Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 92

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95

Wiki Page for New USA Women Players

Just wanted to check if you create pages for newly capped cricketers as well. My wife plays for USA cricket but I don’t see her page. While her teammates pages are there. Her name is Moksha Chaudhary 2601:18C:CD7F:83D0:309F:7F81:4C13:ABD3 (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(same IP asked this question on my t/p)
Hi. If they play in the 50 over World Cup Qualifier, then they should be created. Playing in the T20 regional qualifier alone doesn't meet the minimum notability requirements. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

World Championship of Cricket

Should this 1985 tournament be listed in the honours section of the teams that made the final? It was not an ICC event (according to the article it was celebrating 150 years of settlement in Victoria), and seems to follow the Australian standard of the time to stick "World" at the start of any multi-team event they hosted. It did, however, feature all 7 Test teams of the time. I wouldn't (and seems no-one else does either) include any of the "World Series" championships for national teams, and I see this is a slightly grander version of those. @Divyakaran Singh Joshi: Spike 'em (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not comparable to an ICC event like the Cricket World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Joseph2302, shouldn't be listed in the honours section, could potentially be listed in a history section related to that period of time though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely no problem with that. Some teams do list it (as well as the Austral-Asia Cup) in the related Tournament History sections, which I'm less keen on. I'd confine these sections to official ICC / continental cricket organised championships only too. Slightly less sure about multi-sports events such as Commonwealth games (which has featured cricket once) and Asian games. Spike 'em (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Three old stubs of questionable notability

Hi. I don't know the first thing about cricket, but I noticed that these three English cricket club stubs (Unsworth Cricket Club, Stand Cricket Club, Ashton Cricket Club) are among the oldest unsourced and tagged-for-notability articles that Wikipedia has to offer. Is anyone interested in evaluating whether they need to be fixed or deleted? Lennart97 (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the content of the articles (which as you say are unsourced), all 3 pass (or would have passed historically) the WP:CRIN section about UK teams that says , those clubs that ... are included in the List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs do meet the notability requirements. The essence of the latter group is that the clubs belong to one of the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire Cricket League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues. Spike 'em (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. So that means that in order to remove the notability tag from each article, what we'd need is one reliable source that confirms the club was indeed part of the Central Lancashire League, right? Lennart97 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FC/LA status for women's cricket

Hi. Per this media relase, the ICC have retrospectively applied first-class and List A status to women's cricket, aligning it with the men's game. I've updated a few related pages and updated the lead of our official cricket guide. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes things a lot easier I suppose. Any idea how far back/what sort of matches etc...? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
There's literally no more information given than "The Board also approved that first-class status and list A classification will be applied to women’s cricket to align with the men’s game and applied retrospectively" so who knows. However, when List A cricket was officially recognised for men's cricket, the ICC used the classification of the Association of Cricket Statisticians (here), so presumably will do the the same for women's cricket. So that basically adheres to the classifications for Women's First-Class and Women's List A used on CricketArchive (which is also what I've used for updating infobox stats anyway to date, so no changes required there). Hopefully the change will lead to domestic stats being included on more accessible sources. Mpk662 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as usual from the ICC there are no further details, and the news was buried in another story on their site. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources for an Asian cricket league?

Hello there. I will admit I'm not an expert in the topic area, but following recent events, I began work on the Draft:Quaid-e-Azam Sunday Cricket League, which seems notable. Could anyone here who knows more about these things than me help with some more sources for the article? Thanks! —AFreshStart (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately the Quaid-e-Azam Sunday Cricket League is a minor cricket league in Yorkshire, so fails to meet the cricket project's notability guidelines for cricket club's under WP:NCRIC as it isn't one of the ECB Premier Leagues. StickyWicket (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
As such, it would need to be demonstrated that the league passes other notability guidelines, e.g. WP:ORG, and probably WP:GNG. Due to it's status (as a small, local, amateur league), I think that it is unlikely to meet these requirements, even if there have been a few mentions in non-local news outlets recently. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're starting to send featured articles to deletion and saying, "See what we can salvage and put in the main article", is there encyclopedic value in featured lists such as List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium other than being simply interesting lists of trivia? No, but seriously.

Let's not forget that the whole point of making these forked articles in the first place was to pacify those who were saying, "too much information was being put into the players' and/or primary topic articles and it all needs to be forked into specialist articles"... Bobo. 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of what happened in the past ignored wider WP policies and guidelines and frankly, it is staggering that some of these articles and lists were waved through FA/FL review (although the bar is generally less flexible now that it was then). "Too much info..." should have resulted in removal/streamlining of content rather than splitting, and then padding the resultant child articles with even more statistical cruft and OR. Anyway, what we have now, evidenced by such examples, is the beginning of a necessary cleanup exercise. It would be good if broad consensus could be reached on boldly merging such articles and lists into their main topics, and avoid the need for largely duplicative/repetitive discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Trouble with "statistical cruft" is that you can't have it both ways. We split them off to stop having individual articles that were dozens of pages long. Now, when you put together the Invincibles topic, you have 200 pages' worth of material. (Trust me, I've put it together myself). If we're honestly now having to say as a project (I mean Wikipedia, not WP:CRICKET), that we have too much information... well, that's just depressing. Bobo. 10:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
We must differentiate between what is, and is not, encyclopedic content. We must also recognise that we have way too much original (research) content which has been written (synthesised) from bare statistical data. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
As I say, we made those lists to pacify those who said there was too much information... Bobo. 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Overcategorisation?

Thoughts on Category:British Asian cricketers. Is this overcategorisation? StickyWicket (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Tbh about 75% of the categories that exist are examples of overcategorisation imo. I've seen worse than that one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Most of the time when categories like this are added to an article, the article text makes no mention of the individual's background, so failing WP:CATVER and WP:EGRS. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well Category:Wicket-keepers made a comeback ;) I agree Lugnuts, though it could be argued their names allude to their background! However, I see it more as just another unnecessary category. Also the term British isn't a term we use to categorise cricketers, Category:British cricketers is only used as a container category. Plus there's other random categories like Category:Jewish cricketers which I don't fully understand because we don't categorise cricketers by religion (unless they played for one of the Madras Presidency or Bombay Quadrangular teams). There's also Category:Kolpak cricketers (we don't have a category for overseas cricketers). StickyWicket (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ashes squad templates

Should we really be creating templates for Ashes squads? There's 59 of them in Category:Ashes squad navigational boxes, and apart from Template:The Invincibles squad, I don't see how any of the other 58 are useful. I thought we only did international squad templates for World Cups? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No, generally. I find it particularly odd to see home side squads - I mean, I guess we could do that for 1988 but we might need quite a large template... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Mariam Butt/Mariam Anwar

Bit of a confusing one, but came across this earlier regarding Mariam Butt, Mariam Anwar and Maryam Butt:

  • Basically, there is a discrepancy between CricketArchive and Cricinfo surrounding Mariam Butt and Mariam Anwar: CricketArchive has Butt playing 12 ODIs, whilst Cricinfo has Butt playing 5 of these matches and Anwar playing the other 7. CricketArchive does not have an entry for Anwar at all.
  • This leads me to thinking that the two are actually the same person: CricketArchive does give Mariam Butt's middle name as Anwar (although Cricinfo gives it as Anwer).
  • However it does get more confusing: both Butt and Anwar both apparently played in this Test match, according to Cricinfo. CricketArchive, meanwhile, turns Mariam Butt into Maryam Butt (who as far as I can tell is a distinct player, just with a similar name) and Mariam Anwar into Mariam Butt (as CricketArchive thinks they are the same player): so presumably, Cricinfo has got confused between two players with similar names, and ended up with splitting Mariam Butt into two.

Anyway, at the moment Wikipedia goes with Cricinfo, with three different articles. I was trying to add infobox stats to these articles earlier, but its pretty much impossible at the moment as they are obviously different depending on where you look. So my conclusion is that Cricinfo is wrong, but am willing to be convinced the other way if anyone can unearth any other evidence. If not I guess there needs to be a merger and some shifting around of stats attribution? Would be great to hear some opinions on this. Thanks, Mpk662 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Found the profiles for the first and third players at the PCB site here and here. Can't find anything for a Mariam Anwar. I think those two are different people FWIW. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal made here. Mpk662 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

History of cricket

This is a heads up for the most recent item on this article's Talk page, where a user points out - fairly enough - that the article contains a lot of material unsupported by references, and that he intends to start deleting stuff if these aren't provided. Indeed he seems to have already started doing so before posting to Talk. Most of the stuff liable for deletion looks like it shouldn't be too hard to find references for, but of course people's time tends to be limited in the run-up to Christmas. JH (talk page) 10:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I am that user, JH (talk page). Perhaps you haven't seen my last comment in the talk page of the mentioned article. Michri michri (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sports venues guideline

Hi. People of this project may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully we have a really easy to follow inclusion guideline for venues: FC/LA/T20 or no can do! StickyWicket (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is

Is List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is really notable i.e. is 50 games really an important enough cutoff? Considering England are playing 22 T20Is (16 in bilateral series, and 6 in T20 World Cup) this year (the 2021 and 2021-22 cricket seasons), that total is achievable by playing T20Is for just 2-3 years. There's multiple people on there who've only played T20Is for 4 or 5 years too, which indicates to me that this threshold is too low to be a notable list. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No. The threshold for such lists needs to be set by what has been/is covered in multiple independent reliable sources, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support 50 T20Is as a significant landmark. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
No I wouldn't say it is. Perhaps 100 or 150 should be the notable landmark, but certainly not 50. That can be reached within a couple years at the rate some teams play T20I's. StickyWicket (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Well no-one has played 150 T20Is (most is 124), but 8 have played 100 (and another 7 current players have made 90 appearances so could reach 100 caps in the next year or so). I could see 100 maybe being a worthwhile list. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, nobody has played 150 matches yet, so I'd have that set as the bar given 100 won't be difficult to reach given how many matches are played in a series these days. StickyWicket (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
No where close to notable. I'm not even sure that 100 is anything like notable given the number of matches being played and the number of teams playing them. And that's before we get to the fact that the list will almost always be an out of date nightmare. I've tagged it for now - but this is not a good list to have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

StickyWicket , no bowler has taken 150 T20I wickets till date. So, what you are saying is ridiculous,hilarious, as well as, quite annoying. And Blue Square Thing, my dear, the 50 wickets mark may not be notable, even I do think so, but the 100 wickets mark is notable of course, considering the fact that only 8 has reached it so far.--Michri michri (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michri michri:, read what I actually wrote. Your inability to do that is 'ridiculous, hilarious, as well as, quite annoying'. StickyWicket (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

StickyWicket, it's yours not mine, I do think, my dear. No matter what will happen in the next couple of years, it is of course out of consideration for now.--Michri michri (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michri michri: come back to me when you actually read what I've commented. StickyWicket (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

StickyWicket,have you clearly watched what I have commented? Perhaps you have not seen the two words till date.Michri michri (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michri michri: nowhere do I mention anything about 150 T20I wickets... so haven't a clue why you're being so chirpy. StickyWicket (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
50 is too low a bar, and the numbers for an acceptable bar have not been achieved by anyone in T20Is yet. We set the bar at 100 Tests and 200 ODIs, so logically the T20I number should be around 150 or 200 appearances. But as no-one has achieved that, there's no justification for an article right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
200 minimum. Given the position with every side playing official T20Is, I'd reckon there's a case for more than that - there will be an awful lot of people with an awful lot of appearances within the next five years. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

FA review

Hi all. Would anyone be kind enough to carry out a FA assessment on John Manners (cricketer)? Wouldn't mind getting him to FA soon. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Source

Most of the Indian frontline bowlers like- Shami, Umesh Yadav, Bumrah etc, who are noted as fast bowler in the Cricinfo Website are rated as fast-medium in Cricket Australia website. Now, which of the two sources should be followed while remarking a pacer as fast or fast-medium? --Michri michri (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Cricinfo should be the source to follow, as a comparison see what CricketArchive says; I'd say CricketArchive is a better source than Cricinfo, so whatever they say should be used. StickyWicket (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
On CricketArchive Yadav is fast-medium. Same with Shami and Bumrah. Go with fast-medium, CA is a more authoritative source. StickyWicket (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how authoritative I'd call CArch on Indian players fwiw - in general Cricket Australia is a pretty fine source that actually seems to be updated occasionally. The better solution overall may be to find the balance (which probably comes down as f-m in most cases) and then add a note along the lines of "Some sources list Shami as a fast-medium paced bowler,[2][3][4] whereas others list him as a fast bowler.[5]". The sources there are CArch, CAust, BCCI and then CI. A set of conversations were had with various socks at the Shami article which made the point that prose descriptions tend to call many bowlers "fast" (or in Indian sources "a pacer") so they weren't necessarily the best to opt for. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
All these adjectives are subjective and relative, and there is no authoritative definition that I am aware of. As such, "fast/fast-medium" is probably the best solution as that covers how they are described in all sources. We certainly shouldn't be regarding one source as more authoritative or definitive than another, unless we are saying the other is not reliable. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I find CI tends to be more unreliable and mixes the same players up quite often, despite emailing them, they never seem to rectify it. CA is run by the ACS, so is a more reliable and authoritative source (sure it has its errors, but they seem to fix them when they are informed). Though, I think we are well up there as a project, many of our articles are much more accurate than some sites... but we can't use ourselves as sources :D StickyWicket (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
All the standard sources are reliable. They just don't always agree on stuff and some of them end up being wrong (see this and this, based on an error that was originally on CricInfo and led to, for example, this - the birth place is flat out wrong on all of them) Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem with trying to handle the subjective is that we end up with How can a bowler who bowls persistently at a speed of 145-150 kmph be called fast-medium? or Also, if the speed of 145-150 kmph is considered to be fast-medium, then what is the speed range of fast bowling?. Generally weight of options going for one - in most cases f-m - is probably enough to suggest the most accurate descriptor to use. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This is why we should never have deleted the List of current fast bowlers in international cricket. (/s) Spike 'em (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for replying late. Actually I hardly find any scope to edit in Wikipedia with the studies and tutions I have. Anyway Blue Square Thing, StickyWicket, wjemather, StickyWicket and Spike 'em , if you people don't mind, then I may say that Cricket Archive may be reliable for Australian players, but not at least for the Indians. The bowlers like- Shami, Bumrah and Umesh Yadav (who are considered as the fastest Indian bowlers of the current generation) are marked as fast-medium in this website. However in case of Cricinfo, they are written as fast bowlers, while some other Indian bowlers like- Bhuvi, Ishant etc are noted as fast-medium. Again, as per the idea of Blue Square Thing, even if we mention the problem in the notelist, the bowler should be described as fast only and not fast-medium in the sense that, 'fast' is an overall category, while 'fast-medium' is nothing but a division of the 'fast' category itself. Thank you Michri michri (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Almost everyone's fast-medium unless they're on the extreme side of things; even then as people age they'll tend to slow down. The weight of sourcing in most cases suggests that for starters - I mean, the BCCI says Shami's f-m, but what would they know? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Funny we should be discussing this and it just happens to be very relevant to an article I just created. Derek Gillespie (cricketer) is described by CI and CA as right-arm fast, but his Wisden obituary describes him as a right-arm fast-medium bowler who changed his bowling style to off break in June 1939. StickyWicket (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment request

I have just expanded the Donald Priestley article from stub. He was a former Gloucestershire and Tewkesbury cricketer who died during World War I. Would it be possible to have someone from the project reassess it (update the talk page assessment) in the New Year? I apologise if I have placed this request in the wrong section of the project. Thank you very much and have a happy and successful New Year. Gricharduk (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Warwickshire originality

Nice to see Warwickshire virtually copied Victor Cannings article word for word from the initial version I wrote in 2010 for his 2016 obituary on their site. *rolls eyes* StickyWicket (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Had this for some of my rugby work. The Melbourne Rebels history site on the website is almost 100% copied from the basic text I wrote on the wikipage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This is really common nowadays. As someone who works a lot on WikiProject Albums, I often find online sources are suspiciously close in wording to articles I've worked on a few years ago... with the collapse of the music magazine industry, many journalists are now unemployed and their places taken by interns or young writers who have to write retrospective pieces on records from a bygone era... with libraries closed due to the pandemic, lack of investigative work, and tight deadlines to meet, many of them clearly use Wikipedia as their major source of information. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Has anyone cited the Warwickshire obit on the article yet? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Well I feel sorry for them using my 2010 version, which was really rubbish! Created back in the day when I used to churn out articles and not really bother with detail. At least the Hampshire obituary was much more original. And they could at least credit us, although perhaps not my work from back then! I did use the Warwickshire obituary initially before noticing it was basically the article copied and have removed it! StickyWicket (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I was rather flattered a few years ago to recognise a couple of sentences that I had written for our article on Robert Hudson appearing in his Daily Telegraph obituary. I also seem to remember one of our articles being flagged up by an editor for potential plagiarism from some website or other, where checking the dates revealed that the plagiarism was actually the other way round. JH (talk page) 10:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts banned from article creation

Lugnuts, creator of probably more cricket articles than any other person, has been de facto banned from article creation at WP:ANI and retired. Sad day. Beeeggs (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What an absolute fucking disgrace. StickyWicket (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
But why? What's the reason???? Aditya tamhankar (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2021 (IST)
Stil no response here. People are strangely quiet about the issue... Bobo. 12:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm astonished. It seems that "cancel culture" has taken hold on Wikipedia. JH (talk page) 08:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Reading through the thread, he was banned from creating stubs (in this case, pages shorter than 500 words), just to clarify. --Moedk (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
How stupid though! I mean, stubs are foundations which we build on. There are plenty of stubs I have taken to B-class level, many of which could be taken further with the right time and dedication. Can't understand why these people don't take a stub and expand it, instead of censoring against their creation. Are they too lazy to build an encyclopedia? StickyWicket (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Just as in the course of time each and every small drops of rainwater accumulate to form a river, which confluences into an unfathomable ocean, likewise, each and every article in Wiki owes its origin to the stub class, from which it slowly develops into a GA or FA. Albeit, I agree with the proposal of mentioning a minimum word limit, which in this case is 500. I do think that Lugnuts has that kind of capability to write at least 500 words about an article during its creation. One think which could have been done, is decreasing the minimum word limit somewhere below the 250 mark. --Michri michri (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely, I've seen stubs become featured articles before. Every article starts from somewhere and it is the laziness and unwillingness of some users to expand on stubs (and hence build an encyclopedia), instead they seek to delete them. There is one disruptive user in particular who seems to have a problem with cricket articles and members of this project in general, who sadly seems intent on driving users away. I haven't a problem with stubs, I quite enjoy expanding them and finding out new details about them. StickyWicket (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
What the hell happened here? Damn, the project has lost an absolute legend. Forget about the stubs for a minute, the amount of time it must have taken to update the pages for every single player who was playing a match on that day. Absolutely ridiculous. Stubs wise all of the above comments are right, all articles have to start somewhere. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Stubs exist so that people can expand upon them later when they are willing to add more information. All stubs contain necessary information, including the Test cricket stubs which have existed for 15 years or more, many of which were created by the same person, User:*Paul*, who created ~900 articles, who has not edited for over 15 years. Some of these articles have received no mainbody text alterations since. And some of which contain zero citations after all this time. A 500 word limit can be achieved with ease by inflating an article unnecessarily with nonsense excess information. Once you've included all the facts, there is nothing more necessary to add. As I've said elsewhere, I know we've become a culture where facts are being questioned and deleted at will, but this should not be the case with Wikipedia. The fact that this has happened, if nothing else, is a diabolical breach of WP:CENSORED. There is no incentive to work on article creation, and there has not been for a long time.
Personally, I get a headache from working through paragraphs and paragraphs to find out that a cricketer once caused a match to be called off because he accidentally ate a cheese sandwich. The cricket project has gradually destroyed itself and those who have done so should be ashamed. Bobo. 03:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Note this quote from Storm: "At current rate, Wikipedia will soon run out of active editors." Are we to be surprised when things like this happen? Bobo. 03:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly making me reconsider if I can be bothered to carry on contributing to this project, if people who make meaningful and constructive contributions are vilified by jobsworths who spend all day at ANI, creating yet more pointless rules, tagging articles, and generally being disruptive. StickyWicket (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
If we were all working to the same goal, these conversations would be unnecessary. Why are we not working towards the same goal? Is it because those who are impeding us are those with nothing to add? I'm not quite following the argument but if the argument is "stubs are harmful", we have a lot of work to do than just deleting the odd player.
Let's say a casual user comes along who knows nothing about cricket. How do they know that a Test cricketer with zero references is as/more "notable" than non-Test cricketers with references, or a non-Test cricketer with only references to CI and/or CA? (I stumbled upon a perfect example just by clicking "RandomInCat" - Paul Gill). Ironically, this page was prodded by a user who turned out to be a sockpuppet. To me this shows that there are users who have zero to add to the project. Bobo. 14:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
It's what annoys me the most Bobo192, if they spent as much time expanding articles they come across instead of slapping tags on them and wanting them deleted, then we'd have awesome articles. The tag slappers are amongst the least useful editors, only the other day I created a player with an infobox, had to run an errand so saved the page (obviously to be completed later) and when I came back to it half an hour later tonnes of tags had been added; the orphan one being the worst, just link it ffs. Those who ganged up on Lugnuts are amongst the worst offenders. StickyWicket (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
If "page is orphaned" is the biggest problem with articles, then we need to get their priorities straight in creating as perfect a project as we can. And while we're working to different definitions of the word "perfect", we are at a crossroads. Our energy is channeled in the wrong direction. It's not the fault of those of us who have been expanding the project for 17 years that ""At current rate, Wikipedia will soon run out of active editors". Bobo. 19:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Just have to see this diff to see how bad faith it all is. Apparantly, having agreed to changes, we should have agreed to more? StickyWicket (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that's the problem though, Test Cricket is odd in the sense that in addition to being good you essentially have to be viewed as worthy of a Test cap. How do I explain to someone who has never watched cricket before that someone who played a 2 or 3 Test matches with only a Cricinfo profile is more important than a guy who has played 10 T20's in some third rate league? CreativeNorth (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested Rename

Not sure where the best spot is to notify of a potential page move, so doing so here. I saw a section for deletions notification, but not page moves. Talk:Sheikh_Jamal_Dhanmondi_Club_cricket_team#Requested move 2 January 2022. RedPatch (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

New Years chuckle!

How did this sneak through? :DDDD StickyWicket (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

On about James Gill, he scored 106 in his only first-class innings; how many other cricketers have batted in just one first-class innings and recorded a century? StickyWicket (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
At least two - Avinash Sharma from the 2010 Varsity Match, and Norman Callaway, who scored a double century in his only f-c innings before his death in WW1.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes how can I forget about Callaway. Wan't aware of Sharma's feat. Did wonder if Richard Borgnis had also managed this, but he had a second-innings against the New Zealanders in 1937. StickyWicket (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I knew there was a clutch of century-on-debuts in the University match this century, so I had a quick check through them and only Sharma played just that one match and only had one innings in it - it was an undefeated century into the bargain. --Bcp67 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Stuart Moffat another, also from the University match - he was more noted as a rugby player. I thought I had read an article about this unusual achievment, and found it in the Nightwatchman magazine. There is a list of nine players in the 2017 Wisden, page 231, in connection with the death of Kapil Seth,although they missed Gill off their list.--Bcp67 (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For the third time in seven days

I'm sorry. This can't go without something being said because frankly it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. For the third time in a week, a single game of a single sport on a random day in the last 13.7 billion years of the history of the universe has made the Main Page. I have no words. It's as much the fact that it has happened three times in quick succession than the fact it has happened in the first place. No wonder the cricket project has run out of the impetus to create new articles.

Any snarky replies will be disregarded. kthxbai. Bobo. 02:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I was about to mention Lewis (baseball), but appears he's been redirected. Anyone up for a challenge of getting a 1st round match of the Gillette/NatWest/C&G between two minor counties or a CB to FA status? StickyWicket (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Some of Harrias' best work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Given the context of what's going on right now, I can't quite work out if that is sarcasm. I'm going to assume so and move on. Bobo. 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It isn't. Cricket also has featured articles about individual matches. Because sometimes individual matches are notable. Just like Yugoslav ships. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I also can't work out if this is sarcasm, so I'm going to overlook it and move on. Bobo. 12:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Enjoy Harrias articles on matches, mostly finals of the Gillette/NatWest/C&G finals. And this match, one of the most notable oddities and controversial moments in any domestic cricket competition. I can see where Bobo is coming from though. StickyWicket (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Continued "vandalism" at Umpire Decision Review System

Can I please have some assistance - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umpire_Decision_Review_System&action=history DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

U19 cricketers at AfD

Hi all. Please see the following nominations:

The last two were created by the same user and I've dropped a note on their talkpage linking them to WP:NCRIC and requesting they don't create anymore U19 players. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Afrikaans translation

Hi all. Do we have any Afrikaans speakers who could translate the Cambridge University cricketer Myron Kok from the article about him on the Afrikaans wiki? Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Google translate does a reasonable job. Looks like a virtually unsourced (auto?)biography of someone that fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NCRIC. The only sources are a deadlink, an author search on worldcat, and his cricinfo profile. Fwiw, just one sentence mentions cricket: "At university he was a keen cricketer who in 1953 represented the university's first team". wjematherplease leave a message... 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There is that option, though I've always found Google translate to be a little dodgy in the past! I did think given it is quite a substantial piece on the Afrikaans wiki that he had done a fair bit to pass GNG, so thanks for checking that out. I will redirect him to the Cambridge University list. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi all, just opened up a peer review here for John Manners. If anyone can spare sometime to review it, would be much appreciated :) StickyWicket (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting page move

Page moved – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose Umpire Decision Review System have a name change to be called Decision Review System. It's in official usage and the preceding "umpire" is now out of date - as seen here, in the 2021-2023 ICC WTC playing conditions (https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2021/07/27/47d0a226-49c1-4c74-a77c-92889ce402d2/ICC-Playing-Conditions-ICC-World-Test-Championship-2021-2023-July-2021.pdf)

Also, WP:COMMONNAME - it's widely called "DRS". DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion started: Talk:Umpire Decision Review System#Requested move 17 January 2022. Anyone feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2013 India tour of Australia

Did any series take place between India and Australia in 2013 or 14 in the Australian soil? Actually while copy-editing the article Mohammed Shami, I have come across the sentence "In October 2013, he was selected for India's tour of Australia. After sitting on the bench for the first 3 matches, he was given a chance in the fourth match in which he took 3 wickets." Now any experienced editor please add a wikilink and a reliable source to verify the information, if possible. I have tried earlier only in vain. Thank you--Michri michri (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Michri michri Australian cricket team in India in 2013–14 looks like it- Shami is listed as taking 3 wickets in the 4th ODI, and doesn't look to have been in the playing 11 for the first 3 ODIs (according to the scorecards listed there). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
While we are at it, why has this tour article a Test squad in it of Test happening a year beforehand?--Maphry (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Although it wasn't a tour of Australia- Australia were touring India. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've rewritten that sentence. As talk:Joseph2302 says, the Aussies were touring India, not vice-versa. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Bundle or bungle?

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Virat Kohli

I have reviewed Virat Kohli. I have corrected most of the grammatical mistakes and removed unnecessary adjectives. Suggestions by you people are whole heartedely welcomed. RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure we should e suggesting that he's "widely regarded as one of the greatest cricket players of all time". Greatest is something of a bugbear of mine I'm afraid. None of the sources really say that - perhaps limited-overs you *might* get away with, but the nature of the sources chosen to support this is that they're generally quite hyperbolic (I mean, a tweet from Vaughan?...) The statement before that, "Kohli is often considered one of the best cricket players in the world" I have no problem with - and that's supported by the references. For future proofing I might suggest "one of the best cricketers (or batsmen?) of his era" and then perhaps go on to say "and some critics believe him to be one of the best limited-overs batsmen in history". Or something.
  • There are nav boxes that should be right at the bottom of the article half way through. They need moving.
  • It's a very long article - I imagine some detail could be cut, but I know that's hard to do. I've seen a lot worse if that helps.
  • "Deaccession of captaincy across all formats" doesn't make sense to me. "Retirement from captaincy" might be better?
  • The career summary section needs a bit of work - the prose at the top and the bottom seem disjointed? Personally I find the graphs impossible to actually use in any sensible way, but I know similar ones are on other articles.
Those are just immediate thoughts. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this statement: "Kohli is often considered one of the best cricket players in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest cricket players of all time"; the problem I see is that the sources given are generally poor quality (often vulnerable to hyperbole when made in direct response to a specific performance) and simply do not support such claims. The sources are attributable to individuals saying that Kohli is "the greatest" or "one of the greatest", but extending this to say "often considered" or "widely regarded" on the basis of half a dozen quotes is problematic (possibly MOS:WEASEL) unless sources explicitly convey that scope. I'd say simply find better reliable secondary (or tertiary) sources for these claims, as I'm sure there must be some. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
agree with both responders: the article is way too long, too much run-of-the-mill reporting; having another "one of the greatest" conversations elsewhere, along similar lines Spike 'em (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You all are right. But I have a doubt... What are "nav boxes"? By the way, I have considered your suggestions @Blue Square Thing:. I have replaced "Deaccession of captaincy across all formats" with "Retirement from captaincy across all formats". I have also changed that "one of the greatest" thing. You may review. Anything else to change?
The nav boxes are the stuff Spike 'em moved this morning - take a look at his edits of 18 January and you'll see what I mean. I'm happier with the lead stuff - although I would like to see more balanced refs perhaps, but that's being picky at this stage.
The over-riding issue now is the sheer length of the article I guess. As I said above, I appreciate that that's super hard to deal with, especially when fan-children will want to keep adding their oh so special fact to the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes yes I have checked that edit. Thanks a million.@Blue Square Thing:@Spike 'em:@Wjemather: RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Repetition of Sources

In a number of articles of cricketers, a separate section is kept for the records. Now, my question is if sources are already cited regarding the records in the prose section, then do they need to be cited again in the record section as 're-use'?Michri michri (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. A table of stats without a source is going to get tagged practically every time, so just reference it from the start. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Just give the 1st instance of the reference a name and then reuse it later. Spike 'em (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
e.g. at first use have Some text<ref name="label">reference details</ref> and when use again later do Different text<ref name="label" />. The only place you don't need to separately reference something is in the lead, as long as the fact is referenced later in the article (if the fact is not even mentioned later in the article then it shouldn't be in the lead). Spike 'em (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Spike 'em and Roger (Dodger67). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Rameez Raja page move

Page moved – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 Legends League Cricket

Please make a page on this tournament

Legends League Cricket 2022 is a 10-day tournament where we will see three teams playing with each other in the T20 format. A number of retired global cricketing icons will be participating in the tournament.[1]

is there any coverage of this to show it passes WP:GNG ? Spike 'em (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
We can't write an article about a subject we know nothing about, and the details you have given above are not enough. We need verifiable information from reliable sources to both show the subject is notable and enable use to add content to the article. Spike 'em (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Now, I've added a source, Is it enough for you or not? Vikas265 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So , will a page be created on this upcoming tournament?? Vikas265 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Because similar tournaments like 2020-21 Road Safety World Series , Cricket All-Stars were created on wikipedia in the past. Vikas265 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

a) do you see how many sources you need? lots and lots. Please try and avoid hyperbolic ones - perhaps look at Wisden, The Times (of London), Sydney Morning Herald etc... What are they saying about this? By all means use Cricinfo if you need to. That's usually at least vaguely reliable.
b) are these two examples actually notable now? Is the Road Safety one actually still going? (and did they arrange some sort of special disposition over their use of the word "legends"?) It's virtually all sourced to the tournaments own website or to, well, very keen Indian sources isn't it? Did anyone reliable actually cover it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
that source reads like a reworded press release. Is there any coverage that delves into any sort of detail or explains why it was created or what makes it special? This is very much routine coverage.---- Spike 'em (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally, we shouldn't have articles on tournaments which are not played to FC/LA/T20 level and aren't otherwise historically notable. Too many articles on non-notable hit and giggle leagues about. Let's stick to the ICC definition of official cricket where possible. StickyWicket (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (U iiTC)
Has there been anything in The Times of India about it? JH (talk page) 08:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, The Times of India talked about this tournament. See the link .[2] Vikas265 (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Legends League Cricket 2022: Players, teams, full schedule, live streaming, telecast and more". Times Now. Retrieved 20 Jan 2022.
  2. ^ "Sehwag to miss initial matches of Indian Maharajas, Kaif to lead". The Times of India. Retrieved 20 Jan 2022.
In that case, I'd say it probably passes WP:GNG. JH (talk page) 18:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone review the Page 2022 Legends League Cricket.? Vikas265 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. Still can't see the notability of the league? The matches aren't even covered by Cricinfo. StickyWicket (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
And we should be reminded of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket which Rugbyfan22 helpfully drew up, otherwise we will be swamped with articles about what are essentially non-notable leagues which will disappear in a few years, with no long-lasting notability. StickyWicket (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The matches are covered by Cricinfo Check this link for proof.https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/legends-league-cricket-2021-22-1298090/india-maharajas-vs-asia-lions-1st-match-1298095/full-scorecard Vikas265 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that! They weren't on the scorecards tab on their main page! StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Template and flags issue

West End Park International Cricket Stadium has the wrong Afghan flag in Template:Infobox cricket ground. It should be using {{cr|AFG|2013}} not {{cr|AFG}} as the Afghan team use the old flag still. Does anyone know how to display the correct flag on the template? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

each country parameter has an buddy that you can use to specify a year to pass through to {{cr}}. e.g. |firsttesthome= has a pair of |firsttesthomevar=. Spike 'em (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
or even |firstodihome=Afghanistan goes with |firstodihomevar=2013 Spike 'em (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

ICC Men's T20I Team of the Year

Hi all. Thoughts on this please? I PRODed this, but the PROD has been removed. Do we need this article, or is it just WP:TRIVIA? StickyWicket (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

We have corresponding articles for the Test and ODI versions, so I'd keep on that basis. They are all really just mirrors of content in ICC_Awards though, so could either do with 1 transcluding the other, or just plain ditch the child articles (all they seem to add is a user-generated table of most appearances by player / country) Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We appear to have an article for every award, cricketer of the year for every format (men and women) and every team of the year for every format (men and women), and also an article for every year's awards, so this simply follows that. I'm sure all of this would be better rationalised in some way. (see Category:International Cricket Council awards and rankings) wjematherplease leave a message... 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Surely, we just need the ICC Awards and years for that e.g. 2021 ICC Awards. All those other pages are just copying those pages, and we don't need multiple copies of the same thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, just the one article per year is required. If that. It's a bit list crufty anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree with all the comments here. And with BST sentiments, they are very list crufty! Going to be bold and merge some over the next few weeks, if no ojections from people here? StickyWicket (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

X with Australia in England in 1948

Hi. The group nom has been withdrawn. Here's the first individual nomination:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And the next one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS and NCRICKET an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS and NCRICKET] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So what is the point in having these? You know it is absoutely ludicrous that we were asked to amend NCRICKET, which we did, and now the same voices who demanded that say "you know what, nah, it's still not good enough". Especially as our inclusion criteria are probably the most strict amongst sports projects. StickyWicket (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Any views should be expressed on the Village pump page linked above. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not just NCRIC - if anything, the way in which NCRIC is generally being applied is much better than some other sporting SNGs. The proposal is that all sports SNGs would be treated equally - and is not really to say what's being quote above imo (and I don't think most people who read this would even think about "meets NCRIC" by itself as a valid argument at AfD these days). The proposal is inevitably doomed to fail anyway... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I've always felt that cricket articles have been specifically attacked because of the great work of the project in creating articles. Because it's such a complete project (compared to any other sports, maybe with the exception of Olympics which has also been attacked) editors seem keen to try and delete cricket articles because there are lots of them, and they're created so frequently. The updated guidelines I agree are strict certainly compared to other sports such as football and American football. I feel some editors just want one specific guideline they can follow (in GNG) whereas GNG is flawed in my opinion due to it's English and recency bias. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep. With NCRIC, we've actually done a ton of work to tighten it up over the past year or so. While I personally don't agree with all the changes, it's a move in the right direction. I dare say trying to make ANY change to WP:NFOOTY would not be met with welcome arms.... But what's happening now is a deliberate attempt to say "sorry, that's not good enough - we MUST ditch the whole lot!" Still, we all keep plugging away, add a source here, improve an article there, and try to ignore the noise. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Assistance with page

Hello! I'm here to request some assistance in figuring out what to do with the article Lucknow Super Giants. It's a very new page that has been edit by a lot of new users and IPs and since I know nothing on the topic, I can't really figure out what edits are constructive and what edits aren't constructive. The page is currently semi-protected which will help with figuring out what should be done with the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Several pages related to this side were deleted in October (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucknow IPL Team) and the core page draftified - it's now at Draft:Lucknow Super Giants. As it's an IPL related page it'll be "enthusiastically" edited to add hyperbole unless it's dealt with quite harshly. It might be still too soon to create a page on the side - it got a name and will probably play a match (unless COVID, Indian elections, some other thing happens) - but whenever it gets created the same sort of nonsense will occur. Good luck - you could try some form of protection in the short term which will at leats stop the IP editors, but that's not really a long-term solution. I'll comment out the table nonsense and delete some of them so that they're inline with other sides, but I'd imagine it'll last half an hour tops. There's a whole IPL wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Premier League. You could ask someone there to step in and wield a big stick, but I wouldn't expect very much to happen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: Alright thanks for helping out! Like I said, I know nothing about the topic and couldn't tell what should and shouldn't be done with the page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I've gone over it, but won't be able to keep up with the level of daftness that will go on. Keep stripping it back to not much more than what I've currently got and you'll probably be OK. It needs to explain why Pune only operated the two years - I don't remember and it may be due to betting or financial shenanigans which would certainly be worth a mention Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: Alright sounds good. I'm going to see if an admin would be willing to check some of the new users who edited the page to see if they may be socks of ShootingSpirit 007 or anyone else since I have a feeling there might be some socking going on since someone on the page has already been blocked for being a sock. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
one of them, and probably some of the IPs, is definitely a sock of a different master (Vallabharebel) Spike 'em (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Could you point out what user and the diff that makes it obvious? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] and [2] by user Ggbvv, though in different pages are (near) identical. Spike 'em (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Yep I saw. I'm thinkin the user Cusptrek might also be a sock due ot having edited similar pages as Ggbvv, however I haven't had enough experience with this master's socks to know if it's similar behavior or pure coincidence. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I've looked at that user in the past, would classify them as possible rather than probable. Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: Alright. Should I add them to the SPI or no? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Alfred Bailey (English cricketer) redirected from Albert Bailey (cricketer)

I see that Albert Bailey (cricketer) redirects to Alfred Bailey (English cricketer), and some references name "Albert" rather than "Alfred", but there is nothing in the text to explain this discrepancy. BD2412 T 01:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There's also something up with the birthdate if someone is going to take a closer look. Hack (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The article was originally created as Albert Bailey as "Albert E Bailey" was the name used by both CricketArchive and Cricinfo for him at the time. Later work (the Stephen Hill book cited in the references particularly) identified him as Alfred rather than Albert, so the page was moved: there was an interim stage in which "Albert" was known to be uncertain but "Alfred" had not been verified, so for a while the page went under the title "A. E. Bailey". CricketArchive has also caught up with the change. I'll see if I can find my copy of the Hill book to see what it says about his birthdate: the discrepancy is one day. Johnlp (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Eric Russell (cricketer)

Who do people think is in the right in the dispute between Anna L Russ and myself over the content of this article? From the alias she is using, I suspect she might be related to Eric Russell and perhaps be unhappy with even the mildest criticism of him. JH (talk page) 16:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what the source says, but there does seem to be a bit of a BLP/NPOV issue with the content that was removed/restored. It might be different if cited to several independent sources, or included as quotations. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
His cricinfo profile also mentions that Boycott and Edrich kept him out of the test team, but makes no mention of his disposition. I restored the content and tidied a copuple of other bits up, but happy to remove the end of the paragraph. Spike 'em (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Lots of non-notable cricketers!

Hi all. I've noticed lately lots of non-notable cricketers being added who have played in Minor League Cricket in the US, with the person creating them falsely claiming they have played FC/LA/T20 to justify their article. Some have been getting through AfC too. I suspect the user in question is a sockpuppet anyway, so will head to SPI shortly. Just a heads up to watch out for these articles being created! StickyWicket (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: I think the user needs to be informed of what games constitutes as as List A, first-class etc. They clearly don't realise what the CI player profiles say. There doesn't seem to be enough of them being a sockpuppet. I don't see a reason for them to create another article to create similar articles unless being blocked. Human (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@A Simple Human: I've dropped them a message linking to the ICC document on official cricket and our notability guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They should be deleted irrespective of the sockpuppetry of the user in question. Btw, in this context, I'd like to know whether the article Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer) meets enough notability, which I really doubt. Enjoy editing Michri michri (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: That article only seems to have one source of his CI profile. I'm doubting it's notability too. But it can be saved if more notable sources are found. Human (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@A Simple Human: Don't think any type of source can be found except those showing his career statistics like the CI profile, considering the lack of popularity of the cricketer in question. The stub created by our dear Lug nuts is really non-notable. Going to propose it for deletion. Michri michri (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Charles Arnold (cricketer)

Hi all. The above player was quite a prolific bowler in the 1840s and 1850s, taking 133 wickets in 22 FC matches. Just wondering if anyone has any sources for him? Information online is a little threadbare! StickyWicket (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have got one source but I don't know this is authentic or not. Fade258 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Fade258, that's great! Will definitely aide in the article. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
All this article looks like is, we've found details of his family (which sounds like a search of some genealogical website, which presumably all it needs is a subscription), two sentences from a printed source we don't happen to have to hand, and a "we have no idea whether this is the right guy or not" (I don't mean that as an insult to you, Fade258, I promise). Seriously, if this is the kind of thing people are arguing over, this is a depressing portrait of what our project has become.
This article contains 2.5 sentences of sources none of us, save for AA, (which all it took was a Google Books sarch anyway) has to hand. Once again, if this is what people are arguing over, then I'm tired. Bobo. 00:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It is not people arguing, it is people trying to help each other out, and is far more useful to the project than people piping up every 3 months moaning about WP in general and doing nothing to help other than rant. Spike 'em (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Well if you are being pernickety about my choice of a single word than addressing what I said regarding the tiny additions to article content, then... Bobo. 01:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Those of us who have been (collectively) busy creating articles for 15 years are just... tired. And when you look at how much low-hanging fruit there was back then, it says a lot about how much progress we've made.since I joined the project in 2004. Bobo. 01:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

KPL Map

Hi everyone, I was making a template on the locations that teams in the Kashmir Premier League represent, similar to this template. The thing is I’m not sure about is how I should represent Overseas Warriors as they don’t represent a place but they represent Kashmiri diaspora so I don’t really know how to represent them. Help would be appreciated. Thanks,  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinions on 2022 PSL article

Hi all, I just want to get a few opinions on the 2022 PSL article. I'm of the view that M.Billoo2000 is going a bit WP:TOOMUCH on the marketing section eg. the bit about the cameras, and while it is a good scheme the cancer awareness, the SA pink day odi and Jane Mcgrath day both aren't mentioned anywhere at all on the Wiki even though they have more sources. Also I don't agree with the use of non free images on the articles eg. the trophy and the picture of all the captains. M.Billoo2000's only real arguement here is WP:OTHERSTUFF but when WP:NFCC#8 states it can used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" I really strugle to understand how the picture off the captains greatly effects the readers understanding. Especially when if the readers are that curious they can just click on pretty much any of the captains articles and get an image of them. However I may be wrong so I want a few other peoples opinions please. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, we don't need the broadcaster for every country, we don't need a list of every commentator or presenter, and most of the rest of that section seems like an overkill of information too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, that camera related information is not necessary and the picture about the captains is not necessary where CreativeNorth has already mentioned his/her opinion about this picture. Besides this, everything looks fine. Fade258 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer)

Can someone look into the notability of the article in heading and help to enhance its standard by adding more info and sources? Aid would be heartily appreciated. Michri michri (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri:, I have little doubt on his notability. Fade258 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 Indian Premier League match templates

Based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 91#Templates for individual matches, I have changed 2021 Indian Premier League and associated ones (eg Delhi Capitals in 2021) to use "sections" instead of templates. Personally I can't see the sense in replicating the scores in articles like Delhi Capitals in 2021, but if we are going to do it, I think this is a much better approach. Let me know if I've made any mistakes. Nigej (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nigej:, As per that Archive91 and with your opinion. I agree with your edits. For now we need to replace from 2018-2020. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a semi-automated system so I may give them a go. Nigej (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Nigej Thanks so much, creating templates for individual matches is really silly in my opinion, so glad someone was willing and able to fix it. By the way, there is also an IPL specific WikiProject, so I'll send them a link to this discussion (as their members were the ones who created them). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a concensus on creating these templates. Clog Wolf Howl 15:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Great work and thanks for spending time on this, Nigej. I do love the irony of the main article being protected, but all the match templates not being so... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
So conclusion is that the score card templates will not create for 2022 Indian Premier League (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 16:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC))
See WP:TG which says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text ..." which is what these templates are doing. So according to the rules, most of the other templates at Category:India cricket templates should be treated in the same way too. However, you'll often get away with breaking the rules for a few templates but when it turns into hundreds and thousands, something needs to be done. Nigej (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nigej:, I have little doubt about template, whether the group stage template breaching the policy or not. Fade258 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator and Vice-Coordinator for Wiki Project IPL

Anyone interested please put your name up Click Here For coordinator and Vice coordinator (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC))

Why would you need a co-ordinator and vice-coordinator for that project? Nobody owns and manages the IPL project. If the IPL project can't manage itself as a breakaway from the cricket WikiProject, then it should be merged back with this project as a task force. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302:, I think that project should be keep. In my opinion, If we keep that project then those users who are willing to become the member of that project they put their name and this helps to create, maintain and keeps updating IPL related articles. It helps also for standardisation of IPL related articles. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The project coordination is not a new concept, it's working since 2012.
These Coordinator and Vice coordinator concept created by the @Dipankan001: and further managed by many users @Cricket246:. As already said by @Fade258: those users who are willing to become the member of that project they put their name and this helps to create, maintain and keeps updating IPL related articles. It helps also for standardisation of IPL related articles. (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC))
Standardisation? Barely. Perhaps dealing with basic MOS issues and not forcing all tables to go full page width might be a good starting point - as well as trying to vaguely keep to MOS:FLAGS. The articles aren't much of an advert for the project imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
IPL "standardisation" is just a way of making rules separate to the cricket WikiProject- they're still cricket tournaments, and their articles should be consistent with other cricket articles instead of the IPL's made up "standards" (which include pointless use of templates, violation of MOS:COLOR and MOS:FLAG, using incorrect flags for Irish cricketers- all things I've noticed in the last few days that are way less prevalent in cricket articles not part of the IPL project's "standards"). If we want proper standardisation, then all the breakaway tournament projects should be merged into WikiProject Cricket, rather than them making up their own rules, and incorrectly calling it "standardisation". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: For MOS issue, Firstly I'm not a creator of MOS template. This MOS concept started from 2018 in 2018 Indian Premier League article and it's not concept by me.
Secondary, to make project batter I just approved and created few MOS for 2019,2020 and 2021 IPL articles because in past few year the MOS issue isn't raised. (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 16:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC))
Well, I also see these two problems in Indian Premier League related articles. If we merge this project to WikiProject Cricket then on what basis does Indian Premier League related articles were up to date and able to be a proper standardisation. In my opinion, this IPL WikiProject doesn't make their own rules and regulations for creating articles as we are creating IPL related articles by following Wikipedia guidelines, policies, WikiProject Cricket, WP:NTEAM, WP:NSEASONS. Fade258 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
As long as WikiProject IPL does abide by the decisions taken by WP:CRIC, I don't have a problem with it existing, but it should not be taking the lead on design decisions. That said, I don't see a problem with getting rid of it either; keeping IPL articles up to date is also within the remit of WP:CRIC, so there's no reason WP:IPL members couldn't do what they already do as members of WP:CRIC instead. But whether WikiProject IPL stays or goes, I don't think it needs a "co-ordinator" - in fact, that's not something I've ever seen in any other WikiProject, and it rather flies in the face of Wikipedia's ethos, IMO. – PeeJay 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I've always thought it would be better served as a taskforce of this project. Taskforce's can still have leads or coordinators on them. WP:MILITARY has many well organised taskforce's. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It should be transformed into a task force IMO. It is a fairly inactive project anyways. Clog Wolf Howl 04:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposals

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
  • Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
  • Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
  • Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
  • Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
  • Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
  • Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
  • Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
  • Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Just for the sake of statistics, 95 out of 161 England Women's Test cricketers contain external links/references to CI and/or CA and nothing else. Bobo. 10:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Why does it feel like every attempt to move the goalposts for the sake of deletionism and/or exclusionism is simply an attack on those who have been doing all the legwork for all these years? The fact that article creators are being targeted over everyone else is disrespectful. People (including members of WP:CRIC) make it sound like there's been zero attempt to move the goalposts over the years, and yet it's been for their sake that we've done so... as it is, I can list half a dozen serial article creators purely from WP:CRIC who have been alienated from and/or have vanished from the project from the cricket project alone for the sake of people who want to stand in our way. (I wonder if any of them are reading this right now...)
Contributing to conversation after conversation when it feels we (WP:CRIC) have done more to move the goalposts (to pacify those who wish to do so) than almost anyone else, is becoming tiring.
I would repeat this on every single proposal, but pressing copy and paste is more strenuous than typing. Bobo. 00:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Note that only one user has created any of the last 42 non-redirect articles which link directly to Category:English cricketers which have been created over the last 30 days. And this is one of the many users who is being forced to lie down and take what is being forced upon us. That says a lot about how our interest in article creation has simply been destroyed. Bobo. 01:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
What does make me laugh is that we are a constant source of attack from certain users, complaining about our articles, but this is without merit. I saw a study here by Nigej which proves we are an easy target, because we are one of the better sports wikiprojects when it comes to our article creation and notability. As you can see from the study, their beef with us is absolutely without substance, and not that it bothers me as they're projects I do not contribute toward, but the study clearly shows association football, American football and rugby football are the "worst" offenders in reference to the gripe at NSPORTS. So why do we get the heat when we are a fairly strict Wikiproject when it comes to notability? StickyWicket (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This made me laugh: "...pressing copy and paste is more strenuous than typing." If only that sentiment has been applied when creating articles! wjematherplease leave a message... 11:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess I should have included sarcasm indicators... ;) The reason stub articles exist is not because we're struggling for material to write but because they are intended as the basis for anyone who can find more information. Stubs are not harmful. Bobo. 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense. These stubs exist because people took it upon themselves to duplicate a database without any thought as to whether additional material might exist anywhere – in far too many cases, it simply doesn't (see the countless AFDs that resulted in changes to NCRIC). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Then I will go down the line and question whether permastub Test cricketer articles with zero references are automatically and/or inherently notable. One rule for one, one rule for another? Most permastub Test cricket articles are just copy-and-paste jobs. Bobo. 13:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Classic whataboutery. There is no automatic or inherent notability; there is only a presumption of notability, which is obviously stronger for some than others, and you absolutely cannot equate a Test cricketer with someone who played one minor counties game (for example). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Not really. It's me questioning our goals as a project, and basing our goals on each sub-proposal on the VP, some of which are more actionable than others. Bobo. 17:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Europeans cricketers (India)

Hi all. Just created the above list, if anyone fancies knocking some names off. This should be the last major grouping of English cricketers we don't have articles on. Bound to be some interesting figures amongst them. StickyWicket (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You may want to think about the list name - while it may be technically correct, at a first glance it looks like it is mis-spelled.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: hmm... not seeing it :D StickyWicket (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The disambiguation seems unnecessary, but it should probably be after Europeans if it is. List of cricketers who played for the Europeans cricket team would perhaps be clearer? wjematherplease leave a message... 12:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The disambiguation was to differentiate between the Europeans cricket team (Ceylon), which played one first-class match. Then again, it could simply be List of Europeans first-class cricketers, which could include the Ceylon players with notes? StickyWicket (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The current title looks like a misspelled "List of European cricketers" if you don't know that the team is called "The Europeans".Nigel Ish (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the statement of AssociateAffiliate. We could add players from different countries who have played for this team. Fade258 (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Since the main article (Europeans cricket team) is not disambiguated, it seems odd to disambiguate the list (a similar list is List of Hyderabad cricketers). If disambiguation is needed, should it not be List of Europeans (India) cricketers since we are disambiguating the team not the cricketers? wjematherplease leave a message... 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see Nigel Ish, would seem to readers who are unaware that is the name of the team, they could think it was a list of European cricketers... of which, excluding some Irishmen and Scotsmen, the only European on the list is a chap from Malta! More Americans on there than people from Europe but outside the British Isles. Will move the page to List of Europeans first-class cricketers and include the 11 Ceylon players too, doesn't seem much point have a separate list for those. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The "Ceylon players" should simply be listed in a section of the Europeans cricket team (Ceylon) article. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
List renamed. I'll list the 11 Ceylon players on the article, will probably expand the scorecard. StickyWicket (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

First substitute

Does anyone know when the first substitute in first-class cricket was? I was always under the impression it was Thomas Case on the first morning of the 1891 University Match. However, I've come across Charles Newman who played in this match for Cambridgeshire v Middlesex in 1866. In this match, Newman was a substitute for Robert Carpenter, who had injured himself in the field; newspaper reports from the time mention, oddly, that his teammate George Tarrant refused to continue to play in protest at the move. So when was the definitive date for a substitute in first-class cricket? Or was the 1891 match considered the first official use of a substitute? StickyWicket (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Or am I correct to assume they were only allowed to field and not bat? Newman batted in this match, which might have been the taboo Tarrant was annoyed by? StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thomas Battersbee would predate those? In 1822. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Who also batted in that 1822 match as well. Interesting! Regarding the ICC's ill-fated decision to allow tactical substitutions in ODIs in 2005, the NYT writes "cricket has allowed substitutions since its earliest days, but only in case of injury, and substitutes were allowed only to field. The one notable exception was in the Oxford vs. Cambridge match of 1891 when a player was hurt on the first morning and the opposing captain allowed his replacement to bat." Both Battersbee and Newman contradict that. StickyWicket (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir Premier League squad templates

Hi. What do others think of templates like {{Kotli Lions squad}}? As far as I know the Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan) does NOT have T20 status, so should we have team templates for non-T20 tournaments? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say no. Especially most of them have 2021 in the name e.g. {{2021 Bagh Stallions squad}}, which implies people want to create new templates for squads every single season. These templates also have massive issues like referring to everyone by their first name- including listing Phil Mustard as Phil rather than Mustard, and probably some of them violate MOS:CONTRAST (like almost every fandom template created). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lugnuts:, First of all, I would like to tell about something regarding T20 status of this League. This league was organized by Pakistan Cricket Board in the year 2021 and was played/participated by highly recognized players. So, In my opinion it should have a official T20 status. Fade258 (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It may well be organised by the PCB, but multiple other leagues are done in the same way by their respective cricket boards, but do not have T20 status either. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. Very few competitions are significant enough to justify squad navboxes, and the KPL certainly isn't one of them. Indeed having these navboxes on biographies gives WP:UNDUE weight to this competition. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Lugnuts and Joseph2302 regarding the use of templates, which for this tournament are unnecessary. While the tournament is undoubetdly notable (I'd be the first to PROD it being somewhat of a status fiend if it didn't pass GNG), I'm not sure we should be dedicating individual season articles to it (or templates). And the Phil part, all I'm seeing is Will in The Inbetweeners calling Mr Gilbert "Phil"!!! StickyWicket (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
On the issue of colour choices, I'm getting really grumpy about this - MOS:COLOR just seems to be ignored by 90% of templates and table headings. I'm working my way through IPL ones - highlights involved red/green and blue/yellow - only the two most common colourblindness issues. Anyone have any general thoughts? For starters, just getting rid of table header colours seems like a gimme. I can't think why they mean anything in particular.
I had noticed Phil! as well but didn't have the energy... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
TfD started here, feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure. I will do. Fade258 (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: - thank you for starting the TfD, it was on my list of things to do for today! Cheers. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohammed Kaif (cricketer, born 1996)

Interested users may participate in the deletion process of the article in caption. --Michri michri (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure! Fade258 (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Manpreet Sidhu

Hello, WikiProject Cricket,

I was looking into an editor I suspect to be a paid editor and came across this article they worked on. I'm not exactly sure what this guy does, he's kind of a coach or consultant. So, I'm hoping folks here have a better nose for whether this fellow is notable or if this is just promotional content. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The way of writing content in Career section seems to be like a promotional and I think he is not a notable coach. Fade258 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue he isn't notable, most of the references only make a passing mention. Seems to be WP:REFBOMB as well to try make him seem more notable. StickyWicket (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's what I had suspected, but not knowing cricket, I wasn't sure how much they made use of special training coaches and advisers or whether the teams and players he helped with were notable themselves. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Willing users may participate in the deletion process of the following two articles:

Vishant More

Yash Nahar

@Michri michri:, Sure. Please don't forget to sign your post by using four tidles. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Fade258:, it was due to some unavoidable circumstances. Michri michri (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: and @Spike 'em:, waiting for having conversation with you, have not have it for a long time. Btw, pinging you two here to have your opinion in this context. Michri michri (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see The Chennai Braves (also aka world's worst right-arm leg-spinner aka me)

Hi all. I'm WP:INVOLVED. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC) (also aka world's worst right-arm leg-spinner)

Looks like a redirect to me. As there's not a lot of information on it. It did lead me to discover Ninety–90 Bash however... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: why don't we have have The One? One ball, done. Can't we PROD or AfD this rubbish? StickyWicket (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought you'd like the nine-nine. Perhaps we should market the "half-gross"? A bit quicker than The Hundred(tm), but a bit more to it than T10? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Excellent idea! Of course, to make it truly gross one-duo of the Costcutter twins needs to be wheeled out to big it up, along with cringey on-screen graphics, cheesy commentary, snack food sponsors, cheerleaders who look like they'd rather be elsewhere, and awful kool with a 'k' music acts! StickyWicket (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Besides the previous two articles, Nzanthung Mozhui is nominated by me for deletion. It will be deleted without an iota of doubt. Interesting users may take part in the deletion procedure. Happy editing!

@Michri michri:, Sure. Please sign your post by using four tidles. Fade258 (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
please read WP:CANVASS, notifications of deletion discussions should be neutrally worded, not claiming victory already. Spike 'em (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Spike 'em, sorry, I didn't know that. Michri michri (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

CSA 4-Day Domestic Series teams and more

If anyone happens to be a South African cricket expert, perhaps you could take a look at my comments on the talk page of CSA 4-Day Domestic Series. In general, I'd say basically every South African domestic competition/team page needs updating to reflect the 2021-22 overhaul. I may try and do some of that, although I'm away for much of the next month, but if anyone else wants to take a look as well that'd be beneficial to the project, I think. HornetMike (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated by BST in a no. of articles of cricketers, the name of the franchise which has bought him should not be included in the info box, until and unless he has played a match for the side. Now, I'd go against his thoughts since it is upto the franchise whether the player would be given a chance to play a match. Even if he doesn't play a single match, he would receive his pays as per norms except cases of injuries or personal issues. Willing users are asked to take part in the discussion and reach at a consensus. -Michri michri (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic for this talk page; ANI thread has been opened.
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Good afternoon. I am seeking advice for what my friend User:Michri michri and myself believe to be racist comment [1] against Bengalis in particular and against Indian people as a whole. The responsible person is User:Blue Square Thing who has refused to discuss matter User talk:Blue Square Thing#Edit summaries and talk page comments raised at his talk page. There have been discussions by myself with others because I am not confident in how to approach Wikipedia processes like WP:ANI and I have been seeking advice. Please to see also discussions at User talk:Nthep#Police threat and long-term abuse by an editor and at User talk:Michri michri#Blue Square Thing. Also please to see [2] at teahouse page but I was not part of this discussion.

Besides racist comment, Blue Square Thing breaks WP:LEGAL saying he has reported other person to Kolkata police. This is sort of thing to rebound on Wikipedia if other person claims provokation. I agree with Michri michri that other person must also be blocked for comments on Blue Square Thing talk page. Abuse like that is wrong but is no excuse for racist retaliation or for telling Kolkata police and reporting IP address.

I was editing Pat Cummins article. I studied its history and found several posts by Blue Square Thing which demonstrate his insulting comments and dubious actions on that article: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. In these, he is at turns sarcastic or extremely rude. He tries to belittle other editors and discourage them. He removes valid, useful information for no apparent reason other than his own dislike. In the second one, he flagrantly insults the Kolkata Knight Riders franchise. In the last few, he claims to be writing better English and proceeds to make four very clumsy errors including '2105 season', a broken link and 'Kolokota'. He asserts that a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (used by the site for redirection) is something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. I believe this is another insult directed at Indian people. He refers to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. On his own talk page, he talks to User:Krish edits675, who is a new member (a 'newbie'). There has been disagreement and, I suspect, reverting each other's edits in cricket biographies, again about IPL. User:Krish was obviously concerned about edits being reverted and wrote to Blue Square Thing about it, though he was perhaps less polite than he could have been. Even so, there is no justification for [12] this insulting response, calling User:Krish a 'dick' and so on. It is, as I have found, a typical reaction by Blue Square Thing.

O Michri michri (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I am seeking advice for what my friend User:Michri michri and myself believe to be racist comment [1] against Bengalis in particular and against Indian people as a whole. The responsible person is User:Blue Square Thing who has refused to discuss matter User talk:Blue Square Thing#Edit summaries and talk page comments raised at his talk page. There have been discussions by myself with others because I am not confident in how to approach Wikipedia processes like WP:ANI and I have been seeking advice. Please to see also discussions at User talk:Nthep#Police threat and long-term abuse by an editor and at User talk:Michri michri#Blue Square Thing. Also please to see [2] at teahouse page but I was not part of this discussion.

Besides racist comment, Blue Square Thing breaks WP:LEGAL saying he has reported other person to Kolkata police. This is sort of thing to rebound on Wikipedia if other person claims provokation. I agree with Michri michri that other person must also be blocked for comments on Blue Square Thing talk page. Abuse like that is wrong but is no excuse for racist retaliation or for telling Kolkata police and reporting IP address.

I was editing Pat Cummins article. I studied its history and found several posts by Blue Square Thing which demonstrate his insulting comments and dubious actions on that article: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. In these, he is at turns sarcastic or extremely rude. He tries to belittle other editors and discourage them. He removes valid, useful information for no apparent reason other than his own dislike. In the second one, he flagrantly insults the Kolkata Knight Riders franchise. In the last few, he claims to be writing better English and proceeds to make four very clumsy errors including '2105 season', a broken link and 'Kolokota'. He asserts that a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (used by the site for redirection) is something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. I believe this is another insult directed at Indian people. He refers to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. On his own talk page, he talks to User:Krish edits675, who is a new member (a 'newbie'). There has been disagreement and, I suspect, reverting each other's edits in cricket biographies, again about IPL. User:Krish was obviously concerned about edits being reverted and wrote to Blue Square Thing about it, though he was perhaps less polite than he could have been. Even so, there is no justification for [12] this insulting response, calling User:Krish a 'dick' and so on. It is, as I have found, a typical reaction by Blue Square Thing. Michri michri (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

I don't know what this is all about, but there's a related ANI thread here:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The outcome - Michri michri blocked as a sock. Thanks to all those who chipped in. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohammed Shami

Can anybody review this article, nominated by me for GA review? Cheers!

I think you have worn out any goodwill with your coordinated hounding of BST, so that will be a no.Spike 'em (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Given that the user is a sockpuppet too, I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations whether their GA nomination should just be rejected per WP:DENY. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Women's Cricket World Cup squad templates at TfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

About Nairobi Buffaloes

Hi all,

As far as I can see, this is (or maybe was) a T20 franchise in the East Africa Premier League.

Opinions - and hopefully good references - about this?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't seem to be listed at all at East Africa Premier League (maybe they were a franchise for a postponed season?) So definitely seems sensible to me to delete it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
According to Cricket Archive, they existed for about 2 months in 2011, playing about 20 matches. But all those matches have misc/other status. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The same user is also creating articles on non-notable players from this team. I have dropped them a note directing them to NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Mohammed Shami at GAN

Hello, all. This article was in the WP:GAN list and I noticed the nominator's name had been struck through. The block is indefinite so I've picked up the review and applied WP:GAFAIL. It can't be seen as stable and, as it happens, there have been recent disagreements. I could have asked if anyone here might want to take ownership of the nomination but, after reading the article, I decided to fail it anyway because it isn't at all well written and there's way too much statistics. So, that's it, but let me know if I can help with anything. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, there is a small discussion above about this, but the blocked editor and their previous incarnations seemed to be the only ones interested in promoting to GA, and other editors shared your concerns over the state of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Spike 'em. I'm sorry, I didn't see the discussion above. I've changed the title of this one to avoid duplication but by all means merge them if it will make things easier. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the GA nomination should be called off. A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

About notability

Hi all, Please share your thoughts about this cricket tournament of Nepal which has been organised by Cricket Association of Nepal. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cricinfo does seem to cover it so it does have that going for it. Without looking in detail I think the main article should be kept as it seems to be Nepal’s domestic List A league and Nepal have ODI status. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth and Fade258: Having ODI status doesn't mean the domestic tournaments have List A status. That's not how it works. Only the domestic tournaments of Test nations have official List A, First-class status. As of concern, the above tournament doesn't have that. Human (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@A Simple Human and CreativeNorth:, Thank you for your feedback. Should we assume this as a domestic first class tournament? Fade258 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Firstly thanks to human for correcting me. @Fade258: No First-Class is only for four day games of Test playing nations so this would not be considered a First-class or List A tournament respectively. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth:, Thanks for clarifiying me. Fade258 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
There will be enough coverage as cricket is a major sport in Nepal. The ICC are rumoured to be lining them up as the 13th Test nation in the coming decade. StickyWicket (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@AssociateAffiliate: You seem to be predicting future in your user page. Also the fact that you are confident Ireland will rank 8 in Test ranking which doesn't seem likely. Human (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The BCCI like balance, it's almost a certainty Nepal will be next (a vote for the Asian bloc). Ireland are a much stronger multi-day side. StickyWicket (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Ireland is stronger then Nepal but Nepal has also ability to get a chance- In my opinion. Fade258 (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@StickyWicket, rumor is not synonymous with Wikipedia. Provide a source before claiming anything. Hilarious. --Michri michri (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@AssociateAffiliate: You say that but by coincidence I saw this article the other day [3] showing how quick things can change. Nepal will probably have to do well in a couple of World T20s to grab the ICC’s attention. By the way what happened to that Kenya side that reached the World Cup semi finals? CreativeNorth (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: just reading that article and it couldn't have been more wrong in its predictions! "Europe, which boasts four of the five top ranked Associate members, will probably never contribute another Test country"... fast-forward 17 years to Ireland! Nepal has a strong case, but their big weakness is their board. For years it been going through loads of turmoil, to the point where they were suspended by the ICC for a while. India will certainly actively encourage their promotion. That Kenya side of 2003 was very good, a "golden generation" for sure. But then corruption and infighting between the board and player's struck and the rest, as they say, is history. StickyWicket (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@AssociateAffiliate: you are getting trapped in our own trap if I am right, my dear. Earlier you told that Nepal is going to be one of the test playing nations in near future, now you are telling that the probability is too negligible to be considered. Nothing but an exasperating farrago of your own thoughts. Michri michri (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah yet another sock puppet, based on the history of their account they’ll be back in a couple months. CreativeNorth (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we'll just need to monitor Mohammed Shami and see which ip / new editor starts to edit. Spike 'em (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, but not seeing any such newbie or IP address. I, myself, am a novice to Wikipedia. Really taken aback by your contributions, Spike 'em.A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion".

Same venue?

I'm wondering if the Alcoa Sports Club Ground and the Jamalco Sports Club Ground are the same venue? Although the Jamalco venue is in Kingston according to CA and CI, a search comes for that ground doesn't bring up any results in Kingston and actually shows it as being the same place as the Alcoa venue. Thoughts? StickyWicket (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally, If we open this link and check the history section then we find the following statement The home of the Jamalco Sports Club (formerly Alcoa Sports Club), the ground has played host to the Jamaica national cricket team for one major cricket match, a List A one-day match against the Windward Islands in the 1984–85 Geddes Grant/Harrison Line Trophy. Fade258 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I expect so; looks like a simple name change, probably after Alcoa sold their stake in Jamalco in 2014 [4]. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I did wonder when I could find no directory record for such a sports club existing in Kingston, seems CI and CA have gotten a little confused! StickyWicket (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hundred articles

I know The Hundred is barely cricket, but probably still worth asking here. Do we really need an article for every team in The Hundred in 2021 e.g. 2021 London Spirit season (and all the others linked from Template:The Hundred 2021 team's seasons). The articles have almost no prose text, and therefore is mostly just duplication of scorecards from 2021 season of The Hundred (and the prose text can be added to the team article e.g. London Spirit if not already there). I don't see a need for these, but would be good to get the views of others too. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep these and really gut the main article. If we didn't have these, I could see the value in having every single result scorecard in the main article, but I've always thought it's a bit much to have every single result in detail. However, as you say, those team specific articles are very light on prose, which needs remedying. – PeeJay 12:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing enough of the required depth of coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. not primary match reports and scorecards) that would support any substantial prose, so they seem like an utter failure of WP:NSEASONS to me; without prose they also fail WP:NOT (mirror, stats, etc.). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be better to keep these and really gut the main article. The main pages on the teams are really short, and so it would be better in my opinion to add more content to them, rather than having separate pages. Especially as the team histories are relevant to the team, and not just the season (and that's the main content in e.g. London Spirit article). And I agree with all the points raised above by Wjemather. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I meant gutting the main 2021 season of The Hundred article, not the main articles on the individual teams. – PeeJay 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Any chance we can just gut the entire tournament ;) StickyWicket (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Rather belatedly, I'd say my main issue with those articles is not their existence, but they're missing some useful information. That is: who signed when. There was an original auction, as I recall? But then they re-did some of it because of the pandemic? It would be useful to see which players were signed and let go. And then the issue I had last summer, keeping track of which players had been nabbed from counties mid-season. In that London Spirit article it has in the men's side Wheal, Wiese and Cracknell as "replacement players". For whom? When did they replace them? I know a lot of overseas players pulled out shortly before the tournament - they're not mentioned either. And there's no explanation of what the various designations in the notes mean, the squad size limit etc. 12:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC) HornetMike (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCRIC

What's going on with NCRIC? The shortcut goes to a section which makes no sense and just talks about umpires. I see someone has deleted it via that village pump shitshow. So they've constructively deleted most of it and left a sentence about an umpire, while claiming CRIN is not a guideline. Nah, it's a pointer toward what might be notable. Sadly, the same can't be said for half the articles created these days which are non-notable rubbish, like the above section. StickyWicket (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, following an RfC with at least 13 proposals, someone came to the conclusion that any appearance-based criteria is to be removed. Many sections are either completely removed or gutted so that random snippets are left. Spike 'em (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Link to the village pump proposal: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability. Proposal 3 was concluded to have reached consensus, which is to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation). Natg 19 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
So they completely remove everything and just leave a snippet about umpires. Now that's what I call constructive... *rolls eyes* StickyWicket (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Spike 'em, You're absolutely correct. A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
An excellent job by the deletionists to get rid of WP:NSPORT by the back door. Well done! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If I am not wrong then for notable he/she must played one match at high International level and must have significant coverage on reliable source. Fade258 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Which makes absolutely no sense, because most sportsmen play as part of a team and therefore there is unlikely to be much coverage specifically about them as an individual, outside of their participation in the team(s) matches. And as for playing at "high international level", it would mean that by these criteria the likes of James Hildreth and Jamie Porter aren't notable, when they quite clearly are. Meanwhile, there are hundreds are (auto)biographies of artists, actors and film-makers, whose notability rests entirely on their "participation" (exhibitions in art galleries, characters played in TV dramas and soaps). This decision is a total nonsense. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Richard3120, I have aslo some confusion regarding that new criteria for cricketer. In my opinion, for two articles which you have mentioned above, the new criteria will not be applied. Fade258 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. What makes Peter Trego (who's scored over 18,000 runs) less notable than Dhiraj Parsana just because the latter played in 2 Test's in the 70's and did nothing. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fade258: in fairness, I couldn't be bothered to spend 30 minutes reading the 13 proposals and their different arguments and counter-arguments, so I may be exaggerating and I hope that for cricketers, notability at least extends to first-class cricket. Regardless, the decision to exclude participation as a criterion for any sport, when participation is the entire basis for a career in sport, is ludicrous. Richard3120 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"I couldn't be bothered to spend 30 minutes reading the 13 proposals" - I think that's a very apt summary of what went on. Instead of just one proposal with a support/oppose choice, it soon went out of control, putting many editors off the whole thing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely Richard3120, I couldn't agree more with what you have said, it is a total nonsense! And with NCRIC having been deleted (apart from umpires which is odd), it literally means there are no guidelines so I could in theory create an article on myself, a humble former club cricketer and link the one time I got a mention in a local match report for a five-for!!! StickyWicket (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Not true; the guidelines are BASIC and GNG (which ultimately had to be met previously anyway). You could also have created that same article about yourself before (and the result would be the same). wjematherplease leave a message... 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Now we're going to get every man and his dog introducing non-notable cricketers and we have less line of defence because of this. People don't read GNG or even understand it, they tend to understand the first-class/List A/Twenty20 requirement. StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why that should be. Anyway, (if necessary) it shouldn't be too difficult to write a placeholder to prevent such things pending formulation of proper replacement criteria. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hang on. Does that mean right now there is no guideline against anyone creating articles for random Czech or Botswanan cricketers who played in a T20I because they are internationals since the ICC gave them all T20 status? CreativeNorth (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No, there is a guideline, and it is called WP:SIGCOV. It has worked in preventing spammy articles about corporations. It has worked in preventing spammy articles about all kinds of random nobodies popping up. It will probably work as well here. So unless this is an attempt at some form of scaremongering, it doesn't really make sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
"It shouldn't be too difficult to write a placeholder to prevent such things"... which is exactly what I did at NSPORTS but you reverted my edit??? And yes CreativeNorth, essentially it does mean that right now literally anyone can have an article as we don't have an inclusion criteria to fall back on and use an argument. StickyWicket (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
You restored participation based criteria which is explicitly what the RFC consensus determined to be removed. And no, such articles cannot be created now. The applicable biography guidelines are BASIC and GNG, as they were previously. wjematherplease leave a message... 00:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Instead of acting like the world just collapsed (which it didn't), it make be more productive to try to figure out the criticism that has been levelled at overly-broad criteria and try to make them more in line with GNG. Does anybody here dispute the fact that there are many instances of first class (and domestic T20/One-day) players not being notable? I could probably throw up a fair few examples from past AfDs.
  • What would make more sense would be A) to write a new guideline which is a good indicator of GNG and probably B) add some suggestions about which kind of sources should or shouldn't be consulted when writing cricket articles (for example, one should probably note that database statistics as can usually be gotten from Cricinfo are not sufficient to justify an article, although, for players who have full profiles written by the staff there - for ex. [5] - that can be used).
  • As for point A), "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" would likely be a good, practically-certain indicator (and the number of edge cases would be even lower, if there are any - even 3-game rather-average players from the 1930s have gotten full feature articles - something which probably cannot be said with confidence about all similar examples in first class or other more modern domestic competitions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, but as a result we now have clearly non-notable articles like Gagandeep Singh (cricketer, born 1991) being created and then when AfD'ed people withdrawing their delete vote because of changes to NSPORT. Far from making it harder to introduce non-notable individuals, it is having the opposite impact. StickyWicket (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    @AssociateAffiliate: And? That article, at the moment, looks like it is going to be deleted due to failing GNG. As do plenty of other articles about all sorts of people and organisations, all the friggin time (just look at AfD logs). So, if anything, this proves that GNG does the job just fine. I don't see what the problem is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    @RandomCanadian Earlier, no problem at all. but now following an RfC with at least 13 proposals, somebody came to the conclusion that any appearance-based criteria ought to be removed. Many sections are either entirely vacated or gutted so that random snippets are left. A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    The solution is to either A) rewrite NSPORTS entirely to do away with the notion of sport-by-sport criteria, and instead provide guidance to editors about which topics are generally and generally not likely to be notable, and which kind of sources should be used and which others should be avoided and so on so forth (a bit like WP:NCORP or WP:NASTRO); [but that's likely an unrealistic expectation] or B) rewrite the criteria so that the issues with them (and yes, there were significant issues with both the criteria themselves and how they are used in practiced) can be resolved. As you can see, I have proposed an alternative here ("Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation") which would be a more accurate indicator. One could possibly add an explanatory note Cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with you A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Test cricket countries seems okay to me (gets rid of anyone that plays minor T20 International cricket matches). For likely/possibly notable, we have the pretty well refined WP:OFFICIALCRICKET which could be use as an indicator of which players may be notable or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the above, would:

Proposal

Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they:

  • Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation
  • (for umpires) Have been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires

Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.

  1. ^ For both of these, a detailed listing of which leagues or competitions are more likely (or not) to have such coverage is maintained by the cricket wikiproject, see WP:OFFICIALCRICKET.

...be an acceptable improvement? If so, that should probably be proposed back at NSPORTS when the current dust storm settles down. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A technical point, but may want to clarify "Test-playing nation" to "Full Member nation". Makes the category a little more easily-definable, especially for women's teams - West Indies Women, for example, don't play Tests any more (although they are able to), but I'm assuming we're not doubting significant coverage there. The definition can then be easily linked to the relevant section of the ICC members article for anyone who isn't sure which teams fit the criteria. Mpk662 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The idea is that Test cricket predates the ICC's modern definition by a bit (and those players of the English cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1876–77 are generally notable, as one can see...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:OFFICIALCRICKET lists tournaments whose players are likely/possibly notable as well as likely not notable. This should be reflected in the text for "additionally" section. Also, this listed isn't exhaustive e.g. there are loads of regional Indian men's cricket tournaments whose players wouldn't be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Better? I thought the page made it clear by itself that some leagues are not notable, but of course there's no harm in making it clear here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this proposal looks promising and could be a starter for ten at other projects. You could compare with this proposal at WP:FOOTY. I'm guessing you're trying to reduce detail, which might be a good idea, but cricket isn't as simple a game as football. The variations all have top-class competitions.

Something that does occur to me is the overlap between domestic and international where you get fixtures like Queensland v India or Lancashire v Australia. OFFICIALCRICKET doesn't seem to cater for those. Just playing devil's advocate if I may, how would you rate an English player who played in half a dozen or more matches which were all first-class but only against touring teams, MCC and universities, never playing in the county championship (or in any limited overs game)? I think you're going the right way, but there's still maybe a few creases to be ironed out. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How many people will only ever play matches that are domestic team vs international team, and not any other domestic matches? I imagine it would be almost zero. In general, I think this proposal looks good at tightening the guidelines, and having domestic cricket as a maybe list seems sensible and less objectionable than listing them as "likely" or "presumed" notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
What would be the process to actually get this changed on WP:NSPORTS? Because if we don't change the guidelines at some point reasonably soon, then we're likely to end up with no guideline at all (as people keep on removing "participation-based" guidelines, and I cannot imagine it getting any better). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cr-IPL

Template:Cr-IPL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Human (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Batsman/Batter change

Given that the laws of cricket have removed instances of the word 'batsman' and replaced it with 'batter', with most major publications (incl. cricinfo) following suit, I'd propose a change in our style guide to shift from 'batsman' as preferred to 'batter' as preferred, as it both complies with the new laws of cricket and also helps contribute to gender equality in the way the sport is presented. Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussed on this page a few times before, most recently here; [6]. There was no consensus to adopt that change to the style then, but it could be looked at again. Chances are that most of the participants in that most recent discussion will retain their opinion though --Bcp67 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
For my view, I am fine with changing the style, batsman is a bit of an outlier when you think we use bowler, fielder etc with no regard to gender, but we do need to keep a historical perspective and not necessarily go updating every article to change batsman to batter. Compliance with the terminology of the laws is less of a persuasive argument for me, common usage may well be different - the laws refer to "dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries", but we know those as a "beamer", for example. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I retain my views from there: use batter for women's cricket articles, but for men's cricket articles, particularly historical biographies, the WP:COMMONNAME is batsman. Changing everything from batsman to batter is a massive WP:RECENTISM. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Per Joseph2302, who is spot on with his comment. We shouldn't be calling the likes of Bradman batters when they were known as batsman, to do so would be blatant WP:RECENTISM. StickyWicket (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That isn't really true. They were also known as batters at the time; e.g. "Bradman the batter", "The Batter – Don Bradman", "...the Englishmen, whose batters..." etc. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the rest of the discussion, but that last article linked seems to be a humourous piece reporting on cricket using baseball terminology, so the use of "batter" there doesn't really show much (it also uses "base-stealing" and "curve pitchers" which I'm sure we'll agree are not cricketing terms) Spike 'em (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
True, true. Unfortunately, I didn't take any notice of the context – I simply took the first three search results. However, the point still stands, and similar examples can be found whichever country or era you look at, in both newspapers and books. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, was a minor quibble Spike 'em (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The approach taken by ESPNcricinfo seems sensible. They are not revising previously published articles, but new pieces on their site use batter as an all encompassing term. Obviously, for Wikipedia the situation is slightly different since all articles are effectively live documents rather than fixed. A practical compromise would be to use batter for modern players, and leave things as they are for biographies of historical players, and to do this on an ongoing basis rather than changing things en masse. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Combermere

This isn't about the AFD discussion; or the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. Feel free to steer clear of them if you want to. ☺

The article currently has a list of "Notable alumni", which it is sourcing to the cricinfo database. Cricket editors could do so much better than that, based upon the aforementioned book. Professor Sandiford devotes 40 pages of running prose just to people who played cricket, at the school and later.

You could probably get a whole "Cricket nursery" section out of this; not just a mere list of players, but running prose discussions of their rôles within the school. For examples: Frank Collymore playing against Pickwick II and others (Sandiford 1998, pp. 114–116) and Derek Sealy's return to the school as a staff member (Sandiford 1998, pp. 118–120).

And yes, the same goes for Harrison College (Barbados)#Notable alumni and The Lodge School from the other chapters as well, probably.

Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Test capitalization

Why do we so often have capped "Test match" (and even "Test Match") in WP cricket articles? I don't see that so much in sources; that is, capping test seems to be "unnecessary" capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Uh, it absolutely IS the common way of writing "Test" in almost any reliable source you care to mention, in any cricket-playing country: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I agree that "match" should not be capitalised, though. Richard3120 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Definitely it's the most common way, especially in the last 10 years, per these n-grams stats. Why the recent burst of caps popularity, after so many decades of about half capped? But the question is more about whether caps are "necessary", as opposed to "common". It's especially more capped in the specialist cricket sources than in more general sources; do they not see it the same way cricket specialists do? How/why did it get capped in the first place? It's not a proper name, is it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Dicklyon. I once asked the same question here myself. As far as I can see, the British media is pretty much 50/50 between test and Test. The project here have gone for Test, probably because of the specialist sources you mention, like the Wisden Almanack. As for origin, I don't know, and why the word Test anyway for an international match? Good old English eccentricity, I suppose. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I was wondering what might have caused the shift in capping proportion in books, starting about 15 years ago. Could it have been this edit? The article started out with lowercase test. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
My admittedly subjective impression is that throughout the 60-odd years that I've been following the game, the capitalised form has been much the more common in the cricket books and newspaper articles that I've read. JH (talk page) 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe the term "test/Test match" originated in Australia in the 1880s or 1890s, but was soon also adopted in England. I prefer the capitalised form. Any high-standard match could be described as a "test match" in the sense of testing the players, whereas "Test" emphasises that the term has a specific meaning, applying only to international red-ball, non-over-limited matches between two teams that represent countries which are Full Members of the ICC. JH (talk page) 08:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Style advice has said to use Test as long as I've been editing. The content of that page was moved from the main project page about a year ago, but looking through its history, it's been like this since 2005 Spike 'em (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
And there was a prior discussion to formalise this. Spike 'em (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes there was; I acknowledge that expressed preference expressed in 2005. I wonder if Wikipedia's consistent capping of Test is what influenced sources to move toward more capping in subsequent years. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This thread got off on a doubtful premise. Although "necessary" is the general criterion in WP:MOSCAPS, for sports events it seems to be "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources". Thincat (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Certainly names of specific events are capped. But is a test match a specific event, or a just an event type? And which sources are "independent"? Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess for the same reason the other two international formats are in caps. IE One Day International, not one day international, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it though? Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that graph is trying to show, but the ICC uses capitals on Test, One Day International and Twenty20 International. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
They also cap Full Members, Member Countries, Full Member Teams, and other "specialist" stuff that we would not cap in WP. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone check newspapers.com to see how common capitalisation was in newspaper reports in the past before the internet? Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I've always seen it capitalised and often come across it in lowercase and change it. The ICC and the MCC both say Test, so as the governing body and the custodian of the laws of cricket use a capital, I too think we should use it as our standard. Also, I'm yet to see a copy of Wisden where lowercase is used. StickyWicket (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I can see in this article [15] a copy of the Daily Mirror's report on the 1981 Headingley Test, and they use capital letters. So capitalisation certainly isn't a result of either the internet or Wikipedia. I'd thought capitalisation of Test had been around for decades, but I know the mind can play tricks, so I wanted to obtain evidence. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I searched newspapers.com for "test match" in British papers from 1946 to 1970, excluding Radio/TV programme listings, sentence starts, specific matches (and rugby). So, over nine out of ten I manually excluded. Here are the first five I hit.[16][17][18][19][20] Even in general references to this type of cricket I think "test" was always capitalised and "match" was lower case. I got the feeling that for specific matches both words tended to be capitalised, "test" always so. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Good finds. I wonder why book stats are so mixed. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We should at least downcase Test Match to Test match, right? There are nearly a thousand articles with that. Note that Batting average (cricket) has "(First Class, one-day, Test Matches, List A, T20, etc.)" with lowercase "one-day", too. Many of the "Test Match" caps may be OK, though e.g. perhaps in "England–New Zealand Test Match"? (nope) Is that a "specific event" or a description of a recurring event? Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've always used "Test match", I don't think "match" should be capitalised. StickyWicket (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking through my copies of Wisden, it's always wrote as "Test match" and not "Test Match". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I've always seen "Test match" in reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The style guide says to use "first-class cricket" and "one-day cricket" as general terms, but "One Day International" / ODI. I've edited the batting average segment above to reflect that. Spike 'em (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I tried the search you mentioned, it complained about the result size, but many of them fall into a couple of areas: rugby internationals, which I guess you'd need to take up with the rugby project, and titles of references within cite templates that are using some form of Camel Case. There are also some links to Test Match Special, which is the proper name of a radio program. I'll have a look at AWBing away any occurrences of [[Test cricket|Test Match]] and see if there is much left related to cricket. Spike 'em (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Vijay Shankar page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Domestic team's winners as templates

Do we need to have templates for the winning squads of domestic competitions? It seems like we have templates for the winning squads for every winner of the men's BBL, women's BBL, English (Women's Super League (KSL), RHF Trophy and Charlotte Edwards Cup (all the templates with Champions in the name in the categories that I've linked). Are any of those needed- to me they seem like needless clutter? Example in case people are confused would be Template:Sydney Sixers 2016–17 WBBL Champions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Def. feels like clutter, esp. for T20 franchise leagues. You could get a prolific player, with a career spanning 10 to 15 years, playing in dozens and dozens of leagues, and being part of multiple winning teams. Winning domestic squad templates are not needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd get rid of them as well, they don't seem particularly useful. Imagine if the Yorkshire and Surrey articles had templates of their squads for every time they won the Championship... Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I'd get rid of all of those. Winning a domestic title isn't worth having a navbox for. – PeeJay 10:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

TFDs started: BBL/WBBL ones, English women's cricket ones (these don't show up in the cricket article alerts, as the template talkpages are blank). Feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Imran Khan (the cricketer)

I had a request on my talk page inquiring if Wikipedia has any photos of Imran Khan from his cricketing days. I looked around and could find none. I remember there used to be one of him lifting the 1992 World Cup trophy but it got deleted. It would be really great if someone could find a decent photo and upload it, provided it meets the licensing requirements on Commons of course. Mar4d (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mar4d, I found only these two pictures rather then his cricketing days.[[File:Imran Khan.jpg]] and [[File:Konferenz Pakistan und der Westen - Imran Khan.jpg]]. Is this fine? Fade258 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Fade258 Thanks, I'm aware of that. I should have worded it better; what I meant was a photo of Imran Khan from his cricketing days. Preferably one of him playing cricket e.g. batting or bowling, or on the cricket field. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Mar4d, Thanks for clarifying me. Fade258 (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Hey, Mar4d! I've looked and found a fair few bit of images of Imran Khan during his cricketing days. To clarify, you mentioned that you wanted a picture of him holding the 1992 CWC Trophy. There are some copyrighted images here, here, and here. There are also some free images from Getty Images, here, although I reckon you may have to get rid of the Getty Images tag (try using Photoshop, works best for me)! Cheers, ----WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, here you stated that you also wanted a picture of Khan bowling or batting. There are some images here, here, and here. Also, mentioned in my previous reply, there are dozens of other images of Khan bowling/batting. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
surely all of the photos you have listed are copyrighted, and hence not useable on Wikipedia? The whole reason the Getty ones have watermarks is because they want to sell them, and removing the watermark is violating their copyright. Spike 'em (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I assumed that was the reason for the original request – Mar4d could only find copyrighted images on the internet, and not any photos that violate WP:IUP, and was therefore asking for help finding images in the public domain. Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the good faith effort, WellThisIsTheReaper. But yes, I meant exactly what Spike 'em and Richard3120 have said. It would be nice to get any free-use image/s. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, Spike 'em, Richard3120, and Mar4d, I'll look for some free images on other sites which don't violate copyrighting issues. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
There are some images on Flickr that can be used (per WP:FIR) such as here, here, and here. Some images of Khan bowling or batting can be found here, here, and here. I hope these will find useful to you. Cheers! --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Those are all fully copyrighted aren't they? FIR suggests a public domain search on Flickr - that wouldn't turn up those images. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
All of those Flickr images say "all rights reserved" in the copyright status. They'd need to be on Flickr with a CC licence to be usuable on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, at least two of those images probably don't belong on Flickr as the uploader doesn't seem to be the photographer. For this one the EXIF indicates that it originally came from Getty and that the photographer was Ben Radford. While it is possible that 'Parisien' is Ben Radford, it seems unlikely that they would have copied the file from Getty to upload to Flickr if they had on original version. Similarly, with this photo the copyright is credited to EMPICS Sports Photo Agency rather than the uploader.
Flickr's search function allows you to search for images with Creative Commons licences suitable for Wikimedia Commons (ie: allowing modifications and commercial use), but it doesn't turn up anything for Imran Khan. Even if it did, it would be worth checking the EXIF data to be sure.
OpenVerse can be also useful for searching for media under an open licence, but doesn't turn up anything like what Mar4d asked for. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Check Article

Hey, can anyone check if this article here meets B-class criteria? Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

WellThisIsTheReaper, In my opinion, we need to improve this article as I found some words are repeated as they convey same meaning. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea how that exists. How is that tournament any more significant than Oman's domestic tournament to have article? Because it's from glorious USA? What are those "MiLC debut" on the score summaries? Human (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. It's a load of non notable teams (a few of which seem to have articles, but I'd argue about that too) playing a minor cricket competition. Its existence does seem like a WP:BIAS, as we wouldn't have similar league articles for non-US countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I did recently PROD several Kenyan domestic tournaments, and this tournament falls under the same bracket at those. StickyWicket (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm all okay for a single article about the overall tournament. But having season articles for these types of tournaments doesn't seem right. Human (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: This tournament is apparently a second tier tournament just like many of the American franchise sports leagues. I would've understood if it was Major League Cricket which has significant media coverage and is being funded by billionaires. Human (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

2021 Minor League Cricket season squads at AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I know it is irrelevant, but was surprised to see a Danish flag, and a name I didn't recognise, looks like Muhammad Shah might be German, smh. --Moedk (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
There have certainly been Danish cricketers before – those of us of a certain age will be familiar with Ole Mortensen's long career at Derbyshire. For me, the Czech flag/player was a bigger surprise. Richard3120 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but I should know or at least recognise the name of any Dane playing on that level, hence the surprise. And my "smh" was for doing the work of making that page, and then not making sure the nationalities were right. Moedk (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Fwiw a player with that name (and nationality; and birth date...) seems to be playing for two sides. Whether it's the same chap or two chaps with different names... I had heard of the Czech bloke - I think he did something significant fairly recently. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Photos of cricket grounds

With the English county season beginning, it's that time of year again to ask people to dust off their cameras and take some photos of these missing grounds. Happy snapping! StickyWicket (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Tables of international centuries by women cricketers

A disruptive editor has challenged the "no consensus" result of this discussion about tables in cricket biography articles by removing from both Alex Blackwell and Smriti Mandhana a section setting out the international centuries scored by the relevant player.

Both of these players are well known specialist batters who have played in all three formats of the international women's game, including by scoring at least three international centuries. One of them was also both the captain and vice captain of her international team, and the other is currently the vice captain of another international team in one of the international formats it plays.

Both of the disruptive editor's removals have been reversed by me, and one of them has also been reversed by a third editor. However, as well as claiming, inaccurately, that there was a consensus for the removal of tables from biography articles, the disruptive editor is now insisting that the disruptive removals be discussed here.

Frankly, I can't see what the fuss is all about.

Both of the deleted sections were modelled exactly on the equivalent section in Meg Lanning, which has been there for a long time. Additionally, for more than a century now, the scoring of an international century or the bagging of an international five-wicket haul has been a well known benchmark for excellence in cricket. If any editor doesn't believe me about that, then I would rely upon the photo at right, which I personally took at the MCG some 14 years ago. It depicts the honour board to which the name and achievement of every male Australian player who either scores a Test century or bags a five-wicket haul at the MCG is added.

There is, also in my view, no relevant difference between a table of international centuries in a biography of a cricketer and a table of grand slam performances in a biography of a tennis player (eg Martina Navratilova) or a table of performances in Grands Prix and other major international car races by well known race car drivers (eg Niki Lauda), or even lesser known international drivers (eg, relevantly, Jamie Chadwick, who is female). There are lots of other sections of tables I could refer to, eg in biographies of golfers, movie stars, etc, but the articles about tennis players and race car drivers are more than sufficient to make my point.

The disruptive editor contends, however, that such tables should not be included in any biography of a cricketer without some "context", and refers to Wally Hammond. Quite apart from the fact that such a contention was raised, and achieved "no consensus", in the discussion linked above, I think it is a ridiculous suggestion. No such context is provided or required in the tennis player or race car driver articles. Why should it be required in cricketer biographies?

I have looked at the Wally Hammond article, and also at various freestanding "list" articles of tables of international centuries and five wicket hauls by numerous male cricketers. Much of the so-called "context" on those pages is, in my view, best described as "prose cruft" that I and many other readers of such pages wouldn't even bother to read. If a cricketer has played international matches, and has scored at least three international centuries, what further context is required than what is in the infobox, which expressly states the number of international centuries? One of the very reasons for including tables in such biographical articles is to spare the reader the onerous task of trawling through the sort of "prose cruft" that the disruptive editor is insisting must be included.

The disruptive editor even refuses to stop there, and is also contesting other aspects of the tables, and in particular the inclusion of flag images and links to the grounds, teams played against, etc.

I repeat, the tables the disruptive editor has deleted are modelled exactly upon an existing table section in the Meg Lanning article. That section is entirely consistent with the tables in numerous "List of international cricket centuries ..." or similar list articles about male cricketers all over Wikipedia, many of which are classified as "featured lists". So why is the disruptive editor picking on Alex Blackwell and Smriti Mandhana? Is it because both of those players are female, and therefore haven't scored as many international centuries as many male cricketers? Surely the fact that so many articles featuring relevantly identical tables have already been dubbed "featured lists" puts paid to any suggestion that such tables must be removed or modified, doesn't it? Bahnfrend (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly this has nothing to do with women cricketers. The same rule applies to any cricketer article.
The consensus was, as I've explained already, that there is a place for tables if they have context. The actual close of the RfC linked to above is here, not the unclosed discussion. There the closer says There does, however, seem to be a pretty clear agreement from most participants that swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia... (their emphasis). I am entirely happy to have tables of centuries (or many other things) if there is context because that's what the RfC close says.
Wrt flags - well, MOS:FLAGS. With regard to overlinking, for example, to London or United Kingdom, well - WP:OLINK - what not to link. I'm not contesting at all links to grounds or teams played against. I deliberately linked to the Wally Hammond article for you on one of our talk pages. That includes both. Why on earth would I do that if I wanted to not include those things? (and, btw, the Hammond list exists on the article page because the list article it was included on was deleted by consensus - as were a number of others.
I would imagine that all of the featured lists alluded to have context. And I doubt they use flags inappropriately.
And, you know, naming me would be helpful rather than terming me "a disruptive editor". I do a fair bit of work on cricket articles and it would be nice to assume some good faith - as I think I've tried to do in the discussions on both of our talk pages (your talk; my talk). Where, rather than insisting on it being discussed here, I suggested that you bring it here because it was a while since the RfC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd hardly call BST, one of the most conscientiousness contributors to this project, a "disruptive editor". StickyWicket (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Where a player has scored just a handful of centuries in their career, I see no merit in having a stats table in the main article. It just looks bulky and should be discussed in the prose. Where a player has scored a significant amount of international centuries (25 should be noteworthy), again they should not be included as a list in the main player article as it looks bulky and just not good, these should be discussed in the main body of text as summarised sections. What I'm not against is separate lists being created for, say 25 international centuries, provided they have context and a lead which summarises the list contents sufficiently so as not to stray purely in WP:NOTSTATS territory. StickyWicket (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Back in the day, there was a proliferation of multiple tables in cricket biographies, including centuries, five-wicket hauls, player of the match and player of the series awards. In virtually all cases, there was no explination behind the table, with it just being another way to display x player had done x in a given match/series. The worst examples of these were on bios of Associate cricketers when the article was a stub. I seem to recall several Hong Kong or PNG cricketers who had three or four tables on the page and a single line of text to say they were a cricketer. It looked ridiculous. Further more, there was a core group of editors (not really part of the project, per say) who were obsessed in adding these tables the very second x player reached one of these "achievements". I think WP:NOTSTATS sums it up about not just dumping unexplained data into articles. It does mention tables, but if there are just bare stats that look pretty, they still have zero context. A bit of prose is the solution. Or a stand-alone featured list, if an individual has made a lot of centuries. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    And to show it's not female articles being targeted, I removed a similar list from Cheteshwar Pujara's article yesterday. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Jean Paul (cricketer)

Hi all, this article was recently PRODed due to not having any sources. I've had a quick look for sourcing other than the basic database sourcing and not found much (searching has been difficult due to JP (Jean Paul) Duminy). Would be great if we can find some sourcing to save it having to go to AfD, as there's not really a redirect here due to him playing for 3 notable teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I've thrown the two standard sources at it for starters and sorted out the errors, oddities and linked some stuff. The links are worth following - there's a bunch of stuff, like the West Indies A squad, that really needs sorting out. And curiously we have an article on the WI A tour of Sri Lanka that he played on. Reckon there's more out there - I'll come back to it later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, that was fairly tricky - you moan about JP Duminy - I got a hit with Jean Paul Gaultier's name in it... I'm not sure there's much more out there. A rumour on a set of comments from a few years ago suggested that he'd lost the passion for cricket and was now in the police. If anyone fancies following that up. It seems it's a lot easier finding stuff about New Zealanders from 100 years ago than it is for chaps who played this century sometimes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your work BST, I imagine this will satisfy the PRODer who seemed more concerned about there being no sources more than anything. Hopefully somebody else might be able to find a bit more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't find any news articles or police press releases from Dominica about him being a cop now. StickyWicket (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this at the time, but note the following on the PROD-er's user talk page: They appear to have tried to take to AfC submissions wihch have been declined for being hoaxes, unnecessary drafts which have gone unnoticed and dormant, errant taggings, and other more minor nonsense. Some people are here to build a project. Others, as I see it, you can actively question their motives. Bobo. 19:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We are on Reddit!

Hi all. Just to let you know we are now on r/cricket as 'Wikiproject Cricket'. I'll be posting membership drives, article expansion appeals, and other things like 'Random Cricket Article of the Day', which will highlight one cricket page per day. If you'd like your page featured, or have any other suggestions, drop me a message. StickyWicket (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A chuckle

Sometimes there's a break in in the bog-standard vandalism and endless IPL reverts, and you get gems like this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I do like stumbling across vandalism like that! Although, I could have sworn they were talking about this guy!!! StickyWicket (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Ha - I was reading that page earlier! I really like this: "2010 season was followed by 2 mediocre seasons for Pollard. In 2011 the only highlight was his brilliance in the field". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think consistently below-average would sum his career up. I do look at the Mumbai Indians scorecards and see Pollards name and wonder why?! StickyWicket (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually Das was trolled and given ironically "honorific titles" in Bangladesh for his off form early in his international career. This is a common subcontinental type of humor which can exceed levels at times. The IP must be from Bangladesh. Now he is doing good though and the IP seems to have a personal issue with the player. Human (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Geolocates to Toronto, but given the diaspora there they could be from anywhere in South Asia easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Jack or John?

Following the death of Jack Rutherford (cricketer), should the article be at Jack or John? Obit states John, but other sources show Jack. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally, I am not sure about that, but following websites stated Jack not the John [21], [22], [23], except this scorecard, and this online news portal. Have a look Lugnuts. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Of those links, [24] is definitely for a different person (a current English player who plays for Bishop Auckland Cricket Club by the looks of it). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The PCB sources are essentially mirrors of CricketArchive aren't they? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be tempted towards John on the sources I've seen. The West Australian - so a regional source - called him John in an article in 2013 so I think that tends to tip me towards John. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I've always known him as Jack, but sources do point toward John, so as with BST, I'm heading in that direction. StickyWicket (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all. I agree the PCB links are mirrors of CA. I'll leave this open for a bit, and if there's no objection, I'll do a bold move, but no issue if anyone wants a full WP:RM. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Cricket Australia have John as his name in his obit, along with other Australian news sources. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ollie Robison page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Naming Big Matches

Currently Big Match articles do not have a uniform naming system. Royal–Thomian follows School A–School B format while some others follow School A–School B Cricket Encounter titling. Eg. Richmond–Mahinda Cricket Encounter, Trinity–Antonian Cricket Encounter. The rest of them have really interesting nicknames. Eg. Battle of the Saints (cricket), Battle of the Rocks, Battle of the Hindus, Battle of the North (cricket match). I believe these nickname titles, and "encounter" titles are way too poetic for an encyclopedia. I think a more neutral School A–School B format should be adopted across all articles. Hope to reach a consensus here to move forward. There are no precedents either, Oxford–Cambridge is called the The University Match (cricket), Eton–Harrow is called Eton v Harrow. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chanakal: There needs to be some uniformity with the names here where possible, though if WP:COMMONNAME applies, we should retain how the matches are most commonly known. Though with regard to The University Match, it has been known by that name since 1827. I'm also wondering if some of the above Sri Lankan school matches meet WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Are these matches actually notable? They're mostly matches between secondary school (high school) teams, not convinced they pass WP:GNG. Very few youth school matches of any sport will be notable, and on a cursory look, these don't look notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The Royal–Thomian match is probably the closest equivalent of the Harrow v Eton match, so I'd guess without looking right now that there are enough sources out there for that one. But the others, I don't think they cut it. StickyWicket (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I've started to PROD some of these. StickyWicket (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

George Gamble

Can anyone find an obit for this guy? I was surprised to find 1949 Wisden doesn't have an entry for him. StickyWicket (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked the other day and couldn't find very much. I'll add in CricketArchive as he played Lancs League as well - so there's almost certainly coverage in the area in local print. Presumably also some form of WWI service given his age and that he played in Lancs in 1919. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
There are some references to him outside of scorecards in the 1906 editions of Cricket - a search on Gamble is surprisingly effective. I don't have time to dig any further right now, but there may be more in the other editions - gettable to from the ACS website. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: Thanks for that, still shocked he doesn't have an obit! On another note, Cricket newspaper doesn't have an article on here. Do you think it should have one? StickyWicket (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot this was here - got distracted yesterday with a New Zealander. I'm not sure if it's worth an article on its own. It may well be but I'm not sure where we'd find sources or the sorts of notability criteria that are needed for magazines. It strikes me that it probably is notable though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added it to the to do list here. StickyWicket (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

RfD

This RfD has been relisted. Some opinions would be welcome. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_5#County_Championship_Division_Two_Current_Table --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Another RfD

Hi. Following on from a recent AfD, please see this discussion. Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A Team tour at AfD

No, not that A-Team, but this one. I love it when an AfD comes together... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If this tour has been tagged as a AFD then those articles which are falls under this category also needs an AFD. In my opinion. Fade258 (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess it has more to do with the updated WP:NCRIC. Those articles in the category were created before the update. Human (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Some of those pages look OK, and would probably pass WP:GNG. I'm not going to do a batch-nom right now, but I will look at each one over the next few weeks. I see several have been created by the editor who created the page at AfD, along with an editor who was blocked for being a sock. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Associate cricket season template

Hi all, Can we create this template {{subst:Associate cricket in 2022}} as there is other template for full nation team i.e {{subst:International cricket in 2022}}? If we aren't able to add the international series relating to associate cricket in International cricket in 2022 then I thought that we can create that template which I had mentioned above which are in red. Thoughts will be welcomed. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Cricket poetry

The current article is at AfD. It needs a complete rewrite and could be an interesting article on cricket in poetry, or something similar along those lines. Not really my area, but leaving it here if someone fancies a challenge! StickyWicket (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There once was a fielder from Nantucket... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
...who caught a full toss in a bucket... Topcardi (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Olympian Notability

I'm reviewing our articles on early Olympians, and I was hoping you would be able to help find sources that show the following Olympic Cricketers meet WP:GNG. For the moment, I've tagged them with notability; if you can find sources, feel free to remove the tag otherwise I will do so.

Britain

  1. Arthur Birkett
  2. Frederick Cuming
  3. Montagu Toller
  4. Alfred Bowerman
  5. Alfred Powlesland
  6. Harry Corner
  7. Francis Burchell
  8. George Buckley (cricketer, born 1875)

France

  1. William Anderson (cricketer, born 1859)
  2. William Attrill
  3. John Braid
  4. W. Browning
  5. Robert Horne (cricketer)
  6. Arthur MacEvoy
  7. Douglas Robinson (French cricketer)
  8. H. F. Roques
  9. Alfred Schneidau
  10. Philip Tomalin

BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the inclusion criteria on Olympians these days? (I seem to remember it has changed..?) I deprodded the one I set up without checking here first, sorry! Bobo. 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Personally as Toller and Bowerman have played FC cricket for Somerset, I believe they should go through the AfD process (given we've been able to improve a number of articles that have had discussions on them), and so have dePRODed them. Suitable alternatives to deletion can also be found that way if we don't find enough for GNG coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
That's reasonable; I'll bring them to AFD soon. BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Medallists are covered by WP:NOLYMPICS, unless they medalled in an event where all participants received medals. And entirely understandable; a lot of editors, even those paying close attention to the discussions, have missed a few of the many recent changes. BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I usually check them, and excluded a few from the list based on their Olympedia entries, but I didn't realize the significance of that detail; I've struck them for now, but I will need to look into them further later. BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Well they've pretty much all now been Prod'd, along with these two sent to AfD:

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There will be a section on both Toller and Bowerman in the first volume of the Somerset Cricketers series of books: I have volumes two and three with me here, but cannot see my copy of Volume One, and it's likely that it is elsewhere and that I won't be able to retrieve it for a couple of weeks, perhaps a bit longer. This series has an essay (usually 1,000 words or more) on every individual Somerset player, and there's no reason to suspect Toller and Bowerman will be any different. I'd be confident that would answer concerns about WP:SIGCOV; I've lost sight of where we are with WP:GNG, but my own view would be that an Olympic gold medallist and first-class cricketer should pass any notability test. Johnlp (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources and an alternative approach

So it seems that some work has been done on these blokes - and certainly there are articles from the fairly recent past in The Times - I've not got access to other archives - that deal with them in general terms. For example this article (which may be paywalled) from 7 July 1984 (p. 30) tells us some details, although not a huge amount. In other sources I think I can find Toller, for example, playing rugby and in the amateur golf championship (playing under East Brighton's colours). Searches rely on surnames though, which are not generally all that easy to do as you end up, in most cases, with scads of hits (Toller in the Time gives me >5,500 for example).

The Times article writes about an article in Sports Quarterly Magazine by John Goulstone and David Terry which might be worth someone who has Athens access trying to dig out perhaps.

Would a better approach be to redirect almost all of these to the article about cricket at the 1900 Olympics and to include the pen portraits we have of them in that article - perhaps as a table, perhaps in some other form (such as the stuff at this old CricInfo list)? This preserves the article history should a large amount of detail emerge about them and ensures that the details we do know are preserved properly. Thoughts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Cricinfo list is a little out of date by now. Beachcroft has had a whole book published about him since then. https://www.amazon.co.uk/One-lifes-great-charmers-well-loved/dp/0954396723 Topcardi (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
And all these are now at AfD...

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that. In the future, if you believe a redirect is the most appropriate option, I do not mind if you remove the prod and instead redirect the article - examples like Frederick Cuming, where a redirect is not suitable due to the existence of Frederick Cuming (artist), can be discussed at RFD or an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a tabular squad list on these articles with brief biographical details about each player, like in List of English cricketers (1826–1840), and those who fail CRIN and GNG can be redirected there? StickyWicket (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I would think that's doable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Christ Church Ground

Hello all. I'm looking to rewrite and expand this article in the summer. I'm wondering if anyone might have better luck than me finding its year of establishment? It seems John Peel (priest) was influential in its establishment [25] and he attended Oxford between 1817 and 1828. Peel was president of the Christ Church Cricket Club. So my guess would be sometime between those dates, while CA has 1850 for the first recorded match. StickyWicket (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

KFC Big Bash category at CfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ganguly–Durjoy Trophy

Isn't this fake ? The series was not named after them. There are no major sites (cricinfo, major newspapers etc) that talk about it. If you check whatever links are there, including the two in the article, they talk about demands by certain people to name the trophy after the two, that is about it. Tintin

Good spot - I've had a look for more info, and found nothing about it. The first source in the article is Sportskeeda, which has been flagged up before as a non-reliable source. The articles states for the (then) upcoming series - "There have been demands that the series, which will see a reprise in 2020 when India tour Bangladesh, be named after two retired captains from the two countries – Sourav Ganguly and Naimur Rahman Durjoy" and nothing more. I reckon it was created in good faith, but someone jumped the gun thinking that an idea to name a trophy equated to the trophy actually existing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Will raise an AfD. Tintin 05:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Tintin1107: - I assume you're busy in real life, so I've listed this at AfD myself. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganguly–Durjoy Trophy. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Tintin 09:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Rassie van der Dussen

Hi. Rassie van der Dussen has taken a solitary ODI wicket and just five wickets in 130 f/c matches. Another editor believes that his bowling figures should be displayed. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Either is arguable I suppose. He's bowled in 18 first-class innings in 133 matches, so it's not something he does regularly at all. The fact he's taken wickets might swing it the other way - I imagine that if the List A column had been left in instead of T20I that there might be more of an argument for their inclusion perhaps. But only just. On the whole, there's no need to include them here.
But I'm increasingly reaching the conclusion that the majority of the stats in infoboxes are really problematic. And there are hundreds (probably thousands) of articles with massively out of data stats. Certainly balls bowled seems daft to include, and I think I'm now in a position where I'd actually like to see it cut back to matches, runs and wickets only Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Comme ci comme ça. As BST says, there are arguments both ways, and personally I think it's one of those not worth arguing about, but rather shrugging and letting it be. It might be better one way or the other, but it doesn't really matter. I also agree, and have long argued, that the infoboxes should be heavily cut down anyway. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Was there not talk years ago about having a bot update stats in infoboxes? StickyWicket (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the lack of consistency with how they're recorded - both in infoboxes and, at times, in sources - I'm not sure that's actually possible to do is it? A lot of early cricketers in particular, the stats are recorded oddly at CricInfo and CricketArchive won't be usable for this job I presume. Add to that the articles with Youth Test or ICC Trophy stats in them and things get more complicated again I imagine. It might be doable, but seems unlikely.
There are, fwiw, 19,194 instances of the matches1 parameter being used (but more than 19,200 instances of columns being used - which is odd but sort of exemplifies the problem) so it's a lot of articles to check manually, even once. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't just talked about, it actually happened for a while: User:Sambot. But the operator retired (or, looking at some contribs from a couple years ago, opted for a clean start). With CA going full paywall it's gonna be hard to do now, as I can't imagine ESPN would be okay with scraping their pages... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
On the subject of infoboxes, I'm wondering if we should change "competition" to "format"? We only ever put Test/ODI/T20I/FC/LA/T20 as column titles, so I'm assuming "competition" stems from the early days of the infobox when people might put "County Championship" or "Sheffield Shield" under the columns format. Thoughts? StickyWicket (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, strongly agree that "Format" is significantly better than "Competition" here. That said, does it even need anything? It was blank when we first had it, and the first couple of years, with it just kind of assumed that, being column headers, they were implicitly understood as separated formats. Eh. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a need for anything really, does there? Fwiw there are more than 50 variations that have been used for those columns, although those include all the possible ways to vary first-class cricket - of which, I can assure you, there are many. You do sometimes see odd things, like Halifax Cup for instance, but they are minimal. Under-19 stuff and ICC Trophy is more common, but those aren't entirely unreasonable headings. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I've always been of the view that only Test/ODI/FC/LA/T20I/T20 in that order should be in an infobox, and by changing 'competition' to 'format' it would better match that. I don't think there is any need for matches which NCRIC doesn't deem to be notable to be listed in an infobox. StickyWicket (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Magdalen Ground location?

Hi all. I'm updating some cricket-related articles in Oxford. While making a start on expanding the Magdalen Ground article, I wondered if we might have the location of the ground wrong? Presently it is geolocated here to a cricket ground used by the Magdalen College School. Discussing the Magdalen Ground, Ranjitsinhji mentions the Thames being nearby and the College School using the ground. This ground is located on an island of the River Cherwell. However, Ranjitsinhji also mentions the ground originating from Cowley Common, while other sources say Cowley Marsh – both seemingly the same thing and way to the south. Another possibility, which CA seems to have settled on, is the ground being the Magdalen College Recreation Ground, used specifically by the OU college which is geolocated here. Again, this appears to be some way off the Cowley Marsh location. Newspapers from the 1820s–1870s simply refer to the address as 'Magdalen Ground, Cowley Marsh', so doesn't really give any clues there! Anyone able to offer anything in the way of a definitive location? Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The last one seems the best guess - the turn of the century OS map has that marked but I can't find a sensible alternative. Unless it was only established after that? Here's the map. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The Boy's Own Annual of 1897 seems to support the second option too, stating that before The Parks were used, "a ground known as the 'Magdalen Ground', and belonging to that college" was used. StickyWicket (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure it was here. As marked "Magdalen College Cricket Ground" on this 1900 map. By the time of the map Blue Square Thing linked, it had been turned into allotments. It is now housing, but "Cricket Road" survives just to the south. This location ties in with lots of written descriptions of the ground I have found; the Church of St Mary and St John is described as being alongside the ground, as is what is now St John's Care Home. It is also described as being at the Oxford end of the "Cowley Marshes" triangle, and the other colleges then took grounds moving further away from Oxford. It looks like it was still a cricket ground in the 1914 OS map, but by 1921 was allotments.
This 1886 map has "Cowley Marsh Cricket Ground" very clearly labelled with pavilions for a lot of the Oxford colleges, including Magdalen (just above the "W" in Cowley). But... to the north-west "Magdalen College Cricket Ground" remains clearly seen. Various newspaper reports through the 1800s do also refer to an "Old Magdalen Ground", and given there are claims it is still played on, I suspect the same term has just been used for a variety of locations. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, yes - also on the c. 1900 map here but without the college names. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. So there is a very good chance that the ground which held first-class matches to 1879 was the ground at Cowley Marsh, while the ground which hosted the South Africans in 1912 is the present day one? I had seen a few newspaper reports referring to it as "Old Magdalen Ground" and had an inkling that there could have been multiple grounds. I have seen a further map of Cowley Marsh and the area where the present ground is would have been at the northern tip, which is where Ranjitsinhji describes the ground as being, so perhaps his recollection was off? StickyWicket (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This seems to agree the university used the 'Old' Magdalen Ground prior to the University Parks being ready in 1881. It would seem the present day 'New' Magdalen Ground is a separate venue. Finding more to support this too, the 'old' ground was acquired for allotment use in 1917. StickyWicket (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That all seems about right to me, although I can't see on the C20 OS maps that very much has become allotments at any point - a bus depot, but those pavilions on Cowley Marshes are in an area that's still playing fields for the most part and I don't see lottie's at any point - although there are map gaps and it's possible that they were that for a while. There are some allotments by the Jesus and Emmanuel grounds, but not a big set. Interesting. This reminds me, I must get to the "New Ground" in Norwich and sort that out... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Could it be that [1] < this on page 136 is actually referring to the 'Old' Magdalen Ground and not the current one (the author doesn't differentiate between Old and New)? The dates seem to tally for the newspaper reports, so perhaps it did become allotments in 1917? By the 1900s it seems to still exist, though curiously this map up to 1914 does show allotments, but by the 1920s it is definitely housing. Begs the question where was the 1912 fixture against the South Africans played? With regard to that match, The Daily Mirror reports that the ground the match was played on was "a fine, spacious enclosure, which had not previously been the scene of a first-class match" - think that probably confirms that the 1829-1879 first-class fixtures were played on the 'Old' Ground and the 1912 fixture was played on the 'New' Ground.
I will update the article tomorrow to reflect that, and create a new article for the 1912 venue. StickyWicket (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the article. I haven't created an article on the 1912 venue as it hosted just one match and I can't really find much about it, so have just added a couple of sentences in the Magdalen College article. While on the subject of Oxford venues, if anyone has some time, I'd appreciate a review of Christ Church Ground – might work that toward a GA. StickyWicket (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Broom, John (2022). Cricket in the First World War: Play up! Play the Game. Pen and Sword History. p. 136. ISBN 9781526780164.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_92&oldid=1233899579"