Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I noticed your (impressive) list of Featured Articles, are there any others ({{GA}} or B-class articles)? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See discussion below and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Version 1.0 articles -- Ian ≡ talk 14:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing Pakistani, Bangladeshi and UAE cricketers

Cricketing sites like Cricinfo and Cricket Archive index Pakistani and Bangladeshi names differently from other nations' names. Other nations follow the Western practice of indexing by last name, first names, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi names are indexed in the same order they're written (Imran Khan, not Khan, Imran). This is the convention I'm following for now (e.g., [[Category:Pakistani Test cricketers|Imran Khan]], not [[Category:Pakistani Test cricketers|Khan, Imran]]), but there don't appear to be any Wikipedia guidelines addressing this issue.

Can someone with knowledge of Pakistani and Bangladeshi culture shed more light on this? I couldn't find any style guidelines on the net that covered indexing Pakistani and Bangladeshi names. --Muchness 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• This seems to happen with common surnames, eg Singh. People say HARBHAJAN Singh, YUVRAJ Singh, and their shirts have HARBHAJAN and YUVRAJ put on the back, not Singh. Anyway, for lots of Muslim players, they use their first names not their last, eg IRFAN Pathan - everybody calls him Pathan, but his India shirt has IRFAN printed on the back. Of course all the Khan's, eg ZAHEER , MOIN, Khan as well. Then there are the exceptions, such as Danish KANERIA and Shahid AFRIDI. I don't know what to do about this, but I hope I contribute something. Blnguyen 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And in the case of Javed Miandad, when I first became interested in cricket it was Javed, by the time of his retirement it was Miandad. I remember reading an article where the journo was trying to get a definite answer, but he was non-commital. When asked "What does his wife call him?", the answer was: Something else altogether... --Paul 09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel there's no need to reinvent the wheel here - there must be a reason everyone uses this method for Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricketers, so unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to sort them differently ("Westerners do it that way" is not) I think we should go by first name, second name. Sam Vimes 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: this convention also applies to United Arab Emirates players. --Muchness 22:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in the least. If certain categories get indexed by first name, so be it. But in any category not indexed by first name, this whole discussion is absolute nonsense. Gene Nygaard 02:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the thing, there is no hard and fast rules regarding what part of name a Bangladeshi person is known by. For example, Mohammad Ashraful is popularly known by "Ashraful". Syed Atahar Ali is known by "Atahar". Mohammad Rafique known by "Rafique". So when indexing, each person should be indexed by the part of the name he is best known by. As for Bangladeshi culture, the concept of family name is not mandatory, rather it is quite optional. So, Rafique is not Mohammad Rafique's family name, rather it is his last name. (unlike Harbhajan Singh, where Singh is his family name, or Miandad.). I know it sounds confusing, but that's the way it is. Thanks. --Ragib 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, so perhaps we can say: Muslim names don't fit the mould of "christian name, surname", and trying to force them into that form is not practical --Paul 05:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm sometimes known as "Gene" and sometimes known as "Nygaard". In a list indexed by given name, I'll be under the "G" and in a list indexed by last name I'll be under the "N".

But if you knew the subject matter, you'd be aware, that say Zaheer, would never categorised as under anything but Z --Paul 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But as far as Ragib's silly notions of "best known by" go, that is an insufficiently defined criterion in the first place, and it certainly isn't an established fact in any of the mostly stub or sub-stub articles I've seen. If that's going to be the rule in cricket categories, it is a fact that needs verification. Gene Nygaard 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for you input. Gene Nygaard is currently edit warring over this issue at the following articles: Mohammad Tauqeer, Qasim Umar. He doesn't appear to be willing to respect established WP:Cricket convention on this matter. I don't want to risk violating the 3RR rule, but I agree with you all that these articles should be categorized to conform with other articles on Pakistani/Bangladeshi/UAE players, until a persuasive case can be made to switch. I've tried contacting him on his talk page without success. Can anyone help resolve this? --Muchness 09:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You've posted a message a few minutes before whining here, in the middle of hte night where I live. Get real, and don't claim failure to contact someone on that basis.

I posted my message to your talk page at 04:48, 10 February 2006, over 17 hours before you reverted. The fact that you decided to revert rather than talk about the issue created the impression that you weren't willing to discuss this. I apologize for not assuming good faith. --Muchness 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to deal with people who are innumerate. Your message right above was posted six hours and 42 minutes after your first message on my talk page, and your complaining about my unresponsiveness here was less than five hours after that posting on my talk page. Usually it is 12-hour clocks which give people problems, but it looks like you need to learn to read a 24-hour clock. Gene Nygaard 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was the timezone difference that tripped me up; my diffs are set to display local time and the talk pages display server time. Mea culpa. My point stands that I only expressed concern on this page after you reverted without replying to my message on your talk page, and I've already apologized for the misapprehension. Personal attacks won't help us resolve this issue. --Muchness 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense whatsoever to have a crazy hodgepodge in some list of people, with some people indexed by given name and some indexed by last name, and you have to guess not only the basis on which it is made but also whether or not any particular person fits into whatever criteria apply in making that choice.

You are the ones who need to establish consensus for a category to be indexed by first name, and there has been no discussion whatsoever of this on any of the category pages or their talk pages. Furthermore, there has only been five days of tossing this idea about on this talk page.

If and when you ever get consensus on indexing them by first names in certain categories and post that on the category pages, then I will follow that rule in that category if I know about it, and if there is enough information presented on the article page to figure out which is which, or you can change it back if I haven't done so. If that is done, it might help to add an editorial comment to that fact to the article's category listing. I'll not likely be looking in Category:Pakistani bowlers anyway, so I don't particularly care how that is indexed. Just don't screw around with last name indexed categories such as Category:Living people and Category:1975 births] and any other category not dealing with cricket, and you might not have much of a problem.

It might help if you just keep your fingers out of any category not dealing with cricket. Gene Nygaard 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As explained, the concepts of first and last names don't apply here. --Paul 11:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us not forget what you pointed out yourself about Javed Miandad being known for years as "Javed" and for years as "Miandad". So do you have him indexed under the last one used? Gene Nygaard 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would put him in the Js of course, that's how it's done. The question is: What about you? As I said, Javed and Miandad were/are seemingly interchangeable. Which is his "family" name, if either? Or is it simply whatever comes last, which you've indicated is not the case with Chinese names --Paul 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a similar situation to Chinese names, I suppose; Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin are both sorted by their "first name" (which is their family name), and no one seems to bother too much... Sam Vimes 11:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the Chinese and Japanese names are sometimes written Jiang Zemin and sometimes written Zemin Jiang in Wikipedia (the latter more common for those more familiar in the western world. When the family name is written first, that is what they should be and most often are sorted by in most categories. When the family name is written last, that is what they should be and most often are sorted by in most categories. Gene Nygaard 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned before, the last name nor the first name in Bangladesh are not necessarily family names. My father, grandfather , great-grandfather and I all have different last names (and of course different first names:), none of which are family names. In Mohammad Rafique's case, no one would call him Mohammed, because that's a part of name often considered a prefix (and usually shortened to Md. while writing. So, you can't enforce indexing by family name, and claim Mohammad Rafique's first or last name as his family name, because there *is* none. Thanks. --Ragib 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are hoist on your own petard this time, Ragib. Note that Mohammad Rafique starts a paragraph with "Rafique is also known as a handy, hard-hitting lower-order batsman." It can't get much clearer than that. Gene Nygaard 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So? Through all my comments, I maintained that a Bangladesh person is not necessarily known by his first name or his last name. This varies person to person, and there is no mandatory "Family name". Rafique is a good example, his family name is not Rafique, that's his last name, and the name is is most well known as a cricketer. Let's see another example, Mashrafe Mortaza is another Bangladeshi cricketer, and almost all publication/media in Bangladesh would refer to him as Mashrafe, not as Mortaza. I don't really care much about how indexing is done, but no matter how much you debate it, that won't change the sociological fact regarding naming in Bangladesh. I didn't get your point about "can't get clearer", because it reaffirms my comment that the "last name" = family name idea doesn't apply here, because not all people have a family name in Bangladesh. --Ragib 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So what? Shaq is sometimes known by his often-shortened first name—enough so to warrant a Wikipedia redirect, sometimes by his last name, but he is indexed as "O'Neal, Shaquille" not only in Category:Worst Actor Razzie Nominee and Category:Omega Psi Phi brothers and Category:1972 births and Category:Living people but in all the basketball categories he appears in as well. You seem to have pretty weird notions of how this indexing works. Gene Nygaard 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell us, Ragib—do you ever get indexed under the "R" in any class rosters or telephone books or things like that?

Or aren't you a good enough cricket player for these rules to apply to you?

Indexing depends on the category. Even if the consensus is to index certain cricket categories by first name, that has no effect whatsoever on the indexing of anything else. 66.97.236.230 14:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (by me, wasn't logged in Gene Nygaard)

Well, now you are taking it rather personally!! Anyway, to answer your question, if I ever get to the status of notability to be included into Wikipedia, and I am best known by my first name, I'd of course want to be indexed under "R". And yes, in class rosters when I went through school in Bangladesh, I *was* listed under "R". Hope that helps satisfy your query. Thanks. --Ragib 16:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What you didn't say speaks much more loudly than what you did say. It isn't anything personal, just trying to bring you to earth with a personal reference point. Are you willing to admit yet that even if you choose to index certain cricketing categories by first name, that doesn't affect how either the other cricketing categories nor any other category are indexed? Gene Nygaard 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and my great-grandfather and his father and his brothers used at least four different last names, but that doesn't mean they weren't last names, or that I don't index them by those names in my genealogy program. Furthermore, even if it is really true in some cases that both names are given names, you have admitted above that this is not true in many of the cases of Pakistani and Bengladeshi cricketers. Gene Nygaard 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as above this is an issue of countering systemic bias; specifically, respecting the sociolinguistic differences of non-Western cultures. --Muchness 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some memory that the Belgians and the Dutch sort Flemish names differently: the Belgians put "van Someone" under v, the Dutch under S. So you have to know whether someone is Belgian or Dutch before you can sort him correctly. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And Pierre S. du Pont, IV is sorted under "P" in Category:Du Pont family but under "D" (not "d" either, which would come after "Z" in the list) in Category:Governors of Delaware and Category:Episcopalians and all the other categories in which he appears.

In other words, the sort order is determined on a category basis, not on a person basis. Gene Nygaard 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course there's no point in sorting everyone under d when everyone in the category shares the same name! Sam Vimes 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The indexing depends on the category.

You do understand the broader implications, too, don't you, Sam? No matter what WikiProject Cricket decides about indexing some cricket categories by first name, that has no effect whatsoever on the indexing of any other category. 66.97.236.230 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (by me, wasn't logged in Gene Nygaard)

Those categories are inconsistent in the first place - as the Chinese example clearly shows. There IS no specific thing known as family name in Pakistani/Bangladeshi culture, so you can't sort by something which doesn't exist! Sam Vimes 14:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys should listen to Ragib. He is Bangladeshi as am I, and he knows what he's talking about. The whole concept of family name as your last name does not exist in the culture. My father has a certain last name (Mia in his case). But my six siblings and myself ALL have different last names. I am not named Mia, and I have never thought of myself as a Mia. Naming a child has much more to do with religion - "over there" in the land of the "other" - mainly because Muslims (in both Bangladesh and Pakistan) consider it propitious to name their children with words that have positive religious connotations. Surnames or family names don't enter the picture, although it sometimes does for people who are conscious of their familial status.

Anyway, Imran Khan would never be called Khan. Javed Miandad is called Miandad and Shahid Afridi is called Afridi, but no one ever called Mushtaq Ahmed as Ahmed. There is no hard and fast rule. I don't see why such cultural patterns should be shoehorned into a Western fit. [personal attack deleted] --Peripatetic 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but as long as there's no hard and fast rule, and the formal way of addressing these people would include all their names (I assume), I would think the method used to sort these people everyone else would be a good way of doing it (that way we're not engaging in original research), so we stick to the first names. Sam Vimes 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The only original research I've seen here are the false claims that Bangladeshi's or whatever do not have last names, admitted to be false by almost everyone who has made that claim. Just as in most other places, there are certain types of names almost instantly identified as a "first" name and others never used for a first name but always as a last name, with only a relative few being indeterminate. This involves nothing more than the decisions always made in choosing the article titles for people, which very often involves dropping off some of the names which could be used. Gene Nygaard 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Gene Nygaard's edit here proposes a compromise solution: catgeorize as [[Category|last name, first name]] outside cricket related categories, and preserve current categorization of [[Category|article title]] within cricket related categories. I'm willing to adopt this as a provisional guideline. Any opinions? --Muchness 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, fine by me. Until someone proves this one way or the other, I agree. Sam Vimes 08:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that Gene Nygaard is still reverting over this. If anyone feels strongly about this issue, by all means patrol the affected articles for changes. I've requested third party opinions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but I feel it's pointless to edit war over this issue. --Muchness 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Statham

In Denton, Greater Manchester#Famous People from Denton an anon has written Brian Statham. Can anybody verify this. It doesn't actually say in the article - it just says when he was young he used to play for the team there. --βjweþþ (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wisden Almanack 1955: Born at Denton, near Manchester, on June 17, 1930, and a product of Denton West club, Statham played his early cricket with the Whitworth Street team in Manchester Schools matches. I believe the IP editor is correct. Sam Vimes 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Compliments

A day or so ago I did some stub-sorting of the main cricketbio stub category, and I must say I admired the work that has been put into these articles. Virtually every one was well-organized, well-written, and contained all the relevant information in an easy-to-find area. I offer my compliments to the members of this project for their hard work and effort. Crystallina 20:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Main page

FYI, Sydney Riot of 1879 is the featured article on the WP Main Page today. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And you really have to wonder if it's worth it considering the bombardment from vandals it's getting :( -- Ian ≡ talk 03:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have long thought that front-page articles should be protected. Now that we have semi-protection, that really does seem like an obvious solution. Has this been discussed anywhere? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. See User:Raul654/protection for the reasons why it's not going to happen. Sam Vimes 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced that it's a good policy. The diffs between before the list and now[1] are largely cosmetic and one could argure thay'd happen in the course of time anyway. That's not to say they're not important though. In the meantime however, we've fed the trolls and vandals and they'll come back day after day (just look at the edit history on recent F/A's). The semi-protection feature would be ideal for this situation. But policy's policy and we must abide. -- Ian ≡ talk 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the rationale is that some of those vandals may become real contributors. I certainly started out editing things that were linked from the Main Page, but that was in a quieter age :) It should cease to be an issue if/when we get stable versions: the non-stable "current draft" version is likely to continue to be vandalised in the background, but the "live" version that everyone sees won't. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Roll on WP:1.0 The trouble is there seems to be a growing cult of IP and registered editors with zero edit history which consume a disproportionate amount of time and effort being reverted. They contribute solely for the "thrill" they get of putting a photo of a penis in a place where as many people will see it as possible. And for whatever the reason, there's becoming more and more of them (I think). I also started editing from the main page as an unregistered IP editor, but I feel those days are in the past and our policies should reflect the situation we're now in. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Which reminds me, did anyone reply to that kind request from the WP:1.0 team further up the page? I know I didn't - I find it hard to validate articles I've been greatly involved in - but it's a good idea. Sam Vimes 12:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's all been discussed before, but maybe FP articles could be moderated? If said moderators were on the ball, it'd nearly be real time still. You'd need a roster or something though.. --Paul 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Asanka Gurusinha & Throwing

added stubs on Gurusinha and chucking. Lesliestng 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 project

In response to the request from above from the Version 1.0 assessment team, I've started a new subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Version 1.0 articles for which I would encourage nominations. This project is a fantastic initiative which aims to identify a set of articles that would be suitable for release in print, CD and DVD.

If you can think of any good quality cricket related articles which aren't yet featured articles (I've already listed those) then drop them into either of the A-class or B-class columns. This is not a final list and no-one is going to grill you to justify your choices. I'd like to see 50 20 or so articles in each category. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That list is great! We have a list of such "good" articles from Wikiprojects here but, as other projects have done, you're free to have you separate page. To answer your question, yes, lists are eligible. Thanks. :) Gflores ^Talk 15:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alvin Kallicharan

Added stub on Alvin Kallicharan. Lesliestng 19:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lesliestng, it's good to know about new articles, and thanks for telling us, but in fact we have a place to add them on the project page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still relatively new here so I didn't know about that. I'll add them there from now on. Lesliestng 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Wisden Cricketer of the Year

Three minutes after I created Gerard Rotherham, one of the 38 missing Wisden Cricketers of the Year, it was nominated for deletion. Project members might like to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Rotherham. Johnlp 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This has now been speedily taken off the deletion list after a vote from many WP:Cricket participants (and others too) in favour of keeping. I suspect that Gerard Rotherham has had more attention paid to his cricketing prowess in the past 36 hours than in the previous 75 years! Johnlp 10:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Brown (cricketer)

Bill (no relation) is Australia's oldest living cricketer and was a member of The Invincibles 1948 team. He's now 94 and is sharp as a tack. I've heard him being interviwed on the radio a few times recently and he's had a fascinating cricket life. His stubby article is embarassing, but I cannot find much in print about him, possibly because he was often in the shadow of giants like Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Harvey et al. As he won't be around for too much longer (one assumes), could members check their libraries and see what can be added? -- Ian ≡ talk 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Test bios

Do we get a tickertape parade for eliminating redlinks on List of Test cricketers? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait till we've cleaned out the substubs first, eh? Sam Vimes 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoilsport ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making a new list of sub-stubs, by the way, although I probably won't finish until tomorrow. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I've done something very wrong, we've acquired another 1000 sub-stubs since I last generated the list a month and a half ago. :-( Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a tribute to the sterling work Paul has done on creating infoboxes for everyone who ever lifted a bat or picked up a ball internationally. Johnlp 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It was just rather more than I'd imagined. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it would help to categorise the sub-stubs into ones that need doing first (say, team captains, and by number of matches played - 100+, 50+, 20+) so we know where to start? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that all the Test players have infoboxes, that should be possible, but I'm not likely to get round to it for some time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Non test ODI cricketer template

Lesliestng (talk · contribs) created {{Non test ODI cricketer}}. Do we need it? Is there a better way to do it? I think there should be {{First class cricketer}}. Your thoughts? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It needs looking at anyway. It's a bit mixed up in its columns between Test, ODI and first-class performances. Johnlp 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is {{Cricketer Infobox}} which I created a while ago but went mainly unused - it allows you to choose the titles of the columns, so you can mix-and-match depending on the cricketer. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just started on Infobxing all the non-Test ODIers, I'll have a look-see at that template. --Paul 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I never got round to writing a proper usage thing for it (firefox crashed when i was 90% done) but i tested it out on Bill Whitty and Rick Darling so if you look at the usage on those pages its pretty straight-forward I think. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah i guess its need could be debated. I created it just because i couldn't find a good template to suit prominent players who hadn't played tests and leaving the test match column empty seemed a little visually awkward for me. But maybe its just because i dont know how to manipulate the existing templates well enough; I tried fiddling around with some, but wasn't really satisfied. The {{Cricketer Infobox}} could suit this purpose I guess. Lesliestng 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed the test/first class mismatch

No more super-subs

Hooray! [2] [3]. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A question that bugged me the whole time (but I never bothered to find the answer to) - if a supersub isn't used, does it count as them having played an ODI? And what if a player in the starting XI is "subbed off" before they bat in the first innings, not having done anything? Agreed, though, hooray! :D AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Hooray! It would be good if the ICC also end the power-plays, they are always used at the start and means that the bowlers have to bowl within the fielding restrictions for five more unnecessary overs, giving away extra runs. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 11:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Twenty20

On a lighter note, I wonder how many people in in Project think that the emergence of the twenty20 scene is good for international cricket - cheap charade or a serious attempt at adaptation to changing attitudes? Lesliestng 04:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea as an occasional spectacle, to get spectators interested and to make some money. One or two games per tour is about right, and I would love to see it in the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games too. But I fear that the ICC and the national cricket boards will get greedy and we'll start seeing seven-match series every tour, and I think that would damage the rest of cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll hate to see the side-effects on the international game of the new version. Being a spin-bowling all-rounder for my school's cricket club and having the rules changed to worse than Twenty20 style (in our competition there is a wierd rule allowing only eight fielders on at a time as well as other Twenty20 rules!), bowling seems more of a "Can't wait 'til its over" or "get it out of the way" job and batting is just swinging with enough power so that even an edge will go for six! DaGizza^{Chat ©} 11:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not playing baseball? (Just kidding, just.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also the "exciting" innovation of the bowl-out (he said, pluggin his new article). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Twenty20 Infobox

Do we require a new Infobox for cricketer as now Twenty20 also started. I have created a new template Template:Infobox Modern Cricketer and started editing some Cricketer's pages too but someone suggested to talk about this issue here. Please put your views so that we can proceed. Thanks -- Shyam ^(T/C) 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was me who suggested talking about it here first. You can see what it would look like at [4], for example. I'll write my views later, because I haven't got time now. Anyone else got some views first? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Did no-one else want to comment about this? I was unsure when I first saw it, and could see arguments on both sides. But after thinking about it for a while, I decided I preferred the current box with only the Tests and ODIs, at least in the short term. At the moment, international Twenty20 seems not to be taken very seriously. Also, no-one's played enough matches yet to have any kind of meaningful average. Does anyone else have an opinion though? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

With India looking to boycott the twenty20 championship and seeking to convince other Asian nations to do the same, it will be interesting to see the outcome. I agree that there haven't been enough matches played as well. However, if the controversies are resolved, and all the countries start playing matches more frequently, the teplate will definitely be warranted. Waiting it out a little bit seems to be a good option for me. Lesliestng 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to wait until there's been a lot more of them. Averages and other conventional stats are, I suspect, less important in this form of cricket than strike rates and economy rates (and maybe win percentages). Johnlp 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just a thought but I wonder in the future whether there will be Twenty20 "Specialists," in which Twenty20 will be the only international form some players play (Shahid Afridi, Andrew Symonds and Mahendra Dhoni mimics!) If it turns out to be a high number then a separate template may have to be considered. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 10:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, best to wait for now. --Muchness 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, we should wait unless enough match played. -- Shyam ^(T/C) 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Invincibles disambiguation

The Invincibles needs disambiguation. See discussion at Talk:The_Invincibles#Dab_again. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ICC / MCC -- Separation of powers

The rules of cricket are legislated by the MCC. What rules are the ICC responsible for? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the ICC are responsible for the playing conditions of all international cricket (which sometimes adds to the Laws and sometimes even contradicts them). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rahul Dravid

I've just put a {{NPOV}} marker on Rahul Dravid. Anyone want to have a go at cleaning it up?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is almost pointless to try and NPOVize the articles on contemporary Indian and Pakistani cricketers because within a few minutes someone else will come along and add new POVs. Tintin (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this point of view, but at least if we have a good base, the article can be reverted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it, because all the dubious comments were added in after 19/2/2006, after his stats were last updated for the 5th ODI. There isn't a need for them, because there haven't been any important changes in DRavid's career during the tour to Pakistan, except accumulation of more runs and wins. There hasn't been any profound change in his standing amongst pundits, etc.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen! Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bowling Techniques

I think we need a discussion and consensus on the listing of individual bowlers on articles like Off spin, Leg spin, Left-arm orthodox spin and Fast bowling, etc. This also applies to the mentioning of specific bowlers on articles like Doosra, Googly and Flipper (cricket) as notable exponents of certain deliveries. There are cases where the page says "list of off-spinners" and others like "notable legspinners" or "proficient spinners". I think we need some criteria on notability and skill guidelines for inclusions in this list, or else we need to include any bowler. A lot of the spinners lists contain part-time spinners who are specialist batsmen like Mark Waugh, Yuvraj Singh, Michael Clarke (cricketer), Virender Sehwag, Darren Lehmann; however specialist spinners who are better, but have not been selected to play International cricket yet are not - eg. Dan Cullen (AUS young player of the year , offbreak) and Piyush Chawla (IND, 17 yrs old Uttar Pradesh legspinner who gained headlines by bowling Tendulkar a couple of times at first-class level with a flipper and googly and was one of the big talking points of the recent u-19 world cup).Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't much like any of the lists on those pages, because they tend to expand out of control as everyone adds their favourite players. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

what about having the top ten or so of each type on the page, ranked by either # of test wickets or best average??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to something like that, as long as it was objective. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Corridor cricket

Hmm. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So that's what Sir Geoffrey means by "the corridor of uncertainty". Johnlp 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a redirect to Beach cricket (well, backyard cricket, but that redirected to beach cricket itfp). The article as it stands is completely unverifiable. Sam Vimes 07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corridor cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:jguk

Where's this delightful fellow gone? He has gone cold for three weeks, and hasn't put one of those "I'm on holidays" messages on his page.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• He has left wikipedia, but still working on some other wikis. Tintin (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Did we do something to drive him away? Is there any possibility that he will return???Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Left-handers

List of famous left-handed people#cricket needs to be populated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that David Gower, who is on this list, claimed to be right-handed but to find the left-handed batting stance more comfortable and productive, since the left hand/arm produces the power while the right hand/arm provides the more delicate control. Does anyone know if this is correct? There are, of course, also an awful lot of players who batted right-handed and bowled left-handed, and somewhat fewer who batted left-handed but bowled right-handed. Perhaps we should have lists of them too, if only to show that cricket is a far more complex sport than most others and positively inclusive in its multi-dextrousness. ;-) Johnlp 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that you'll tend to find that it is more likely that cricketers are "X"-handed will bowl with their "X" hand rather than bat "X" handed.. eg. Michael Clarke is a leftie, Ganguly is a rightie and I heard a commentator say Mohammad Yousuf is actually a leftie. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 13:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Lara's also a rightie who bats as a leftie. Hadlee's another example of a rightie who bowled right-handed and batted left-handed. Then there's the strange case of Alan Border, who batted and bowled left-handed but supposedly writes with his right hand. --Muchness 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)