Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cricket team infobox

This is Hemanshu's idea. I think it is an excellent one, and I would like very much to see it implemented. The basic idea is that every article about a cricket team receives one of these infoboxes, somewhat in line with the player version. I have made a minor edit, standardising the template along the lines of the template standardisation project. The template is at Template:Infobox Test team. Comments? smoddy 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea too. The sample Aussie box on the template's Talk page looks attractive, though I'm uneasy about the photo of Bradman's cap (see my next para for why). One other question: when counting "matches this year", how should any games that span the New Year period be counted? That aside, the fields in the box seem perfectly suitable.

As for the photo in particular - it's from a South Australian government site, whose copyright notice [1] is pretty restrictive. I get the feeling that the Wikipedia as a whole is turning against relying on "fair use" images, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of using them any more than absolutely necessary. Surely there's a free photo of a Baggy Green somewhere, even if it isn't Bradman's. See also Wikipedia policy on fair use, which among other things points out that high-resolution images do not qualify as "fair use" in any case. Loganberry 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised by the baggy green cap. It seems a bit large, but more to the point, I was expecting the Cricket Australia logo - or perhaps the Australian flag. I think the infobox could be expanded though - for example, to include the governing body, notable achievements (ie best in World Cups, ICC Champions Trophy), ODI record. Finally, do we really want the record in the last (calendar) year. I can see the benefit of a record of recent results, but we could just show the last 3 Test series results, for example, jguk 07:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I forgot one important bit: one essential must be the official website, jguk 07:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have created a slightly different approach to the template, incorporating much of Hemanshu's original. It is currently located at User:Smoddy/Infobox, and appears on Template talk:Infobox Test team. I have used the Cricket Australia logo under {{logo}}. It incorporates template standardisation ideas. smoddy 11:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks really good to me. One thing I'd been toying with in my head was to make a tour infobox as well - with tour results, the flags of the two teams involved, dates, highest scoring batsman, most wicket-taking bowler. Anyone think that's a good idea? Sam Vimes 13:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Look of basic player page

Hi all, as some as you may have noticed I have edited/added a number of cricket player articles. I have personally taken on the rather dubious task of de-stubbing the List of Cricketers links - yes, that's a lot of cricketers. As it takes my fancy I will also add larger articles on more notable cricketers, although my main interest is getting decent, useable articles on lesser-known cricketers.

Anyway I just wanted an idea from other cricket enthusiasts on Wikipedia about the format of a general article. This is how a standard one looks:

• TEMPLATE top right, depending on level of players will include career details, teams and, where possible, a picture
• Main article information (name, date/place of birth, what they're famous for; where possible diverges into early life/career, movement into international cricket, international cricket career, life in retirement - for most cricketers these won't be cut into sections as enough information generally isn't easily available)
• Teams (international, local state/county/province/district etc)
• Career bests (Test, ODI and ICC trophy debuts and last matches, highest batting scores and best bowling details in each, captaincy record if relevant)
• External links/resources (generally links to Cricinfo page, HowSTAT! stats page, and major Googled websites for bigger players)
• Categories

For some bigger name players I do sometimes split the main article information into sub-sections. As I'm not particularly interested in writing pseudo-essays on players I don't really want to do too much research; I don't tend to go far beyond rewording the profiles listed on Cricinfo, and maybe going to a couple of external websites. I won't use my cricket book library unless I'm in a particularly studious mode. I always double-check possibly controversial information before I enter it.

With regards to editing established articles on more famous players, a couple of players I've found articles that were tripe. I don't normally like to sound harsh but it's true, it's something that someone banged together from a single source (okay for a simple article but a more complex article...). I have edited some articles mercilessly and chucked out (and sometimes reused) information, again I don't like doing this too much but sometimes it's necessary.

Anyway I digress, just wanted some feedback on the basic format. I imagine about 25-30 players have this format at the moment and I like it (although I may be biased) :) --Cory 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Can you provide some examples of the ones you have done, the ones you like, and the ones you dislike. Other then respecting the existing substantial articles, such as AEJ Collins or Brian Close, I would encourage you to do whatever you think best - be bold! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds really good. However, don't keep to this formatting for its own sake. It's good as a guideline (and how I myself would do it), but don't be scared to make little (or big) changes if you feel appropriate. Cheers, smoddy 17:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really good work by Cory.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alec Bedser and Abdul Qadir are ones you've done, I think, and I must say they do look attractive. Better than the slightly inconsistent formatting I've been using for my own cricket articles, so I think I shall bear your style in mind and adopt it for the most part. I've used something based closely on your example for Norman Gifford, though as you'll see I've adapted it slightly, for example to add first and last domestic matches as well as internationals. Loganberry 23:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I've done Alec Bedser and Abdul Qadir and quite a few others (check my contributions page for a full list). It's just a basic outline and I do change it as necessary. That page on Norman Gifford looks good, I reckon if you have the information then use it. Thanks for your feedback everyone.--Cory 08:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My info about domestic matches (and a few other things) comes from CricketArchive [2], which can show (under "Search > Player Oracle") a list for each player of every senior match he played. Very useful site once you've got used to its indiosyncrasies. (Such as having to search for AJ Stewart rather than Alec Stewart...) Loganberry | Talk 11:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cricket subcategories

Back in February I put this catch-all category up for deletion because I felt it violated the guidelines for categorization. Here's the old discussion of that: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Category:Cricket subcategories 2. I proposed replacing it with a list in a subpage of this Wikiproject's page, which I would do the effort of creating, but was told that it'd be too much work and bother keeping it up to date. I disagreed, but rather than argue endlessly I decided to just go away for a couple of months and then come back later to see whether evidence would bear me out. I made a copy of the category list as it existed back then, and then yesterday I took another snapshot and compared them. In four months' time, only twelve new categories have been added to the 265: [3]. I don't suppose anyone's interested in taking me up on my old offer to make a list page? Failing that, I'm also still game for the compromise I suggested based on Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace of putting the "cricket subcategories" category tag on category talk: pages instead. Back then that proposal got non-horrified responses from Ngb and Jguk, and Jguk requested I demonstrate what I meant by it so I've just done so with Category:Gauteng cricketers (since it had only a single article in it I figured this was a good category to use as a test case). Bryan 05:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! - just do it. People will complain soon enough it they don't like it - they can fix it ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was being bold last time around when I slapped a CfD on it, and it resulted in weeks of acrimonious arguing and being accused of wanting to destroy this wikiproject. I thought perhaps I should take a more methodical approach this time. Plus, "fixing" nearly three hundred categories after I've had my way with them isn't as easy as a click of the history link. :) Bryan 15:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead Bryan, it needs a cleanup.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 16:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cricket subcategories seems a bit strange, yeah. A list would perhaps be better. Sam Vimes 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just to make sure I'm following, are you all saying my original notion of replacing the category with a list like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket subcategories is okay with you, or is the "go ahead" just for moving category tags into talk? I met with near-unanimous opposition last time around so I hope you don't mind my lack of boldness this time. :) Bryan 01:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, please leave this category where it is - it is not doing any harm (you can easily ignore it if you want to) and it is very, very helpful when categorising cricketers - it means you can very quickly work out what categories we've got and how they fit together. A list would quite simply not be maintained because it is impractical to maintain it. By all means create one if you want but do not destroy what I as an editor find to be a very useful and completely comprehensive category. Being bold is good for additions, but we should not be bold in deletion, jguk 05:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, I figured things were going too smoothly to be true. I won't reiterate my previous arguments again for why I don't think it's justifiable to keep this category, even though I now have actual evidence that it would not be impractical to maintain a list - twelve additions over a period of four months is hardly an onerous task. However, I will go ahead with moving the category tags to talk where they can indeed be ignored by those who want to and where it'll quietly vanish whenever someone makes a mirror of Wikipedia for use as an encyclopedia. That should satisfy everyone. (quick update - just got started, and it looks like Wikipedia's in a sluggish mood tonight. Rather than stay up all hours I'll finish the bulk of the job tomorrow) Bryan 06:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bryan - I don't mind you creating your list as well - but please leave the cricket subcategory where it is. It's very useful and easy to maintain - lobbing it on the talk page just makes it twice as long to maintain. I will be reverting it so that, as for all other categories, the categorisation is on the category page. That makes the most sense to me - it also makes it readily visible - putting it on talk pages hides it away, which is hardly the idea for a navigation tool, jguk 07:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not a navigation tool, you yourself have stated that it's a tool for editors (see your first comment in Category talk:Cricket subcategories). I'm getting pretty tired of your claims that this is going to take so much more time to maintain. There have been twelve new categories added in four months' time. How much time did it take you to add those categories to this, and how much longer do you think it's going to take to add it to the talk page? And how much time have you spent arguing this case over and over with me, both the previous time and now this current go-around? I am not satisfied with the status quo, and I'm not going to give up trying to improve it on the basis of the arguments you've put forward so far. Bryan 08:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oy. So here I go again, the same old argument with Jguk. Well, I've said I'm not going to repeat it all, and I'm also not going to get into an edit war. I'd appreciate some input from the other regulars here, am I completely crazy and just don't realize it? As far as I can tell the compromise of moving this "subcategories" category to the talk pages adds only one extra step when creating a new cricket subcategory - one has to click on the "discuss this page" link before one pastes the category tag in. It would take ten extra seconds, tops. The result would be a category listing just like the current arrangement, but without breaking Wikipedia guidelines on categorization in the process. Bryan 08:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem with that... Sam Vimes 09:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jguk's reverted everything I did last night moving category tags into talk pages, and I'm not going to maintain the list page if it's not going to be a replacement for that category. So I'm back to square one, except that IMO Jguk's arguments are even less well grounded than they were the first time. Anyone think this'd be worth starting a poll or RfC over, or should I just go away for a while and try again later like I did last time? Bryan 02:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone else has listed this for deletion now - Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Cricket_subcategories. Just thought I'd point it out. Sam Vimes 13:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not my doing, and now I'm somewhat torn - I do still think it should be deleted, but I'm also okay with moving the category tags into talk: pages and I generally don't approve of putting pages through closely-spaced votes for deletion. It's only been four months since last time. I'll have to think about it before I vote on this one. Bryan 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tour info template

I've made a sort of "summary template" for a Test/ODI series, a sample of which can be viewed at Pakistanis in West Indies in 2005. However, I have a few problems with it. It interferes with the International cricket in 2005 template, pushing it down the page if I put it at the top, but at the place it is at now it's making the page a bit messy. Oh, and I would like to make it into an infobox at some point, just need to replace the facts with generic tags. I like the general look of it, though... Sam Vimes 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work, Your Grace - I have tidied the format a bit - what do you think? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, another Discworld reader. :) That looks somewhat better - at least it doesn't interfere with all the text now. I like the thing you've done with the stats tables, I noticed when I went on another computer that the Best Bowling columns were all messed up when you had a small resolution. Hopefully that's fixed now. I'll try to get that format over to the Bangladeshis in England in 2005 page as well. Sam Vimes 11:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I changed the order of the lines to show all the Test stats followed by all the ODI stats. I think it's clearer that way — see what you think.

It occurs to me that the layout may need to be flexible for different tours, which will probably preclude using a proper Wikipedia template. For example, if there was a triangular tournament, or different captains for Tests and ODIs, or a player of the series from each team, or... Too many different variations.

Stephen Turner 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)'

Yeah, I agree with that last comment on flexible templates. Copying and pasting a table like that would be fairly simple anyway (bit hard to new editors, perhaps). I like the reorganisation thing you've done, too - puts ODIs on the bottom where it should be! ;) Sam Vimes 10:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can use the {{subst:TEMPLATE NAME}} function. For example, typing in {{subst:CricketCOTF}} gives the following (you will need to look at it in edit mode):

This is the current WikiProject Cricket collaboration of the fortnight! Please help improve it to featured article standard.

jguk 10:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quantity v quality?

I'm wondering what people think about whether it's better to write a (reasonable) stub for as many cricketers as possible as quickly as possible, so that there's something to see if someone clicks on a player's name; or to take a slower and more methodical approach and write full articles straight off at the cost of leaving lots of redlinks for longer but with the benefit of having more professional-looking articles from the start.

Looking at the Wisden Cricketer of the Year article as a reasonable guide to notable cricketers, there are still a lot of redlinks to cricketers who should be covered in any good encyclopedia; and aside from those listed there, until Sam Vimes wrote an article yesterday there was nothing at all about Gareth Batty, for example. He may not have done much in the first Test against Bangladesh, but it seemed a little hard on him even so!

Personally I'm inclined to the first option I mentioned - that of making sure there's something on all the really big names - since, for example, I noticed last night that Vijay Merchant didn't have an entry at all. Given his notability as having the second-highest first-class average after Bradman I felt that was something that needed rectifying at once and so wrote a stub, but I don't really have the required knowledge to write a full-length piece on him. Any comments welcomed of course. Loganberry | Talk 11:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally would like stubs - after all, they might invite some users to add more. And I know from writing the Batty article that writing articles takes a fair bit of time (and that's nowhere near the standard I'd like it to be at). Sam Vimes 20:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me; even (eg) "Dominic Cork was an English cricketer" would be something, I think, though a longer stub would of course be better. As for time, I reckon I can get a reasonable basic article on a cricketer I know a little about done in around an hour (Ian Austin took about that long), but it's a different story for something more comprehensive: Norman Gifford took three or four days. And this is a mighty WikiProject we're engaged on, as we all know - even my little mini-task of ensuring that every Worcestershire player who's appeared for England in recent years has an article is still some way from completion. Loganberry | Talk 22:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As shown by the fact that I had to write about Batty! ;) Sam Vimes 18:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh, indeed so! Actually I was about to start work on that article when I noticed that you'd done it for me. =:P I have slowed down a bit on that, but the list I use to keep track of things, at User:Loganberry/Cricket, is being kept more or less up to date. Loganberry | Talk 23:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to get a reasonable stub together pretty quickly by paraphrasing the most notable facts from cricinfo and adding a stats infobox. In terms of preference, I think it would be better to work through the redlinks adding stubs that can be turned into complete articles, rather than being more methodical (obviously we would like full articles on everyone, but something about everyone is better than full articles about a small number of people, IMHO). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's more or less what I've been doing in the last couple of days, though I've found CricketArchive useful as well for extra stats. I must admit I've not been putting in the infoboxes immediately, though, as they're rather fiddly and time-consuming to fill in. On the plus side, the stub I've written on Adam Hollioake means that all Wisden Cricketers of the Year back to 1999 now have something, and another 11 (I think) will take us back to the start of the 1990s. Loganberry | Talk 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bowler or bowling?

I've discovered we have articles on both bowler and bowling. Should they be combined? Stephen Turner 18:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is "no". Perhaps they should highlight one another more obviously, but given the fact that bowling has 25 subpages, keeping the man separate from the action is probably reasonable. Guettarda 18:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cricket transclusion discussion at Village Pump

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Unusual_transclusion_issue_not_covered_by_policy. Bovlb 05:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Goodbye

I have decided to leave the project. My reasons for doing so are on my userpage. I'd like to say that it was a pleasure working with you. Wikipedia's cricket articles are really going places. WikiProject Cricket has increased WP's cricket-related featured articles from 2 to 7, and the Ashes should become the eighth once it gets nominated. It's looking like we'll soon have our first featured list. We also have loads of articles on lots of cricketers, comprehensive coverage of the 2005 English cricket season and the 2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup (PLEASE KEEP THESE UP!). I wish you all and the WikiProject all the best, jguk 19:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a very unfortunate turn of events and I have written to jguk to express my thanks at his efforts with Wikipedia's cricket coverage. Unfortunately I don't have time to keep 2005 English cricket season up to scratch myself but I will undertake to keep Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005 and National League Division Two in 2005 updated: can anyone do the same for the corresponding Division One pages? --Ngb 12:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've helped out with a lot of write-ups - I doubt they'll be AS detailed as they've been, but I'll certainly try and do my bit! I'd like to say goodbye to you here as well - hope it's not a final farewell... Sam Vimes 18:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go as well, jguk. My strength is not really in the sort of "news" articles that things like 2005 English cricket season require, so I'm not sure whether I'll be able to do that much to help with those, but I'll try to keep up with the biographical articles, which I greatly enjoy writing. =:) Loganberry | Talk 23:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photos for season coverage

I have just being doing some updating on Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005 and National League Division Two in 2005 and it occurs to me that our articles could be further improved by photos: there are a couple by Jguk in the National League article which he has obviously taken at Surrey home games. I go along to most Durham home games and will try to take some photos there to enhance our coverage. Are there any other contributors regularly going along to County games who might be able to take photos?

Secondly, are any of us in England going along to any of the NatWest Challenge/Series games or any of the Ashes Tests? Some photos from there would be good too. --Ngb 08:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I am afraid I live too far away from any county grounds to go on a regular basis (a good hour's drive – I'm 16 and the public transport is, well, abysmal), but I have some photos of the Lord's Test that can go in, and I shall take more at Edgbaston (both ODI and Test) and also at Old Trafford (Test). smoddy 09:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I added one to Cambridge UCCE v Essex. I see the image in the Cambridge page, and the 8-30 April page, but not in the Essex page. Maybe I'm just reading a cached version and it will show up later?

Yes, it likely you are viewing a cached version. Just increase/decrease the image size on the Essex page by a pixel. The new image will be rendered.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

That's for updating an image. For this, click on "purge cache" in the talk page. smoddy 11:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So THAT's what it's for *archives in list of useful information*. :) Sam Vimes 11:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dim, but I can't find this "purge cache" of which you speak. I'm still not seeing my image in Essex_County_Cricket_Club_in_2005. Are other people seeing it there? Stephen Turner 11:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am, at least. And now there's a purge the cache link up, too. Sam Vimes 11:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Women's cricket

I doubt I'll be able to help much, but I thought I should bring the WikiProject's attention to what (to me) looks like a glaring gap in coverage. The only article I can find anywhere on WP about women's cricket is this one. I'm not suggesting for a moment it should be covered in anything like the depth that men's cricket is covered, but surely there must be more that can be said than just two paragraphs? OpenToppedBus - Talk 16:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The lack of coverage of Women's cricket is a problem, but sadly not one that I have the applicable knowledge to fix. --Ngb 16:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that just recently when editing the Terry Alderman article; his sister Denise Emerson played at Test level for Australia, but has nothing. I don't know much about women's cricket either, but it would be great to see someone on this WikiProject who did. Loganberry (Talk) 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe User:Ambi or nixie could be called to edit some articles.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - I was planning to do something about this (when I have time) after the comments on WP:FLC. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just written a pretty basic stub for Denise Emerson, during the writing of which a few points came to mind:

• Do we refer to teams as (eg) "New South Wales Women" rather than just "New South Wales"? Both Cricinfo and CricketArchive do so, and so I've followed their lead for now.
• Where should the national team be linked? The Australian cricket team article mentions the women's team only very incidentally. If we include women's cricket in the main article, that will make it very long (and in any case it will then be about teams rather than team), but if we have a separate Australian women's cricket team page, then people will ask why the other one isn't at Australian men's cricket team.
• Following on from that, what about categories? [[Category:Australian female cricketers]] or something?
• Most women cricketers use the term "batsman"; do we do the same or try to get around the slight awkwardness with another akwardness such as "batter" or even just "bat"?

There are doubtless other points to be worked out as we go along, but perhaps mentioning some of them now might save at least some problems later on. Loganberry (Talk) 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know there's an article Women's test cricket? - Ian 23:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC). And also a category - Category:Women's cricket - Ian 00:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I knew about the Women's test cricket article, though not the category (now added to the Denise Emerson article). Mind you, I'm not sure about that title - there's plenty of women's ODI cricket, after all. Women's international cricket or something might be better, since we don't have separate Test and ODI pages for the men's teams. (And as the redlink heading to this section shows, women's cricket in general has no article at all as yet.) Loganberry (Talk) 01:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

128.250.128.42

This person has done some outstanding work but seems to have stopped after early May. Is he someone that we know under some other name ? Tintin 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of very detailed edits done by "IP address" editors; 128.250.128.41 and 203.221.28.94 are two others. They all seem to be in a similar style, so may well be the same person under different IPs. My only slight concern is that there are one or two phrases dotted around which seem to indicate that the text was written quite a long time ago; ie that it comes from another, unacknowledged, source. That could indicate copyright problems in some cases, less so on the very early cricketers but more so with someone like Derek Shackleton. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that, since they're extremely useful articles, but I would feel much happier if the editor worked under a consistent (and signed-in!) name. Loganberry (Talk) 14:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are some outstanding articles, but checking the contributions, I am wondering what prompted them? Would be fantastic if he/she is some sort of cricket-loving writer who has got vast stores of information and rewords it; a quick Google of random phrases in some of their contributions found no internet matches. Contributors like this one, if you're out there, sign up and keep up the good work!!!--Cory 18:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're clearly not from Wisden, which is one thing out of the way. (Though presumably we could in fact use large chunks from Wisden articles published before 1923, in line with US copyright law?) My initial impression was that they came (perhaps only slightly paraphrased) from pre-war cricket books, but I'm not so sure any more; if they are indeed original writing then I hope the author will be writing more! Loganberry (Talk) 23:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cricket terminology

Cricket terminology is a Featured list candidate.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cricinfo templates

Note that the old {{cricinfo}} templates for Player Profiles used in some players' "External links" sections no longer work now that Cricinfo's player pages are organised in a different way. I'm generally replacing them by straightforward links to the new URL; slightly more time-consuming but reliable - see Marcus Trescothick for an example. The old-style links in Infoboxes do still work, however. Loganberry (Talk) 00:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The {{cricinfo}} template still works, but the "ref=" has to be changed to the new URL - see Marcus Trescothick for an example :) I first notice that the cricinfo database straucture had changed a few weeks ago and have slowly been changing the references as and when, although I haven't had the time to work through all of the "What links here" from {{cricinfo}}. I think it is helpful to have a standard template for these sorts of referencs, like the {{imdb}} template. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, then. I thought I'd tried that without success, but I must have included a typo or something. Loganberry (Talk) 10:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)