Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Gilchrist

Now that Australia is in the final. Thugchildz has lodged an application for Gilchrist to be on the main page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

here--THUGCHILDz 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that we are asking for it to be scheduled for the day after tomorrow, I have also asked at User talk:Raul654. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get it cause William Monahan is also going for the same date for no really good reason but it was there before we proposed Gilchrist.--THUGCHILDz 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I trust User:Raul654 to be sensible. Anyway, I have expanded the 2007 CWC section in Gilchrist's article a little (it was previously stalled after the first match!). It needs some references... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I was talking to the user who proposed William Monahan here, please leave your thoughts--THUGCHILDz 12:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats fellas, you did it. :D AllynJ 05:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah. Well done everyone! The Rambling Man 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"He is also renowned for walking when he considers himself to be out, sometimes even contrary to the decision of the umpire." I think this line should be in the main page but right now isn't. Can a admin get that in there?--THUGCHILDz 07:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - done. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could review Adam Gilchrist#2007 World Cup before tomorrow as I largely made it up :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given it a quick copy edit. What is the policy re referencing scorecards etc? You cited the scotland match but not the rest. Are there calls for consistency, and is citing every match or score too much? –MDCollins (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone's that is active please help revert vandalism on this article right now, as it's on the main page.--01:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved in getting it on the Main Page. JH (talk page) 08:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty inspired selection, that! Well done to all. Johnlp 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a perfect choice. Rubbish tournament though, has to be said. Nick mallory 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I think the timing was absolutely inspired given Gilchrist's amazing performance on the very same day! Well done to all who contributed. I agree with Nick Mallory that the tournament as a whole was very poor and went on far too long. And as for "England"..... --GeorgeWilliams 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian Lara FA push

Can someone please do a quick update on his retirement and if possible his article. I have found a picture to go with it .--THUGCHILDz 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a cropped version. —Moondyne 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since he has now retired it's best to give it a FA push because there wont be much more to be added after now unless he becomes a coach or something. So then there could be a section like- life after retirement. But we seriously need to update and enhance that article.--THUGCHILDz 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on that parade, but I don't think it's a very good image, even if it is free and even if someone enhanced it to get rid of the glare. It doesn't even look much like Lara. --Dweller 12:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New Record Score in one day cricket

Ali Brown, James Benning and Rikki Clark have smashed the one day record score against Gloucestershire at the Oval. 477 for 4 with an over left. Nick mallory 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Surrey 496 - 4. World Record. Brown 176 from 97 balls. Benning 153 from 134 balls. Clarke 82 from 28 balls. Amazing and I listened to it all down here in Australia. Ten an over. Nick mallory 13:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

22 sixes..! 47 fours. –MDCollins (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This the day after they nearly scored 500 to beat Hampshire in the second innings as well. Nick mallory 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous record of 443-9 of Sri Lanka v Netherlands last year. [1]–MDCollins (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the biggest margin of defeat between two pukka counties? Gloucestershire are 65 -5 in reply. Somerset won by 346 runs against Devon in 1990. Surrey beat Yorkshire by 205 runs at Scarborough in 1994 when Brown got another hundred. Nick mallory 14:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/LISTA/RESULTS/LISTA_BIGGEST_WINS_RUNS.html Tintin 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Cricinfo's records lists need to be used with some care, as some of them are now considerably out of date. For example, the list Tintin posted above is correct only to the end of the 2002 season; it omits, for example, Gloucestershire's 324-run win over Buckinghamshire in 2003.[2]

CricketArchive doesn't seem to have this particular record in its Overall ListA Records section, which is rather a surprising omission. It does, however, keep such records for individual counties, so I've had a look through those... and to answer Nick's question: yes, the final 257-run margin in this game was the largest margin of victory by one "full" English county over another in a List A game, eclipsing Lancashire's 241-run win over Gloucestershire (again!) at Old Trafford in 1990.[3] That was a 60-over NatWest Trophy match; another impressive win was Somerset's 220-run win over Glamorgan in a 40-over Sunday League game in the same season.[4]

Incidentally, the opening stand of 294 between Benning and Brown in today's Surrey-Gloucs match was a new Surrey record for any wicket in List A cricket, but it is not an English List A record even for the first wicket: that honour falls to Tony Wright and Nick Trainor of Gloucs, who put on 311 against Scotland at Bristol in 1997.[5] Of course that wasn't against a "full" county, but there are limits to how much I'm prepared to look up! Loganberry (Talk) 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[6] - updated list of top List A totals. Pretty impressive stuff. Anyone know where I could get hold of some highlights? Sky/BBC didn't show any over here. AllynJ 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the game will have been filmed, unless the club themselves did. Cricket is one of the very few sport where the majority of the top level is not recorded for TV, even for hightlights shows. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Surrey did indeed film the game, and highlights are available (free; no registration needed) on the "Surrey TV" section of the Surrey CCC website. See here Loganberry (Talk) 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New FA drive

Hi. After successfully completing two football FAs, The Rambling Man and I are back to cricket (he's also done a solo job on a Feaured List, still at candidate stage). Anyway, our new project is the immortal Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). Reasons for choosing him: we have images, he was world-class notable in two fields (playing and reporting) and, best of all, if his article is an FA, it'll help defeat the next silly cyclical discussion that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) should be moved over the disambig page at Bill O'Reilly, because "dude, no-one's heard of some stoooopid cricketsman" or whatever. Anyway, feel free to join in, apart from ALoan, who can expect a cordial invitation addressed to the land of copyediting in due course. --Dweller 10:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. It would be nice to have some examples from the other Test nations too. How about Brian Lara after Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), as mentioned above? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dick Motz

Dick Motz, the former New Zealand fast bowler has been found dead (Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/NZ-cricketer-Dick-Motz-dead-at-67/2007/04/30/1177788004373.html). No cause of death at this stage. It may be worth keeping an eye on the article. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been a terrible week for Cricketers' deaths. Les Jackson, Arthur Milton, Dick Motz and now Tom Cartwright. 124.187.182.54 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just last week, we discussed how good this year had been for cricketers. There were only 19 entries in http://www.cricketarchive.com/2007_Deaths.html at the time, compared to the January-April aggregates of 53, 45 and 41 for the last three years. Tintin 12:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is very sad on a human level; as an encyclopedia writer, the obituaries are like gold dust. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we should be prepared so that the obituary writers of newspapers will borrow from us rather than the other way round. Tintin 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers

...is a WP:FL but has an {{update}} tag: it seems to be missing the last match or two ("Statistics are correct as at 9 January 2006"). I was thinking of updating it, but I can't see where it gets its numbers from - can anyone help? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How this [7]? —Moondyne 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm sure that will help with the numbers, but it doesn't sort them in playing order, for example. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I read this and missed the "I was thinking of updating it". =/ Sorry. Used the Cricket Archive stats which were easy to find (spent 30 minutes trying and failing to find that bloody Cricinfo link) and opened up the 5 scorecards on Cricinfo to work out when the players who weren't listed made their first appearance. AllynJ 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I found that link indirectly by looking at the link on the List of English Twenty20 International cricketers article. —Moondyne 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - saves me a job :D Thanks! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suppose it'd be more likely to get an answer if asked here - if someone only played in Twenty20 matches in 2005, should their career say 2005-2005 or just 2005? See Glenn McGrath on the Australian article. The first seems a bit sloppy. AllynJ 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

welcome/invite template

Just a note that I have created a invite template for the project {{WikiProject Cricket/Welcome}}, if anyone wants to improve it please go for it.--THUGCHILDz 07:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of stadiums by capacity

I noticed some oddities and inconsistencies about cricket in the List of stadiums by capacity, particularly which stadia have national cricket teams as the "home" team. Welcome input. --Dweller 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ponting-Srinath Incidence

Afd-worthy ? Tintin 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see Al-Shaanzi Cricket Academy Tintin 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is list of worst Decision :

1. Sachin Tendulkar's LBW when ball hit on his shoulder 2. Greg Blewett shown finger to Sourav Ganguly - scot free 3. Venkatesh Prasad fined for celebration after wicket 4. Ricky Ponting Scot free even though he used abusive language to Srinath 5. Glen McGrath not fined for abusive language and excessive celebration"

Are you kidding me? This is bizarre to read. I'm not familiar with the incident in question but I can't see a single reason why anything like this (bar Bodyline, obviously) needs its own article, especially not when it's that blatantly biased and badly written. Second one I'm not sure about. Doesn't really seem notable, though. AllynJ 16:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it for speedy deletion as an attack page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fair call. Deleted. JPD (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

John Cuffe's nationality?

I'm intending to continue my Worcs bios with John Cuffe, but a minor hitch has arisen in that I'm not sure what nationality to give him in his categories and infobox. Cuffe was born in Australia, and Cricinfo has decided he was Australian, as seen here. However, he played the vast bulk of his cricket in England, died in England, and turned out for an England XI against the Australians in 1905, as seen here. My inclination is to list him as English, but Cricinfo has given me pause for thought. Loganberry (Talk) 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would list him as English, and describe him in the preamble as an 'Australian-born English cricketer'. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. From Andrew Symond's page: "Andrew Symonds (born June 9, 1975, Birmingham, England) is an Australian cricketer of West Indian heritage who moved to Australia with his parents, after they adopted him, when he was one year old." I'd say use this and put born in Australia, but is an English cricketer. AllynJ 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree agreed, this is the norm on Wikipedia. eg. "Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson AO (born 3 January 1956) is an American-born Australian actor, director, and producer.". Although we also have Hawaiian born "Nicole Mary Kidman AC born 20 June 1967, is an Academy Award-winning Australian actress." According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening_paragraph, Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.. Also, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (categories)#Heritage, The place of birth is rarely notable.. —Moondyne 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth is notable if it affects eligibility, the most obvious (past) example being for Yorkshire players. Loganberry (Talk) 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For non cricketer bios, I have often used two Category:people from foo tags, one for birth place and one for the place where they became notable. So, as far as I'm concerned The place of birth is rarely notable. is overstated. —Moondyne 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have included two flags in one article. I suppose we are under no obligation to assgin a cricketer to just one country. What about extending the infoboxes to support multiple flags ? Tintin 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Liphook and Ripsley Cricket Club

Is this club notable? How far down below first-class level should we go with clubs? There's a case for including clubs that are members of major leagues such as the Lancashire League, but my own feeling is that this particular club is too far down the ladder. JH (talk page) 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to list it for speedy deletion as a non-notable group of people, but then I saw Category:English club cricket teams. How many of those are notable? I think we may need a guideline about this. Are there any guidelines in other sports that could ... err ... guide us? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to redirect articles on clubs to the article on the league unless the club is particularly notable on its own. Except there isn't an article on the league in this case. --Cherry blossom tree 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Southern Premier Cricket League is one of the ECB's premier leagues, according to Wisden 2007, and this club were indeed in it in the 2006 season (though as they finished bottom, it's not certain they're there this year). The Lancashire League and the Central Lancashire League are not ECB premier leagues which, in theory at least, puts their clubs at present at a lower level than this one. This is probably one of the daftnesses of the English cricket system, but it does provide some rationale for retaining this article. It's not doing any great harm, is it? Johnlp 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

West Indian "English summer" games?

The {{West Indian cricket seasons}} template only lists seasons of the 19xx-yy form. What should be done about matches like this one - Jamaica v Barbados in July 1958 - and listed as 1958? CricketArchive has separate season listings for 1957-58 (Pakistan's tour), 1958 (three games in Jamaica) and 1958-59 (two games in Barbados and one in Trinidad). Loganberry (Talk) 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just add the summer seasons to the template (and articles for them as necessary)? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my inclination... but is there an easy way to find a list of these things, as opposed to just a list of every season worldwide, as CricketArchive has? I didn't know about the 1958 one until I ran across a Jamaica scorecard. Loganberry (Talk) 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you go into the tournaments section on Cricket Archive, you can find a break down of every tournament in a particular country (including domestic and "Other matches" sections) with the season they took place in. See this West Indies list for an example. Andrew nixon 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put them in now. I wouldn't object if they were merged back into one of their adjoining "seasons" at some point, but since CricketArchive does consider 2006 to be separate from 2006-07, I've given them separate entries for now. Loganberry (Talk) 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Biog ratings

Not sure how our importance ratings work (I remember some discussion, but can't find it) but I'm surprised to find Donald Bradman rated a B for importance. --Dweller 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

B does not refer to the importance but the quality of the article, similar to GA and FA. The importance is currently rated as "high." Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia rates him as "high" but WkiProject Cricket rates him as "top". I think that's about right, in both cases. He's more important to cricket than he is to Australia. JH (talk page) 09:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I'm a burk. I meant Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). If Bradman rated him the best of all time (in 1993; he may have rated him second best by the time he died, but that's another issue!) I'm not sure we're justified in giving him B importance. Having seen the comments above, it seems we also have an inconsistency between O'Reilly and Bradman, with the A/B and mid/high referring variously to quality and importance. --Dweller 09:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's human error, class is Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA, importance is bottom/low/mid/high/top. They're just the wrong way round. Fixed now. AllynJ 10:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The human was me, the error mine. Sorry all. The Rambling Man 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now that's all clear, why's O'Reilly not top importance? --Dweller 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? I think "top" importance for players should be very rare, and if we aren't careful we could have 20 or 50 players rated "top". I think BlackJack took the view, and I agree, that only Grace and Bradman so greatly outstripped their contemporaries and were so well known even to people with little interest in cricket, that they should be given the "top" rating. JH (talk page) 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But now that I've looked, I see that he was only rated as "mid", rather than "high" as I had assumed. That seems to me to be clearly too low, so I've upped it to "high". JH (talk page) 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello I am trying to rate unassessed cricket articles but as I have not rated one before is there a set format that I should follow and would the ratings given by other wikiprojects be of any use and guidance. I would appreciate any help that people can give me. 02blythed 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! A good place to start would be to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment. I would also suggest looking at the recent discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 31#Quality_.26_Importance - High-Level Survey of Categories. Note that the pretty coloured table of number of articles broken down by quality and importance doesn't include the articles in the recently introdued "bottom" importance category (the template needs updating). JH (talk page) 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a grand job, but if you rate an article as a srtub please would you check to ensure that the article itself contains the appropriate stub template and insert it if necessary, as otherwise you introduce an inconsistency between the article and its talk page. JH (talk page) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking after BlackJack's material while he is off the site (he is currently abroad on holiday and then he will be starting another project through the summer). He said that numerous ratings were set before he became interested and that many of them are too low, but he had no time to go through them. He did in fact mention Tiger O'Reilly so you were right to raise that one to high. --GeorgeWilliams 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

George, I don't think it's "BlackJack's material". Once it's on here, it's everyone's and no one's. :) Johnlp 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Laxman Sivaramakrishnan

Has there been a Sri Lankan cricketer with a longer name? --Dweller 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're counting all names, then Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas gets the nod. Andrew nixon 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If not, Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan is longer. :) AllynJ 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But he doesn't match Dweller's specification that he should be a Sri Lankan cricketer. JH (talk page) 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed that, sorry. >_< AllynJ 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Although Laxman Silvaramakrishnan isn't Sri Lankan either... AllynJ 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Priyankara Wickramasinghe is two letters longer. This bloke Loganberry (Talk) 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And there I was over at Wikipedia talk:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test, where I also mentioned Venkat.

If we go outside Sri Lanka, Hugh Bromley-Davenport has 17 characters, including the hyphen; and then we have people like Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau, John Elicius Benedict Bernard Placid Quirk Carrington Dwyer and the notorious Amunugama Rajapakse Rajakaruna Abeykoon Panditha Wasalamudiyanse Ralahamilage Ranjith Krishantha Bandara Amunugama. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This important topic needs careful consideration. Happy for consensus to be built at Wikipedia talk:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test. I feel it very important that the terms are restricted to Sri Lankan international players for totally subjective, groundless and inexplicable reasons. --Dweller 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You didn't originally specify international players. That criterion rules out my nominee, sadly. Loganberry (Talk) 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another nationality riddle

This time it's Albert Moss (cricketer), the only man to take ten wickets in an innings on his first-class debut. He was born in England, emigrated to New Zealand and played all his (four!) f-c matches there, became an alcholic and fled to South America, then went on to South Africa where he lived for the last half-century of his life. So quite a lot to choose from! Cricinfo goes for his being a New Zealander, and I've categorised him as such on the grounds that that was where all his major cricket was played and that he was actually living there during that period. He doesn't currently have an infobox and I intend to list him as NZ when I add that. Loganberry (Talk) 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cricinfo Pictures

Friends, I'm starting an article on Arthur Wood, an American cricketer born in England that played quite a few f-c matches for the Philadelphians. It would be nice to have a picture, but the only one I can find is from Cricinfo on his profile. I'd imagine that it is in the Public Domain by now. Even it was taken when he was 40, it would be more than 100 years old. Does anyone know if there is a contact a cricinfo that one can talk to to get permissions on that sort of thing? Thanks.--Eva ^bd 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they get all their pictures from photo libraries, and so will probably be pretty unhelpful about it. In any case, you don't need to get permission if the picture is already PD. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that it's safe to assume it's PD in this case?--Eva ^bd 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case the photo is sourced to Wisden rather than a photo library -- all the Cricinfo pictures are quite helpful in that they state the copyright owner quite unambiguously. It's probably safe to assume the image is in the public domain, but we should at least try to contact them to verify this. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can do. Thanks, gents.--Eva ^bd 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have uploaded this image Philadelphians1897_Cricket1897.jpg from Cricket for 1897. I assume this is OK copyright wise and may be of interest and/or use. Nigej 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! This will come in very handy. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Biog ratings

Not sure how our importance ratings work (I remember some discussion, but can't find it) but I'm surprised to find Donald Bradman rated a B for importance. --Dweller 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

B does not refer to the importance but the quality of the article, similar to GA and FA. The importance is currently rated as "high." Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia rates him as "high" but WkiProject Cricket rates him as "top". I think that's about right, in both cases. He's more important to cricket than he is to Australia. JH (talk page) 09:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I'm a burk. I meant Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). If Bradman rated him the best of all time (in 1993; he may have rated him second best by the time he died, but that's another issue!) I'm not sure we're justified in giving him B importance. Having seen the comments above, it seems we also have an inconsistency between O'Reilly and Bradman, with the A/B and mid/high referring variously to quality and importance. --Dweller 09:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's human error, class is Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA, importance is bottom/low/mid/high/top. They're just the wrong way round. Fixed now. AllynJ 10:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The human was me, the error mine. Sorry all. The Rambling Man 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now that's all clear, why's O'Reilly not top importance? --Dweller 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? I think "top" importance for players should be very rare, and if we aren't careful we could have 20 or 50 players rated "top". I think BlackJack took the view, and I agree, that only Grace and Bradman so greatly outstripped their contemporaries and were so well known even to people with little interest in cricket, that they should be given the "top" rating. JH (talk page) 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But now that I've looked, I see that he was only rated as "mid", rather than "high" as I had assumed. That seems to me to be clearly too low, so I've upped it to "high". JH (talk page) 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello I am trying to rate unassessed cricket articles but as I have not rated one before is there a set format that I should follow and would the ratings given by other wikiprojects be of any use and guidance. I would appreciate any help that people can give me. 02blythed 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! A good place to start would be to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment. I would also suggest looking at the recent discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 31#Quality_.26_Importance - High-Level Survey of Categories. Note that the pretty coloured table of number of articles broken down by quality and importance doesn't include the articles in the recently introdued "bottom" importance category (the template needs updating). JH (talk page) 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a grand job, but if you rate an article as a srtub please would you check to ensure that the article itself contains the appropriate stub template and insert it if necessary, as otherwise you introduce an inconsistency between the article and its talk page. JH (talk page) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking after BlackJack's material while he is off the site (he is currently abroad on holiday and then he will be starting another project through the summer). He said that numerous ratings were set before he became interested and that many of them are too low, but he had no time to go through them. He did in fact mention Tiger O'Reilly so you were right to raise that one to high. --GeorgeWilliams 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

George, I don't think it's "BlackJack's material". Once it's on here, it's everyone's and no one's. :) Johnlp 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Laxman Sivaramakrishnan

Has there been a Sri Lankan cricketer with a longer name? --Dweller 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're counting all names, then Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas gets the nod. Andrew nixon 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If not, Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan is longer. :) AllynJ 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But he doesn't match Dweller's specification that he should be a Sri Lankan cricketer. JH (talk page) 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed that, sorry. >_< AllynJ 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Although Laxman Silvaramakrishnan isn't Sri Lankan either... AllynJ 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Priyankara Wickramasinghe is two letters longer. This bloke Loganberry (Talk) 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And there I was over at Wikipedia talk:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test, where I also mentioned Venkat.

If we go outside Sri Lanka, Hugh Bromley-Davenport has 17 characters, including the hyphen; and then we have people like Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau, John Elicius Benedict Bernard Placid Quirk Carrington Dwyer and the notorious Amunugama Rajapakse Rajakaruna Abeykoon Panditha Wasalamudiyanse Ralahamilage Ranjith Krishantha Bandara Amunugama. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This important topic needs careful consideration. Happy for consensus to be built at Wikipedia talk:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test. I feel it very important that the terms are restricted to Sri Lankan international players for totally subjective, groundless and inexplicable reasons. --Dweller 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You didn't originally specify international players. That criterion rules out my nominee, sadly. Loganberry (Talk) 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another nationality riddle

This time it's Albert Moss (cricketer), the only man to take ten wickets in an innings on his first-class debut. He was born in England, emigrated to New Zealand and played all his (four!) f-c matches there, became an alcholic and fled to South America, then went on to South Africa where he lived for the last half-century of his life. So quite a lot to choose from! Cricinfo goes for his being a New Zealander, and I've categorised him as such on the grounds that that was where all his major cricket was played and that he was actually living there during that period. He doesn't currently have an infobox and I intend to list him as NZ when I add that. Loganberry (Talk) 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cricinfo Pictures

Friends, I'm starting an article on Arthur Wood, an American cricketer born in England that played quite a few f-c matches for the Philadelphians. It would be nice to have a picture, but the only one I can find is from Cricinfo on his profile. I'd imagine that it is in the Public Domain by now. Even it was taken when he was 40, it would be more than 100 years old. Does anyone know if there is a contact a cricinfo that one can talk to to get permissions on that sort of thing? Thanks.--Eva ^bd 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they get all their pictures from photo libraries, and so will probably be pretty unhelpful about it. In any case, you don't need to get permission if the picture is already PD. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that it's safe to assume it's PD in this case?--Eva ^bd 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case the photo is sourced to Wisden rather than a photo library -- all the Cricinfo pictures are quite helpful in that they state the copyright owner quite unambiguously. It's probably safe to assume the image is in the public domain, but we should at least try to contact them to verify this. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can do. Thanks, gents.--Eva ^bd 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have uploaded this image Philadelphians1897_Cricket1897.jpg from Cricket for 1897. I assume this is OK copyright wise and may be of interest and/or use. Nigej 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! This will come in very handy. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cricket Notability guildlines - Tony Steele on a school alumni list

Is Tony Steele on this alumni list sufficiently noteworthy to a) justify a page in main space on him and b) sufficiently noteworthy to justify being a notable alumni person existing only on a list?

See discussion here Talk:List_of_Old_Falconians, User_talk:Grumpyyoungman01#Tony_Steele_notability and User talk:Michellecrisp. Grumpyyoungman01 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we say that someone is worthy of an article if they have played at least one first-class or List A game. This criteria is based on that for athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league... (see WP:BIO). This Tony Steele has played 22 first-class games, so if it's the same person, an article will be OK. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely notable enough for a mainspace article, for the reasons Ollie mentions above. (The fact that nobody has yet written one is irrelevant to the argument.) Whether he's notable enough for the list of alumni I don't know, as that would seem to depend more on how "famous" he is, which is a bit more of a value judgement. But 22 first-class games (and one List A) passes our usual notability test for cricketers with room to spare. Loganberry (Talk) 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. On the Alumni list, if someone justifies a main space page then they definitely justify inclusion on the list. And someone who does not justify a mainspace page may possibly justify inclusion on the list. Grumpyyoungman01 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Category for cricketers who played for pre-Test national teams?

My special interest at this point is in George Abell (civil servant and cricketer), an Englishman who served in the colonial Indian civil service, and while he was doing that played one first-class game for India v Ceylon in 1932-33. (Scorecard) I don't feel comfortable about putting him in "Indian cricketers", since he was English. I did note that we have both Category:Scottish cricketers and Category:Scotland cricketers (Rahul Dravid, for example, is the latter but not the former) but I'm doubtful that that would work here. Any ideas? Loganberry (Talk) 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He should be in the Category:Indian cricketers since he played for India irrespective of his nationality, as an Indian national can play for the English cricket team and be an English cricketer whilst still being an Indian.--THUGCHILDz 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But that goes against what we already do for Scotland: as mentioned above, Dravid is not included in Category:Scottish cricketers but in a separate category; the distinction there is one of nationality. Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see the point of having the Scotland cricketers category as Scottish cricketers is basically the same thing, just because you're a Scottish cricketer doesn't mean you're Sottish, Kevin Pietersen is an English cricketer while he's a South African.--THUGCHILDz 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying - that people who played for Scotland are cricketers for Scotland, but not Scottish per se... But I really don't think we need to differentiate between the two in terms of the categories. I just don't think it makes that much of a difference. AllynJ 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that the Scotland cricket team does not always function as a "national team", but more like a county club. An Indian national could only play for England after satisfying the criteria and so have some sort of English nationality, but anyone can play for Scotland in the English county competition, even while they are playing for a Test nation. On this particular issue, I don't see a problem using the Indian cricketers category - the issue simply is that at that time India was part of the Empire, and so nationalities were less distinct. JPD (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added Abell to Category:Indian cricketers as well. I'll point anyone who complains back here. Loganberry (Talk) 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

John Barton King FAC!

Hey folks. Thanks to all the project members that helped bring this article to its current state. I've nominated it as an FAC and would encourage you to help in reaching a consensus at its subpage. Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Two yeas and zero nays so far. I'd encourage those that have contributed to Bart's article to visit and voice their support (or opposition).--Eva ^bd 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Still only a 2-1 consensus for promoting. :) --Eva ^bd 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hooray. The article has now been upgraded to FA status! Thanks, all.--Eva ^bd 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Eva. You've been doing some great work, keep it up. :) AllynJ 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. It was all you. And you did a good job too. I would like to help you the next time you do push on anything about American cricket.--THUGCHILDz 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good work. Now we need to get it featured on the main page. Any suggestions on date? If the USACA hadn't screwed up and got themselves suspended it would have been great to have it there on the opening day of the WCL Division Three tournament. Andrew nixon 00:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if the date isn't taken, I would suggest 4th of July. It's American history and it's a different side of our history that many of us don't even have a clue about or that we ever play this game, I didn't know until I learned the game that we once played it so I think that be a good date.--THUGCHILDz 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but it would be good to request it early, as I imagine that date is quite popular. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request for 4 July, but there are already requests for Sam Adams and Calvin Coolidge. I think that Adams will be tough to beat. I've also suggested 17 June as that was one of King's first notable performances against an English side.--Eva ^bd 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if we don't get the date, than we hold it off for 2008 4th of July and say that on the request so we get it for sure the next time. The article is likely to be still FA as there's not going to be anything more to add, so it would matter that much. And most of us from the US would only give it attention if it was on the 4th July knowing it should be about an American.--THUGCHILDz 04:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rabid

I think that this is meant to be a complement: Talk:Main Page#Cricket on the DYK ;) →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rowan Rait Kerr

Though he was Irish, given that his main cricketing claim to fame was being Secretary of MCC, shouldn't he have an English cricket stub template as well as, or perhaps instead of, an Irish one? JH (talk page) 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He played five of his six first-class games in India, and one in England, so it could be argued that both an Indian stub template and an English one would be appropriate as well as the Irish one! Loganberry (Talk) 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't win!

Heh... mindful of the destubbing activity going on here, I left a stub tag off William Adshead, since he only played 12 matches and nothing of significance was omitted from the article. Three minutes after I'd submitted it, another editor added a stub tag! I find that rather funny, but then I'm easily amused! Loganberry (Talk) 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this WikiProject could lead the way in devising a "not stub" tag, for tagging articles that are very short but are likely not to grow particularly for reasons already well covered. How about Template:!stub? --Dweller 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've started the template, explanatory note, and its relevant Cat. I'd be grateful for input from some of our experienced stubbers, and for someone to help me with discussing this with the Stub WikiProject. --Dweller 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is rather nice, but I'm not sure about the name - the ! symbol isn't going to be recognised by many people. Is there anything wrong with simply calling it {{not a stub}} ? Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all. I based it on the !vote which I see used all the time round here! :-) I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and I welcome support and opposition equally. I've used the template at William Adshead, but can I kindly and gently request no-one apply the template to any other articles until the stub sorting WikiProject has had a chance to chew on this idea. --Dweller 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on the Stub sorting page, but will make two points here too. I think the "!stub" name is a bad idea, both because it looks too similar to "stub" and because it is frankly jargon (yes, people use !vote, but that's jargon too, and I don't like that either). Secondly, I think the wording needs tweaking: at the moment it says "unlikely to require expansion", which is a bit too definite. Maybe something like "unlikely to require significant expansion" would be better. Loganberry (Talk) 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we're talking about stubs, someone has reverted the "start" rating that I gave Alec Skelding back to "stub", on the grounds that the article does not have an infobox. Now I agree that an infobox is highly desirable, but this is quite a substantial article and it doesn't seem like a stub to me. Does anyone have any opinions, not so much about this particular article (where I plan to add an infobox to avoid any problem), but on the general principle? JH (talk page) 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, stubs and infoboxes aren't related. It's a stub if there's more to add to the copy, whether fleshing out, adding more information or sourcing or whatever. An infobox is a nice addition to many an article, but there are FAs out there without infoboxes for goodness sake! --Dweller 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this idea. If articles aren't stubs, then just don't put the stub tag on them. I don't want to see various little tag lines on the bottom of articles declaring their exact status - the Wikiproject banners serve this purpose well. I'd like to see this idea proposed to the community as a whole - I think that the village pump is the correct venue.

It looks like William Adshead in question was tagged as a stub by a new page patroller - perhaps a note on the Wikipedia:New pages patrol talk page, with regard to adding something to their guidlines pointing out that short articles are not neccessarily stubs would be a decent idea? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now made such a post to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. I suspect, though, that I'll simply be told that I can always remove stub tags, with an explanation in the edit summary, should they be added. Which is fairly reasonable, to be honest. Loganberry (Talk) 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The stubsort WikiProject directed me to the existing {{notstub}} template, which I recommend we use. It's invisible - designed just to deter those who edit the article to slap on a stub template. I've therefore happily nommed for speedy the new template and Cat. --Dweller 09:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that one's existence, but it seems much the best option. Now that the "new" !stub template has been speedied, I've recreated it as a plain redirect to "notstub", and made "not a stub" point to the same place. Loganberry (Talk) 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Brett Lee

I think his persistent POV-ridden admirer has returned. Admin intervention not yet needed, but please do keep an eye on it before it returns to being a fansite. --Dweller 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) at Peer Review

Contributions welcomed. Let's keep this moving to FA. --Dweller 11:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

User:Dweller had accepted a nomination for adminship. —Moondyne 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

David Stevens (cricketer)

Here we have a mystery. The article's content seems to be identical to that for David Sales - date and place of birth, teams played for, even the Cricinfo article used as the reference, all seem to be for Sales. Cricinfo doesn't seem to have any record of a cricketer called David Stevens. I wonder if someone somehow created the article using the wrong name, putting Stevens when they meant Sales. JH (talk page) 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Both David Stevens (cricketer) and David Sales were created by User:Gardar Rurak on the same date. I've asked the contributor to come here and comment. It is a bit of a mystery. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a very minor (one f-c, one List A) South African cricketer by the name of David Stephen (PH and no terminal S) but I don't imagine that he is relevant to what's happened here. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I have solved the mystery. Several pages link to David Stevens, and all seem to actually be referring to Darren Stevens (cricketer). So fix those links, and speedy-delete David Stevens (cricketer). Andrew nixon 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

At the time of writing, David Stevens (cricketer) still exists. Can it be speedy nominated, and if so under what criterion? Loganberry (Talk) 11:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did most but not all of the links last night (they were all Darren Stevens) and will finish tonight. Then I'll prod it. Johnlp 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look this morning, found two and did those. I don't think there are any more in articles, as opposed to in people's User pages. JH (talk page) 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Still at least one, according to What Links Here on the David Stevens page. I'll do it now. Johnlp 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Later: Done. Johnlp 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pervez Mir

[8] Tintin 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

West Indies "current squad"

on the WI page, the current squad is out of date. I would do it, but I struggle with tables badly and they always end up messed up. Here's the current squad to play England soon:

Ramnaresh Sarwan (captain) Daren Ganga Devon Smith Chris Gayle Shiv Chanderpaul Runako Morton Sylvester Joseph Dwayne Bravo Denesh Ramdin (wkt) Darren Sammy Corey Collymore Jerome Taylor Daren Powell Fidel Edwards Ravi Rampaul