Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Harry Trott

Hi all. I have expanded the article on Harry Trott recently and reading it back I am concerned it is a little hagiographic. He does appear to have been genuinely well-liked as a person and almost universally respected as a captain. I have found some criticism of his captaincy, and of his bowling but as a person I have found nothing. Any ideas, suggestions etc. would be gratefully received. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel jealous of you guys (Aussies and English) that there is so much literature available about early cricketers. Over here, it is impossible for an ordinary cricket enthusiast to collect detailed information about even high profile cricketers from the "middle-ages" like Vinoo Mankad or Vijay Manjrekar. Very few have biographies or autobiographies about them, and even then, except for the very recent players, it is impossible get a copy from bookshops or libraries. Tintin 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

I see since I was last here there's another advert. Well, one name that intersects both is Bradman's. And his 100th birthday is coming up. I'm working on getting the article Featured in time for him being on the main page on his 100th. Collaborators welcomed. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Boycott

I am here to ask anyone who may be at a test match in England this summer to see if they could snap a photo of Geoffrey Boycott for the article, and anyone who knows of any other way of getting images for the article, please can they help out. Particularly on flickr, could someone in the know take a look for images, as my knowledge of flickr image copyrights (and copyright in general) is not ideal, I'm not even sure of the current flickr image.

Anyone who can help, it would be greatly appreciated! SGGH ^speak! 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning sponsors in articles

I recently removed all mention of sponsors from the Indian Premier League article and articles on the IPL teams. It is common practice, and IMO in keeping with WP:Advert for sports articles to avoid mention of sponsors (see, for instance, Major League Baseball). This is also common in the media and other encyclopedias. An exception would occur if a competition or team is named after a commercial entity, or it controls broadcast rights (and therefore has some involvement in governance/organisation), or if a sponsorship becomes newsworthy in some other way (e.g. undue influence on coaching/selection etc).

An anonymous editor or editors using IPs beginning with 58 and 59 is repeatedly reverting my removal of the "Sponsorship" section from the IPL article. I have explained the situation to him/her on the talk page, but he/she has since ceased discussions. I would appreciate any support or comment that can be offered by other experienced editors. Cheers, Grant | Talk 03:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see the IP doing it here, it is 58 something. I would have thought (my opinion only) that as the IPL and its financial situation is part of the reason that it is of such huge significance in the first place, and thus the sponsorship deals might be worth some mention, however I am not 100% up on MoS's opinion on this, to defer to your better judgement, Grant. You can always request protection from anon IPs if the IP is refusing to discuss the situation with you, and invite the IP to go to some dispute resolution options or just open a dialog... SGGH ^speak! 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And also, the IP only seems to have ceased transmission on the talk page 2 hours ago... ? SGGH ^speak! 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron Saggers

Working on him for the FT drive above, does anyone know of any good sources for his early life? SGGH ^speak! 07:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He was married in 1941.[1] Looking for more. - Mattinbgn\^talk 08:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good find! I've put it in. SGGH ^speak! 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 on main page

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 will appear on the main page on May 7th, the 20th anniversary of the start of the tour. Many thanks to Raul.

I've started going through and doing some sprucing up, partly because MOS etc has developed since this went to FA and partly to correct errors etc that have crept in.

I'd appreciate some help particularly with tidying up the reference formatting. Oh, and with the inevitable vandalism that'll come on May 7th (next Wed)! Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful news! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent news! Well done to all those who have contributed. JH (talk page) 16:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, woohoo. All eyes to it, it's going to be wrecked. Also, any help between now and its appearance to make sure it still meets the general requirement of being "the best that Wikipedia can offer" would be gratefully accepted! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Trumble

Hugh Trumble has now been listed at FAC and all comments, suggestions, criticism etc. would be gratefully received. I would appreciate some help with deciphering WP:IUP which has been raised as an issue at FAC. This will affect other likely FA candidates such as Donald Bradman. The images Image:Aus1930Team.jpg, Image:BradmanCigCard.jpg, Image:Bradman 1937.JPG, and Image:BradmanHooksVoce.jpg included in the Bradman article do not meet a strict interpretation of WP:IUP despite being clearly in the public domain. It may be worth sorting out the issue one way or the other now to avoid hold ups with Bradman. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right but some of my Trumble images are still lacking a source. I have fixed one. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

B-class rating criteria

I've just used this rating method for History of cricket and have had to downgrade the article from B to start because I don't think it satisfies two of the points. One is inline citations, which is inevitable given that I rewrote it!

The other is about use of supporting materials. It currently has four images, all of them relevant and useful. You can't really use an infobox in an article like this, not any existing infobox certainly. Perhaps some kind of graph or table could be added. But you could add more piccies. I'd like to know what people think about the volume of supporting materials in an article: is four pictures enough in an article like this or should we be looking at, say, six or a dozen or how many?

I think the B-class criteria is a good method, though. We've always been a bit woolly (me included) in the way ratings were applied to articles below the FA and GA standards. We seem to have got A-class sorted too. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Hand

Can someone more familiar with him than me keep an eye on Kevin Hand? I've removed some BLP violations, but given the high level of IP activity on the page I've no doubt it will continue to be edit-warred over. — iridescent 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, almost the entirely article needs to go. He barely qualifies as notable, if at all, and the article is completely un-sourced. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but not living in his catchment area I don't really want to pass judgement; for all I know he's a major figure in London. (Which wouldn't change the fact that this article is wretched.) — iridescent 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Londoner and have never heard of him. Maybe we should test his fame by putting him to AfD? Johnlp (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted an AfD on him. It's certainly borderline - I suppose he's the cricketing equivalent of those local radio DJs who sometimes get kept and sometimes deleted when they come up for AFD. In light of the article history I expect a festival of sockpuppetry on both sides of the argument. — iridescent 23:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin needed urgently

Another Tiger O'Reilly situation. I'm sure that all genuine cricket fans recognise the name of Peter May who was unquestionably one of the greatest England batsmen and captains since WWII. Someone called User:Janice.hally (a redlink username, always suspicious) has taken it upon herself to move Peter May to Peter May (cricketer) in order to disambiguate him from a Scottish TV scenarist (wow!) and an American (surprise, surprise) mathematician. The American doesn't even have the same title as he is called J. Peter May.

I've tried to undo this but when a move is involved it can't be done by normal means. It's one of those situations that makes me regret I never became an admin (mind you, the blocks would have made your eyes water).

This is a ludicrous attempt to undermine a major cricket figure. It smacks of O'Reilly all over again. Would one of you who did bother to become an admin please deal with it? Thanks. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen has sorted this out. Many thanks to him. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The other night I changed a lot of links from Peter May to Peter May (cricketer) to clean up after the page move but I should have checked first whether the move was warranted so I apologise about that. Crickettragic (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this would be the same Janice Hally who, according to this is married to a Mr Peter May? Hmmmmm................ The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another page move

Blackjack's above complaint regarding a cricketer who probably shouldn't have been disambiguated has reminded me about Ian Bell's page. Ian Bell is a disambiguation page with links to two articles, one is the cricketer and the other Ian Bell (programmer). This programmer has about two sentences while the cricketer has a B class article and is considerably more notable. I don't know if this has been debated before but is this another case of a page that should not be disambiguated? Crickettragic (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is another case where the cricketer should have the main page as he is far more notable. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi, I've just come across Wibsey Park Chapel Cricket Club, an entry on what appears to be a fairly non-notable cricket club playing in Bradford. Their players don't have entries (those that appear to do are all wrong) and their leagues don't have entries. I've created an AfD, but thought I'd bring it to attention of the appropriate project. Peanut4 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England. This may be a good time to remind members to keep that page on their watchlists. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket, of course (though I added it to England too). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New infobox template wanted

Some recent editing of and discussion at West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 has revealed that the creation of a template for a new infobox is desirable. The existing infobox (Template:Infobox cricket series) is useful, but it only deals with information from one particular series (eg a Test series or a One Day International series but not all the series from a tour). For pages such as the 1988 West Indies-England page, where one team tours a country and plays more than one series against that country, an infobox summarising all aspects of that tour might be useful. This might be called "Template:Infobox cricket tour". (Note: the existing infobox can deal with 3-team tournaments, whereas this proposed new infobox would probably only deal with 2 teams). Taking the current infobox as a starting point, I propose that after the 2 teams are listed there should be sections for:

• "Captains" (if captains the same for all parts of series...not the case for West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 for example)
• "Test captains"
• "Most Test runs"
• "Most Test wickets"
• "One Day International Captains"
• "Most ODI runs"
• "Most ODI wickets"
• (and I suppose for the future) "Twenty20 Captains"
• "Most Twenty20 runs"
• "Most Twenty20 wickets"

It would also be useful to have "Player of the Series" listed for each different series. (Not present in the current infobox either). All of these parameters would have to be optional, to take into account the particular itinerary of a tour (eg if there was a 5-ODI and 3-Twenty20 match tour, the Test match lines could be omitted). Unfortunately, I am ill-equipped to code up such a template, so I'm afraid someone else would have to make such a template it it was to be made. Juwe (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Trumble

This FAC for the former Australian captain is standing at 3 Supports. If one or two of you chaps could find a few minutes to review and opine, that'd be excellent. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitri Mascarenhas

As he's the only English player in the IPL, I'm curious how it is that Rajasthan have just started their 8th match... and he's not made a single appearance. He was named in the squad for today's match, so I don't suppose he's injured. It's also not as if others have performed outstandingly to keep him out. According to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ipl/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=3519;team=4345;type=tournament, Trivedi has played in all 8 matches and his stats are averages of 4 with the bat and 38.80 (Economy 8.43) with the ball. What's going on? Has Macarenhas fallen out with Warney? --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things:

• I'm not sure that he has been in India for the entire IPL (I'm not 100% sure if this is the case though)
• Each team is only allowed to field 4 non-Indians in its starting 11. The obvious 4 at the moment are Shane Warne (captain-coach, and bowling quite well too), Shane Watson (one of the leading run scorers and leading wicket takers in the tournament so far), Graeme Smith (South African captain and opening batsman) and Sohail Tanvir (opening bowler who took 6/14 a few days ago).Juwe (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought he'd been there for the whole thing, but irrespective of that, point 2 is a good one. I wasn't aware of that. He must be the best paid drinks waiter in the history of cricket. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The commentators were actually interviewing Mascarenhas during a Rajasthan match just a few days ago, and he seemed pretty happy with the setup and with Warnie (although obviously he would like to be playing). Rajasthan have been the surprise packets of the tournament so far, winning 5 of their first 6 matches, so that makes it even harder to break into the starting lineup. I too hope Dimitri gets a few games and I'm pretty confident that he will at some point. Oh, and I think that there are quite a few well-paid twelfth (or 13th, 14th...) men in the IPL. Anyone know why Jacques Kallis (USD 900,000 per IPL season) wasn't playing for Bangalore last match. Has he left India, is he injured or did the unthinkable happen and he was dropped? Juwe (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, you might be interested to read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/cricket.html?in_article_id=563631&in_page_id=1849

It seems Mascarenhas arrived in India a few rounds into the IPL, so his non-selection isn't a sign of long-term shunning. He also takes a bit of a swipe at Ganguly for not accepting Graeme Smith's word about a catch.Juwe (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Isn't it nice to see one of the great workhorse bowlers on Main Page? What a terrific servant to WI cricket he was. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He looks a little surprised to be there... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's a modest guy. :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the front page and found a picture of the Israeli flag, which I guess could be called a tireless workhorse bowler and servant of WI cricket... Aah, I see. Actually, what surprises me the most about the article is that it only has two imaes yet is a FA featured on the main page. I thought that one of the criterion for FA was a lrage number of images. --Roisterer (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<- From What is a Featured Article?:

It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject...

--Dweller (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think Geoffrey Boycott would make it through without more images though :( and I've been waiting to FAC that for ages now. SGGH ^speak! 11:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Having looked, I think it just needs one decent photo of the man from in front! --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't really need a photo. Ngo Dinh Can. Having said that if the guy is still alive and in public, people expect a corny one at least? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Laws of cricket

This has been under attack in recent months. Could an admin please put some protection on it? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The pattern of vandalism is far too infrequent to merit protection right now, I'm afraid. But please do drop me a line if there's a renewed onslaught. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll keep it on the watchlist. How's Delia and her Canaries? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of last appearance question

When one's filling in a template for a player's infobox, is the consensus of opinion that the first day of his last match should be entered as the date of the player's last appearance, or the last day of his last match? The latter is what I've been using, as it seems more logical to me, but I suspect that a lot of people may be using the former. JH (talk page) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I've tended to use the first day of the last match, since that's how the matches are listed in CricketArchive, which is the site I usually use. But I agree the logic of your choice. Johnlp (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone to the lengths of looking at the match's scorecard. Sometimes a match had a rest day, which made the last day a day later than one might expect. Or the match might have finished a day early or the last day have been completely rained off. (Fortunately the CricketArchive scorecards tend to be very good about detailing such things.) JH (talk page) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I use the last day of the last match; I have a feeling that I asked this question a long time ago, but can't remember the exact answer, or even whether there was a consensus. Like JH, I always look at the CricketArchive scorecard to see exactly when the last game finished. I don't feel so strongly about this that I would fight tooth and nail if "first day" were thought better by others, but it seems more satisfactory to use "last day" given that (thanks to CricketArchive) the precise day the player last appeared is known and checkable. Well, unless he was injured halfway through the match! Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely last day of match for appearances. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cricket terms

I have nominated the List of cricket terms, for Featured list removal. Any comments are welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is a copyright violation of here and will need a total re-write I believe. SGGH ^speak! 09:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's the other way round - our article looks to have developed fairly normally over time with old versions missing terms included in the current version and including some that were later removed. --Cherry blossom tree 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See Tintin 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Check for notability

I was going to start writing an article on Josh Coulthurst (Stats, courtesy of Cricket Archive here). Yes, a first-class appearance, but no at-bat, and no bowling, achieved in the match. Still notable, though? Bobo. 02:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought - maybe the fact that he "played" first-class cricket but did not bat, bowl or field is the reason he is notable. Juwe (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tru' 'nuff. I suppose playing encompasses fielding too. I'll put it on there anyway. If anyone on here has any problem with the article being included, please feel free to prod or AfD it. Thank you, Juwe. Bobo. 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It doesn't look like he even fielded though. If you look at the scorecard, Northamptonshire didn't bat in the match, so Coulthurst wouldn't have even got out of the pavilion. Juwe (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say he was still notable. A first-class appearance is a first-c;ass appearance. If you start qualifying it further, then where do you draw the line? How about a batsman run out without facing a ball? JH (talk page) 08:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of cricket terms

If you see the above page, you will see that tagging articles as featured lists (it was for some reason down as a FA, not an FL) is putting them in an unassessed category. I suspect there is something slightly amiss with the template! If there are other featured lists in this project, they need to be FL not FA, which I suspect some of them may be. SGGH ^speak! 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman

I've almost finished the copyedit that was the first step toward FAC and a potential main page on his 100th birthday in August. I've liberally "decorated" the article with {{cn}} tags. I would be most grateful for help in completing the citations so we can get rid of this pox of tags! There are also some thorny issues I've included as hidden comments in the text. Feel free to help with these too! Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattingbgn has got cracking on this. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blowers

No idea if the old boy uses this newfangled Interthingy, but I'm sure he'd be tickled if some chap added one of those infobox whatjimacallits to his article. After all, my dear old thing, he made a first class hundred. Is that a bus? Goodness gracious, it's all happening. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone confirm the story of Ernst Stavro Blofeld from one of 'enry's books. More than a decade ago, one of the sports magazines here had serialised his "Caught short on the boundary and other tall stories". Blofeld's version in it was that Ian Fleming, who was looking for an evil name, chanced into their club, glanced through the register, found three Blofleds and looked no further. The classmate-father story appears in several newsmedia but what Blofeld has said in his books should take precedence over everything else (unless there is proof that Blofeld made up the story).

Sorry for yet another instance of nitpicking but the last thing we need is to include an error (however minor it may be) and then have others quote it. Tintin 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the article talk page, we contradict the story elsewhere on WP. Balance would suggest we include both in his biog. Incidentally, the current version is very weakly worded. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Project Template

Ive been going through and fixing talk page links to the Template:WP Cricket, which is just a redirect to the project template Template:WikiProject Cricket. After discussion on my talk page, another editor suggested that this is not nescessary as we can "make them identical". Its left me with the questions: how do we make the templates idential? (can it be done), and is what im doing nescessary? Five Years 07:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If one redirects to another, they will be identical... won't they? SGGH ^speak! 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so? The question then is, should we remove all of the redirects? or not? Five Years 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy. It'll probably be easier to save yourself and let a bot do it. But why bother? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Marsh

First Australian indigenous cricketer at FC level. An interesting and obscure cricketer. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Boycott

Could anyone just quickly review this edit to check the user didn't chop off any important information. I can't quite get a handle on it as I didn't write the original. SGGH ^speak! 08:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Major Appeal

I have a major appeal for anyone going to the test matches against New Zealand that begin next week. Aside from the obvious request for photos of any and all players, I also implore someone to take photos of Geoffrey Boycott if he is there for his article. I know I keep asking, but he is a few images away from FA class I can feel it! There is both the satisfaction and a barnstar in it for you!!!! Thanks! SGGH ^speak! 11:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Going next Saturday. If I see him... if I remember my camera... and if I haven't shipped too much beer beforehand... Johnlp (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! SGGH ^speak! 12:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely there, I'm listening to him going off on one on TMS SGGH ^speak! 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No joy. It rained. A lot. Johnlp (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BAH! :) SGGH ^speak! 09:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas I didn't see Geoff kicking about anywhere. I took one or two pictures of the match though but they're nothing more than long/wide shots the field, are they worth putting up? Tony2Times (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure, pictures are always useful. Anyone going to tomorrows match at Old Trafford? SGGH ^speak! 10:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1920-21 Australians

Can anyone identify the players in this image below: I have:-

• Back: unknown, Jack Ryder, unknown, Jack Gregory?, unknown, unknown, unknown
• Middle: unknown, unknown, Herbie Collins, Warwick Armstrong, Charlie Macartney, Sammy Carter, unknown
• Front: unknown, unknown

Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Back row: Bardsley, Ryder, Hendry, Gregory, Mayne, Andrews, Sydney Smith (manager)

Sitting: Mailey, McDonald, Collins, Armstrong, Macartney, Carter, Taylor

Front: Pellew, Oldfield.

Johnlp (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is the 1921 side, hence no Kelleway. The photo looks like it was taken at Lord's. Johnlp (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was taken at Lord's in 1921. Can't remember if it was Lord's or the Oval where the Big Ship stood reading the newspaper! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone even the slightest bit interested, the manager Sydney Smith was the son of Sydney Smith (Australian politician) and quite notable in his own right. --Roisterer (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NB That image has been bot tagged for suitability for deletion. Also, it might be nice to do a person-identifyer map, like the one done for the Invincibles on their ship. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is not credited in Barclays World of Cricket, 1986 edition, when very large numbers of pictures are credited (and to many of the usual suspects in the world of copyright tenacity). That makes me think it was out of copyright then, or is an "official" photo released for publicity purposes (of which we are, at some remove, presumably one). Johnlp (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Young first-class English cricketers at time of death

This is by no means a serious question or a necessity to get out record books of any kind, but I was just looking through a bunch of articles I had written, some recently, some not so, including Harry Keeling (Cricket Archive) and Joseph Chatterton (Cricket Archive)..

I am intrigued as to any other - particularly English first-class cricketers, who had maybe died at an even earlier age. I believe the Test record for all countries is still held by Manjural Islam Rana - but I would be interested to find out if anyone else had anything to offer on the matter? Maybe even if there any concrete stats available?

In closing, I have no idea why I'm asking this, maybe me and my girlfriend have run out of things to talk about during the baseball! Bobo. 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben Hollioake seems to have beeen about the same age as Keeling and Graham Kersey just slightly older. But Chatterton's sad record would be hard to beat. Hollioake and Kersey, probably like most deaths at a young age nowadays, both died in car crashes. There will probably have been a number of cricketers who died very young during the two world wars. JH (talk page) 09:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Edmunds was marginally younger than Chatterton. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for very interesting insights and swift replies. I will keep rooting around for young players, particularly from the early days when, I guess, life expectancy isn't what it is now. Looks like an article on Richard Edmunds wouldn't be so hard to put together, I might as well do that now, fulfil the lifelong destiny of a redlink.. of course, if anyone else has something to offer on the subject, I will bow to your greater wisdom and more persistent searching skills. Bobo. 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Thomas Hone, an Irish player who played three first-class matches for Cambridge University in June 1881 died less than two months later at the age of 20 in rather tragic cirumstances. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradman update

Thanks to lots of you for helping. Article is almost ready for a Peer Review, but we still need 18 claims to be cited. Assistance gratefully received. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We desperately need someone to get their paws on a copy of Charles Davis' book, to cite the chart at the bottom of the article. Much obliged. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just 4 citations still needed, plus the one for Davis' book. Help requested. I'm heading to Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Uniformity

I'm not sure if it was brought up in the myriad archives of discussion somewhere here but it seems that there's no uniformity when creating the tours pages for current cricket seasons. Some include the squads, some don't, some list them by batting/bowling position, some don't, some put all the matches in chronological order, some put the tour matches at the end &c. &c. I think it'd be very sensible to have some laws to follow when constructing these pages, or to refer to people who may be constructing them incorrectly, to save bickering or a lack of action and make all the pages look pretty similar so there's consistency. Tony2Times (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The problem is volume. The vast majority of tour articles are still stubs. We do have consensus (see WP:CRIC) on naming convention and categorisation, which is a good basis, but it is difficult to co-ordinate content when a huge number of articles are at various stages of development. I think the method of summarising Test matches is generally uniform. It seems to me that it is article structure that is inconsistent and that is something we need to work on. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We have one WP:FA quality tour article. I suggest that as that article has been reviewed and assessed by the community for quality and comprehensibleness (!) it might be a useful model. Not that it's perfect, by any means. --Dweller (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd prefer to talk of "guidelines" rather than "laws". It may be that there are a few tours where, for one reason or another, some of the guidelines won't be appropriate. JH (talk page) 08:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

problem citing 1st class innings

In the Bradman article, I'm trying to cite (it's number 65 as I write) that Bradman went 13 1st class innings without a hundred for the only time in his career in/around the 1934 tour of England. I thought an easy way to do this was using Cricket Archive's pages. But the url generated by the list of Bradman's 1st class scores is not specific to him. Anyone got another idea? --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This should to the trick, although it's a very long link --Jpeeling (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's amazing, but what I really need is the list of all his 1st class scores in his career (otherwise, I'm citing the 13 OK, but not that it never happened before or after that he went so long without a ton). --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it ([2]), by chopping off the 1934 from your url. How did you do that? --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you type in 'Bradm' then you get another option, which for some reason gives you a proper link when you select Bradman. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. V. useful. --Dweller (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of cricket terms

I have run out of references to use, but if someone has a book or source they can use to reference this article fully, then we can keep it as a featured list, otherwise it's going to get demoted. SGGH ^speak! 09:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have one that may be useful, but I'm quite busy with Bradman at the moment. How many terms still need citing? --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say at least 1/3-1/2 SGGH ^speak! 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template

You may have noticed a new navigation template on this page. It has been shamelessly plagiarised from another project and adapted to suit WP:CRIC. I'll be adding it to several pages around the project.

The contents are not carved in stone and the team and biography items in particular are for illustration at present. Feel free to add or amend as you see fit. If you don't feel confident with the markup, drop me a line.

The other projects that use these things seem to swear by them so it should help us too. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I think it's time for our FT ads to have show/hide buttons. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. All you need to do is add a "hide=yes" parameter in the tag on this talk page. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A-class reviews

Unlike other projects, WP:CRIC has never had a structure within which it can perform and log formal A-class reviews (nor peer reviews, of which more later).

So, by borrowing freely from one of the other projects, I've created a new page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Review within which you can find Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Review#A-Class_review and this includes three articles, for starters, that I've nominated for formal review. One of them is a former featured article; the other two are a couple of superb efforts by our American friends.

Have a look and see what you think of the process as well as the articles. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since, as I understand it, an A rating is higher than GA, I'd always assumed that an article would have to pass the GA process before it could be consider for an A rating. I could well be wrong about that, though. (Incidentally, is there any way to get the bot that produces the table of assessed articles broken down by class and importance to recognise "bottom", which it didn't last time I looked)? JH (talk page) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It can simply be skipped. For example, you don't have to be GA before attempting FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing against Americans of course, but as the creator of the Philadelphian cricket team article, I must point out that I am actually English! User:Evadb, who is American, did a very good job on it too. Not sure about putting it forward for A class just yet though, it needs a little more work on the non first-class matches the team played, especially the regular matches they played against Bermuda between 1907 and 1928. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Picking up Blnguyen's point, is there anything to be gained in going for GA? B-class is a good quality article though incomplete. A-class is complete so there is clear line of progress from start to B to A. I can understand that you don't need a complete article for it to be FA as the focus could be on certain topics within the article's scope. That seems to leave GA in a sort of no man's land. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, GAs do tend to have more emphasis on getting WP:MOS and style correct, whereas most As in projects tend to not enforce this much at all. But you can just get some person who has done FAs to look at this stuff in-house via a personal request I think. It depends on personal choice. I felt initially not confident with going straight to FACs, but recently a few of mine passed without much 3rd party cleaning, so I don't bother with GA anymore. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review requested

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review#Peer_review where History of cricket has been nominated. This article needs inline citations to reach B-class but, given its top importance rating, we should be aiming much higher. Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review - Harry Trott

Hi all. Continuing a series on Australian captains of the Golden Age (see Clem Hill, Hugh Trumble), Harry Trott has been expanded for an attempt at FA status in the hopefully not-too-distant future. The article is currently at peer review and I would certainly welcome any comments, suggestions etc. at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Trott/archive1. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

IPL Sponsorship Details

Recently, there has been some dispute on the Indian Premier League page about whether to list sponsorship details about the IPL, and if so to what extent. I have suggested a proposal on the talk page, but it might be useful to have a few people take a look and try to reach a concensus. I am a little unsure of what is appropriate to have in the article myself, so any comments are appreciated. Thanks, Juwe (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review – The Ashes

Having been tagged for so long, it was long overdue for attention and this has been done, though it is probably only a start. See nomination here and add your comments, please. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another peer review

Biog of some chap called Bradman. Never heard of him. --Dweller (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have heard of the chap but only because of some research I did on Eric Hollies. Apparently this Bradman wasn't much chop as a batsman because not only did Hollies get him out for a duck but following the wicket, rather than somersault around the ground and high-five his team mates as is the custom when dismissing even Bangladeshi tailenders, Hollies merely shook hands with a team mate and got ready to bowl. --Roisterer (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware that this Bradman guy played in at least one other Test for Australia. He was in their team at Headingley in the 1930 series (that is, I think it's the same man). Anyway, he did absolutely nothing with the ball but he did make a contribution with the bat. Having managed to keep his wicket intact at close of play on the first day, he added 25 runs on the second morning before inevitably getting out. Now that's what I call a night watchman! BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RS?

Per Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2, what do people think about the reliability of 334notout.com? I can't find much about who's behind the site - any sherlocks out there? --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with the most documented cricketer ever in this article. I don't think we need to use any source that even raises a suspicion of not being RS. The three citations from 334* are easily available elsewhere. I also notice a dickibus.co.uk among the citations. Tintin 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think any dubious sources like those should be replaced by something that is definitely credible, even if it means overusing Wisden or Jack Fingleton's book, for example. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

European Twenty20 Championship

European Twenty20 Championship needs updating. It's about a tournament from July 2007 but it's essentially unchanged from early 2007 and is written in the future tense. Someone more familiar with the subject than me should rewrite it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked cricketers who have made their Twenty-20 debut in IPL

• Taruwar Kohli [3]
• Dinesh Salunkhe [4]
• (Vikrant Yeligati) (has already made his First-class debut) [5]
• Siddharth Chitnis [6]
• (Uday Kaul) (already has 18 first-class appearances) [7]

This is the list so far. There are still twelve matches to go until the final on June 1st. Before I do anything rash/stupid/confusing, anyone wanna write these up and/or speak out against their inclusion on Wikipedia? Bobo. 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The two who've played in first-class cricket already satisfy WP:CRIN but our wording there hasn't caught up with the IPL or with major Twenty20 tournaments in general. I'll see to it. Unless anyone strongly disagrees about the major cricket status of the IPL, I think you should go ahead with all five articles. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no argument as to whether IPL players are notable. Remember that the criteria for notability for sportsmen is to have played in a fully professional competition. This means that IPL, ICL and Stanford 20/20 players are all notable even if they have never played first-class or List A cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And that. conversely, cricketers who have played first-class matches only for Oxford University, for instance, presumably are not. (Though it would be simpler if they were.) And what about 18th and 19th century cricketers who played in pre County Championship days? We ought to think about these issues, so that we have a good answer ready if somewhat asserts that - for instance - Alfred Mynn does not meet the criteria for notability. (Of course, it depends a bit on how you define "competition".) JH (talk page) 09:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're covered by WP:ATHLETE. Johnlp (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:ATHLETE states that "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right. The operative phrase is "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport". Given that CUCC, MCC and OUCC are officially rated first-class, there is no problem with them even though they never took part in any kind of league. English cricketers before 1890 were involved in a non-league sport but all sources agree that they had the same major or first-class rating as players who took part in the County Championship. CricketArchive provides the best online answer to this through its match classification system which makes quite clear if a match was not major or first-class. Although this is their opinion in the absence of official ratings, it is certainly verifiable for our purposes.

We can also apply the word "competition" to a one-off match: every match before 1890 and anything involving MCC and universities since then has been a competition in its own right. This was even more so in the days when teams of professionals played for high stakes.

Anyway, I expanded the wording of WP:CRIN to make clear that all major Twenty20 tournaments meet the criteria, including any tournament like the IPL which forms new teams for the purpose. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, everyone. I have swiftly knocked off an article about Kohli. Any improvements are much appreciated. Bobo. 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh -FA Review

Harbhajan Singh has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Arman ^(Talk) 10:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Can someone tell me who this is? Plays for Worcestershire.

• 

Cheers SGGH ^speak! 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Graeme Hick. Johnlp (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, a good photo to upload then! SGGH ^speak! 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely is Graeme Hick, but see new topic below. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Record for f-c runs scored on an England tour

With 334notout.com deemed unreliable, I am (almost unbelievably) really struggling for a RS for this statement (re 1930): "Bradman's first-class tally for the tour, 2,960 runs (at 98.66 with 10 centuries), was another record." Maybe it's been superseded? (If so, I'd like to know!) Help gratefully received. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wisden Book of Cricket Records certainly has it. Johnlp is one of the people who have that book. Tintin 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that it hasn't been superseded, but citing something to prove that is another matter. Wisden used to have a table with all instances of 3,000 or more runs in an English season, and no tourist appeared in that. And if a tourist had scored between 2,961 and 2,999 runs in a season, I'm sure that I would have heard of it. (However the Australian with most runs in an English season is Bill Alley, who scored over 3,000 in 1961 when playing for Somerset. JH (talk page) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This page says that it is copyright The Bradman Foundation, which suggests that it could be reasonably authoritative. JH (talk page) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

JH - that'll do nicely. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought

I've recently been converted to WP:CITE and I now wonder what I have been missing all these years. I've lately carried out a full review of everything that aspired to B-class and reduced the total from just under 400 to a "mere" 133. Among the casualties were some 60-odd articles which had some character called Jack as sole contributor, though they lacked citations and images only (not bad grammar, no structure or unobjective tosh as in some other cases). Six of "my articles" actually passed so I suppose I haven't done too badly.

But I digress. Having completed my exercise, I discovered that User:SGGH had bowled me behind my legs with Graeme Hick as an additional B-class article. So I reviewed this and passed it according to our newly acquired six-point criteria which User:Jim Hardie borrowed from another project (several projects actually).

But as I read the Graeme Hick article (see the Photos topic above), I was struck by this paragraph in particular:

• Some felt that Hick was the victim of poor man-management, and Hick himself let his feelings slip in 2002, when asked who had been his best coach. "That's the trouble," he replied. "There haven't been any." Shane Warne felt he was "a classic example of a player who [had] really been messed around", and Ian Botham complained that when England had failed it always seemed to be "Hicky's neck [that was] the first on the line", although the journalist Leo McKinstry criticised Botham's "noisy advocacy of Hick in the face of all the evidence".

This concerns the perception that Graeme Hick is a great under-achiever. With a first-class batting average in the 50s and over 40k runs to his name plus 20k in ListA, some under-achiever!

The point is this: who the f*****g hell is "Leo McKinstry" and why does his opinion seemingly overrule those of Shane Warne and Ian Botham?

Don't "Leo McKinstrey" and his fellow "critics" have the intelligence to realise that the difference between Test cricket and county cricket is even wider than the difference between the FA Premiership and the Football League Championship. Graeme Hick's averages are a classic example of "lies, damned lies, statistics and New Labour". They completely distort the fact that this guy has been a brilliant first-class batsman. I wonder how Mr McKinstry and his ilk would fare against the likes of Mr Ambrose, Mr McGrath, Mr Donald and Mr Warne?

I think this example encapsulates a problem with verification. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it is credible or should be used in an article. Food for thought. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A point about Hick that is usually overlooked is that he had a choice to play for NZ, where he would only have a 4 year qualification period, been a regular selection & probably played 100 Tests, endured less scrutiny & enjoyed more public support, yet still be able to play county cricket. Still, he did have 65 Tests (vs Stuart Law's 1 and Jamie Siddons 0) which is a lot for someone who is supposedly the victim of inadequate opportunity. Hick's problem is that his mental approach was found out at Test level (as many others have been) but he was unable to rearrange his thought process; there is a relevant parallel here with Matthew Hayden. Hayden played a very similar game to Hick, and if you saw him bat against the West Indies in the mid 1990s you wouldn't have given two bob for his chances of playing more than a dozen Tests. However, he bided time until Slater's career imploded, and came back a very changed player in his approach, more so than his technique. I think it sums up Hick's career that such a big deal was made when Atherton declared with Hick on 98, not "letting" him get a hundred - no one "lets" you do anything in a Test match, you have to earn it. And this presupposes that batsmen are never dismissed on 98 or 99. It could have been a defining experience for his Test career. Rather than use the experience as a lesson that cricket is a team game, taking the positive that he make runs against Australia in a pressure situation and then using the supposed "slight" as a spur to prove himself, Hick retreated and allowed himself to be a victim of the situation. He does seem like a very nice chap, though, and he got a rather large cheque for his benefit, so the leitmotif of his career doesn't need to be played on a violin.

Phanto282 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your comparison of Hick with Hayden is right on the nail. I'm sure that Hayden would have shrugged and simply accepted a declaration when he was on 98: it would not have affected his sense of purpose at all, except perhaps to intensify it. Boycott was the definitive example of this kind of single-minded determination to succeed.

I think Botham's point that Hick was England's scapegoat is true. But Hick was no worse in Tests than any of his colleagues except Alec Stewart, who was England's one really good batsman in the 1990s. England's failings in that decade were more to do with poor captaincy and the fact that our bowlers were not world-class while some of the opposition bowlers were all-time class.

We have a couple of Worcester sourcers in WP:CRIC with Loganberry and Fieldgoalunit. I'm sure that if they picked an all-time WCCC XI it would include both Hick and Tom Graveney. Hick would not be a contender for an all-time England XI though "Elegant Tom" probably would. But was Graveney actually better than Hick, even in Test terms?

When Graveney was playing for England, the world's best bowlers were his own team mates Laker, Statham and Trueman. The best opposition bowlers he faced were the likes of Davidson, Fazal, Hall, Peter Pollock and Benaud. Great bowlers, all of them, but with respect they were not a patch on the ones Hick had to face. Benaud by his own admission was no Warne. Wes Hall was not Curtly Ambrose. Peter Pollock had nothing on Allan Donald. Davidson was not as good as McGrath.

Excellent online history of US cricket

I've stumbled across an excellent online history of US cricket, which I thought others might be interested in. It's a work in progress, and is currently up to History of American Cricket Part V - 1870's, which contains links to the earlier parts. JH (talk page) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fascinating. It may interest some to know that Harry Wright and George Wright, mentioned in the article both played for the US national side, but are much better known for their baseball careers, for which they are in the hall of fame. George is the only person to have played first-class cricket and Major League Baseball. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading it earlier and I've bookmarked it. Definitely one for reference. I wonder if our friend User:Evadb is involved with it? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PR

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Geoffrey Boycott SGGH ^speak! 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Argentine/Chile etc

There is an issue here where players from the 20's and 30's are called Chilean or Argentine cricketers. I know that JAS Jackson(describe as Chilean) was an ex-pat who had UK Citizenship and was not a Chilean national. The matches played by 'Argentine' or 'Chilean' national teams (see Bridger North v South 1974) between the wars were in no sense official international sides. Almost all the players were UK nationals based in S America by companies. there were exceptions - the Aylings and the Foresters were Argentine nationals(by 1950's) although I wonder if they considered themselves as such. it is post WWII that the team takes on an 'Argentine' or 'Chilean' identity. JT Bell played for 'Wales' in the 20's. he was not Welsh. These players should be described as Chilean born etc. The fact that many returned home explains why by 1959, the Argentine team was very weakFieldgoalunit (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When I describe John Jackson as a Chilean cricketer, I am not referring to his nationality, but to the fact that he played international matches for Chile. You're being pedantic. The matches played by the Argentine and Chilean national sides in the 1920s and 1930s, or whenever, may not have been "official" internationals, but the modern cricket associations in both countries regard them as such. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Brian Close -FA Review

Brian Close has been listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Brian Close. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There must be a rush - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harbhajan Singh -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bhajji has been closed and kept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever wonder why you bother?

I make a quite innocent revert of information that had little to do with an article and end up getting told that I shouldn't write an article unless I have access to practically everything written on the subject, that I'm setting myself up as a "Self ordained Professor", that I'm ignorant, that I personally make Wikipedia risible and unable to be used by students at Keele University and that the article in question (rated B-class by the way) is feeble. I've tried to put in some hard work on sections of cricket that are poorly covered on Wikipedia, attempting to cover non-test cricket with the same passion, dedication and hard work that BlackJack covers 18th century cricket with, all of which I do on top of working full time and writing for CricketEurope. Then someone comes along and all but says what I'm doing is crap. Sorry to vent my spleen like this, but I felt I needed to get this off my chest. Hopefully not all of you share these views and appreciate what I do. Andrew nixon (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one appreciate it. If you didn't write these articles on non-Test nations and their cricketers, then in many cases it's unlikely that anyone else would bother to do so. JH (talk page) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I've lately reviewed all the articles that had been given B-class before User:Jim Hardie introduced the six-point criteria method. I demoted about 65% of them to Start-class. A significant exception to this rule was the national team category where those that have been developed to a reasonable level of coverage all retained their B-class status. There are a few that are still stubs so they failed B-Class-2 and were rated Stub-class accordingly, but I don't recall any going back to Start-class through failure on things like grammar, sources and categories. What this means is that your work has a hallmark of quality that is very much appreciated by the likes of JH and myself when we do these reviews. I've already pointed out on this page how good is the work on the American articles and that is mainly down to yourself and User:Evadb.

The whole point of creating articles on WP is to provide coverage of a subject that readers find useful. But Rome was not built in a day and the cricket project is still in its design phase in many respects, especially 19th century cricket which we have barely touched; and in its development phase otherwise. We have 82 excellent articles that are rated FA/GA and about 135 more in the B-class that can be taken further, but thye are a small percentage of the whole. The rest are in the planning (i.e., redlink) and development (i.e., stub and start) stages. We cannot have people coming along and sounding off because an article is still incomplete. You do not shout about something that is "work in progress", you help the project to develop it.

Stick at it, Andrew. You're very much appreciated as far as I'm concerned. Best wishes. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

User AndreNixon is vandalising legitimate edits to Argentine National team by persistently deleting information of use and interest. The article before editing contain references to only two sources and was cited as being in need of editing.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If removing information that is duplicated or has nothing to do with the topic of the article is vandalising, then I admit it. I'm guilty. Please note that someone is being disingenuous when they say the article had references to only two sources. It contained no less than thirty references, more than some articles on Test teams. Andrew nixon (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article(as Mr Nixon wrote it, contains two references(cricketarchive and cricinfo) (The stuff was I think put up by ca before the two sites split) One ref is to CricketEurope which Mr Nixon works for. I think that he is unaware that one source cannot be more than one source. I have added information from one first hand source(a book on Argentine cricket) and another from a contempraneous edition of the cricketer)Fieldgoalunit (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes your additions were referenced. That doesn't alter the fact that they are about Argentine domestic cricket, not the national team, or that one repeated information that was already in the article. Andrew nixon (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

which is? And what have I written that does not feed into the national team? Incidentally, the tag on the article suggests that Mr Nixon's edit was unsatisfactory.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that be the article clean up tag that was placed six months before I rewrote the entire article? Anyway, I've reread your edits, and have realised that much of them did improve the article. I have still removed a couple, and have done some fixing of style and grammar issues. I still think you've been incredibly arrogant, but I haven't been entirely fair here and wish to draw a line under the issue. To be frank, I'm sure we both have much better things to do. Andrew nixon (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Line drawnFieldgoalunit (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag in question was out-of-date and I should have spotted it when I reviewed that article a few days ago, but it had been placed at the bottom of the talk page and I missed it. I've removed it now because of the work that has been done since the tag was placed. The article meets all B-class criteria and is mid importance per our Assessment guidelines. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)