Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Bowling (cricket) and bowler (cricket)

At the moment, the latter of the above two articles is essentially just a (poor) list of current international bowlers. The lead doesn't add anything that isn't already covered in "bowling", so I'm wondering if the "bowler" article shouldn't be turned into a redirect? The main feature, ie: the list, isn't particularly helpful, is prone to vandalism, has unclear inclusion criteria, and is not kept up to date. Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The bowler article is a waste of space that will never be kept up to date. It's just an example of "nowism". There is a precedent to your suggestion in that batsman redirects to batting (cricket). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you Nev. Should be a redirect. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also agree, but given the size and history (created back in Feb 2004!) of the Bowler (cricket) article, I think it only reasonable to make a proposed merger/redirect of the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. That's the job of CricInfo or the like. Redirect and save anything useful, which is not the list of bowlers IMO. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all - proposed merger is the way forward. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Umpiring in XXXX Ashes series articles

Just over a year ago, the prolific work of User:Philipjelley was mentioned here. I've just come across a series of content forks concerning the umpiring in Ashes series, such as Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series and Umpiring in the 1974–75 Ashes series. Now, like all of Philip's writing, they are very verbose, lots of quotes, lots of references, and lots of further reading sections. Personally, I don't like them. Few series would have enough REAL umpiring controversies to warrant more than a line or two in either a dedicated "Umpiring controversies" section or just in the match report sections of the main series article. The reliance on quotations, and listing every related autobiography also calls POV and reliability of the sources into question. Am I alone in thinking that these umpiring articles are questionable in their encyclopedic qualities, or am I underestimating the quality of the references and the importance of the subject back then. I'd hate to see articles on Umpiring in the 2007-08 Indian tour of Australia, Umpiring in the 2006 Pakistan tour of England or Umpiring in the 1970s/80s any tour of sub continent by Australia or England. The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if the umpiring issues were included in the main article on the series this would make it too long. In the 1950-51, 1954-55, 1962-63 and 1965-66 series there is no umpiring article as there were too few points of contention, while in 1974-75 the only real issue was the application of Law 46. Philipjelley (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've no real issue with their existence. Perhaps a wider range of cited sources, some expansion and cleanup needed on them, but I think they have encyclopedic quality. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1) 'Few series would have enough REAL umpiring controversies to warrant more than a line or two in either a dedicated "Umpiring controversies" section' Originally these were part of the main article, but were separated when the article became too long, and then only in series that produced umpiring controversies (1946-47, 1958-59, 1970-71 and 1974-75). In the series where there was little or no umpiring controversy there are no such articles (1950-51, 1954-55, 1962-63 and 1965-66). 2) 'The reliance on quotations' I have been informed previously to use a quotation to state controversal information. For example it is relevant that Fred Trueman wrote that Ian Meckiff's action was illegal and that Australian umpires were biased, whereas if I wrote this it might be taken for my own POV and a biased one at that. I also noted that others players thought differently, Richie Benaud for one, though sadly umpires are rarely credited for making correct decisions. 3) 'listing every related autobiography also calls POV and reliability of the sources into question' Is there a limit on the number of works in further reading sections? I was trying to be inclusive, but I can reduce them. I cannot see how a long list of further reading affects POV or the reliability of the sources used. Philip Jelley (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? If not can it be deleted? I am awaiting its resolution before writing any new articles. Philip Jelley (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

*sighs* This bloody country....

Watch your heads! 204 years later and all of a sudden flying balls are a health and safety concern for the bureaucrats of Lymington and Pennington Town Council. Health and safety insanity. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bolton v Stone was 60 years ago, but Miller v Jackson was only 34 year ago; obviously "health and safety concerns" trump common sense (and common law). -- Ferma (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, what's wrong with bureaucrats?!? Some of my best WikiProject friends are, erm, bureaucrats. --Dweller (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the bureaucrats on here use common sense! Sadly something which is lacking in town halls up and down the country! Thanks for digging those up Ferma, I've sent those cases to the club. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar dispute near Guildford a couple of years ago, which seems to have been resolved pragmatically between the parties after a court case was dismissed: shots that hit houses or land in back gardens are treated as dot balls! [1][2] I believe it was mentioned in Wisden. -- Ferma (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mr Burgess had asked for an injunction to suspend play until 25 ft nets were put up outside his home of four years as well as signs to warn road users of the dangers during matches." Why on earth did he buy a house opposite a cricket green? I also like that he'd lived there for just four years, as opposed to the ground being there for 169! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We're the best

I'd just like to congratulate my fellow WP:CRIC members for being so fantastic, and probably making this one of the best projects on this site. Having over the last few days looked at other articles outside of cricket and the manner in which they are written, often with bias and personal agendas which amounts to massive WP:NPOV violations, I can happily say no such issues exist with this project and the articles we edit. So, having looked at other areas to edit, I can safely say WP:CRIC has my undivided attention! May we long keep up our fantastic work! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

David Shepherd

What do people think of the most recent edit to David Shepherd's article? It strikes me as lacking balance, being very much from a Pakistani viewpoint. JH (talk page) 10:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep seems like a "the whole world is against Pakistan" edit. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I nuked it because the actual story in the ref was about the ICC apologising to Bari after he was reprimanded for criticising Shepherd, not because Bari was correct and Shep was wrong, but because info about the reprimand was released/leaked. UNDUE, POV lots of other capital letters could apply. The-Pope (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, what about the picture? It has been "released into the public domain" by the creator; but the individual images are almost certainly copyrighted, making the combined image invalid for release into the public domain by said creator, surely? Harrias ^talk 15:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's no way all three images are PD (and making a collage or whatever does not mean those images suddenly become uncopyrighted). If anyone's active on Commons they should look into getting it deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominated the image for speedy deletion over at Commons, and removed it from the article. Harrias ^talk 17:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand cricketers in IPL

I've put this category up for deletion over at CfD here. Seems a pretty unnecessary category to me. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

List of One Day International cricket records

I asked for this article to be semi-protected as it was suffering badly from ip vandalism. It's no semi-protected for a month; I restored to what I thought was a reasonable state but I think it needs a close examination of it's current accuracy. NtheP (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian first-class cricket season leading run-scorers (1900–01 to 1949–50)

Does this achievement really merit the addition of a template to the article of those cricketers who have achieved it, as has happened today? For consistency, we presumably also ought to have a template for those who have taken most wickets, and similar templates for England, India and so on. And why not for those who have headed the averages too?I fear that the use of such templates could get out of hand. JH (talk page) 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JH: I have no problem with this being a list that has a cross-ref in the "See also" sections of the articles of everyone who is on it, but I'm not a fan of templates doing this job. And it is the thin end of a very large wedge. Johnlp (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above; I'm not sure it is particularly noteworthy, and while it may be useful as a list, I don't think it should be linked to everyone who is on it. Particularly in the early days in Australia, it would depend on which team you played for as some played more than others. I only noticed this when it popped up on Wilfred Rhodes. I was so surprised I checked to see, and he only scored the most as he played more than everyone else in one season. Also, it is a slippery slope as JH says: where would we draw the line? Leading Twenty20 scorers for each country in a season? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okey, doke, was going to listify anyway, happy to delete. I♦A 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

India–Pakistan cricket rivalry

This article recently came to my attention when an IP nominated it for speedily deletion because it is "factually misleading". I declined the speedy, but at a quick glance the article was clearly not in great shape. The IP's complaints were deflated somewhat when you consider they changed the stats to say that India have won the World Cup 2,500 times. In any case I thought I'd have a stab at improving the thing, and followed the lead of list of Test cricket records for the formatting. However, mid-way through I began questioning whether such a weight of statistics was helpful. After I removed two poorly-written unsoruced sections, which were a loose collection of incidents rather than a chronology, it unbalanced the article so it's more a "list of India vs Pakistan records". I was wondering if people here had any advice on how to procceed. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

With TRM, I've co-nominated Jonathan Agnew for FAC. It's at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/archive1. As ever, your thoughtful, expert views would be gratefully received. --Dweller (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agnew book: 8 Days a week

Does any member of the project own a copy of this book? Failing that, do you think this is RS? --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the site, but that review seems to be well-informed. However AVG tells me that the page is infected with a virus. JH (talk page) 18:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I opened it and it zapped my machine entirely, apparently corrupting the hard drive. Be very careful. Johnlp (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You should get a Mac, no problem at all. Not sure that's reliable though... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So, does anyone have the book? --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Turner (cricketer)

I've created the article on the Essex bowler Stuart Turner. I normally complete the article myself, but this has more potential than my typical "he played from blah to blah and scored blah at blah". So I've started it, but left the main body blank for someone else to have a good go at with more resources to hand than I do. Hopefully the article will look pretty good when it's finished! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of nicknames used in cricket

What's peoples thoughts on this page? Needed or not? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a list of trivia to me. Not needed.Andrew nixon (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also such a list could never hope to be anywhere near complete. And if people want to know if a particular person or organisation has a well-known nickname, then they will surely look in that person's or body's article. Some of the entries look pretty dubious too. Who calls the England side "the Lions", with the possible exception of the ECB's press department? JH (talk page) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that's what I was thinking by the well-known nickname bit you said. If I want to know Pietersen's nickname, first place I'd go is his article. I'll PROD the article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PROD removed by IP editor, AfD here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tendulkar's tonth ton

Hello all, can someone easily tell me when the next opportunity Sachin has to make his 100th 100 please? I'd like to keep an eye out since we're holding off putting his centuries list on the main page as today's featured list. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Boxing Day Test v Australia it seems. I don't think he's in India's ODI squad for the current series against the WI. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Helicopter shot

Views on this article welcome. Retain or AfD? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's rubbish, isn't it? Johnlp (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes very! Was wondering whether it was worth bothering doing a rewrite or just consign it? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Consign it, it's rubbish. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, there's more below the sentence ending with Bresnan which I didn't see when I came across it late last night. The shots nothing special, fairly wristy and quite ugly! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Glossary of cricket terms#H. Loving some of the prose, though :) I♦A 15:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Two reminders to all editors

Reminder one: WP:RBI includes the letter I.

Reminder two: WP:CIVIL applies to interactions with all. Even the most egregious vandals can be blocked and reverted with civility. Doing otherwise drags you down to their level and leaves you vulnerable to sanction yourself.

Thanks. Finger-wagging over. --Dweller (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But where WP:CIVIL is Wikipedia policy and rightly so, WP:RBI is categorised as a "viewpoint", as is WP:Deny. Johnlp (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Eileen Whelan

It probably passed us all by, but a few weeks ago Eileen Whelan became what I think is the first Test player to hit the century mark in age. Let's give her article the treatment it deserves! Andrew nixon (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking... though Norman Gordon got there first! Johnlp (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Knew I'd have missed someone! Still though, the article on Whelan needs improving - at the moment, I'd find it hard to vote against deletion should it be brought up. There's a lot of good info in an article in this months Cricketer magazine, including her current name - she's got married since her playing days. I'll have a look at it this weekend, but if someone could at least get it up to a reasonable standard before then, it would be great. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be deleted? All test players are deemed notable, regardless of how short their article is. Nick mallory (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

New category

Would anyone object if I created Category:Lists of cricket records as a subcategory of Category:Cricket lists? There seem to be plenty of candidates for inclusion in the new category (at least 40 of those "cricket lists" have "record" in the title) and the category could include individual's century lists and fifer lists. What do we think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I wouldn't have any objections. I was thinking about a similar arrangement for the English cricket lists that are found at the beginning of Category:English cricketers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Something like Category:Lists of cricketers? Also not a bad idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that exists. What would it be, Cricketers who have played in England? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Or Category:English domestic cricket lists - or something like that. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong 6s

According to the Hong Kong International Cricket Sixes article the tournament is fully recognised and organised by the ICC. Surely this isn't right? Hack (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Half right - it is recognised by the ICC, but not organised them, nor do ICC eligibility rules apply, though most participants conform to them. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Roy Tattersall

The great Lancashire and England off spinner has died at 89. Nick mallory (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

North v South

Those who press their Back buttons will find a bit of somewhat unedifying discussion on here that has now been deleted (probably rightly so!) that refers to the North v South matches and the categorisation of individual cricketers at North (or South) cricketers.

I should say (as I've been drawn in by being referred to in the deleted material) that there is a valid discussion point here. The 19th century North v South matches were, in the era before proper organisation of the domestic game in England, among the great set-piece events of the season, whereas the later games were a bit of end-of-season fun. Whether they should be regarded as part of the same "series" is debatable; indeed, whether these matches (from either era) should be regarded as a "series" of any sort is probably dubious, since there was always a degree of ad-hoccery about the selection of the sides and, unlike the main Gentlemen v Players matches at Lord's, the results don't seem to have been collected and collated much: they were essentially one-offs that happened every season (or most seasons).

I'm in two minds here. I think you can argue that, as selection for the teams in both eras represented an honour of some sort, a single category for the cricketers is valid; or you can argue that, as the honour involved in selection for these sides in the Victorian era was rather greater, there should be some distinction in categorising the individual players. There's almost certainly a similar discussion to be had about the category for MCC cricketers, where selection for some MCC matches was very important indeed in the past, but selection for others in more recent years was often a reflection of which counties didn't have a first-class match on at the time. Johnlp (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I [redacted by Dweller] think we could be stepping into subjective editing. Undoubtedly the matches in the 19th century were more important than those that came later. I have a simple categorisation for the North v South and indeed the MCC, that being if a player has made an appearance for either in a match which has been rated first-class (or for MCC List A too), then I add that category. I feel to not add someone to a category due to the importance of the game in that period could become fairly subjective! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I created the North v South cricketers category a few years ago but I don't have any strong views about its content as long as the players took part in first-class matches. The fixture did have more prestige in Victorian times than in the 20th century because they tended to feature the best players around (unlike GvP which featured WG and the best 11 pros around) but, to confirm what Johnlp says above, it wasn't a series and the games were organised ad hoc, even though they were sometimes held three times in a season. The purpose of categories is to help readers find relevant articles; they are not there to provide some exclusive list or define an elite. Daft is missing the point of categories as an aid to readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, AA and Jack. As I said, I can see both sides on this and am content to be guided by consensus. I think I probably have more trouble with the MCC cricketers category than I do with North v South cricketers, and it jars a bit that the Somerset and Northants players who appeared against Michael Parkinson's XI in 1988 (for example) get the same treatment as Lord Frederick Beauclerk... But of course all first-class games are absolutely equal in status (unless they're Tests), so that is a logical thing to do. Particularly if we regard categories as an indexing system rather than as any kind of definition. Johnlp (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MCC is different in that the 'club' selected the players and especially in the early sixties there were some fairly fringe xi's selected - and there are a great many matches. N v S is an important series that was one of the matches of the season - Festival games were merely matches given an appropriate title based on who could play - thus are the England XI's to be regarded as such or do the Commenwealth XI's carry any status - well of course not. Cricket has a history and a series of precedents that pre-dated the ACS or that(in my opinion) nonsense List A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.176.231 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

North v South can only be termed a series in the loosest sense. The matches were generally organised ad hoc though in some seasons they did organise two fixtures at the same time as the idea, obviously enough, was to stage one up here and one down there. It was certainly a prestigious fixture in the 19th century before international cricket began. I have suggested previously that the MCC cricketers category should be restricted to MCC members and employees who played for the club but it would be a logistical nightmare to implement and maintain. As for the North v South players, we cannot take a subjective view of each match's merits beyond their classification as first-class but that applies to all first-class cricket. For example, County Championship cricket was much stronger in the past than it is now so if we had a championship players category, would we exclude present players because the competition is weaker than it was when the England Test players were involved?

One thing we do need to do with North v South is expand the article about the fixture as it barely got started. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

then would you count aee - uaee the same? or g vp, the majority of which were put on by the relevant ground authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.176.231 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gulbudeen Naib

The fun and games of Afghan cricketers and their age! Gulbudeen Naib, according to CI was born 16 March 1991. I think this is unlikely. He featured in WCL Division 5 in 2008 and was featured in the excellent documentary Out of the Ashes. You can see him at 1:05 in this video, he's the one bench pressing. He looks much old than the 17 years he would have been in 2008. I don't think the CI date of 1 January 1988 is correct either, though he looks more like he was born in 88 than 91. Many Afghan cricketers have their dob as 1 January xxxx, so that makes me think that's not correct. Can anyone shed some light on this? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Though that said, having watched the rest of that video, he is announced during the m-o-t-m ceremony as "the youngest member of Afghanistan", so perhaps CI is right! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

He could easily be 17 in that video. Sportsmen can look so much older than they truly are, specifically because of their advanced physique. That said, I can't really offer much: I'd suggest just stating that one source claims one thing and the other something else: we can only use what we can verify, anything more is OR. Harrias ^talk 17:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Raees Ahmadzai openly admits that the DOB in his passport - which is the one used on CI and CA - is wrong by three years, and part of the Out ofthe Ashes book strongly implies that he is even older than that. At the Under-19 World Cup in New Zealand, one of the players told a colleague of mine that he was almost 30! The most recent captain of the Under-19 team is going grey. Always take any of their DOBs with a very big pinch of salt. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This chap certainly doesn't look 18! I'll create a note on the DOB difference by source. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sehwag

Getting some inaccurate and poorly written changes due to current events. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to update Tendulka's article to say he's not that good, as he now has the slowest double-century in ODI... Lugnuts (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Phillip Hughes

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look and intervene. Preferably before the Australian selectors finally wake up and intervene. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

His fc average certainly has nose-dived since I last payed attention to it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

How can I contact him please? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Only way I can see he can be contacted is via Aggerscricket at Twitter. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

MotM, 2nd Test, Australia vs. New Zealand

Please see the current discussion about the MotM award for the recently completed Test. Nothing crazy going on, but some good points raised. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test

It's about time the stated statistic in this vitally important essay is referenced - and if necessary updated.

Does anyone know I could reference Pradeep Jayaprakashdaran, at 16 letters, having the longest surname of all Sri Lankans to have played a Test or ODI? I might move with the times and include T20 if there's a really good one out there. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ramesh Powar

Ramesh Powar seems to have attracted an IP vandal who likes to put the wrong DOB details in, unlink his brothers name to his full name and change "(brother)" to "BROTHER". It's the same individual just with a slightly different IP and it's been going on for a few days now. Does that warrant page protection at this stage? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Hopefully the IP will go away now! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What about the town clubs from India?

You haven't mentioned any eligibility about the clubs from Indian towns. Tell me how can they find their way to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G s rathore (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the article you have created, nothing really as it doesn't meet any of the notability requirements for inclusion. The article is a lost hope. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a list of players from what I believe is every player (at least every redlink) from every place-named Indian first-class team on my first-class players lists. Bobo. 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Harry Lee (cricketer) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Harry Lee (cricketer); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

List of India ODI cricketers

I submitted this list for peer review here you can have look at it. But the situation is that I am unable to decide whether names in this list should be left as it is or sort them by last name. It is not easy as many names are tough to sort as they don't carry last names in all the cases.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The current format of sorting the players by cap number seems as good a way of doing things as any other. That's the approach List of Ireland ODI cricketers, List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers, and List of India women ODI cricketers take, and they're all Featured Lists. I expect that it would also make keeping the list up to date easier as you can usually skip to the end to check the stats for the most recent players. Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah that is the better way....thanks...--Vyom25 (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For both List of India women ODI cricketers and List of India women Test cricketers I did not use sort-by-last-name and it was accepted by FLC reviewers. There's one variable less for the guys though -- no maiden names! However, you seem to have listed on the basis of last name for same day debuts (which goes against the original premise). —SpacemanSpiff 14:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

then what do you suggest how to sort them?--Vyom25 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not suggesting anything different, just pointing it out; you might have to explain why you do it this way. An alternative is to use batting order (when batting first) or bowling batting (when fielding first), this is what's used in the centuries lists. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ok read the last line, first para of the article added it.--Vyom25 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Aggers and the leg-over

As you're aware, Jonathan Agnew is currently a candidate at FAC.

One of the issues raised is whether the "leg-over" incident is sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lead of the article. I suggest that you take a moment reading the relevant material in the body of the article.

I would welcome the views of the members of the WikiProject and will follow your consensus.

Thanks in advance, --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update. It's no longer a candidate, having been failed earlier on today due to lack of support. In any case, it would be valuable if contributors to the project would be kind enough to air their views here so when it's renominated next year, we stand a chance of having a consensus to refer to. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think reference to the leg-over incident would be easier to accommodate if there was also reference to Agnew's wider journalistic style, which should encompass the fact that he's been a hardliner on some issues (eg dirt in pocket) and a "serious" journalist as an apparent voice of the establishment at times, as well as being one of the heirs of the Johnners tradition of "silly ass" broadcasting. To select this single instance out from his broadcasting and journalism is, I think, to bracket him unfairly with Johnston and Blofeld, when there is a serious side to his journalism that also merits being in the lead. Keep it in, but balance it with other examples of his work. Johnlp (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Cricket Featured Article push

Hi all. In the past, Cricket has been a Featured Article. User:The Rambling Man and I would like to push it back to that status. Please do visit the article talk and give a helping hand, particularly in the crucial opening phase as we look to get the article structure right. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony Greig

Bit of a mess, big gaps between around 1971 and 1974. I've just procured a good biography of him and might do some touch ups. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Cricinfo flash player

I'm on cricinfo and my flash player keeps crashing almost immediately after I've gone on there, well after the browser freezes for ages! I've uninstalled the flash player, reinstalled it and the same result keeps happening. Is anyone encountering this problem today? I can't work it out!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Cricinfo is wreaking all kinds of havoc on my computer today. Avoid it for the time being. Harrias ^talk 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, not just me then. Thanks for letting me know. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I thought my computer was fucked, but obviously not.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Harry Lee (cricketer)

Hi all, I've listed Harry Lee (cricketer) at the MilHist A-class review, primarily to get feedback on the military service sections of the article. With regards to the review for A-class itself, a reviewer has requested someone from here to take a look at the cricket bits, and I was wondering if anyone would be able to head over: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Harry Lee (cricketer) and take a look? Harrias ^talk 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Day of records at the Sydney Cricket Ground

Harsha Bhogle making a claim for first cricket broadcaster to eat a Naga Morich chili live on-air - [3] Hack (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

What about developing a page from which anyone could ask questions related to cricket and clear their doubt, and others would answer it, creating a good environment. I know there is a quiz, but users can't freely ask questions because if you post a question you need to know the answer. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable summary of what this page should be about! If you post questions or thoughts here, there's often someone who'll know the answer among the folk who look in here. Johnlp (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of using this page, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some want it to be solely about cricket articles on wikipedia - how to improve them, edit disputes etc. Others are happy to chat about the goings on in cricket, such as the eating habits of commentators! Few of us, however, would want it flooded with "why do both teams wear white" or "why is a wicket either the white turf, the sticks in the ground or when you get an out" type of questions that occasionally appear here or at Talk:Cricket. Maybe having a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Helpdesk linked from the main project banner and at the top of this page might be a good "friendly" way to direct them to a centralised point - and maybe a FAQ there can answer some of the most common ones. If Extra999 is thinking more along the lines of more elaborate "Has any team ever had 2 >250 partnerships in a game before" style of trivia/stats question, then I guess they could also could also be asked at a specific page, although going direct to the Ask Steven column at Cricinfo might be better for the trickier ones! The-Pope (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Australia just had 2 250 run partnerships in a single innings, so I'm guessing "yes" is the answer.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@EdChem There was no 2 250 partnerships before this match. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 05:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been at least one case of 2 x 250 partnerships in a single match before - Pakistan v India in January 2006, Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf shared a partnership of 319 runs in Pakistan's first innings, and in reply Sehwag and Dravid shared a 410 run partnership in India's first innings. I can't find any example of 2 x 250 run partnerships by a single team in a match prior to this week, though there are a few cases of a 250 partnership and another 200 partnership in a single innings. I guess two huge partnerships are rarer than I thought.  :) EdChem (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow up... in the "oh so close" category: West Indies v South Africa, April 2005... in South Africa's first innings, de Villiers and Smith shared a 245 run opening partnership and later in that innings Kallis and Prince shared a 267 run partnership... in reply, Gayle and Sarwan added 331 runs for the second wicket - so that is almost 3 such partnerships in a single match. That match had 6 partnerships of 100 runs, making me wonder what the record is for most 100 run partnerships in a match. EdChem (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That'd be eight, in this match. Statsguru is good for working some of these out. —Raven42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Also, India v South Africa, February 2010 - India's innings had a partnership of 249 between Sehwag and Tendulkar and the innings was declared with the Laxman / Dhoni partnership standing at an unbeaten 259 - about as close to 2 x 250 run partnerships as you can get without achieving it. EdChem (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, I meant that no 2 250 was in a single innings before. :) --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Test cricket records

Heads-up that I've unprotected this FL. Moondyne (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no sooner has it been unprotected then the IP vandals turn up! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't get paid enough for this - its all too hard. Protection restored. Moondyne (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We should get paid for this, as guardians tasked with the noble defence of the righteous record of cricket! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Chris Duckworth

A series of edits by what looks like the same person over about two years on this article appears to me to be pretty close to WP:Auto. My inclination would be to revert back to a "clean" version from 2009. What do others think? I'll bring this up at WP:COIN as well to see what views there might be there. Johnlp (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I put this forward at the WP:BLP noticeboard and it's now much reduced (and improved). Johnlp (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WG Grace's "Cricket" on Wikisource

I have uploaded a copy of WG Grace's book "Cricket" to Wikisource here and it is currently being transcribed and proofread. Extra eyes are welcomed! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

Excellent work. The book is also available online here. Grace's ghost writer for the book was W. Methven Brownlee, so it might be appropriate to enter his name in the Editor field. JH (talk page) 10:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Methven Brownlee's son played for Gloucestershire (and a few other sides) and went on to be editor of the Daily Mirror. Johnlp (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Chapter 6 done. Moondyne (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article suggestion: Argus Report

IMO Wikipedia should have an article about the Argus Report into the Australian Test team's performance and management. I'm too busy (and not really knowledgeable enough) to do it myself.

Here are a few relevant items from Cricinfo:

• "Cricket Australia launches Ashes review", 8-Feb-2011
• "Ashes autopsy report close at hand", 17-Aug-2011
• "A different type of clean sweep", 19-Aug-2011
• "Can't bat, can't bowl, can't field", 19-Aug-2011
• "The Argus review recommendations", 19-Aug-2011
• "Taboo broken as Australian coach empowered", 19-Aug-2011

I also found a news item on Cricket Australia's website: "Argus urges rebuild patience", 19-Aug-2011. There are bound to be better sources elsewhere; these are just the ones I found before giving up because the task was too big for me.

Related wikipedia articles include Don Argus, Allan Border, Mark Taylor (cricketer), Steve Waugh, Malcolm Speed.

(Apparently there was a separate Crawford report into Cricket Australia's finances, but I don't know much about it.)

Does anyone want to tackle this? Yours in hope, CWC 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Crawford report was released in early December. [4] Hack (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Interesting. Probably should be mentioned in the Cricket Australia article. Cheers, CWC 06:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC) who is still too busy, sorry.

14 CC matches?

NOOOOO!! Never again will someone rack up 100 FC centuries. BAH! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Clarke's batting career

Hi... I have updated the Michael Clarke article with a new image of his batting career, File:Michael Clarke batting.png. The old version only covered his career to early 2008. I created it as an experiment and am considering creating similar files for other cricketers, but before I do I thought I'd invite comment from this wikiproject. Are graphs like this useful? Are there changes you would suggest to make the image better? Other thoughts? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful work, though I would like it better without text, those of debut and high score, although you sideline his highest score, I feel other texts destroy the image, anyways that is a great image. How did you create it so I can help you as well. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, though I am not sure what "you sideline his highest score" means. I created it with Excel as described at File:Michael Clarke batting.png. It's not that difficult, just fiddly.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the graphs are interesting and useful illustrations. Highlighting not outs in some way seems reasonable, but how would using a different colour that work if someone got 0*? Other graphs such as the one for Mohammad Ashraful use a ten-point moving average rather than a career average. This might show short term trends better than career average as once you're past say 50 innings even a duck doesn't change the average much, and a small change is even less visible when a high score such as 300 alters the scale. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Can one make of MS Dhoni? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Once I have settled on a fixed style, I'll see what I can do.  :) EdChem (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on alternative version

As previously mentioned, I have uploaded File:Michael Clarke batting.png. I have now uploaded an alternative version File:Michael Clarke batting v2.png which shows a 10 match moving average instead of a cumulative career batting average. I could also prepare one without the high score and debut details, if consensus is that such images are better without that additional text. If I am going to make any more of these for other batsmen (which I'm considering) I want to first settle on a style, so please comment now if you have a view. I would also welcome suggestions on the point that Nev1 raised - if I use a different colour for not out innings, how to notate 0* (or does it not matter). I'm not wild about the style of putting an asterix above the bar for each not out innings, and I'm not sure how easy it is to do in any case. But again, any suggestions welcomed. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of using a 10 match moving average - it's WP:OR. Reliable cricket sources use average. It's also POV - why 10, not 5 or 20? The fluctuations in score and average are being flattened by the distortion that is his triple. I suggest you adjust the scale so that the triple is marked as off the scale, so it doesn't make the rest of the graph fairly pointless (the difference between scores of 100 and 50 is fairly small, and tiny when rendered on the article page). I like the idea of diff colours for not-outs. And NB the difference between Asterix and asterisk! --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I even don't like that idea, but any comments on the additional text. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 11:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Which idea are you referring to? --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, I have no real preference between batting average and 10 match moving average but I don't think such a simple calculation is OR. Note that a moving average is shown on numerous similar charts on Wikipedia, including the one that was on Clarke's article until a few days ago. You are 100% right that Asterix's would be out of place, I'd try to use asterisks! :) If I truncate the scale, would I label the off-scale values? What about the text about debut and high score? Thanks for your input. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is possibly part of a plan to get Clarke's article featured at some point in the future, you should also consider WP:ACCESS which would advise you to use different colours and something like an asterisk to denote the not outs, so as not to prevent those who find it difficult to distinguish between certain colours from understanding. Plus, I would use an en-dash, not a hyphen between Michael Clarke and Test cricket batting average (and uncapitalise the non-proper nouns, including "High score")... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is File:Michael Clarke batting v3.png. Taking WP:ACCESS into consideration, I have added green squares to the not out innings, a solution which also addresses the 0* problem for other batsmen's graphs. I have also removed the debut and high score texts, gone back to the career batting average, truncated the 329* so the vertical scale is better, added an endash and changed the capitalisation. The 10 match moving average is still possible. Further comments / suggestions welcome. EdChem (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it's extremely picky, but is it possible to have slightly less garish colours? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible... any suggestions? EdChem (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really buy that using a moving average instead of a cummulative average is original research or that it's POV as it's not pushing an opinion or conclusion, simply that for people with long careers it's going to be more informative. That said, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either way as there's merit in both and regardless the third version of the graph looks pretty good to me. As for colours, Perhaps just use a darker green? Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is more informative, though the information provided is quite different in that the moving average gives a picture of recent performance rather than an overall career summary. As for colours, I started with a darker green and found it didn't stand out as distinctive. I'm having trouble finding a combination that is visually attractive and not garish. EdChem (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, a less garishly coloured version 4: File:Michael_Clarke_batting_v4.png. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Nev1 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Works good, so this be the final design? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I think I'll wait a while and see if anyone else wants to comment. EdChem (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Having received no further comments, I have prepared (following Extra999's request) graphs of M. S. Dhoni's batting career to date - File:MS Dhoni test batting career v1.png (with a cumulative career batting average) and File:MS Dhoni test batting career v2.png (with a 10 innings moving average). I have also updated Clarke's page to the v4 image mentioned above. If anyone else has requests for graphs they are welcome to ask at my talk page - I can't make any promises but I have found these are easier now that the kinks are worked out.  :) EdChem (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, they look good. If you have time, I think Ashwell Prince and Andrew Strauss' graphs would be worth updating. Nev1 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've got the instructions lying around somewhere for how to create the old style graphs if there is still interest in updating to the same style as has been previously used. Harrias ^talk 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nev1, cumulative update to the Andrew Strauss article - File:Andrew Strauss test batting career v1.png (with a cumulative career batting average) and File:Andrew Strauss test batting career v2.png (with a 10 innings moving average) uploaded and available.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

One of Rahul Dravid, please --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Request noted, Extra999. EdChem (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nev1, cumulative update to the Ashwell Prince article - File:Ashwell Prince test batting career v1.png (with a cumulative career batting average) and File:Ashwell Prince test batting career v2.png (with a 10 innings moving average) uploaded and available.  :) EdChem (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of tink-tonking here, I have something.

Celebrity Cricket League.... its back!

The mickey mouse cricket jolly for Indian celebrities has returned. An article on the Celebrity Cricket League was deleted last year, this current one refers to this seasons jolly. I've AfD'ed it here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team

Might need some more eyes on the 2009 Lahore attacks article, as there seems to be an IP editor or editors changing parts of the article, so that it reads that India was behind the attacks. The editor attempts to add sources, but they're used inappropriately (i.e. one Pakistani politician saying something in a source = the whole Pakistani government saying something!) The differences between versions are here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Down under'

Has anyone any ideas about the origins of this very famous term, "Down Under". --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 17:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an article on Down Under. Johnlp (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Debutants as Australian captain

Am I right in thinking that George Bailey is set to be the first person to make his international debut for Australia as a captain since Dave Gregory back in Test Match no. 1? --Roisterer (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very right. There have been 3 Australian player as of now, who made their debut as a captain in a specific format of the game, but all of them had played either cricket before. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines for WP:CRIC/GR

At the page requesting cricket graphs there are guidelines for when a graph might be valuable - currently 30 innings and an average of 30 . This applies to Test cricket but I can also prepare ODI and T20 graphs. Do these seem appropriate to all? What guidelines would be appropriate for the other forms of the game for a batting graph to be of potential value for a biographical wiki-article? EdChem (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can lower down for T20 cricket. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture for the County Cricket Ground, Southampton

I've had a search for a picture to put on the grounds article, but can't seem to find any that qualify under fair use. Would anyone else be able to spare a moment and see if they can dig one up. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

T20 cricket rankings

CAn anyone create a ranking chart, such as, Template:ICC ODI Championship rankings, of T20 cricket, using this source.

Killswitch125 (talk · contribs) has already created one, it can be found at Template:ICC T20I Championship rankings. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If one can add it to Portal:Cricket/ICC Rankings, that would be a thanks. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And I was thinking of an article: 2012 in cricket. Any thoughts? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We've got International cricket in 2011–12 and International cricket in 2012 and 2011 English cricket season for example. I'd suggest most things can fit inside similar articles? Harrias ^talk 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turner (cricketer)

In the cricketer this Feb edition, Athers discussed how this article was an unjust one-liner! I've made it a 3-4 liner but could make a decent GA with some work. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricket ground

IMO the lasttest, lastodi, lastt20i etc. fields in this template are WP:NOTNEWS and unencyclopaedic. Comments? Moondyne (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

years in use is appropriate, but I agree that highlighting the last match doesn't add much usefulness to the box. The-Pope (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also unlikely to be kept up to date. I think it's only worth retaining for grounds that are no longer in use, where the updating problem doesn't apply and where the information is more significant. JH (talk page) 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the few cricket grounds that I have on my watchlist are generally updated immediately (and usually by IPs, for some reason). That said, I agree that it doesn't add much and wouldn't be opposed to it being removed. Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For example. Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Cricketer / The Wisden Cricketer

I'm not 100% sure, but I think these articles should probably be merged. I know that the current The Cricketer is distinct from The Wisden Cricketer, which is now known as The Cricketer, but given their continually history (including a merger with Wisden Cricket Monthly which can keep a seperate article) it would probably make more sense, and be easier, to have them in a single article? The language would need some work (it does anyway!) Harrias ^talk 22:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload this image. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It's copyright Getty Images. Johnlp (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Category:India_national_cricket_team_selectors

We had a discussion here about the naming structure, but I can't seem to find the link. As this is about a naming structure not just impacting this category, others might want to participate too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

List of India Test cricketers, List of India ODI cricketers, List of India Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut are some. Though I still feel the namings are wrong. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of South African cricketers

I've set myself the very gentle task of bringing some of the articles on pre- and post-WW2 South African Test players up to respectability and, in tackling Syd Curnow, came across a copyright-free line drawing of him on the tour to Australia in 1931-32. The drawing is very perfunctory and I don't have enough picture editing software to be able to change the format, but I've added it to his article "as is". From the same source, there are others of different players from the same Test series... but I'm not sure whether they are worth importing or not: they're very basic. On the other hand, we don't have many pictures of cricketers from that era, and most of these South African articles are particularly unformed at present. What do others think? Johnlp (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the important question with drawings is is the subject recognisable? Without something to compare the drawing to I'd be hesitant to say either way, but while the sketch isn't very detailed there are some pretty distinct features. Who created the drawing might be a factor, is S. H. Curnow particularly noted as an artist or for drawing cricketers? Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Curnow is the subject (of this one) not the artist: the State Library of South Australia site (which is where it comes from, accessed through the wonderful Trove site) doesn't say who the artist is. Johnlp (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right that was stupid of me. Nev1 (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But you're right that, though basic, the drawing does have distinct features: the young Curnow has passing resemblance to a young Bruce Forsyth in terms of nose and chin. But without any other pictures of him, it's difficult to tell if that's artistic licence or a reflection of the reality. Johnlp (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Was he a member of the South African party that toured England in 1929 or 1935? (I can see from his article that he didn't play in any Tests in either of those series.) If so, then he might appear in a photograph of the party in the following year's Wisden, which you could compare with the drawing. JH (talk page) 18:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the Australia/New Zealand tour was the only one Curnow made, and he didn't play any further Tests after it. I'll look over the weekend for one of the drawings of other players on the tour and maybe that'll help us decide if they're worth having. Johnlp (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a similar pic to the Herbie Taylor article: there are pictures of Taylor in Wisden etc. Views? Johnlp (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think photographs would be better and there are some available: this links to an Australian newspaper from 1931 and the page facing the article it links to has pictures of every South African on the Australian tour in 1931-32. All the images should be copyright free as they are PD-Australia and as they were published before 1946, PD-US as well. The only possible objection may be if the images did not originate in Australia, but they are credited on the page to an Australian photographer. Using this source does not always give the best quality images, but they are acceptable enough for an article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Geoffrey Boycott/archive3

Listed S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Cricket structure in Pakistan

Is there somewhere where the Pakistani cricket system is explained in a reasonably coherent and uncomplicated manner? I am trying to get my head around how a player like Akram Raza could have played for 17 first class teams in 20 years. Hack (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not the only one, I've been trying to get my head around it for ages. Seems the PCB gives first-class status to anyone that wants it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a nightmare. The essential competition is the national championship which is the Quaid-i-Azam Trophy. You'd be as well to look at CricketArchive's page giving the premier tournaments season-by-season at Tournaments in Pakistan. Good luck. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Neil McCorkell

With Neil McCorkell's 100th birthday coming up in March, I'm looking to expand his article. If anyone has sources which can be of help, please drop me a line on my talk page. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Indian Test Cricketers

I have recently updated the table on the List of Indian Test Cricketers page. Please cross-check it and remove the out-of-date template at the top.
Thanks, --BPositive (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone add a captain list such as the one in the ODI list. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already a very comprehensive list given here, or you can use Cricinfo as a reference and make one yourself. However if you can't, in coming days whenever I will find time I will do it.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes there exists a comprehensive list on the page you mentioned above, but we can have a concise one as present on List of Indian ODI Cricketers , to maintain uniformity on similar articles. I'm ready to pitch in as well. --BPositive (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah we can have a concise one. But with that list we will need an introduction or a brief summary for that section.--Vyom25 (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah agree! That can be done easily, imitating the content present on the ODI page. Finding references is no big deal as well. Lets start with the table first. Intro can be added after completing the table. --BPositive (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ok I am starting...--Vyom25 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone update this: List of Australia Twenty20 International cricketers --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all you, I see this is updated, I'm removing the tag. --Extra999 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Jacobus Duminy

The original JP Duminy was a Test cricketer too, and also vice-chancellor of Cape Town University. I've briefly done his cricket career, but don't know where to start on what seems to have been a distinguished academic career. Any suggestions? Johnlp (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bowling actions

It turns out we have a collection of articles on the separate parts of a bowling action: the approach (run up), bound (pre delivery stride), back foot contact, front foot contact, point of release, and Follow through. I'm wondering if readers would be better served by consolidating the information into the one on bowling action as a whole and turning the others into redirects. Grip (cricket bowling) is also mentioned but I think that's a separate issue. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. Simple as that! Harrias ^talk 20:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and merged the articles. Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting new article

It gave me a bit of chuckle to find that New South Wales selection bias now has an article. Jenks24 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All the references in the "statistics" section are to blogs, or to stats pages. The first are not RS, and the second mean that the author may well be doing original research. Are we considering keeping this? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The notability is hinging on the first paragraph, not the stats section. The Hooks and Hodge quotes, at a quick glance, look OK. On the other bit, blogs can be RS, depending on who wrote them etc, but we wouldn't delete the article if notability is already proven... --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's notable and the Herald Sun and Fox Sports refs show that it has been covered in mainstream media. The article does feel pretty OR-y, though, and I'm not sure about the reliability of refs 3 and 4. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Automated cleanup listing

There is now an automated toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format. This replaces the old Wolterbot listing that stopped working almost 2 years ago, but I'm not sure if WP:Cricket ever signed up for it. The-Pope (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IP editing at Phillip Hughes

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the recent edit history and take whatever steps they feel are appropriate. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. Moondyne (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games: Cricket events

If you're participating or considering in participating in Wikimedians to the Games, you may be interested in attending the events below. They may provide an opportunity to get information to write a Wikinews article or to take pictures for points on Commons. If you're not participating, it would still be great to see people attending these events to take pictures for use on Wikipedia and Wikinews. If you do decide to attend, consider hosting a Wikimedia meetup at the end or the evening of the event, or even just letting HOPAU organisers know you are planning to attend. If you leave a message on my talk page, I can help you promote the meetup. :) If you need help with organising attendance because of transport cost issues or accessibility in terms of wanting press access, again please get in touch. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Blind Cricket in New South Wales

• Sat, 25 Feb 2012 Burwood v Hills - T/20 (3rd Game) Vision Australia, Henley Park, Enfield [5]
• Sat, 3 Mar 2012 Hills v Burwood - T/20 (4th Game) Vision Australia, Henley Park, Enfield [6]
• Sat, 10 Mar 2012 Burwood v Hills - 40 overs (4th Game) Vision Australia, Henley Park, Enfield [7]
• Sat, 17 Mar 2012 Volunteers match/Presentation Vision Australia, Henley Park, Enfield [8]
• Sat. 24 Mar 2012 Standard Chartered Bank Vision Australia, Henley Park, Enfield [9]

Blind cricket in Victoria

• 25/2 Glenferrie V St Paul’s[10]
• 3/3 Burwood V Institute[11]
• 10th and 11th March 2012 Grand Final [12]

Create a cricket squad template anyone?

Hello, can someone create the template 'Kings XI Punjab Roster' as I don't quite know how to submit it on WikiProject Cricket.

Here is the template that needs to be submitted-

Kings XI Punjab Roster
Batsmen 01 Mandeep Singh 07 Paul Valthaty 14 Shaun Marsh 26 David Hussey 39 David Miller 42 Paras Dogra -- Sunny Singh -- Siddharth Chitnis All Rounders 16 Abhishek Nayar 17 Dimitri Mascarenhas 23 Rajagopal Satish 77 Bipul Sharma -- Azhar Mahmood -- James Faulkner		Wicket Keepers 18 Adam Gilchrist (Captain) -- Nitin Saini Bowlers 03 Harmeet Singh 08 Praveen Kumar 11 Piyush Chawla 13 Bhargav Bhatt 35 Nathan Rimmington 45 Ryan Harris 70 Shalabh Srivastava 83 Vikramjeet Malik -- Stuart Broad -- Ramesh Powar -- Love Ablish -- Amit Yadav		Coaches Captain: Adam Gilchrist Head Coach: Michael Bevan Assistant Coach: Vikram Rathour Bowling Coach: Jason Gillespie Physio: Tim Brennan Strength & Conditioning Coach: Adrian Dias Manager: Col. S K Mehta Video Analyst: Ashish Tuli Masseuse: Sagar Pujara Logistics Manager: Capt. Varoon Parmar → More rosters

That template is utterly enormous and includes all kinds of non notable people doing non notable roles. Sorry, but that's my view. Is that the kind of thing we have on all the IPL teams? --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PS Check out how the football teams include roster templates, much more elegantly, and taking up far less space, e.g. the one below. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly what I was going to suggest, and only if deemed absolutely necessary should we delineate between batsmen, bowlers, allrounders etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But I'm trying to create a current squad template not a reference template. Click here to see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.116.203 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Sorry looking to approve an article in AfC, and I don't know a bloody thing about cricket.  I saw the follow in the docs: 'The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877;"  Should I expect this to be a consideration?  Thanks,  :- ) DCS 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who has played (or umpired in) a Test match is notable. Players and umpires are also notable if they have played One Day Internationals, Twenty20 Internationals, first-class cricket or List-A cricket. If you want to give a link to the AfC article, I'm sure some people here will be happy to look over it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KP Appanna  Thanks, maybe I can learn something.  I was curious you get a lot of people who played before 1877?  :- ) DCS 02:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy's notable because he's played first-class and List A cricket for Karnataka. Also, in case you were wondering, the Cricinfo and CricketArchive sources are reliable. I don't think we get many new users creating pre-1877 players, but we do have quite a few articles on them, mainly created by a small group of editors. For example, Category:English cricketers of 1787 to 1825 has 433 articles in it (there was no international cricket back then, but they did have first-class cricket). Jenks24 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will approve the article.  Thanks a lot for your time.  :- ) DCS 15:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Redundant category?

Bungle in the jungle is flagged "for immediate attention" with others in Category:Cricket Articles Needing Attention but hasn't received significant attention in recent times. Bungle is a normal "stub article" lacking detail. Is the category redundant? --86.174.153.67 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot updating Persondata

Waacstats' bot has been going through articles on cricketers adding "English cricketer" as the short description in the Persondata form. Unfortunately, in doing so with the cricketers that I have on my Watchlist, there are some errors: Welsh, Irish and Scots cricketers who aren't English, for example (even if they have played for England), and also some people whose cricket careers were but a minor part of their overall notability. I'm sure this is all well-intentioned, but perhaps people could just check out their watchlists to see if the bot has been a bit over-enthusiastic with others for whom "English cricketer" would be an inaccurate or an incomplete description. Johnlp (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Admin help needed to move an article

I can see no reason why the article on the South African cricketer George Bissett is under George Finlay Bissett, as he is consistently referred to in contemporary reports as simply "Bissett", and often as "G. Bissett". Presumably someone thought it would avoid confusion with George Bisset (footballer); I think George Bissett (cricketer) is a better name for our man, but as there's a redirect page at that title, it needs an admin to do the move. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done by DGG. Jenks24 (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnlp, anyone can tag the blocking page with a CSD G6 move tag to have it deleted and the intended page moved. That's what I did. If you use twinkle it's very easy to do. The-Pope (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cricketer bowled.jpg

A batsman is bowled early in a cricket match between two friendly sides at Kingswood School playing fields, Bath.

I've listed a cricket image at featured picture candidates. I don't really know much about featured pictures, and I don't suppose many others here do, but I was wondering if you all might take a look at it and see what you think. As I understand it, the basic criteria is that the image should be of good photographic quality, and also of good encyclopedic value in illustrating a topic, something I hope and think this image is. As I say, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Harrias ^talk 21:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Under-19 World Cup's

An IP editor, who I am assuming is also User:Edwardssammy, is creating/expanding pages on individual under-19 World Cup's. They are including a section called "Future international players that featured in the tournament were", followed by a list of players who have gone on to get full international honours. Are these sections really necessary? Seems slightly like trivia to me. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Players in Indian Premier League

Pointless list imo. AfDed here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am more for a keep. It is more useful that many of the Test and ODI lists that we have, that are outdated copy-pastes from Cricinfo. Tintin 05:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris Cairns

There's nothing in his article about the match-fixing claims/trial that has opened. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Cricket League c**p

Unfortunately, we're stuck with the main article on the tournament (unfortunately, because it "meets" guidelines, but as User:Sitush said: "because this is pathetic & an example of just how the "encyclopaedia" bit of Wikipedia gets lost in celebrity cruft & star-crazed, semi-competent contributions. But rules are rules, I guess."), but now we have its teams gaining articles, like Chennai Rhinos. Really? A team made up of celebrities having a jolly gets an article???? It has no historical or sporting importance behind it to back it up, it's as the title implies, c**p. Anyhow, someone for some reason thinks we need rubbish like this, so I've AfDed it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a reality TV series that happens to be a cricket competition. As a TV show, it's probably notable. Hack (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Competition is definitely notable. Teams are not notable per our guidelines, but some may pass the GNG either now or in the future. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Are these templates worth having on Wikipedia

I have the feeling that the following templates should be deleted as they don't seem to be too helpful. We already have templates called Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 and Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 in which players are sorted according to their respective countries. So, having additional templates for each country does not look necessary. Any thoughts?

Here's the list of the templates- {{Australian batsmen with a Test batting average above 50}} {{Indian batsmen with a Test batting average over 50}} {{Pakistani batsmen with a Test batting average above 50}} {{Pakistani batsmen with ODI batting average above 40}} {{South African batsmen with a ODI batting average above 50}} {{South African batsmen with a Test batting average above 50}} {{Sri Lankan batsmen with a Test batting average above 50}} {{West Indian batsman with a Test batting average over 50}}

I noticed this a short while ago too, and agree that they are completely unnecessary: we already have far too much at the bottom of the articles, no need to have things twice! Harrias ^talk 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed e^xtra999 (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since we have Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 and Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 the templates listed by the IP are redundant. Are there similar ones for bowlers floating around? I'm not saying there should be (I think grouping by average regardless of the period people played in is flawed) but it seems one-sided to focus on batsmen. Nev1 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And have any thoughts in this? e^xtra999 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC) {{Template:Origin of International cricketers}}

That is totally redundant to categories. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

TfD'd. If no one else gets around to it before tomorrow I'll do a bulk nomination for all the other navboxes then. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• All now at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 12#Cricket batting average navboxes for the bulk nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka national cricket team

Could some one check the other contribs of this one, I've reverted the one adding Silly Bobby as an SL player but the others... I don't know if they are vandalism or not and I'm just going out the door. Sorry! Ta, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gubby and Plum

Was Gubby Allen the illegitimate son of Pelham Warner? --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Allen's father on his birth certificate is identified as "Walter MCA" with the A presumably Allen. Johnlp (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I always thought it was a joke. The discussion seems to be very serious. Tintin 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I took it seriously. Hey, Tintin, long time no see. Hope you're well. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi ! More a wikipedia reader these days :) Tintin 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note there, but according to David Frith in Bodyline Autopsy, it was a widely accepted rumour for a long time, and he kind of hints that yes, he may well have been Plum's son. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that it is a joke, inspired by Allen having been very much Warner's successor at Lord's as the eminence grise. Perhaps somebody made the mistake of taking a light-hearted remark seriously. But I don't think that the birth certificate proves anything one way or the other, since Allen's mother would be unlikely to admit to her husband that the child was unlikely to be his, and even if she did I doubt that the true father would appear on the certificate as they wouldn't want a scandal. In any case, I don't see how in the days before blood tests you could ever be sure, unless the husband and wife had completely broken off marital relations. The best evidence against is that, if I recall the Wisden obituary of Warner correctly, he was devoted to and dominated by his wife and hence unlikely to be unfaithful to her with another woman. (Except that it's just occurred to me that Warner might not yet have met his wife at the time when Allen was conceived - which must have been around November, 1901.) JH (talk page) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Frith, any liaison occurred before Warner was married. And the rumours (apparently) state that Warner's patronage of Allen arose from being his father. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sachin's tonth ton

Well, it's all over the news so you'll all be aware that Sachin's made it to 100 100s. In response, there's a current discussion at WP:ITN/C about whether to include it in the ITN section of the mainpage. I have also listed List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar to run as Monday's featured list. Eyes on all that stuff would be useful. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So am I alone in thinking it's a silly invented category that excludes all pre 1980s cricketers and why was the 1000th wicket by Warnie or Murali ignored? The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're probably in excellent company - all those in 1895 who sniffed when Grace achieved his 100 first class hundreds, thinking that the great batsmen of their youth hadn't had a chance to complete such a set and who was this cheating upstart with the piping voice, anyway. Re Warne/Murali: the fact is that cricket is really a batsman's game. We've only recently seen the advent of celebrating a 5 wicket innings. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not doubting SRT's spot amongst the greatest batsmen of all time, just the consolidation of multiple forms of the game into a single sum. To me 50 centuries in either form is more significant. The-Pope (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I share views like of Pope, but this is creating a good noise in the media, so not any problems, it has been posted. e^xtra999 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Switch hit

Our article on the switch hit is woefully under referenced, and also I would hazard, not entirely factual. Common consensus has it that this was used in club cricket for a fair while before Pietersen pulled it off in the 2008 ODI, while some parts of the article sound pretty out of date. Given that this shot hasn't taken off as much as some thought it might (Pietersen doesn't really use it anymore, and even Warner is using it less than he did) I think we should consider just making this page a redirect to Batting (cricket)#Switch hit and improve that section. I can't believe that there is going to be enough information to really support a full article on this?

In general, I do think that we need to organise the batting page better: at the moment it is where Batsman redirects, and is home to most of the batting shots; I don't know if we need to split this into two pages, or just tidy up this one page?

Any thoughts – on either question? Harrias ^talk 17:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Like the Dilscoop, which is pretty much the same shot I played in 2003! That's a shot which has been in club cricket for ages, long before 2009 and 2003. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with redirecting per your suggestion. I don't think batsman needs to be split, but it certainly needs organising much better than it currently is. I noticed User:Sarastro1 has Leg before wicket at GA nomination, so it's good to see articles of a more technical nature can get to a pretty awesome level of quality. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced, I know, but it was pretty much my only scoring shot in my brief and inglorious school playing career, mid to late 1980s. I thought I'd invented it, but on reflection, I reckon the incompetent and the brilliant have been playing the shot since the earliest days. --Dweller (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

ISTR that Mushtaq Mohammed was reported as playing something which sounded very much like a switch hit back in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Whether a citation could be found is another matter. (I doubt that he ever used it in Test or f-c cricket as opposed to limited overs matches.) JH (talk page) 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Task forces

Hi, I've just been invited to join a task force for Scottish football and I'm already in the Liverpool one. Does the cricket project have task forces (e.g., national teams, the Ashes, county cricket, etc.)? Thanks. --Brian (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, well none that I'm aware of. I think we just tend to create/expand articles as we find/get round to them. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We do have a Women's task force, though it isn't particularly active! I think pretty much all of us here tend to edit very much in our own little areas, so task forces aren't all that viable. Plus, there aren't really all that many of us active within the project. Harrias ^talk 13:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, agree. Don't need it really e^xtra999 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that although there a lot of names on the project membership page, only a few are active. Thanks for the info. --Brian (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of our Australian members have had success in pooling their efforts on a series of articles: The Invincibles featured topic was one such and involved some of us from other parts of the world too. Things have fragmented rather since User:YellowMonkey departed: he is much missed by this project. Johnlp (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just made a cull of the members list: apologies if I moved anyone to the inactive list by mistake! We've dropped from 244 members to 130. Harrias ^talk 21:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That explains why so many 1948 Australian players are in cricket's featured articles list. I think the one about Bradman is excellent and I'll read the others in due course. --Brian (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

India

[13] Kittybrewster ☎ 10:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes for dual sports players

I was looking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes (still a few thousand cricketers without infoboxes out there chaps!) and noticed that a lot of the Australian players did not have infoboxes because they participated equally in more than one sport. This is fair enough: who are we to decide that cricket should take precedence. But this got me thinking: they probably should still have an infobox. I hoped that there was a general sports infobox that could be used instead, but the only one I could find—Template:Infobox sportsperson—doesn't allow for multiple sports, and doesn't look particularly appropriate. Would it be worth creating a specific "multisport" infobox for these players, including the biographical data at the top, and then a brief bit on each sport? Any ideas? Harrias ^talk 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds hopelessly complex to me. The way it's been done in the past is to have multiple infoboxes, and I've seen it done with the person's prime sport first. This can be difficult to ascertain with people like CB Fry (he only has two infoboxes so far - Rugby Union and Athletics are also, it seems, backlogged :-)), but I'm not sure it's impossible to garner consensus. Much easier than coding something that'll cope with the vagaries of all sports. However, it may be worth thinking about including a line in all the various sports' boxes that would indicate the person was "also known for xxxxxx" (or similar) which would also help with sportspeople who achieved notability in other fields... Whatever you or others think, if you want to do something about it after this discussion, my suggestion would be to first invite a few of the Wikiprojects representing the sports with the largest coverage on Wikipedia to participate in a joint discussion on neutral turf, perhaps at one of the VPs. --Dweller (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it sounds a bit complex, but if someone is a coding wizard and could do it I wouldn't stand in their way. Using multiple infoboxes looks dreadful to me, and I prefer not to have an infobox at all if more than one is required. Regarding the Australian players, most of those were created by Jevansen, so I'll drop him a note about this discussion in case he doesn't have the page watchlisted. The status quo for Aussie dual sports players is if they were clearly more prominent in one sport, use that sport's infobox, but if they participated equally then don't use any. To reiterate, I'd be fine with a mutisport infobox, but opposed to adding more than one infobox to an article (although I do realise that some articles, e.g. Keith Miller, use this approach). Jenks24 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes on stubs (Jack Sharp for example), as Jenks said, look dreadful. You end up with the second infobox down with the references. But I think for a substantial article like C. B. Fry it works well. That said, you do end up with duplicated biographical information. So halfway down the page, where the second infobox appears, you're again presented with the guy's fullname, DOB, place of death etc. I think on some infoboxes that is a mandatory field. Anyway ... I like the idea of having a multisport infobox but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's going to be workable. Certainly worth a discussion though.

As for the Australian rules football/FC Cricket stubs, I'd lean towards using the cricket infobox if one had to be added. That's purely because cricket infoboxes give you information which isn't always in the article (stats like catches, balls bowled etc), while the VFL infobox information is usually covered (career span/total games/original club). It's always hard to judge which sport should take precedence though. Is a guy's 1 match FC career more important than his 50 game VFL career because one was state representation and the other wasn't, or is he more notable as a VFL footballer because he played at that level for four years, rather than four days. Same issues with English pro footballers who played FC cricket. Jevansen (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Kearsey has two infoboxes, I just missed out the name, DOB and what not from the second box. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as AA said, the cricket infobox was designed so that the biographical information can be omitted in its entirity so as not to duplicate things. I'm not sure if the other sports infoboxes work quite as well, so the cricket box works well as the second box if neither is more prominant than the other. It sometimes looks tidier under a cricket heading rather than at the bottom of the main infobox which can cause a messy layout. See Rob Andrew as another example.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, Jenks24 mentioned Keith Miller early in the thread. I've taken a look and tidied the second infobox up, removing the duplicate biog and tried to address the layout a little. For me, there are a few too many images there, particularly early on (where there are two opposite each other, neither of whom are Miller!), but putting the second infobox under a new section (be it the main Cricket/VFL/Football (Soccer), whichever it is, stops the infoboxes wrapping too far.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename template

Hello, can anyone rename the template Template:Kochi Tuskers Kerala Roster as Template:Kings XI Punjab Roster... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.109.193 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But there is already Template:Kings XI Punjab Squad, as much as I hate these completely pointless templates. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A roster template is different from a navbox. Click here to see full rosters of all teams. You will understand what I mean.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.165.69 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Still the same thing, and still completely pointless. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Test cricket

Might need some more eyes on this one. This was the last version before I reverted it back to one which wasn't unsourced jibba jabba. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Love the title the IP gave the section they created "Nations that applied or were offered Test status, but were unable to remain due to complications." Oddly, the title reminds me of "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan"! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oddly the Canada bit is sort of true - they were offered Test status in the 1950s but turned it down due to lack of facilities. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

An international Buckinghamshire then. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Centuries galore

Seven first-class centuries on the opening day of the English first-class season. Possibly a record? Andrew nixon (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think it would be a more meaningful record if it should occur on the first day of the County Championship. What I do not "get", looking at current University teams, is why they are now called Oxford Marylebone Cricket Club University, for example! What on Earth has MCC got to do with the Oxford University Cricket Club? Can anyone enlighten me on this? --Jim Hardie (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

MCC sponsor the university sides. See the second of the external links in that OUCC article (which could really do with some work BTW). JH (talk page) 20:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Sorry, I have been out of touch with varsity cricket in recent years. --Jim Hardie (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a record for the month of March in the UK. :) It's typical that the start of the season has coincided with the weather taking a turn for the worse, though. JH (talk page) 20:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And has the season ever started in March before? Johnlp (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it hasn't, which is what I was indirectly alluding to. In the first decade of the 20th century Surrey experimented for two or three seasons with a match held over the Easter weekend (one of which in 1905 famously saw the debut of Jack Hobbs), but in none of those years did Easter fall in March. JH (talk page) 07:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Template for deletion

I feel the navbox Template:Kochi Tuskers squad should be deleted as the team does not exist anymore. Deepak Shimoga (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be deleted on the grounds of assaulting the eyeballs, too. Johnlp (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 1#Template:Kochi Tuskers squad. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

John Player Cards

While expanding Neil McCorkell's page, I came across a passage in the Portsmouth News which said "McCorkell was also the only Hampshire player featured on a series of John Player cigarette cards, below, depicting nearly 60 English and Australian greats, including Don Bradman, Denis Compton, Len Hutton and Wally Hammond."[14] I wondered whether anyone had any of these cards, or if the cards are freely available for use now? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I know the ones it is talking about, and I have a set from 1938 which includes McCorkell. However, it is extremely unlikely the cards could be used here. Even if they were out of copyright in the UK (which would be hard to prove), they would not be out of copyright in the US. Copyright here must follow US law, and it states anything published after 1923 is still in copyright in the US. The only exceptions are when images were taken in another country which had an agreement with the US. The best examples for cricket are in Australia. Through a loophole, any photos taken in Australia before 1946 are out of copyright there and in the US and so can be used, if it can be proven they were first published in Australia (before 1970 I think). The whole copyright area is a minefield. However, there are cigarette cards available from Australia which feature English cricketers, such as that used in the lead image of Douglas Jardine. But nothing for McCorkell, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Sarastro, I suck when it comes to getting my head around the copyright issues, which is why I often steer clear of uploading files! Amazing to think though, that McCorkell played alongside Tennyson, Mead, Hammond ect, and is one of the last living links to those great names. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing a list some time ago of cricketers who were still alive 80 years after making their first-class debuts, and it was a pretty short list. Jim Hutchinson was on it, though he was 23 before he made his debut, and I think when it was published Frank Shipston was scheduled to be on it, but in the event didn't quite make it; nor did the youngest Spurway. I can't now think who else might have been included. McCorkell may well set a record by surviving 80 years after he was awarded his county cap: seems unlikely anyone's done that. Johnlp (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When I was writing Ted Pickett I found he held the Australian record, living 79 years, 345 days after his first-class debut. This was a couple of years back though so maybe someone else snuck in quietly. --Roisterer (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge input needed - National Elite League Twenty20

Should National Elite League Twenty20 merge to Sahara Elite League? Please comment at Talk:National Elite League Twenty20. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article up for deletion

Zafarullah Jan is up for deletion - this individual is a former first-class cricketer and therefore passes notability criteria - evidence here. The deletion debate is here. Thank you all. Bobo. 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another Infobox problem

I just created the 19th century Australian cricketer Samuel Morcom and as the only date given for his birth is a year (1847), I have been unable to enter da and month details into his infobox and as a result I get an ugly red error note in said infobox. Is anyone able to show me how to fix said problem? --Roisterer (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me... ah User:AssociateAffiliate fixed it! Harrias ^talk 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Top bloke, that AssociateAffiliate. --Roisterer (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Taj Malik - infobox problem

While stub-sorting I came across this article, and I can't understand what the problem is with the {{Infobox cricketer biography}} but something doesn't seem to be right (at least as seen with Firefox). I suspect that the fairly new editor who created the article doesn't know either, or they would presumably have fixed it. Could someone please have a look and sort it out? Thanks. PamD 17:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've quite messily "fixed" it, and I'm sure there's a better way than just putting "n/a" for every statistic, but that will do for now, or until the article is deleted. I♦A 02:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking at the infobox I just couldn't work out what was happening. PamD 07:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the article won't be deleted. It seems to me that he's clearly notable, and I'm sure that additional citations could be found without much difficulty. JH (talk page) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the template so that the career stats bit can now be omitted by not including the "columns" parameter. Harrias ^talk 09:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If people could have a quick browse through a few of the cricketers in their watch list to check there haven't been any adverse effects, that would be great: I've had a look through a few and can't see anything. Harrias ^talk 09:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought entering " | columns = 0 " should have done that anyway - but on a test I see that the stats header remains in that case. Must have been an error in coding. Ah well, your fix works just as well (barring any as yet unforeseen side effects). Thanks for sorting it!—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly notable, the amusing "father" of Afghan cricket. His coaching in Out of the Ashes was... different. Last I heard of him he was a Mullah somewhere. Doubt that picture will stay for much longer, the user who uploaded it has been uploading a whole manner of copyrighted material in the last week or so. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How tacky can the circus get?

They retain the "services" of some awful coach, then they rename The Rose Bowl with the frankly awful name "The Ageas Bowl", and now, now Ageas have had Shane Warne's name removed from his own suite there and replaced it with their own. What is this blasphemy!!! Horrible, yucky commercialism everywhere. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sep Kinneir

Slightly obscure one here, and maybe I'm missing something. I came across Kinneir and noticed that his article is "Sep", rather than his full name of "Septimus". Both CricketArchive and Cricinfo (probably following CA) list his name as Septimus but call their pages "Sep". Cricinfo links to his Wisden cricketer of the year and obituary, both of which only call him Septimus. I'm really not sure where their idea of calling him "Sep" comes from, but it would seem to make more sense to have the article called "Septimus" rather than "Sep" unless there is a better indication that he was generally known as "Sep". Avoiding the question of how he came by such a name in the first place, what does anyone else think? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, a search of old Australian newspapers come up with 0 results for Sep Kinneir, 1 for Septimus Kinneir (which is from a quote from an anonymous person) and 157 for S P Kinneir. Tintin 22:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisden for 1912 has a lot of mentions of Kinneir, of course, but his forename is mentioned only once, in the Cricketer of the Year profile, and there he's called Septimus P. Kinneir. Of professionals at that time, only Tom Hayward and George Hirst seem to merit their full names. I'd support changing the article to Septimus. Johnlp (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. Just in case you were thinking there was some "seventh son" significance to "Septimus", his parents were Henry and Elizabeth and he had older brothers Albert and Frank and an older sister Alice. Johnlp (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

agree with all the above about the name- professionally at least he was Septimus or S. P. If you want a picture of him there is one of the whole 1911-12 team at http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article45171803. Looks like Rod Marsh The-Pope (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a complete agreement for a move, so anyone can just do it, by the way i have created a redirect which (surprisingly) not existed. e^xtra999 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just did. Johnlp (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

List of batsmen who have scored 100 centuries in international cricket

Created through the AfC process. I've nominated {{Batsmen who have scored 100 international centuries}} (also created through AfC) for deletion though. —SpacemanSpiff 20:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest this article simply redirects to Sachin... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Some odd articles get created via AfC. Since when does one constitute a list!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How could this pass the AfC?Strange!! e^xtra999 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation

Can someone review this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ashley Nurse..? It has been over 4 days since I submitted, but there are no signs of this getting reviewed anytime soon.117.198.117.176 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Created. e^xtra999 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:IPL

I see that a wikiproject has been created for IPL. I remember we had a discussion on something similar a couple of years ago -- creating separate task forces for different sets (e.g. we have a women's cricket taskforce), but because of the relatively (at least compared to milhist etc) lower number of active members, general opinion was not to have separate task forces unless we have significant participation. I'm not familiar with the aspect of wikiprojects etc, but perhaps there ought to be some discussion on the overlapping scopes of the two projects, at the least. —SpacemanSpiff 10:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Related to the above, one of the project's first moves has been to nominate Kolkata Knight Riders for GA status. There is a discussion at Talk:Kolkata Knight Riders#Results table which could do with some wider input. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Narsingh Deonarine

Our article on him doesn't really do us proud. Anyway, his Test record is intriguing... according to Statsguru ignoring a one-off appearance in 2009, he's played his Test career so far in three batches: 2005, 2010 and 2012. The 2010 batch was three Tests against S. Africa. On paper, he had a decent series, scoring 29, 23, 65, 46 and 0 against a useful attack. Was he injured or dropped after that? --Dweller (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Or did he bore everyone to death? SR 39... *yawns*! I think he was dropped, weight and form issues, if my memory serves me correctly. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

40 runs per 100 balls in Test cricket is a reasonable strike rate - especially in a team that for the last few years has had a problem with losing wickets in a rush. If he was a fatty, that's a different matter, especially if he was either/both of a liability in the field/a bad example to the others. --Dweller (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC) He's a biffer, compared to this chap. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A KP strike rate is more up my street! I think you might have cursed them with that statement about losing wickets in a rush. Lost 5/19 in the last 20 mins or so. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to work with someone who spent many a year as a Kent member and knew Chris Tavaré quite well, he certainly didn't sound like a guy in too much of a rush to do anything quickly. It seems fitness was the deciding factor in Deonarine getting dropped [15]. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Seasons in English Cricket category

Heads up. Found on Blackjack's Talk page: "Category:Seasons in English cricket has been nominated for discussion. 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." JH (talk page) 09:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rules for years in names of tour articles

I'm puzzled.

After posting on the Talk page and getting no response in over a day, I boldly moved Australian cricket team in West Indies in 2011–12 to Australian cricket team in West Indies in 2012 because the tour dates are entirely in 2012. In fact, the tour didn't start until 16 March 2012.

User:Lugnuts reverted the move, with the Edit summary "forms part of the 11-12 season, per the other articles/naming conventions".

I asked for clarification and was pointed at a couple of similar examples, English cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2011–12 and South African cricket team in New Zealand in 2011–12.

So, I can see that there is some sort of a convention here, but what is it? The tour in question is entirely within 2012. Why include 2011 in its name? When does the 2011-12 season finish? From whose perspective do we define the season? (England doesn't have a 2011-12 season.) And many more questions... Is there a formal policy anywhere on this? HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is standard practice in cricket, as can be seen on sites such as Cricinfo and CricketArchive. It's a silly convention though in my opinion. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But exactly what is standard practice? Does the year notionally run from July to June, or something? What happens in England and Europe? As I said above, England doesn't have a 2011-12 season. It has a 2011 season, and a 2012 season, etc. I'm still puzzled. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The links in this template might help you understand. e^xtra999 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird. It's not even in six month halves. Andrew Nixon, I'm with you on this. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And I am with you both, e^xtra999 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be a bit strange, but it is the wider cricket convention and as a reflective site we have to reflect the conventions (even when they're of doubtful or outdated logic). The practice dates back, of course, to the time when the domestic season in any one cricket area was a defined period (the "hotter months" in the original Test-playing countries of England and Australia, and then South Africa, the "cooler months" in places such as West Indies and India where it was determined to be too hot to play in summer). Test tours when these things were set up were a sub-set of the domestic season; now they have a life of their own, and aircraft and air-conditioning mean they can take place at any time. I'm sure the naming convention will change at some point in the future but, being cricket, traditions weigh very heavily, so don't expect speed. Johnlp (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making the mistake of correctly ascribing the situation to tradition, while also trying to rationalise it. That doesn't work, especially the 7 month/5 month split. There's no logic there. As for being outdated, it's only outdated to a certain point in the past. It doesn't go back to when cricket was only in England. It's a very artificial convention. It doesn't help our readers. There's actually nothing stopping us from saying that the current Australian tour to the West Indies is the 2012 tour. And it would make an awful lot more sense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But we don't drive change. The ultimate reliable source for cricket is Wisden, and assuming that ESPN Cricinfo is in alignment with Wisden, then this clearly shows that they consider it part of the 2011-2012 season, and only cricket in England is in the 2012 season. It might be illogical, it might be anachronistic, it might not be relevant, but it is what the Reliable Source uses, so so should we continue to match it. The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp (see Dweller's law.) And The-Pope (no law to refer to here, although Catholics would agree with it, I'm sure.) Regardless of how much sense it does or doesn't make (and I actually think it does make sense, as long as you understand why it is done) it is the convention, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should thus follow convention, not try to create our own. Harrias ^talk 12:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as I suspect most of the other posters here are, I'm a traditionalist in cricket, loving Test Cricket, and seeing those short forms of the game as just necessary evil fillers between real cricket matches. But what we're talking about here isn't content, it's the names of OUR articles. These names help people who know less about about the game, and who may care less about tradition than many of us, find stuff. Using illogical names for articles won't help anybody. It's not encyclopaedic to use a silly name for an article just because someone else does. HiLo48 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing with you that it's a bit silly, but our titles follow the sources as much as our content does. Just check out how many times "reliable sources" is used at WP:AT. Jenks24 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that as I said, I don't think it is silly at all. Harrias ^talk 12:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a silly (or outdated) convention, as I and many others here believe, but at this point it should not be changed. We have to work as Wisden, the ultimate cricket source as The-Pope said, e^xtra999 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw something else into the mix, Wisden does now refer to some traditional 2011-12 seasons as 2012, particularly series in the West Indies: for example here or here. However, this is quite a recent development, and looking at the current almanack it seems a little arbitrary; it depends during what month the series took place. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to get the indenting right! I just wanted to make one point. "These names help people who know less about about the game, and who may care less about tradition than many of us, find stuff." That's true, but it can be addressed by creating a redirect from the "logical" form of an article name to the "conventional" form which we have used. JH (talk page) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

True. I still find it frustrating that for a series entirely within 2012 (the one that started me on this trek), the precise text "2012" doesn't actually exist in the title. (It's "2011-12".) Typing this year correctly forces me to go via a redirect. Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if you do a search (as I just did) using "Australia" "West Indies" "cricket" and "2012" as the keywords then the right article pops up instantly. I don't think there's a real problem here, especially if we have the redirect in place. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it works. Still mighty weird though. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, when was the last time a tour of the West Indies or a West Indies domestic competition started and ended in different years? Andrew nixon (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't glanced at every decade by any means, but the 1959-60 MCC tour included a couple of matches at the end of '59 and the rest in '60. I suspect that most tours in recent decades have each been confined to just one calendar year at a time, but in many cases the WI domestic season has included matches of dates which ensure a ^^^^-^^^^ date is appropriate. Indeed, this present WI domestic season has itself had first-class matches in both years.RossRSmith (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But no one tour or competition has had matches in both years. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at least one tour has. As stated above, the 1959-60 MCC tour included matches in both years. RossRSmith (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment about the current season having matches in both years - no one tour or tournament does. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's logical that a tour or tournament should take the year(s) in its article's title from that of the season in the host country in which it takes place, as is the current practice. That makes it easy to tell in which season a tour/tournament took place. JH (talk page) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking on the West Indies Cricket Board website, they refer to the current tour as the Digicel Series 2012 and the recently concluded domestic four day tournament as "this year's" tournament. It seems to me to be far from cut and dry as far as the West Indies goes. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's even more logical to name the tour after the year which exclusively contains it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisden uses a very simple system for accessing archive records of past seasons, here. Are the inconsistencies mentioned above replicated there, too, or is it consistent? If the latter, I think we should mimic it. --Dweller (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We use the same "inconsistencies" as Cricinfo. But I would argue that it's NOT simple. For example, the 2011/12 season is seven months long. The 2012 season is five months long. And it's clearly neither simple nor logical to put a series that runs only in March and April 2012 in the 2011/12 season. I understand that it IS traditional. But tradition is often not based on logic. The specialist cricket sources, not surprisingly, follow cricket traditions. This a global, general encyclopaedia, not a cricket encyclopaedia. I don't think we should be bound by what are now illogical cricket customs, especially if we won't this content to be accessible to everybody, and not just those who are already cricket aficionados. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If redirects always ensure that someone finds their way to the article, I think we should stick to the established system, warts and all. It's not as if there's a watertight, problem-free alternative. I don't see the value in changing a well used problematic system for our own problematic system. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's problematic about using just "2012" for a tour that's ONLY in 2012? HiLo48 (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If it implies to those used to the systems that it took place during the English season, but it didn't, or if it's inconsistent with the systems used in RS. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I truly cannot believe that anybody, hard core cricket fan or not, would search for the current Australian tour of the West Indies by typing "2011-12". Why force disambiguations on Wikipedia that aren't really needed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. I would. Harrias ^talk 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you. The tour is in March and April 2012. It makes no sense at all to look it up by typing 2011-12. Why would you do it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it is the Australian tour of the West Indies taking place in the West Indian 2011–12 season. Actually, in the case of West Indian tours, I'm not actually over bothered either way, because even the season itself doesn't really span the years, but rather they effectively have two seasons a year. But for the southern hemisphere countries, even tours that are entirely within one year should, in my opinion (and I would definitely search for it thusly) be named according to the season's appropriate and commonly used name. Harrias ^talk 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

By this standard, shouldn't we move 2011 Cricket World Cup to 2010-11 Cricket World Cup and 2012 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier to 2011-12 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier? Both appear under the 2010-11 and 2011-12 season respectively on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My brain is beginning to leak out of my ears. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Every time I see those World Cup articles I've wanted to move them to those pages (albeit with the appropriate endashes rather than hyphens). Should I propose the move? Harrias ^talk 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisden 2012 refers to the World Cup as 2010-11 as well. If Wisden, CricketArchive and Cricinfo do it, then that is the convention and we should follow it. A suitable scattering of redirects should make sure everyone gets to the article they want without too much confusion. As I said way back at the start of this, WP is about reflecting external sources, not about changing the policies and conventions of organisations beyond these pages. Johnlp (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ONLY about reflecting external sources. It's also about making material accessible. We don't write articles exclusively using the (albeit well sourced) internal but obscure jargon, language and traditions of complex topics. We translate it to sensible, quality English. To say readers can still use the logical names because we can use redirects for what would be the majority of queries is really just showing how inappropriate it is to use the traditional naming conventions here. For the article which brought me here, the current Australian tour of the West Indies, there will obviously be more a lot more queries going via redirects than straight to the article. I reckon that's just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There was me thinking suggesting moving the 2011 World Cup article would make people see that having articles on events that take place entirely in one year have a title that spans two years was silly and two people take it seriously! Andrew nixon (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Test series are dated from the season in which they occur. Outside England all Test countries have a cricket season that crosses New Year, so the recent Test series between New Zealand and England was in the 2012-13 New Zealand cricket season and is the 2012-13 New Zealand vs England Test series even though all the Tests were played in 2013. It also avoids confusion with the 2013 Test series between the two counties in England this summer. Philip Jelley (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradman's status

In Jack Hobbs it says : "In 1953, Hobbs became the second professional cricketer, after Don Bradman, to receive a knighthood for his services to the sport as a player (two cricket administrators had also previously been knighted)."

Did they make any difference in Australia between cricketers who played for money, and those who played for "expenses" ? Either way, wouldn't it be better to just say "first English professional cricketer" because there is a big difference between being a pro in England, and in Australia where they were more egalitarians ? Tintin 08:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In England, the polite fiction was maintained that all cricketers with overseas sides touring England were amateurs, so that they qualified for a "Mr" before their names on scorecards (and perhaps meant that it was less ground-breaking to award one a knighthood). I've made a suggestion on Sarastro1's talk page for rewording that sentence which I think might deal with your point, even though I wrote it before reading your comment above. JH (talk page) 09:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft

After all the kerkuffle created recently by this individual, I wish to apologise for the inconvenience I personally caused by "feeding the troll" when I tried to defend another editor who is NOT, I emphasise, the same person as myself. The latest Daft "sockpuppet" (his fiftieth? according to AssociateAffiliate) has been blocked and, should he reappear, I shall comply with WP:DENY and WP:RBI. So, again, apologies. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to come back but I am still absolutely seething about this farce. I write to another editor about an article he has written and I find myself being attacked and subjected to libellous garbage by an internet troll who has been active on the site for FOUR YEARS, constantly committing harrassment towards anyone who disagrees with his ludicrous points of view? His accusations cannot be seen as constructive criticism and so they are harrassment. Whereas this "Asquith" creature claims to be a doctor, I know personally some highly qualified personnel in various fields of study. One such lady is a professor of English who has kindly looked at my posts to other editors on this site and compared them with those of BlackJack who has borne the brunt of the creature's malign, pig-ignorant stupidity. In all his recent pathetic protests to numerous editors and talk pages, the creature insists that BlackJack and Jim Hardie are operated by the same editor but provides NO specific evidence to support his case. One is left with the impression that a common interest in early cricket history will suffice in addition to animosity towards himself (I am rarely moved to anger by other people unless I can see they are liars and, as soon as I accepted this thing's invitation to "follow back" on BlackJack, I realised I had been taken in by a bloody liar). His basis for complaint does not even amount to that much abused phrase "circumstantial evidence".

Okay. My colleague has focused on this post to WT:SPI in reply to one by me because it is the only time in all his recent keyboard diarrhoea that "Asquith" comes close to presenting some evidence. He says that my preceding post is "the same language as used by Blackjack", that it is "clear" and that the "style, language and production are the same". My post on that occasion was very short (unlike this one) and consisted of just three sentences. The first was an apology for inconvenience caused, the second was a direction to another page and the third was a signoff. My colleague, an expert in her field, tells me that the first two sentences could have been written by anyone with a satisfactory grasp of grammar and the ability to write good English (of which, per an amusing comment by AssociateAffiliate, rapidly becoming one of my favourite editors, the creature is incapable). Even the phrase "feeding a troll" is commonplace on the internet (see both WP:DENY and my new favourite editor). There is nothing characteristic in either of the first two sentences of my post except that she says my use of "unwise" is "quaint"!

The clincher is my signoff. It would seem, looking at the Daft archive, that The Rambling Man (a respected editor) thinks the creature has one or two sympathisers here and he categorically stated last autumn/winter/whenever that they need to get real and recognise the disruption the creature has caused to the cricket project. I would invite such sympathisers to have a look at my signoff and go back to one-to-one posts made by me during my first sojourn here in 2008. You will see that I habitually (perhaps subconsciously) use "Kind regards" as in the post above. Period.

Now check BlackJack's posts and see if he has this fundamental characteristic and I think you will find he says "All the best" or a variant on "Thanks". I rest my case. If anyone out there still believes the creature, nominate an admin to whom I can write by e-mail to show my real name is NOT the one that the scumbag has "outed" re BlackJack.

I will endeavour to keep faith with the site but this episode reveals its failings. What is the point of having administrators when a scumbag like that can carry on a campaign of harrassment for four years and it takes a victimised editor several days to find an administrator who will take immediate action? Even though that will undoubtedly be temporary. I commend NativeForeigner, the admin who did ban the scumbag at very short notice.

Not so kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but it is posts like this that reveal the hassle that the IP user is causing that do "feed the troll". The more that troublesome users can see that they are creating trouble, the more they will come back to create more. It's hard to do, but you just have to let it go, and deal with it through the appropriate channels in as neutral a manner as you can. As to your "evidence" that you are not BlackJack, I think detailing what you have just makes you appear over desperate to seperate yourself from BlackJack: don't worry about the claim, unless a request is made through the correct administrative channels. You are editing the site, and improving the site, so I don't care who you are as long as your work is good. If this user does, that's their problem at the moment. As to this episode revealing the site's failings: yes, in a manner it does. But on the other hand, there really isn't much that can be done about people who edit under revolving IP addresses: the site would be a worse place if everyone had to have an account to edit; and even then it wouldn't be that difficult to keep creating accounts. The internet makes anonymity easy, and it's just something we have to live with unfortunately. Harrias ^talk 23:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A very good analysis, Harrias. You are quite right. Thinking about it, my worry was that the troll created the impression of multiple contacts who may sympathise with his case and even take action against me. I see now that he was lashing out and trying to stir up mistrust within the project. As you say, "appropriate channels" is the best way forward. I shall take a break now and see how I feel about the site in a few days. Thank you. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Thinking about it, my worry was that the troll created the impression of multiple contacts who may sympathise with his case and even take action against me." I don't think that you need worry on that score. I doubt that anyone takes his accusations seriously. JH (talk page) 08:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Daft is Daft by name and by nature. I must try and resist feeding the troll when he next returns, but for a Dr his grammar is something I find too amusing to let pass an opportunity to ridicule. I doubt his professional credentials though. The university he claims to work at has someone I know attending it, she couldn't find any mention of someone with Daft's real name as being on the staff in any department there. He'll be back. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell your friend to look out for someone extremely old. --Dweller (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

MCCU match

I've been tracking the performance of Durham MCCU's bowlers against Northants (I always like to look out for potential up and coming talent). I noticed that Crincinfo aren't treating the match as first-class, showing "tournament" averages, rather than F-C ones. Is that an error? --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but CricketArchive doesn't have it listed as a first-class match either. Harrias ^talk 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisden has it as non-first-class. Also the Derbyshire/Cardiff, Leeds-Bradford/Sussex and Oxford/Kent games in a week or two. Johnlp (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When it was decided to increase the number of f-c MCCU sides from four to six this season, giving Cardiff and Leeds/Bradford f-c status for the first time, it was also decided to keep the total number of f-c fixtures at twelve. The result is that, though each MCCU plays three fixtures against counties, only the first two fixtures of the three are f-c. JH (talk page) 17:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks guys. I made someone notable that isn't. I'll go fix it. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And some people wonder why I get so annoyed over all this "status" silliness! It's all quite odd. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's odd that 2/3 of their games are f-c, but not the other 1/3? I'd agree with that. If you're making a broader statement, I don't get it. --Dweller (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm making a broader statement in relation to this. My general opinion is that cricket places far too much emphasis on status, to he point of obsession. I think it's this obsession that holds cricket back as a sport. It's an anachronism from the days cricket was run as essentially a gentlemen's club. Is there any good reason for these matches to not be first-class? Is there any good reason why if Ireland played Zimbabwe in a five-day match it doesn't count as a Test match? Is there any good reason for limiting the number of countries with ODI status to 16? Why not 18? Why not 25? Why have a limit at all? It has an effect beyond mere statistics - your player who now isn't notable is an example. Why isn't he, when his mate who played in the last match is? It allows this project to declare that some players with over fifty international caps are not notable. Beyond that, giving whole groups of ICC members a different status enables their views to not be considered and for them to become disenfranchised. (I could make an even broader point here, but won't for reasons of taste!) I've written about this on CricketEurope a couple of times, and have argued it with several people, but the obsession with status has become so entrenched within cricket that it's like trying to argue a fundamentalist away from their religion. It's all rather silly. But anyway, rant over. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have to set boundaries somewhere, even if they sometimes appear inconsistent or arbitrary. To take your Zimbabwe v Ireland example, I agree that the standard of the cricket would probably be as high as in a match between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. But if you accept Zimbabwe v Ireland as a Test, then what about Papua New Guinea v Denmark, say? You have to draw a line somewhere if Test status is to have any meaning; it's just a question of where it should be drawn. The same applies to f-c status. But it doesn't really matter what we think. As an encyclopaedia, we have to document the situation as it is, not as we would like it to be. (The MCCU business is very strange, though. Last season it was rumoured that all the MCCU sides were going to lose their f-c status, and now we find that it's been extended to more sides instead.) JH (talk page) 08:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A line certainly needs to be drawn, and what JH says is spot on. Call me stuck in the past, or whatever you want, but when it comes to players, to me 50 caps for a low ranking national cricket team just isn't notable in cricketing terms. I known football, unlike cricket, obviously doesn't give restricted statuses to matches, hence you can find articles on here for players who have appeared for American Samoa, like Ismael D'Angelo Herrera (no matter how poor their football is). Take the ongoing AfD for Stacey Muruthi, who Andrew Nixon has pointed out has played 80 times for Singapore (though I've given up on this one as the editor who created the article is an annoying pain in the arse!), 80 caps or not, his matches were of a "lesser" standard, hence I think it's fundamentally right we place an emphasis on FC, LA, T20 - it's stretching it when WCL3-5 are now included. Am I a tradionalist fundamentally stuck in the past? Perhaps. I find it easier that way though "FC, LA, T20" - not much to remember there! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That said, I do look foward to seeing Ireland in the whites in Tests, more than deserve to be there, certainly in Irish conditions they could beat Zim and Bangla. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Athletics and Portal:Sailing

I made two requests here for promotion to Featured portals. Any suggestion or contribution is welcome. Sorry for the intrusion into your project, but to promote discussion, otherwise stagnant, I was advised to do by the project coordinator. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Morris Leyland

If anyone is unsure of Morris Leyland's correct name then check cricketarchive where his true given name is listed. It was Morris - see obit Wisden 1968. Maurice was his showbiz name.

The obit on page 1002 of the 1968 Wisden begins "LEYLAND, MAURICE" and the online site for same article continues to use Maurice, not Morris.RossRSmith (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This information was also posted on my talk page (now protected, incidentally). The Maurice Leyland article makes clear that Leyland's name at his christening was spelt Morris. Cricket Archive states this fact under his full name but their page is still entitled Maurice Leyland. All sources that I recall, including Wisden, call him Maurice. I believe there is a WP rule somewhere about using the universally applied name and I see there is a reference to this in the WP:CRIC project conventions where, for example, it is stipulated that the John Hobbs article must be entitled Jack Hobbs. By the way, if you request a Google search for Morris Leyland, the first find is the Wikipedia article because of the christening fact in the lead and then it becomes exclusively vehicular! --Jim Hardie (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe he was known as Maurice for his whole life and it was only subsequent research that showed he was actually "Morris". He certainly should be Maurice here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He is Morris in the Yorkshire Post until later in his career and Morris in numerous contemporary articles. This is the same for the alleged Ernest Tyldesley who often appears in Lancashire papers by his true first name and the name he personally used namely George. Incidentally, Harrias removed an edit from an inappropriate location as he explains. I accept that 'Maurice' has become accepted though whilst Jack was JB Hobbs usual name with Maurice/Morris it's fine point. Of course there is CAG Russell who was always 'AC' during his career. Some people feel AA Lilley should stay as that rather than AFA but at Lords is a menu autographed FA from 1912. In the modern day with AJ Harris who insists his name is 'AJ' and has told several PA announcers off!

In Australian papers, he was Maurice at the time of the 1928-29 Ashes and I can't get a single hit for Morris. Tintin 08:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "showbiz name" is a bit inaccurate. In the 1911 census, he is "Maurice Leyland" living at 7 Euclid Avenue, New Park, Harrogate, aged 10. I'll have a look in the 1901 census later. Johnlp (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, in the 1901 census he is eight months old and called "Morriss Leyland" and living at 2 Wensley Terrace, Bilton, Harrogate. Johnlp (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is this data available ? Tintin 08:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

UK censuses are online in various places on subscription services or on the official sites (where there are usually pay gates somewhere in the process). I have a subscription with a history site. Johnlp (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Review needed

Since AfC process is severely backlogged, these articles are not reviewed yet. So can someone review them?

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amit_Singh
• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Parvinder_Awana
• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bipul_Sharma

Thanks in advance. 117.198.116.253 (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done all three. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability?

I know very little about Cricket, but Paul Havell doesn't seem to me to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:CRIN. —Al E.^(talk) 16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it does qualify, because this player (according to the page) has played 10 first class games. Anyways, it really needs a revamp. e^xtra999 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

He does qualify - I have deleted the flag and left a note. Martinvl (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks. Although that article could use quite a bit of help. —Al E.^(talk) 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is he Australian or was he just born there? Hack (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Australian-born, but his schooling was all in Sussex, he was Sussex young cricketer of the year in 1995 and he claimed to support Brighton and Hove Albion. Johnlp (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another Sammy Woods in the making? :) JH (talk page) 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

... hmmm. Harrias ^talk 19:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone add a infobox in the article? e^xtra999 (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Already been done. Hack (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Leading run-scorers/wicket-takers

Does anyone know of a source, similar to this, which gives the progressive record for first-class runs/wickets? I am trying to place a few players on the "list" at the time of their retirements, and without such a source, it is rather a painful manual job involving Wisden, CricketArchive and a calculator! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

the only way I could think of doing it relatively easily would be to work backwards and see if it was widely reported when each new leader took over. The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To he honest, in the time period we are talking (both records were set in the 1920s), I doubt there was much, if any coverage, in contrast to (for example) Hobb's century record. Especially given the contemporary understanding of first-class status may be rather different to that used today. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

W. G. Grace would be the record holder for both bat and ball for a very long period. Hobbs would have overtaken Grace probably on the visit to India and Sri Lanka in 1930-31. J. T. Hearne would have overtaken Grace's tally of wickets some time in 1912 and Rhodes overtook Hearne in 1920. There's a degree of wobble in all of this because of matches played by several of these folk that are of disputed first-class status. Johnlp (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

List of cricketers who were murdered

This page got a mention in passing in Guardian today. Johnlp & I have more macabre stuff in store, which we plan to move to the article space soon. Tintin 14:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm being a WP:DICK, but am I the only one who is concerned that this might not be encyclopaedic? Is there anything about the murders that were related to cricket, or did the victims just happen to be cricketers? Are the murders themselves notable other than the fact that the victims were once cricketers? Is there anything notable about cricketers being murdered over, say, jugglers? Might it be more appropriate to detail the events on the individual articles on the people involved, given that there is nothing that ties the individual entries together.

I don't mean to be a party pooper. But it concerns me that there is no reason to collect these deaths together... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with S.G. No correlation, so not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a tricky one - there are lists of sportsmen (cricketers and rugby players at any rate) who died while on active service. From a patriotic point of view, yes there is a difference, but isn't patriotism WP:POV? Don't really know what to say apart from drawing attention to those lists. There is also a list of notable people who have died in aircraft-related accidents/incidents (excluding war). One significant point that came out of that list (my own WP:OR, so not documented) was the number of deaths associated with the 9/11 suicide attacks. Martinvl (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Many of Wikipedia's lists seem extremely non-notable and pointless to me. Maybe there's a culture or demographic of which I'm not a part to whom lists which connect two seemingly random characteristics of things, people or events are important. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There were discussions on this in 2007 and 2008 (see the archives). No one’s going to pretend it’s our most distinguished work. But in that the Guardian has found it interesting, then it must be fulfilling some encyclopedic function of sorts (and doing very little harm): not sure how many other of our cricket project articles have been picked up and directly linked to in this way by the big beasts of the internet world. And if this encourages more people to visit our pages and maybe join in… Suggest we could lighten up and move on. Johnlp (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think if we have RS reporting on it, it gives some sense of notability, but it might struggle in an AfD. I seem to recall that there's a notable strong correlation between professional cricketers and people who commit suicide - do we have a macabre list of them? --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a whopping great category. I♦A 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read something similar. While it is not Wikipedia's role to research such a correlation, it is certainly Wikipedia's role to provide a researcher with a list of known cases. Martinvl (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Though I think there is a difference between an RS reporting on the subject and an RS reporting on our article. Chicken begat egg, and all that. Johnlp does make a point if it encourages people to visit the pages. I also find many of these lists, particularly law enforcement officers who died "in the line of duty" (I don't count a heart attack while sat at your desk as a death in the line of duty) but hey-ho. I am the flexible willow who bends in the light of strong winds of consensus! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The link between suicide and cricket seems to be a recognised one, and apparently "the suicide-rate among professional cricketers around the world is higher than in any other sport". But it's a different situation to murder as a causal link has been drawn between the the sport and suicide whereas there does not appear to be such a connection between murders and cricket. Because murders get news coverage, and murdered cricketers get covered by reliable sources such as Wisden and Cricinfo, it gives the impression that the group is notable, but where is the study of murdered cricketers as a whole? While each event should of course be mentioned in the biography of the relevant persons I'm not convinced the intersection of two unrelated characteristics should be the basis for a list. It would be like compiling a list of politicians who also go skydiving. There are some peculiar lists out there, so we're not solely to blame for this. Cricinfo for instance has a list of the youngest Test cricketers to die. The sport is obsessed with statistics and lists, and not always relevant ones. I think deleting the list of murdered cricketers as WP:SYNTH would be a step in the right direction, perhaps a category would be enough? Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Final call, AfD it? e^xtra999 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of statistics, Wikipedia currently has 16,194 cricketer articles. 21 murders equates to a rate of 77 per 100,000, compared to a rate of less than 2 for most western countries. 203.49.255.20 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's two homicides per 100,000 population per year: if it was 77 homicides per 100,000 cricketers per year we'd get cricket banned by the League against cruel sports. Johnlp (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus, the number of cricketers with articles on Wikipedia (and the number eligible to have articles for that matter) is a tiny subset of the number of cricketers worldwide. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Annoyingly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRIN and prep-school cricket

Is it appropriate to mention anecdotes of individual cricketing success in an article about school cricket? I'm currently looking into Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. I'd refer you to the sport section which includes this[16] link. Is there any objective standard to determine whether this result is important enough to include in an article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that we would regard this particular feat as noteworthy in itself in cricket terms, though of course if the schoolboy goes on later to a notable and glittering career in cricket it might be resurrected as evidence of early prowess. WP:CRIN really only covers individuals and matches (or series of matches) that are of a defined standard (first-class, List A, Test etc) or, in a very few cases, notable because of specific events in the game, extensive reporting or historic significance. Johnlp (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a seperate anecdote in which a school-boy was given a Lord Taverners' Centurion Award for scoring 106 in an inter-school fixture. One editor described this as a major achievement in any young cricketers' career. If that's the case is there any possibility that such an award might be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in a article about a school? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Same thing applies, really: it's not in my view notable cricket-wise. But I don't know what the criteria might be for notability in terms of the Schools Project. Johnlp (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Grounds

Folks, I have quite a few redlinks for grounds on List of centuries in women's ODI cricket. I'm in the process of upgrading it to FL like the Test list but this one has a few more redlinks than I'd like. The grounds pass the letter of our notability guideline, but it's difficult to get info for them. There are a couple of options: (1) Do any of you folks have any books related to grounds specifically to help with creating stubs for these redlinks or (2) Just convert them to unlinked text under the assumption that these will never ever become stubs. The list includes school/college grounds that have been used for international play. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit of research shows that the Finchampstead Cricket Club ground has, if the club's website is to be believed, hosted Berkshire Minor Counties matches and even a few f-c matches. However it looks as though whoever wrote that was confused between f-c and List A matches. See Cricketarchive. However as it's held List A matches it's likely to get at article at some point. The official name seems to be the Memorial Ground, Finchampstead. And lo! we do have an article for it after all. :) I'm about to go to bed, so I'll leave you to amend the link in your article. JH (talk page) 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but this one had me confused because Cricinfo has two different listings -- Memorial Ground and Finchampstead Cricket Club while CricketArchive has it as only one. There seems to be some issue around "which part of the vast landscape the match was played in", I don't remember correctly right now, but there's this exact same problem with another place (I think the Sydney listing) where CA folds it into the main listing while CI lists the specific ground. It's more like Centre court vs court 2, don't know if that matters for us? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would guess that either those are two alternative names for the same ground and that CI doesn't realise that, or (less likely) that this ground corresponds to the ground that CI lists as the Finchampstead Cricket Club ground. Note that both CA and CI agree that it's the Memorial Ground where Berkshire play, and CA specifically gives the Women's ODI in question as being played there. So I don't think there's any real doubt. JH (talk page) 08:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of your second option, but I'll go with the first one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the Carey and Wesley grounds, it might be best to just create them as redirects to Carey Baptist Grammar School#Facilities and Wesley College (Victoria)#Facilities. Neither of those articles are in great nick, but it's better than nothing and I can't really see those grounds getting articles any time soon (they're just high school ovals). Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable, I'll link the schools for these. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2011 Cricket World Cup nominated for a GA

Hello, this is to notify that the article of 2011 Cricket World Cup is nominated for a GA. Input will be appreciated. Thanks. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For me, the article currently falls significantly short of the GA guidelines: there are whole paragraphs and indeed sections that are unreferenced, there are numerous MOS violations, and the prose in general is too casual for an encyclopedia. I don't have much time at the moment to provide a full review, but I'll attempt to do so if the time opens up. Harrias ^talk 16:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Anymore obvious???

An obvious hoax I came across which somehow had a BLP tag slapped on it for being unsourced!: "Aditya Sheorayan is the captain of the Indian Cricket team. He is best known for his world record innings of 8474 not out of just 912 balls. Sheorayan is a batting all-rounder, but he also has the worlds best bowling average: 892 wickets @ 6.12. Although he is only 10 years old, he has played 52 tests, 112 ODIs, and 47 T20 Internationals, and is already recognised as the greatest ever player, by ESPNcricinfo." Guess this kid has been playing since he was 5??? Haha. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm most impressed by his scoring rate of over 9 runs per ball. :) JH (talk page) 20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Disappointed by his wickets per match across all formats though. Obviously a Kallis of sorts. Awesome at one thing, just good at the other! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And we don't have an article on him? Come on guys, this is supposed to be a comprehensive coverage of cricket for Wikipedia - in fact it probably even says this on the main project page somewhere. I question your dedication and am referring it to Jimbo. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't understand how much runs would he have piled by the current age of Sachin! e^xtra999 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

I'd like to know the minimum criteria for having a separate list for "List of international cricket five-wicket hauls". For centuries I guess the figure is 25. What should be the number for the bowling lists. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It was loosely defined as 15 if I remember correctly, that's the number used in the template. —SpacemanSpiff 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft ban proposal

Members of this Project may have a view on this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Richard_Daft --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Daft not already banned as it was??? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Previously, he was blocked. --Dweller (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Never realised there was a difference lol. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Banning policy. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've said to Dweller in an e-mail, you will not get rid of this idiot until the site realises that "anyone can edit" is in the past. You need "anyone can join" now, subject to probation, because QUALITY has superseded quantity with the site's growing maturity. Otherwise you're stuck with idiots like that for evermore. Who is going to police his ongoing IP edits? By the way, I intend to return when business interests allow as I'd like to revise all the early cricket articles according to current site standards. So, message to the troll, I'll be back. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Premier League

For your information ... Mattinbgn (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting as I asked a few weeks ago about cricket task forces and was told there are none. Should this be one? --Brian (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are users with a common interest who'll work on it, why not? Personally, I find 20:20 to be like baseball (can be mildly exciting, can be dull, but it isn't cricket) but I appreciate that highly-paid men with ponytails working for big corporations rather think I may be in the minority. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't think you are in a minority, at least, at this place, if you take a look at the contributors. I have till now came to the conclusion that this is a very disciplined community, even compared to other WikiProjects. I sense that we mostly have the same voice as you. Though, if we come to the real world, I find this roughly divided in two, one the older-experienced men who understand this is a money-making factory. And the other, the fanatical youth interested in their stars and the craze. I'm in my teens, an Indian boy, this is very evident in my circle of friends (I was too interested some five years back, but growing up, the picture gets clearer). As for this project, you are right this can exist, having the support base.But, most of the participants are the Indian youth, who rarely show up on this page. extra999 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy Carroll? --Brian (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very small corporation. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to see the IPL project have much impact. It had one failed GA nomination, and of the two editors involved one didn't respond to comments on the talk page while the other was unable to accept criticism. While inexperienced editors may make premature nominations, I don't see any evidence either learned from the experience. It currently has about ten members, and while I imagine that could increase it seems more of a fan page than aimed at improving articles as demonstrated by the plethora of userboxes listed on the project page so people can show which team they support. Unless something changes, the project will peter out without having really impacted the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I keep hoping about 20:20. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Is it here to stay or a nine-day (okay, nine-year) wonder? --Brian (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's my issue as well. extra999 (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On about Twenty20, has anybody read the Twenty20#Origins section of the article. Most of it is unsourced and comes out with some odd claims (as if 5 overs per-side would be considered), and some other random stuff about Pakistan and Afridi and Razzaq. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at cleaning it up. The article still leaves a lot to be desired, but it now doesn't imply twenty20s were developed for the benefit of Afridi and Razzak. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier, the main concern I had was the effect it would have on conventions and style guides as this is not a task force but a separate wikiproject. Also, it's not just the core IPL articles but our bios such as Kevin Pietersen etc that have been folded into the new project. As far as task forces, it's not all difficult if we have interested people, the women's work force has a couple of GA's and a few FLs with a coverage that rivals ESPNcricinfo's! As long as this new thing results in improving article quality and not just adds to the workload with drive-by GA/FA/FL noms, it should be ok (Chennai Super Kings has had at least three FA noms and a GA nom).—SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual idea of the project was to improve the articles related to IPL so that they can be nominated for GA(or FA or FL) someday.We are still in the preliminary stage as we are still assessing the articles. Thanks! StrikeEagle ^✈ 13:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And it's a interest to more than 10 people; you cant forcibly delete it. Why are you looking over our project? We are a totally independent project; and we even did not ask any help from you guys. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Relax Dipankan.....They won't delete the project without a consensus and without a valid reason.We have to prove the value of the project so that no concerns can be raised. StrikeEagle ^✈ 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate Twenty20 but I don't see any reason why a project should be canned just because people like me don't like the subject. I hated chemistry at school but I fully support a chemistry project on WP. I think there should be cricket projects about county cricket, Test cricket, Yorkshire (but not Lancashire), the more the merrier. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a cricket fan myself but still feel that this is no reason for deletion. IPL is one of the biggest things in India, big enough for film houses to hold back film releases, it has had it's fair share of controversies as well. What I do agree with is that this shouldn't be a WikiProject per se, but should be a Task force under one. That I'm confused about as I don't know whther it should come under India or Cricket. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's no doubt that it comes under cricket. It has a very wide international coverage and is more importance to the subject of cricket than India. extra999 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces has some info on task forces. Given the almost 100% overlap of IPL articles with the Cricket project, I think it should be a task force, rather than a project. It might lead to some other task forces being made too - 23k articles is a lot for a single project (and I admit I didn't know the women's cricket tf existed). The-Pope (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has suggested deleting WP:IPL, so lets can this alarmism. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Second post in the topic says it should be deleted. --Brian (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So it does. No one else has agreed though. This should not be a them versus us situation. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Luke Pomersbach - protection

Could an admin semi-protect Luke Pomersbach? He's got himself in a little bit of trouble and a few IPs are embellishing the story... Hack (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Nev1 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hack (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Gabriel

We had no article on the debutant, so I just created a bare minimum stub. C'mon guys, dive in, the water's lovely and DYK beckons. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Did you know... that in the 1st Test between England and the West Indies, the West Indies gave a debut to another sorry looking seamer". Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit harsh! He looks okay to me. Not everyone is a Vernon Philander! Harrias ^talk 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

At least he seems moderately better than Brandon Bess I suppose! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

At least they're trying out a new player. I find it a a bit surprising that a couple of people, including Michael Vaughan I think, have been suggesting Tino Best should be playing. He's tried, tested, and failed at the highest level (28 wickets at 48.67 in Tests) and recalling him would be a backwards step. It would be as if Pakistan recalled Mohammad Sami to the Test squ- oh never mind. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Best deserves a second chance to break the windows? If only to try that again! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

According to reports, Gabriel was able to step in at short notice when Rampaul was unfit because he was already in this country as he was playing for Barrow. However according to this newspaper article, that would seem not to be totally accurate. JH (talk page) 20:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where they got that from, as Gabriel's been in the West Indies squad from the day it was announced. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, then perhaps it's I who misinterpreted what I heard. JH (talk page) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He had rave reviews on TMS from his first ball. And those are very nice first innings figures against a dominant team on their home patch. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Tino will get the chance to smash some windows afterall... odd selection, perhaps sadly shows the depth, or lack of, that exists in WI cricket these days. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)