?

One should perhaps point out that it is not possible to communicate with User:AssociateAffiliate who has apparently been expelled. That is why I'm here. One of the threads above throws some light on the case but generally clouds the issue(s), though, really, who cares? It appears that incompetence is not your only problem. You cannot work together either. It is a shame because among the dross there is, or has been, some good work.

So, who are you? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. I don’t think we need to know who you are to answer what are, to my mind, some valid points… though I would encourage you to sign up and make corrections and contributions: we do need new people with knowledge of cricket. I’d also remind you that we are all volunteers here and that this isn’t a conventional “publication”, so there’s no overall controlling editorial oversight. It’s one of the joys and/or frustrations of Wikipedia that the words of an expert may be overwritten by the words of a fool, and vice versa, and rewrites may not be noticed by contributors unless readers draw it to our attention. We try to approach it all with good humour and by assuming good faith on the part of other editors wherever possible, and I have to say that words such as “dross” really don’t help.

I was not trying to be evasive in my previous reply and I am absolutely not “saying that the project and its members are above criticism”. Virtually every edit that I and the other editors who inhabit these parts make is intended to improve individual articles: we wouldn’t do this improvement work if we thought they and the project as a whole were above criticism. Of course many of our articles are small and underformed, and I can readily agree that too many of them merely restate material that would be better presented in statistical form, without adding greater substance or context. But they can be improved and over time they will be improved… perhaps with your help.

One aspect that is mentioned on a previous thread on this page is that there is a perennial tension between the desire to eliminate the redlinks that indicate lack of an article and the need to ensure that the bluelinks that do lead somewhere are proper articles giving real information and context. That’s a debate that’s never likely to be resolved, but if we had more participants we might make more progress on both. It’s more worrying to my mind if we get wrong information or use incorrect or unclear terms, but the remedy is to flag it up somehow (by bringing it here, for example) or to get stuck in and correct things yourself. Johnlp (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Kevin Pietersen

Apparently his England career just ended? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - I have just been reading the ESPN report. St Anselm (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

International T20 stats

I am surprised that International T20 stats are not included in the infoboxes. I see that the matter was discussed six years ago. I would very much like to read these stats alongside the test/ODI/FC stats that are currently included, and I am sure that other readers would be interested too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is an aesthetic reason to stick to 4 columns. For international players, 3 of those 4 are obvious, but maybe, on a case-by-case basis, it would make sense to have T20 rather than FC stats for players like Alfonso Thomas, Shakib Al Hasan or even Chris Gayle. One metric that could be used to decide which stats to show is which of the "domestic and international" stats is the greatest multiple of the "international only" stat. ie for Shakib, he's played approx twice as many FC games as tests, only 20% more List As than ODIs, but 4.5 times as many T20s as T20Is. So showing the T20 stats proves much more info that FC or List A does. And for some modern players, they are what they are known for. So, for some players I would say go for it. (Actually I just realised that you asked about T20Is, not T20s... I'd say that all 3 international stats should be the first 3, then choose one of the domestic ones, by the greatest multiple method. Maybe you could keep the status quo of T/ODI/FC/LA for players who played only a few T20Is, but I think that internationals of any flavour should outrank domestic games). The-Pope (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that four is really the maximum the infobox can stand and happy it should be the "most prominent" of the formats for that individual. I do wonder a bit whether T20 stats (both international and domestic) are quite as important as a measure of individual merit as Test, FC and LA stats, simply on the basis that an explosive 20 or 30 may be a match-winning innings and that a bowling return of 0/20 in four overs is often more valuable than 4/50. Johnlp (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any significant "aesthetic" problem with five columns. Your suggestion of calculating the proportion of T20 games is unnecessarily complicated. For some players, this value may move across the threshold from game to game. Interestingly, the articles for "Alfonso Thomas" and "Chris Gayle" already have T20I stats in the infobox. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

" I do wonder a bit whether T20 stats... are quite as important as a measure of individual merit as Test, FC and LA stats. "

For some "purists", that may be true. However it is a matter of opinion. Consider the popularity of T20 cricket. T20 match venues are typically full. This is certainly not true for other (English) county cricket formats. Interest in the IPL is phenomenal, with enormous sums of money involved. Big Bash League is more popular than Sheffield Shield. Of course, the main reason for this is the shorter duration, allowing matches to be played in the evening after the working day, increasing accessibility for casual spectators.

Given that casual readers are more likely to be viewing T20 matches, there is an argument that T20 matches are the most important category—perhaps more so than test cricket. T20 International is certainly more important than List A or First Class. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not disputing the popularity, nor the degree to which T20 draws new people into cricket. I just wonder whether the T20 stats add as much as the stats for other forms do... there may, in fact, be other stats such as scoring rate or runs conceded per over that tell you more about a T20 player's contributions than the more traditional stats we collect for the older forms of the game. Johnlp (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether it tells us as much about the player as traditional stats do is a peripheral issue. Certainly strike rate and runs per over are important in T20. My point is that readers coming to these articles will want to see the stats, and we should provide them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

When issues like this come up, I start to question the value of having too many stats in the infobox at all. If we're having to pick and choose (and in some cases wrongly so – players who play more T20 shouldn't have their stats overlooked in favour of first-class if they hardly play that), then we should consider other options, such as separate stats tables further down the article. – Pee Jay 23:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've long been in favour of a much shorter infobox with a statistics table at the bottom of the article, similar to that seen in ice hockey articles, but I've generally been on my own! Harrias ^talk 08:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I find infoboxes tedious to compile, but their value I think is in removing the need for articles to consist merely of lists of stats. The ice hockey lists look messy to my eye, but perhaps a show/hide bar could be used. Johnlp (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the stats should be in the infobox, and I'm inclined to agree with Johnlp on the ice hockey stats. They're a bit of an eyesore, but perhaps their value is greater in other sports. I don't think we need to reproduce what Cricinfo and CricketArchive can do considerably better than us. But I do wonder if the infobox could be re-arranged. For example, put the international statistics (Test, ODI, T20I) below the "International Information" section, and the domestic (FC, LA, T20) below the "domestic information" section. That way, we are reduced to 3 columns, but at the expense of a longer infobox. (I'd produce a mock-up but it's waaaay beyond my technical ability) But the problem remains that T20 stats for averages aren't really valuable; Strike/Economy rate tells the reader more about their skill. Maybe a T20 box by itself, but would that make the infobox too long? Three sections (International, Domestic, T20) maybe? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to this conversation but a propos T20 stats, I read a few years back that the Association of Cricket Statisticians was looking at a better way of recording T20 statistics (such as for batsmen, a formula combining stike rate and average). I haven't heard anything more but would be good to see what they came up with. --Roisterer (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning the attendances

Do you people think that in the articles including touring seasons of the international teams, the official attendances should be mentioned alongside the brief scorecards of every match (of course if the attendances are available and published)? I have seen in the soccer pages that they mention the attendances besides the brief scorecard of every single match. Should we add those if available? It will be informative and viewers who see it will have an idea about the importance and popularity of any particular match. And adding those won't be increasing the memory of the page by too many bites. Itz arka (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it's a nice idea, and Wisden is very good at recording attendances. Overall attendance, or best day's? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as the attendance is reported by a reliable source, I suppose it would make sense to record it, at least for limited overs games played over a single day. For games played over multiple days, it becomes a little more difficult; how about the first day? Also, how would we present this in the {{Test match}} and {{Limited overs matches}} boxes? Under the venue on the right side of the box, or in the notes section underneath the scores? – Pee Jay 21:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think beside the venue for limited overs crickets, and for test matches we should add it beneath the test match template or may be we can add it beneath the scorecard under a wikitable where all the five days attendances will be recorded. Itz arka (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Underneath player of the match I'd reckon. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to put the attendance directly beneath the venue, due to the logical link between the two concepts? – Pee Jay 23:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've often wondered why attendances aren't displayed for cricket matches on Wikipedia. Adjacent to the venue is the norm elsewhere and is also the most logical place IMO.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pee Jay, I think for test matches, it will be good if the test matches attendances by each day would be recorded in a wikitable beneath the scorecards of the test matches in a particular test series article. And also we can add the attendances of a limited overs game just inside the scorecards, just as we do in Big Bash League articles. Also in the IPL articles, we don't have the data bcoz IPL authority doesn't publish it officially. But still the broadcaster shows the official attendances during the match. It would be nice if we can add the attendances for every notable domestic and international match. Itz arka (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Should I unprotect this page?

Please see the dialogue at User_talk:Dweller#Consider_unprotecting_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket and discuss it here. I strongly encourage everyone to think carefully about DNFTT and BEANS before they comment. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Been a while, let's try it; FWIW the request is from across the pond. —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The particular problems of a year ago do seem to have gone. I'm for openness wherever possible... isn't that what WP is about? Maybe review in a fortnight to see how it's working? Johnlp (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, let's unprotect and see what happens. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you all. extra999 (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Dweller (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviving discussion. Page should be protected again. --HCCC14 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Patently we should be wary of all users evading bans and blocks, but both contributors and readers should be free to come here to raise issues and debate them, however robustly. Johnlp (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But WP:BAN is a site policy that editors are bound to deploy in public pages. HCCC14 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets be clear about WP:BAN where Daft is concerned. First, see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Banned_by_the_Wikipedia_community where there is :

Richard Daft (talk · contribs · block log), May 16, 2012: Banned indefinitely. for repeated block evasion, constant POV pushing, repeated disruption to WP:CRICKET, legal threats, a general lack of competence, and non-stop incivility to further a single purpose.

Then see Wikipedia:Site_ban#Site_ban and its sub-section WP:CBAN. Most important of all in view of Daft's activities, see WP:BMB. He is NOT allowed to edit, good or bad edits, and anything he writes MUST be reverted. Politely - see Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. You are even immune from 3RR if it goes that far. Okay? HCCC14 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see this at WP:ANI

Notice for CRIC members:

link to ANI.

Please discuss there, not here. HCCC14 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just passing this way. Interesting fight between two sockpuppets ! Tintin 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

But sadly with an innocent user getting caught in the crossfire. JH (talk page) 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful names in Eng U19

Just saw this match played today and thought others might enjoy seeing an England side containing a Tattersall, Rhodes and Hammond among others. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which countries are they originally from? Pete from somewhere Her Maj is still head of state, aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cricinfo can be used to look up these sorts of things. You can just click through from their names on the scorecard I linked to. Oddly, they were all born in a country where Her Maj is still head of state, aka England. Incidentally, we have an article on the magnificently-named Will Rhodes, but both Jonathan Tattersall and Miles Hammond are redlinks and they're both notable [already]. --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

All-rounder's double

I notice that an IP editor changed Template:ODI All-rounders from the 1500 run/150 wicket double to a 3000 run/150 wicket double. I have no significant objection to this - it prunes the template down - but I thought it should be discussed here. I guess all-rounder doubles traditionally have the runs at 10x the wickets. The more common double is 1000 run/100 wickets, but that would seem to be unwieldy. The 2000 run/200 wicket double seems just right for ODIs - it covers twelve players. St Anselm (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the argument for the 3000 runs/150 wickets criterion would be that it is more "balanced", in the sense that the runs and the wickets components are roughly equally hard to achieve. (At least, that would be the case in f-c and Test cricket. I haven't checked to see if it is as true in ODI cricket.) JH (talk page) 10:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Willey

This article is in a poor state. This bloke played a load of f-c cricket, a decent number of Tests and then umpired similarly and we comment mostly about his ugly stance and his silly name. Both notable aspects of his life and career, but a tad WP:UNDUE. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dweller, the only response I can muster for this is {{sofixit}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't. I'm transfixed by his weird stance and funny name. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mushfiqur Rahim/GA2

This article was nominated by a new user and it was passed by another account which seems to be the nominator himself. —Vensatry _(Ping) 14:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for brining this to the project's attention Vensatry. Hopefully just a case of an over enthusiastic new editor. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

You guys need to be aware of these templates being proposed for deletion or merger:

Each redundant to Template:Infobox cricket team

Template:Infobox domestic cricket season

Redundant to Template:Infobox cricket season

Template:Infobox School Cricket Bigmatch

Unused in article space, used in a single sandbox

Template:Infobox Cricket series footnote

Unused in article space

Template:Infobox county cricket ground

Redundant to Template:Infobox cricket ground

Refer to template discussion page. 109.146.0.219 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

International tour articles to 1914

To conclude my activities here, I've done a review of the project's tour articles up to 1914 and included my findings in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles which you can also access via the to-do section above. There are many tour articles needing creation, still more needing expansion – a good objective for anyone interested in the history of international cricket. Quite a lot of tours to South Africa and New Zealand appear to have articles but in fact they are redirects to historical summaries of the two countries. Have fun. HCCC14 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge English t20 articles

Can we merge Twenty20 Cup and Friends Life t20? I can't see the rationale for its retention and we'll have yet another copycat article with the introduction of the t20 Blast. mg SH 22:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The main article might be merged, but every single season should have it's own article. Itz arka (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. What's the process for this? mg SH 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Users are Always Deleting the notable T20 Centuries

I have been seeing for some times that whenever I am updating the list of the T20 centuries for some players, some users are deleting it or reverting it. It's actually take times to collect those data and put it up on Wiki. It needs some time consuming work. But how harsh people are that they delete it within a second without acknowledging the uploader's hard work or even appreciating it. Theose lists include some of the centuries from IPL, CLT20, Big Bash, Ram Slam T20. Those are not international of course, but notable. These are really popular competitions. So if I add those centuries along with the international t20 centuries, then where is the problem of some people? I can't understand. Some of them argue that these are domestic competition and not too necessary to add here. But how can you rate the domestic t20s with the domestic tests and ODs? Domestic T20s are really popular these days and they even sometimes drag more crowd and TRP and also media attention than some of the international matches. So how can just be so stereotype and remove everything related with T20s? It's Wikipedia. If tomorrow Chris Gayle scores a century in IPL or Quinton De Kock scores a century in CLT20, people will have a look at their Wiki-page the next day (you can check their page view stats just after they scored their domestic hundreds in T20s). And if people don't find that definite fact about them, they won't rely on Wikipedia anymore. It's some of the stereotype users for whom Wikipedia always go down. What's your problem if there are facts added here which are worth of their existence here? Check the news and the Wikipedia views have been down by a certain level in its English version from 2012 to 2013. If some of the users continue to do it, it will be down to further in the future. Hope you people understand it and won't be pulling the legs of those much needed stuffs in Wikipedia. Itz arka (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ICC Women's World Twenty20

Dear Cricket experts: Right now the article in mainspace is a redirect. Should this topic have its own article, and is this one acceptable or at least worth improving? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anne! That's great catch - far too good to simply delete.

At present there are articles for

ICC World Twenty20 is an overview of the men's tournaments

The "ICC Women's World Twenty20" started off as duplicate of 2012 ICC Women's World Twenty20 then ended up a redirect to ICC World Twenty20.

The AfC looks like a great replacement to me.

Any thoughts, folks?

--Shirt58 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

By editing it you have delayed its deletion for six months. If you feel that the references are adequate I can see about getting it into mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the draft article and decided that it (just barely) passes - based on the good reputation of the Cricinfo website. BTW some of the existing reference URLs need to be updated from cricinfo.com to espncricinfo.com. I have requested deletion of the existing redirect per {{db-move}} so that the draft can be moved to ICC Women's World Twenty20. Once it has arrived I trust the capable members of this WikiProject to get it into shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to article space and tweaked it a bit, it was out of date and needed further references, but up to someone else keen enough to polish it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It should stay in Wikipedia as a separate article, not just as a silly little redirect to the Men's World Twenty20 Itz arka (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to all of your help it is now at ICC Women's World Twenty20. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a fork of the ICC World Twenty20 article which contains both men's and women's records. Hack (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the forking by stripping the Women's competition statistics from ICC World Twenty20. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Still seems a bit misleading. The ICC are treating this as one tournament with men's and women's competitions. Hack (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke Patel

Luke Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please investigate the strange edits at this article. The latest edit is in this diff. Is the image added the subject of the article? Obviously the jokes added are inappropriate, but is any of the added text valid or is it just blatant vandalism? Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it counts as vandalism: just looks like someone's having a bit of fun. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia, of course, but pretty harmless. I've now reverted but kept the pic. Johnlp (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the "jokes" were BLP breaches. I take a dim view of this. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the photo, as its provider has engaged in BLP breaches about the subject and there's considerable room to interpret that particular photo as being intended to disparage. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Abdul Patel

Notable? No top-level experience, but does play for a national side. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the national team, really. I'm not convinced that playing for Botswana and no other top-level team confers notability, since Botswana don't really play at the top level themselves. – Pee Jay 16:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

He played in WCL Division 5 in 2008, so he meets WP:CRIN. Article needs some work though. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Geoff Boycott

Hello all.

I am renewing my attack on the above article, prompted by comments ages ago (at FAC, I think) that the article would be served better by having one long narrative rather than two separate ones for domestic and international respectively. I have attempted at User:SGGH/sandbox to hash it together into one long prose, but I would really appreciate other people here reading through it and helping me gel it all together. I have (and still am) working my best at it, but I am trying to avoid having to re-write massive bits of prose by locked it all together pretty much as it existed in the original article.

Could others here please look at it with me at sandbox (User:SGGH/sandbox) and feel free to edit it to help improve the flow. I will then place it in the article over the existing sections and perhaps eventually we can run for FAC again?

I look forward to seeing edits on my sandbox! Thanks, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone managed to get a decent photo of him yet? Hack (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got as far as the end of Boycott's Test exile and Yorkshire captaincy in 1977-78: will look over the rest when I have some more time. I made a couple of changes, mostly grammatical, but see my comment regarding the 1974-75 domestic seasons. Richard3120 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've moved the sentence around. I haven't looked at this article for so long, and moving the prose into one section has messed up the chronology a bit. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now looked over the rest of his playing career - perhaps the only suggestion I would make is to move the last paragraph of 'Bye, Bye Boycott' to the section that follows it, as currently it jumps back from 1985 (Gooch and Robinson in the Ashes series) to 1983 (decision not to offer Boycott a new contract), and also it has more to do with his final years at Yorkshire, which is what the following section is about. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Improve the page of Aiden Markram

South Africa U-19 team have won the U-19 cricket world cup recently. Please help improving the page of the captain of that team Aiden Markram who performed well throughout the tournament and took his team to winning the tournament. Itz arka (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that currently he'd fall foul of the notability rulings at WP:ATH and WP:GNG, on which our local WP:CRIN guideline is based. It may be harsh, but we've consistently taken a view here that there has to be a line somewhere and that U-19 Tests and ODIs fall short of it. Sorry. Johnlp (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've prodded the article. – Pee Jay 22:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the amount of media coverage that U19 international matches now receive, I wonder if the time has come to rethink our position. It's hard to argue that Aiden Markram is less notable than someone whose only claim to fame is that they played a handful of f-c matches with no success. It's fine to say that someone who has played f-c cricket is thereby notable, as that provides a useful criterion, but that shouldn't automatically mean that anyone who hasn't done so isn't. There surely ought to be some scope for discretion regarding those who don't meet the letter of the requirement but are plainly notable. JH (talk page) 09:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. You could well argue that WP:GNG applies even if the ATH and CRIN criteria aren't met. Presumably at some point fairly soon he'll play T20, ListA or FC anyway. Johnlp (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Presumably" isn't really good enough, though, per WP:CRYSTAL. The number of Under-19s who do make it as pros is vastly outweighed by the number who don't, so the coverage of any Under-19 players would have to be pretty exceptional for them to pass WP:GNG. Otherwise we could easily end up with hundreds of articles about players whose only accomplishment was as a minor. – Pee Jay 11:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Wikipedia modify itself with time. A few years ago, no one really cared about U-19 World Cups. But these days, U-19 WC gets more coverage and media attention than most of the First Class matches. So I think the admins should modify the 'conditions for notability' in cricket. They should add the players who played U-19 WC. And here the discussion is about the captain of the winning team of the U-19 WC and he also performed and became the 'Player of the tournament'. So please think about modifying the 'criteria for notability'. Markram now is certainly more popular than any other South African FC or LA player. Itz arka (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You admit that not long ago nobody cared about U-19 but want to retrospectively make U-19 players notable. That doesn't make sense. Hack (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I said not long ago nobody cared about it, but now many people do. Time changes, so shouldn't we get updated? As U-19 is important nowadays, so shouldn't we give it importance? Itz arka (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

But where do you define the turning point between "nobody" caring about under-19s cricket and enough to make its players notable? If we start saying "under-19s players in 2014 are notable", we have to say that pre-2014 under-19s players are also notable, which doesn't make sense if nobody cared about under-19s cricket a few years ago. – Pee Jay 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG is all that is necessary. It's not worth changing WP:CRIN for a handful of U-19 players. Hack (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Pee Jay, Actually I wanted to say qualitatively, but you tried to take my reply in a much quantitative manner. It's not that I wanted to say absolutely 'nobody', but all I wanted to say was that a few years ago, U-19 Cricket World Cup didn't use to get coverage on the television as well as in the media. Players like Yuvraj Singh, Graeme Smith, etc came to the international cricket after performing in U-19 WC, but during those times very few people got to know about their U-19 performance because the coverage was not there, neither was the media attention on it. That's why I just wanted to say 'nobody' in a qualitative manner to say 'very few people'. But these days as Virat Kohli, Unmukt Chand, Quinton De Kock have been hyped by the media right from their U-19 WC performances. That's the difference between now and then. In fact I should have used the word 'very few people' in stead of 'nobody' so that the misunderstanding won't take place. Anyway this article passes the guidelines of WP:GNG so it might be kept. Itz arka (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The PROD was contested, so I've nominated the article at WP:AfD. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Markram. – Pee Jay 12:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ziaur Rahman

A recent edit at Ziaur Rahman (cricketer) added various things which may be correct, but they included a height of 6 feet 2 inches with no source. The height is incorrectly formatted (it should be just digits). Should the edit be reverted or cleaned up? Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman is at FLC here. My first FLC so will be curious to see how it turns out. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The reviewer is asking for some wizardry with the table that I'm not familiar with if anyone fancies popping by to take a look and possibly help out? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've managed to apply the changes the reviewer was asking for. Seemed to work when I tested it anyways. – Pee Jay 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool thank you. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it so it sorts the right way (the numbers need to be reversed, as 5/30 is better than 5/100). Harrias ^talk 17:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also begun List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori with the intent of trying that at FLC when it is finished, FYI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Laker

Would someone sensitive please check this edit to Peter Laker (note the name of the new editor). If it looks reasonable, please fix the infobox (heightft = 5, heightinch = 10). Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if that's correct (though it seems plausible), but wasn't Peter Laker the cricket correspondent of one of the daily papers (the Daily Mirror?)? If so, the article outght to mention it. Or was that a different Peter Laker? JH (talk page) 09:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 ICC World Twenty20

Do the warm-up matches at the 2014 ICC World Twenty20 count as full international matches? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No - ESPN lists them as "Other T20". St Anselm (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it can't be regarded as International T20 because all the 15 players in the squad can play in such a match. But a maximum of 11 players can bat among them and at a time, only 11 players can field. One player can switch the field with any other player at the same time. Itz arka (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)