Talk:Ranjitsinhji

Last words

I would like some confirmation for this edit which mentions 'If I could only sleep ...' as his last words. I have seen it in a trivia book but from memory, Alan Ross's biography of Ranji states only that he repeated these words many times during his final illness, and not that they were his final words.

It is quite likely that one of Ranji's many biographies confirm it, but it would be good if we could find a proper source. Tintin (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Added fact tag to it. Tintin (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the relevant section from Alan Ross' Ranji:The Prince of Cricketers (Chapter : The Last Journey) :

For five days, Ranji struggled. "If I could only sleep", he said time and again. Hypnotics, Prof. Thomas reported, were useless. Sleep would have been the deciding factor in his illness and nothing could procure it for him. The terrible cough continued day and night accompanied by increasing breathlessness.

(Snipped a paragraph about cousin Digvijaysinhji being sent for)

On the night of 1 April, Ranji's heart began to fail. He embraced in turn those members of his family that were present and at five o'clock in the morning of 2 April, he died. (Pavilion books edition, Paperback, 1989, p.226, ISBN 1-85145-223-0)

I am deleting the line now. The addition was made from an Indian IP address and I strongly suspect that his source is the trivia book mentioned above (it is far more popular here than any Ranji biography). It is a very interesting book but takes a few liberties with facts for the sake of good trivia. Tintin (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

Could this article perhaps be simply named Ranjitsinhji or even Ranji? (Both are already redirects to this article). Does the "Kumar Shri" (or "KS") add much?

Secondly, shouldn't this article and Duleepsinhji (currently at Kumar Shri Duleepsinhji) be consistent? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both points. "K. S. Ranjitsinhji" and "Kumar Shri Duleepsinhji" were only their names before they became the rulers of a princely state. The "K. S." ("Kumar Shri") is a title. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

bowling

what delivery did he bowl because it says he bowled deliveries but it doesn't but his bowling type in Speedboy Salesman 11:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Styles and honours

I've removed these from the article for the moment; there are two reasons. Firstly, I'm not convinced by the importance of this information where it is not covered in the main article. Does it matter that he changed from Major to Lieutenant or from GBE to GCSI. These titles and his honours are largely symbolic as he was hardly a major military figure. Secondly, even if these are important details, they remain details and I would argue they are trivia (except where the facts are covered (or will be covered) in the main article. An encyclopaedia should not include such minor details as these in my view; however, there may be mileage in a separate article, such as List of titles held by K. S. Ranjitsinhji but I'm not sure it would be notable enough.

Styles

• 1872-1878: Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji Jivansinhji Jadeja
• 1878-1882: Yuvraj Shri Ranjitsinhji Jivansinhji Jadeja
• 1882-1898: Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji Jivansinhji Jadeja
• 1898-1899: Lieutenant Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji Jivansinhji Jadeja
• 1899-1907: Captain Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji Jivansinhji Jadeja
• 1907-1914: Captain His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar
• 1914-1915: Major His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar
• 1915-1917: Major His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, ADC
• 1917-1918: Major His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, KCSI, ADC
• 1918-1919: Lieutenant-Colonel His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, KCSI, ADC
• 1919-1923: Lieutenant-Colonel His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, GBE, KCSI, ADC
• 1923-1933: Lieutenant-Colonel His Highness Maharajadhiraj Maharaja Jam Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji Jadeja [Rawalji II Vibhaji Sahib], Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, GCSI, GBE, ADC

Honours

• Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (GCStJ) - 1911
• Delhi Durbar gold medal - 1911
• Mentioned in Despatches (MID) - 1915
• 1914 Star - 1918
• British War Medal - 1918
• Allied Victory Medal - 1918
• Permanent salute of 15-guns - 1921 (Permanent salute of 13-guns;15-guns personal - 1918)
• Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE (mil.)) - 1919
• Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India (GCSI) - 1923 (KCSI - 1917)

Proposed page move

Further to ALoan's suggestion some years ago (see above) I propose that this page is moved from K.S. Ranjitsinhji to Ranjitsinhji, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've no strong preferences either way. I suspect he was/is equally well known as "K. S.", even though as ALoan mentioned above it was just a title (which he shouldn't really have had at all), but I think a move to Ranjitsinhji would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Doing it now. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ranjitsinhji/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty good article.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some notes:

• "But discouraged by the ambition..." Starting a sentence with a conjunction is acceptable in some registers of English, but not in an encyclopaedia article.

 Done

• You use "Rajkumar College for princes" twice as if it is an official name, but you capitalise it as if "for princes" is merely a description. This needs clearing up.

 Done

"the College of princes" is still in the article unexplained. Relentlessly (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been removed.

• "Macnaghten soon declared Ranjitsinhji his most accomplished and promising pupil, academically; Ranjitsinhji also established proficiency in gymnastics, tennis and cricket." This is uncited.

 Done

• "Ranjitsinhji may have initially struggled to acclimatise to English life and did not settle to academic study." This also seems to be uncited, or at least that's the impression given by the arrangement of the citations.

 Done

• " making at least nine centuries, a feat he had never previously achieved in England" Had he never achieved a century or nine centuries? Logic suggests the former, but your grammar suggests the latter.

It is the latter only.  Done

Unclear from the text, but not the end of the world. If you could supply what he had scored before, that would be excellent. Relentlessly (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It clearly makes us understand he had previously not scored this run.

• I don't understand what relevance the Punch cartoon has to university cricket, since it's more than a decade separate.

 Done

• You use "practise" as a noun, where normal Commonwealth English use would be "practice". I'm not sure what normal Indian use would be. You use "practice" later: whatever the decision, it should be consistent.

 Done One is for noun and another for verb. The uses are correct here.

No it isn't. "Lockwood noted how much Ranjitsinhji had improved through practise". That's a noun; it should be "practice".

 Done

• "The Indian made his first-class debut" This is journalistic style, not encylopaedic. "He" is quite sufficient.

 Done

• "some more successful but brief innings" What does this mean?

Its given in source. It means, that though his innings were shprt, it greatly helped the team.  Done

• Link The University Match (cricket)

Its linked. And if the second one is linked then it will be overlinked.  Done

You're quite right: I overlooked the first instance.

• "an improbably victory" – "an improbable victory"

 Done

• "Yet it is unlikely that he met the qualification rules" Two things: first, don't start a sentence with a conjunction. Second, what were the rules?

Not required in the article.

• "Brighton's good batting pitch" Is it not Hove? Could you link the ground?

Not given in source.

Other sources, perhaps? There are only three Sussex grounds regularly used during Ranjitsinhji's career; none of them is in Brighton and the majority of matches were at the County Cricket Ground. Relentlessly (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I went through other links also. The name is not given. I think it is not wise to make guesses.

• "he batted again when England followed-on 181 runs behind" This should be "he batted again when England followed on, 181 runs behind".

 Done

• "behaving as a price" – prince.

 Done

• Gilling East parish church would be an appropriate illustration, maybe?

Not required  Done

• "managed to acquire influence beyond its real status in Geneva". I don't understand what this means.

 Done , I have changed the previous but to and, making it comprehensible.

It's the word "party" that's really confusing! Political party? Cocktail party? Another word for "delegation"? Relentlessly (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done

• "Iconography" – why use this word? It seems unrelated to the section below.

 Done

Shouldn't take much to get this up to standard! On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Royroydeb, there are various points still outstanding. Furthermore, could you clarify what you mean by "Not required"? Relentlessly (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: As someone who expanded the article ten-folds, would you like to participate in the review? —Vensatry _(ping) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb, is anything happening with this? Relentlessly (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb Several of my concerns are still not dealt with (or indeed replied to) and, as Vensatry has said, you are not a major contributor to the article. I'm on the verge of failing this. Relentlessly (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, while the rule states anyone can nominate articles for GA, it's always better to consult the major contributors. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to fail this article for GA. Relentlessly (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

War service section

In November 1914, he left to serve at the Western Front, leaving Berthon as administrator.

Who was Berthon ? That's the first, but not the only mention of him. Claverhouse (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Re-nomination

The article is well written with images and sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashlore (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure why you have renominated this article as you have not addressed the issues presented in the previous nomination. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The nominator and reviewer are both socks of Eliko007. GA nom is a quick=fail. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Article length

The article has a readable prose size of 72 kB (11,987 words) which far exceeds the recommended limits in WP:SIZESPLIT. I think the article should be split into Ranjitsinhji, cricketer and Ranjitsinhji, Jam Sahib of Nawanagar (or other titles which meet these scopes).

As presently written, the article is disjointed because it is covering two distinct subjects and the interchanges are so frequent that you easily lose track of his cricket in England on the one hand and his personal ambitions in Nawanagar on the other. There needs to be a cricket article which focuses on that and only mentions Nawanagar on the occasions when his business there actually impacted his cricket career (for example, he missed the start of the 1902 season because he was in India). Equally, an article about Nawanagar should make only brief and necessary references to cricket and England, such as the fact it was cricket which made him famous.

I'll be happy to take the lead in creation of the two new articles if approved. I'll leave it pending till the end of January. Thank you. Batagur baska (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No response so I'll leave this a while longer and raise it at WT:CRIC. Batagur baska (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd not have separate articles like that(it makes it sound like they are 2 separate people) but would not object to creating something like Cricket career of Ranjitsihji and to move a lot of the content there, leaving a summary here. Spike 'em (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(cross posting what I'd posted at WT:INB): I don't think a split on those lines would be right, both aspects of his life are intertwined. I think trimming down the article may be a better option. There's a little too much detail in the form of story telling as opposed to encyclopaedic writing in the article.—SpacemanSpiff 11:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose a full split - we almost never treat biographies this way (look at Imran Khan), and I expect there is a policy against it somewhere. The article isn't that long and the two aspects are entwined to some extent. But a more detailed Cricket career of Ranjitsihji, leaving shorter summaries behind, would be ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, all. Thanks for your comments. It looks like a clear consensus to keep the article as is but with a sub-article for detailed coverage of his cricket career, which is to be summarised here. I'll remove the split proposal from the main page and then think about the sub. I'll actually have to set it aside for a time because real life has taken over once more, but I hope to make some progress before too long. Thank you again. Batagur baska (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)