Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Help required

Folks, next on my FLC campaign is List of centuries in women's Test cricket. However, there are a good chunk of red links in this and I'm hoping some of you might be able to create stubs. I've created about 85 stubs for women cricketers in the past couple of months and it is getting to be a bit boring, especially given that I've never followed women's cricket (I don't have Bobo's patience!). While it'd be nice if someone could create stubs for a few of the redlinked players, I can take care of them if no one else has the time. However, I'm unable to create articles/stubs for the redlinked grounds as the Cricinfo profiles are pretty weak, and someone with local knowledge would probably be able to unearth better sources. These are all first class grounds in England, Australia and New Zealand.

The main list is to be improved, it's just a starting point currently, edits/feedback welcome :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eee, it's not every day you get namechecked, thank you Spaceman ;) . I wish I still had my crib notes on women's cricketers - I still am yet to make a list of waus and wnz matches on my players' lists. Shameless plug while we're talking about redlinks in women's cricket - on list 050-060 - as of when I compiled the list, there are still 562 names of female first-class cricketers whose names are still redlinks. There are also 208 female cricketers (though naturally some may overlap) who have taken part in whatever the Australian women's cricket leagues were called at the time, whose names are on the Cricket Archive scorecards prefixed waus. These names are on list 071-080. Bobo. 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have got four of them started for you; Yvonne van Mentz, Brenda Williams, Chamani Seneviratna and Judi Doull, will get some more done later if I've got a chance. Harrias (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Working on my first one, I have come across some category issues. Firstly, Australian women cricketers and Australia women Test cricketers are both categories, but there exists no female version of New South Wales cricketers. Should we create categories for female first class team players? SGGH ^ping! 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, this is a good point. All women's County Championship matches are marked with prefix wa on Cricket Archive. I assume matches from all six divisions (here) are as notable as each other. I will write a list of Women's County Championship teams, and, perhaps tomorrow morning, write lists of cricketers' names for each County Championship representative team. Let me see what I can do to get started. I will get working on the teams lists first. Bobo. 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking of creating cats for women cricketers. All the Indian women are now just part of one, am planning to split them to three subcats - Test, ODI, T20, and also create First class team cats for them (appears that the first class teams don't mirror the men's teams for India). For Australia and England, I believe women's cricket has been part of ECB (and predecessors) and CA for a long time, so the divisions would probably be similar. -SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So far I've been creating 'Country Test cricketers' and 'Country ODI cricketers' categories where necessary, but haven't done anything about the first-class teams yet. Probably something worth doing though. The articles I have done need a bit more work too, but for the time being we're getting rid of those red links anyway. A couple of the grounds don't look the most notable, so they could prove slightly trickier, especially with less information being available, but hopefully we'll be able to get enough on each of them for a notable article. Harrias (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have begun Category:New South Wales Breakers cricketers and populated it, seeing as that's the team both women cricketers for who I've written stubs for this list-redlink fix have played for. SGGH ^ping! 11:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All the cricketers now done, just the grounds to go! Harrias (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job Harrias and SGGH! Interesting to note that we also had an edit conflict on Jan Lumsden with two of us trying to create the article at the same time! I'll take the two India grounds. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of grounds that need to be created:

• England -- Collingham Cricket Club, Harrogate Cricket Club, Denis Compton Oval
• Australia -- University Oval, Sydney
• New Zealand -- Hagley Oval (Christchurch), Cornwall Park Stadium (Auckland)
• India -- Bilakhiya Stadium, Calcutta Cricket and Football Ground

cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire (the men's team) used to play Championship matches at Harrogate until quite recwently, so it would be good to have that article done. I think (but you'll need to check) that the Denis Compton Oval st Shenley is the ground that Paul Getty created from scratch, in his estate at Wormsley Park. JH (talk page) 17:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A modicum of research has shown that I was quite wrong in identifying the ground with the one established by Sir Paul Getty. Some details of the hround can be found here. CricketArchive lists no fewer than seven grounds in Harrogate, so some care will need to be taken. JH (talk page) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Adlard

Greetings from WP:FOOTY! I need some help - does anybody know if cricketer Stephen Adlard is the same person as Steve Adlard, former footballer and current coach active in the US? Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is! Cheers anyways, GiantSnowman 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Category rename discussion

I've proposed renaming Category:Indian women cricketers to Category:India women cricketers. The discussion is here. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, have replied over there. Harrias (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Graeme Smith

Limited coverage for a GA. Should it be nominated for removal? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, when I first came across it when looking through past-captains of Somerset, I thought the same thing. It also hasn't been properly updated in over a year, with just bits and pieces keeping it going. Given the amount of information that must be around and available for Smith, it's a very slim article. Harrias (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. SGGH ^ping! 13:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Started reassessment. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New member

We have a very good new WP member who is User:Sarastro1. He obviously has access to the essential Wilfred Rhodes biographies by Sidney Rogerson and A A Thomson. As a result, Wilfred's article has improved enormously in just a couple of days. I've invited Sarastro1 to join WP:CRIC and, if anyone else would like to encourage him, please do so. As he is a Yorkie, you won't need to remind him of Wilfred's famous dictum that we doan't play cricket for fun, tha knows! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

South African flag

Why are Mandela-era flags used in all SA players even if they were before the 1990s? On Olympic pages and all that, the new flag isn't used isn't used for other old sportspeople. The flag under which they competed is used. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been raised before and several articles were changed accordingly. I hope someone hasn't been going around reverting them. We should definitely comply with other projects on this point. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG#Do not rewrite history says to "use the historically accurate flag." Regards, GiantSnowman 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems awkward, and better to convert all teh old infoboxes to the new ones without flags. There are so many pitfalls. People who played under British India and then indept India/Pak, SA didn't exist until 1910 and Aus until 1901, and had no flag before then. People who played when the flag changed in RSA. etc. Is there a semiautomatic way of getting a bot to do this. This kind of revisionism is pretty embarrassing at the moment. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also the problem that some of us newbies don't know the flag variant parameters for the template. I just blindly copied the flag over for a few pre-1994 cricketers on this, fixed it only after this thread. -SpacemanSpiff 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm a long-term opponent of the use of flag icons in any case as I don't believe they add any value to articles and, like so many other things, the quantity before quality syndrome soon runs into overdrive. I would suggest that if flags are to be used for cricketers, they should appear only in the infoboxes of players who made official international appearances. This simplifies things for all South African LOI players who are all post-Mandela and we "only" then need to correct the flags on the pages of Test players up to 1969.

Re YM's point, I don't think any combined SA flag existed before 1910. I presume each colony (e.g., Natal, Transvaal) was effectively independent of the rest at that time and each one had its own flag? List of South African flags is very interesting as apparently the old national flag was not introduced until 1928!

I just peeked at Aubrey Faulkner who played before any national flag and I see someone has given him the current RSA flag, which is completely wrong. The article did once show the File:South Africa Red Ensign.png but Faulkner played for Transvaal cricket team so if he must have a flag, perhaps it should be the Transvaal one. See File:Flag of Transvaal.svg. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As YM mentioned, the best solution to those in infoboxes is to update the infobox to the new type which doesn't feature a flag. As for use in tables.. we should either get the right one or not use it. Nothing controversial there! Harrias (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very much agree. The large flag in {{Infobox Historic cricketer}} and {{Infobox Women's Cricketer}} is inappropriate, and all of these transclusions should be replaced by {{Infobox cricketer biography}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some mechanical help? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Women's task-force

With a few different members currently working on articles relating to women's cricket, and the number of articles rapidly expanding, would it be possible to create a task-force within the project for women's cricket? I've seen it done in other projects, but being completely honest have no idea how it would or could be done? Anybody with a bit more know-how? Harrias (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a read of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Setting up a task force structure might help, for what it's worth I'd be happy to help. — AMBerry (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm up for a women's cricket task force, given the no of additions to women's cricket articles, featured content adds etc, it makes sense to create a task force for greater focus. cheers -SpacemanSpiff 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers AMBerry, I'll have a look at that tomorrow! Harrias (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd join such a task force, but I can't guarantee that I'd find the time to contribute very much in the way of articles. JH (talk page) 22:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Template up for deletion

Template:Infobox Women's Cricketer, which is now unused and redundant, is up for deletion here. — AMBerry (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Cook

Can anyone copy edit this article to make it less stat based and so it can become a GA? Spiderone 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Graeme Smith

Any visitors at Talk:Graeme Smith/GA1? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Cricket World Cup records

If anyone has time, this list needs eyes at its featured list removal candidacy. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Notable players" sections in county clubs articles

These sections have been a problem for some time and many of them have been tagged because they do not state the criteria for inclusion or exclusion. I've just made a change to the one in Sussex CCC and added this statement in order to remove the tag:

This list includes those Sussex players who have played in Test cricket since 1877 and other players who made outstanding contributions (e.g., scoring most runs or taking most wickets in a season).

This limits the list to those who played Test cricket while they were at the club or, re overseas players, were already established internationals when they joined. The "other players" are those who were famous before Test cricket began (quite a few, in the case of Sussex) and those who had outstanding career records but never played for England (e.g., George Cox and Ken Suttle).

I think we should take a similar approach to all other counties as it will make people justify an inclusion and stop the addition of players who made a couple of appearances only. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've also edited out the pointless flag icons that appeared next to each player's name even though the country's name is the list header. Instead, I've placed an icon next to the country's name only. I think we should adopt this practice in all similar cases: overuse of flag icons is in breach of WP:FLAG. Personally, I would get rid of them completely. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle that we should have criteria for the notable players section, and that the section should state what those criteris are. Possible additional criteria would be those who scored more than, say, 20,000 runs or took more than 1,000 wickets for the county, or who made more than 200 appearances. (Those figures might need adjustment to finish up with a list that was neither too long or almost empty.) The Wisden Book of County Cricket has a very thorough statistics section, and will be a useful source for performances prior to 1981. I suspect that there will always be a handful of difficult cases of players who have been much more influential than their bare statistics show, however. JH (talk page) 09:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree as usual with both of you, but I have problems with the "notable players" title. Let me give a "frinstance" of why it bothers me: I wrote a week or so ago a short article on Roy Sully. His only real claim to notability in wider WP terms is that he made one List A appearance in 1985 for Somerset, but he'd be pretty close to the bottom in any list of "notable Somerset cricketers", good club cricketer though he undoubtedly was. If his notability rests on his appearance for Somerset, but he isn't a notable Somerset player, then there's an illogicality to my mind. Better, I think, for these sections to be composed of players who played a minimum number of matches, scored a minimum number of runs or took a minimum number of wickets, or were Test players. The heading might then say so, perhaps using a heading such as "Leading cricketers" and then using subheadings to divide the list into "Test players" and "Non-Test players", with the latter further subdivided by category of performance ("Most runs", "Most wickets", "Most dismissals" etc). I'm still not sure what to do about, say, Tom Richardson, who played just once for Somerset. Agree strongly that the flags look silly. Johnlp (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the principle of having them at all. If it is that they hold records, well, that's almost always included in another part of the article. Also suffers hugely from recentism... the Hampshire article had about 6 people from pre-1990 (all just the record holders) and then people like Dimi?! A capable person but certainly not notable across the entire clubs history... SGGH ^ping! 11:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I agree with the point above. Notable cricketers who played a small handful of matches for Club X are not notable Club X players, just notable players who played once for Club X. SGGH ^ping! 11:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't accumulation records in county cricket be way biased towards the olden days anyway? As in those days they played two three day games per week and often scored 3000+ runs in 30 games each year if they were high-quality, and sometimes 100 wickets a year. Nowadays they don' tplay 6 days a week YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think recentism is the big problem, really. I remember challenging the Yorkshire list a long time ago when I found it included umpteen players of the last 10 years and excluded the likes of Jackson, Peel and Leyland. I've seen similar points on here about other counties. The difficult case, as JH has already said, is going to be the significant non-Test player who did not perform to a minimum level. A good example at Yorkshire might be Emmott Robinson: no great shakes as an individual player but a definitive team player with enormous influence. One slight problem with minimum levels is that it could produce "counter-recentism" in that players of the last 40 years could not meet the targets despite playing for ten years or more, so we would have to be careful with the thresholds. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SGGH, I'd rather they weren't there at all to be honest; it's always going to be a battle working out who should and who shouldn't, and an encyclopaedia shouldn't be so effected by personal opinion. Anything stat-based is always going to miss out some great players, and put in quite average players who got those totals through dint of the length of their career. Harrias (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the lists potentially are useful, in that not all the players are likely to be mentioned in the History or Records sections of the county's article (not unless those sections are made much less cursory than many of them are at presnt, anyway). The list enables a reader interested in the county to follow links to where he will find out more about its leading lights - the links are the important thing. As for the potential problem with "counter-recentism", that might be at least partly addressed by including players who have made substantial contributions to the county's List A cricket. JH (talk page) 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had an idea. How about listing the county's players who have been chosen as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year instead. It wouldn't be perfect. There have been a few eccentric selections over the years, and one or two fine players have surprisingly missed out (eg Mark Butcher). And of course it only goes back as far as 1889. Also when players played for two counties do you include them in both counties' lists or only the one that they were playing for when selected for the award? But it would avoid us making our own subjective choices, and it would avoid any problem of "recentism" or "reverse recentism". Of course, one pronlem is that, whatever method we adopt, well-meaning non project members will start adding their own favourites. JH (talk page) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus seems to be going towards SGGH and Harrias who have both objected to the subjective view, which is going to be an inevitable (in such lists) subjective view except where there is clear statistical evidence or where the player has played for England. Personally, I would like to see the county club articles expanded in narrative terms to the point where they include a piece about all the club's noted players somewhere in the narrative (e.g., there can't be any argument about Sussex mentioning the likes of Cox and Suttle alongside Tate and Dexter). I'm inclined to agree that these lists should be removed and that we should use the narrative to mention the club's great and significant players and provide the necessary links. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

JH's idea seems plausible. If it was part of a template or section that specified that it was Wisden Cricketers of the Year, hopefully we won't get users AGFing their way into it. I think we should include all players who were WCOTY, regardless if they weren't in that particular county when winning it (otherwise it might be sparse!) and maybe England Test captains as well if they were never WCOTY (unlikely) SGGH ^ping! 09:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

List needs review

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

List of South Africa women Test cricketers

Right, while we're trying to take over FLC.. here's another! I appreciate that it has lots of red links at the moment, I'm working on fixing that. Otherwise, could you all take a look and make any recommendations, comments and copy-edits that may be needed to ge this to Featured List standard. Harrias (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

Bob Willis is coming on nicely, but it needs some more context to pad around the score information. Geoffrey Boycott needs some factual verification (because I'm not convinced McKinstry doesn't get confused between the figures often.) Boycott is already GA, hopefully Willis will be ready soon. SGGH ^ping! 10:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

List of South Africa women Test cricketers at FLC

Right, after the comments made from a couple here, I've worked on the issues raised, got rid of all the redlinks, and now listed: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Africa women Test cricketers/archive1, comments, support and questions are all requested :D Harrias (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've only had three responses at the moment, could really do with some more from here if possible! Harrias (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life of Ricky Ponting merge into Ricky Ponting

I have started a discussion at Talk:Ricky Ponting#Merge discussion about the possibility of a merge of Early life of Ricky Ponting into its parent article. My reasons are detailed in the discussion. – PeeJay 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough since the main page needs to be trimmed down and can be easily done by removing the background info that wasn't of Ponting's making, such as the politics. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Trimed, feel free to remove more. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Miller and the Waugh's have early life article so I think it's fine. Pruning/expanding will continue over the next few months. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Women's task force

Right, I've created a page for this here, and got a few bare bones up. I need to either work out how to, or talk to someone else who can, sort out tagging using the banner. Otherwise, please have a look, mess around and generally help out :D Harrias (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could a task force section be created on {{WP Cricket}}? Not sure how that's done. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need task forces? I don't think we do. The project is not that large. In a nation state project some people might like only media articles, others like roads. In multinational projects, some might only know about what happens in their own country or the neighbouring country. But in cricket there are only 10 Test countries and since they all play each other relatively frequently, almost any cricket follower will know some stuff about the main guys from the other countries, as well as a few women players. Also with cricket, it is quite homogenous across the various environments, unlike say, medieval warfare and modern technology, for instance. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 17:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the average cricket follower actually knows almost nothing about women's cricket. Hopefully the average member of this project will be much more knowledgeable, but I wouldn't bet on it. JH (talk page) 18:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a list of women's cricketers somewhere within my subpages - both of first-class and Australian National Cricket League players, if anyone's looking for some easy red-links to pick off. The last of my lists on 51-60 consists of female first-class cricketers, while the second of the lists on 71-80 consists of Australian National Cricket League players. Unfortunately, they will all need to be individually searched for on CA, given that there is no option to filter names by appearance in Women's First-class matches. (Lazy Bobo) 81.79.118.10 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that what constitutes a first-class match had ever been defined for women's cricket? JH (talk page) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I know for certain that the match codes I took the names from are those prefixed with wf. I assume these matches are among those that are considered notable, with regards to women's cricket. Bobo. 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's on CA, I imagine? It would be interesting to know whether that was their own assessment of the matches, or whether there are any official guidelines akin to those for men's matches. JH (talk page) 18:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I apologize for not specifying. If only this thing had a "sentence fragment" error message..! Bobo. 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pete from CricketArchive - if you want us to produce a spreadsheet of names or links for you - just ask - feedback@cricketarchive.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.6 (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Pete. Thank you for your offer. Have you seen the players' lists I made? One is at the bottom of User:Bobo192/First-class players lists 051-060, and consists of a list of all women's cricketers of Cricket Archive matches prefixed wf, while the other is near the top of 071-080 and consists of women's cricketers of Cricket Archive matches named waus. The only women's lists I have yet to cover are those of matches prefixed wnz (mostly State League matches), wtt, and wa (women's List A matches), of which there are so many that it's hard to cover them all in one sitting. Bobo. 13:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated names on Cricket Archive

As a matter of interest, how responsive are Cricket Archive these days? While looking up a player about whom I had previously made an article (Charles Coppinger), I notice that there are two entries for relatives which are not included in the article - which have been added since I wrote the article (these are Octavius Coppinger (cricketer, born 1831), and Octavius Coppinger (cricketer, born 1861), just for reference). Curious, I clicked through to both links, and saw one as a reasonably genuine-looking entry (albeit missing a death date), and one supplied with a death date, but with a birth date which would have made him five months old when he made his only cricketing appearance.

What would Cricket Archive do? Entirely remove the one page and then fix any and all links to the other individual? Fix the error and then quietly go about their business? Or not respond entirely? It's been a while since I tried to make contact with them, and I seem to remember them being quite swift to sort the issue before.

By the same token, is it even worth contacting them about the issue? I'm certain my eyes aren't seeing things when I'm spotting this error - it is mightily early in the morning, after all..! Bobo. 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently contacted them regarding a duplicate entry and it was sorted in a couple of days...Hack (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

They've always been very good when I've contacted them: quick, and nicely grateful that we bother to alert them when we find things. Johnlp (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the information - I haven't the time to contact them now but when I am available to do so in about four hours time I will do so. Thank you once again. 81.79.118.10 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (Bobo on public computer)

This is Pete from CricketArchive - please email feedback@cricketarchive.com and we will do our best to fix any problems or to add any missing information to our database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.6 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Pete from CricketArchive should make an account :D SGGH ^ping! 15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello,

The lead of this article is a copy-paste from the Cricinfo article about the player. It has been introduced a few weeks ago. I don't know what is the best practice on en:. Rewriting the article and asking for a revision deletion? OrangeKnight (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of it isn't really germane to the article, so I'll do a swift deletion/rewrite. Johnlp (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems I have been trying to weed it out at the same time as you were reporting it, but yes it would still need to be revision deleted I would have guessed? I warned the IP that did it. SGGH ^ping! 15:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! OrangeKnight (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Bowler

Does anyone agree that this chap doesn't fulfill WP:PRIME, and that this page should become a disambig? --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As there are 3 other alternatives, I'd agree, yes.—MDCollins (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the cricketer, I'm unclear why his article calls him a "a retired English-born Australian cricketer". I've never previously heard it suggested that he was other than English. JH (talk page) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the article in its original state, I think the reason I originally wrote English-born Australian is that he played for Australia Under-19s at U-19 Test and ODI level. Not sure if this really does have any bearing on things in the real world. Bobo. 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More cricket lists needing reviews

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Rahul Dravid/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Africa women Test cricketers/archive1 Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One last plea for opinions for List of South Africa women Test cricketers at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Africa women Test cricketers/archive1, I've resolved all the comments now, and would appreciate any further input. Harrias (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, canvassing is against the rules here. That means you should not make any statements suggesting that anyone should !vote a particular way in any discussion. – PeeJay 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, SpacemanSpiff, known for his work on cricket Featured Lists, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of SpacemanSpiff's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Invincibles at FTC

• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Invincibles/archive1

A lot of people have contributed to this, and it is finally up for FTC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Willis is at GAN

Issues remaining can be ironed out while it is waiting (they are hopefully only minor) and I think we can hope for an on hold at the worst. SGGH ^ping! 13:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't like captions

Can we keep a close eye on Stephen Hayes (talk · contribs) please folks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As per his comments on User talk:Egghead06 it appears he just doesn't like thumb images in the infobox. I have reminded him that the captions can (and should) remain even if the thumbs are removed. SGGH ^ping! 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I think. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What's our most unusual article?

As far I could see, Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Sports doesn't have a cricket entry, which seems a little sad. I thought of a few contenders, but none really stood out for whackiness. We have some unusually named articles (Bungle in the jungle for example, and Americans might enjoy Googly) and some odd careers (Ted Alletson is my favourite) but nothing really bizarre comes to mind and I'm sure it's just because I'm not thinking straight... Come on, let's find something we can nominate. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My brief but exciting career as an England Test cricketer that no one knows about but me? SGGH ^ping! 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Though speaking of Alletson, some of the tone is pretty dodgy. I have tagged it. SGGH ^ping! 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that'd be my newbie editing style. I'll sharpen my quill and make some amends. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You should see my first article. I put a "th" in a date!!! :O SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Claude Tozer, well that's pretty pathetic on my part. But it would probably be some early era one. I heard that they used to play cricket with giant balls on a length scale much larger than today. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the ways they define unusual is when there's two halves of the title that seem at odds with one another, like (I think they say) "Henry VIII in space". With this in mind, what would those ignorant of cricket make of Gentlemen v Players? --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Julius Caesar (cricketer)? Or maybe Peter Cat? JH (talk page) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Gandar-Dower probably had the most interesting life of anyone to get an obituary in Wisden, although Sydney Deane might challenge. --Roisterer (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon Einstein? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sultan Zarawani? Not really unusual but at least different. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vizzy? One of the weirdest captains ever, the article is a bit light though. -SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, that was the one I was thinking of! I had Maharajah of Baroda in my head for some reason. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Monster Bat Incident 1771? An intriguing name, at least ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Trobriand cricket? I will stop here before I spend all afternoon trawling for articles! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nomming Zarawani, I spotted an obvious error in it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes

I've been working on this for a while and have put it up for GAN. I'm quite new, so need all the help I can get! If anyone could take a look, it would be appreciated.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifth column for statistics in Infobox for cricketers

I feel there is a need for inserting the fifth column for including Twenty 20 statistics in the Infobox for cricketers. Even the cricinfo player statistics contain information about T20. -- பரிதிமதி 02:16, 09 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, if we aim to be all inclusive in the infoboxes we should have 6 columns - 3 types of cricket, each at two levels:

• Test
• One-Day Internationals
• T20i
• First-class
• List-A
• T20**

Given that 6 columns seems to me to be impractical, perhaps we are better to set some priorities and standards on what columns to use for various forms of the game, leaving out the lowest priorities.

**Is there a formal definition of what is a T20 match for statistical purposes (i.e. an equivalent to FC and List A for 20 over cricket)? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Beware of பரிதிமதி. He's a fifth columnist!! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good Jack. *rolls eyes* The main reason I undid the changes to this was that it had broken the infobox, the titles weren't in bold, and the preceding rows hadn't been adjusted to compensate for the fifth column. I can understand the rationale for inclusion, but as Mattinbgn says; the argument should then be for six, rather than five columns. In my opinion, its all very cramped with just four, any more than that is going to start looking silly. Harrias (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the required 6 months has passed since this was last discussed: see here, and here regarding the discussion at creation. Also more recent question, and another. Unless there is a great call to revisit this discussion, I would let it pass - not enough room being one of the main reasons. You "could" have any number of columns: World Series Cricket??!—MDCollins (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would be in favour of the extra information. Some people are going to be T20 specialists, or have very influential T20 careers. SGGH ^ping! 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You could be right. But I'm an old fuddy-duddy. :-) I'd actually quite like to apply Dweller's law. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I say! With due reverence to Test cricket (which is still and forever be my fav), I note here the fact that there hasn't been a single world cup held for Test cricket, wheras Twenty20 has already seen two world cups!! Isn't this reason enough for its importance? (Look at the crowd for today's match between India and Srilanka) We need not accumulate domestic T20 data (viz., IPL, ICL etc.) at all. Only the T20 stats of matches played between Test-playing countries would do.

For an encyclopaedia of the stature of Wikipedia, it irks to see that vital data is not available. People will get the stat anyway by going elsewhere (say, cricinfo).-- parithimathi 13:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, it would be harder to defend including international T20s but not domestic T20s that it would be to defend not having any of the stats. I think we would have to go for six, not five. Personally, I'm all in favour of it. SGGH ^ping! 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Might as well put six. To be frank, the domestic ODI tournaments are probably less ad hoc than the one off internationals, the two WCs notwithstanding. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A solution that most of you won't agree with: remove most of the stats from the infobox and put them in a specific paragraph. See fr:Archie Jackson/fr:Archie Jackson#Statistiques et performances. OrangeKnight (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What about drop down stats tables in the infobox as a thought? Which default to [hide]. SGGH ^ping! 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we have to do something now. Domestic Twenty20 is bigger than List A cricket in most countries. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a 3 column infobox, but with each column having an upper section for international performances (which of course would not appear if the player had not played international cricket) and a lower section for overall f-c/List A/T20 performaces? (Or one could have the international figures after the overall ones, but I think it's probably right to give the international ones the greater prominence). JH (talk page) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Six columns is really too many in my view: you have to think of the poor readers sometimes. But I agree that the T20 stats should be included somehow as this is increasingly important whatever we think of it in cricket terms, and I rather like JH's idea of a double-decker approach for international and non-international stats, which reduces the columns to three, albeit making the infoboxes longer. Maybe one of our technical whizpersons (and why do I always think of our friend MDCollins in this context?) could draw one up for us to see what it looks like. Decision (if it works) then to be made is whether all infoboxes should conform to the double-decker style, or just those where T20 is a factor. Four columns for non T20 players strikes me as just about OK. But maybe they should all be in one style, which will mean quite a bit of re-casting. Johnlp (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The double-decker approach is a very good option, with a default hide of non-international if the player has stats up in the international section. However, this will create issues in those articles that are currently 4-column, too much of a maintenance effort. I remember seeing a conversion link for old to new infoboxes, maybe that can be modified or an AWB script written for this? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too like JH's idea best so far. SGGH ^ping! 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not use abbreviations for the stat category like they do it in cricinfo (e.g., BA for Batting Averages, RS for Runs Scored); this shall save some space in which we can accomodate more data (I will never make the mistake of saying fifth column again -- for which I was blasted already!!)--parithimathi 12:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to be thought of as a tech whizz (thanks John!). I'll have a play with it then seen as there are obvious calls to at least see what it looks like. The double decker approach is a possibility, but it does duplicate the first column, and would make it a little too long in my opinion, especially for the early players who only have 2/3 columns at most (but will have International and Domestic, i.e Test/FC). You could put a switch in to allow those players to stick to the existing format, but it will break the uniformity of all the articles (of which there are many still using the deprecated ones anyway!

Space could be gained as per the above suggestion of abbreviating some of the row headers, but that width is governed by the other labels higher up, and so would be more awkward to try and fix. I'll see if I can quickly draft a 5/6 column one using the single decker approach but space is at a premium. Anything else will need further thought and careful management.

We could always ease off the guidelines on the default 4 columns, discussion on an individual article talk page for example, so that a T20 specialist could have T20 stats instead of List A (if it takes higher prominence in certain countries etc. You could always go by a guideline of the greater number of matches played (minimum of 10?) where there is competition for column space.

The other thought is that some stat data is more important in other forms of the game (think strike rate, economy) for which there would be valid calls for them to be added for limited overs (T20 especially). However, even single decker, this would increase the length, double decker would probably be longer than most of the articles. The infobox is 3-4 times longer than most of the stubs anyway.

It is worth looking at, but maybe we should open up space for more radical ideas to be put forward if anybody has any other suggestions. Let me play on a 5/6 column one for now.—MDCollins (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New (rough) example of 6 column 'box.

Right, I've drafted a very rough version of a 6 column box. It doesn't look pretty as I haven't changed the widths/spans of the banners yet, but it gives you an idea of the width. It is a little wider, not much, but whether that will get the infobox police saying it isn't a standard width yadda yadda, etc, I don't know. Anyway, here is an example:

User:MDCollins/Infoboxes2. Compare it with:

Darren Gough.

Incidentally, isn't Gough's CA article absolutely hideous? —MDCollins (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what the hell happened to CA? SGGH ^ping! 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The example 6 column box looks pretty good, much better than I had expected especuslly given that (being short-sighted) I stick to 800x600 screen resolution rather than the usual 1024x768 or higher. JH (talk page) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it's fine, and well done to you for doing it. On the basis that, in the grand scheme of things, only limited numbers of players will require as many as six columns, shall we standardise on this, which gets around the need to redo vast numbers of infoboxes from the past, and avoids the complication of the double-decker? (BTW, I quite like the upgraded CricketArchive: some rough edges, such as columns of runs in career stats not aligning properly, but I'm sure they'll sort that). Johnlp (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied up the rough edges a bit now, so it looks much better. I've taken the liberty of tweaking a couple of bits (cap information, domestic team year/club widths) so it loses the stupid extra row caused by the wrapping. It still wraps on the 4 column, but it's neater on the 6/5. I tried to centre align all the stats to make it look neater, but couldn't figure that out at the moment. May be worth persevering. We could roll this out shortly, I'd still like people to exercise caution over whether 6 columns is actually necessary on a per article basis, or whether it is just added it for 'complete-ism' - it does make individual stats less easy to find. Could certain noteworthy stats (career runs over 10,000/over 100 Test wickets... be coloured differently? This might cause WP:ACCESS issues though.—MDCollins (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Major cricket matches

WP:CRIN claims any articles for players of major cricket after 1697 to be notable. I understand this is related to "great matches", but when was the first of these played? Where does the 1697 date derive from - were there any recorded matches in 1697 which Cricket Archive does not have on their list? Cricket Archive's earliest recorded match appears to be 1702. If anyone can elucidate further, I would be most grateful. Bobo. 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, Bobo. I didn't realise that CricketArchive had missed the 1697 match. To try and be brief, it was an 11-a-side match in Sussex for a huge stake and it is the first "great match" ever reported in a newspaper, significantly the year after freedom of the press was granted. See History of cricket to 1725 which will give you some pointers and also the early English season articles. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1948 articles

The articles on individual players in the 1948 Australian Tour (The Invincibles is an Aussie tag) are - well ridiculous. One wonders the value except Bradman. A lot, an awful lot of verbage. A lot of hard work but WHY? Dr A Tillman

It is a fair point raised many times before. I think one of the simplest answers is: Wikipedia is not made of paper, there is no limit to the amount of information it can host. Also, "one wonders the value except Bradman" isn't particularly fair. I would say he was a great, but surrounded by come competent players and it's not like he carried the team. You certainly couldn't have a more mind-numbingly detailed account of the '48 tour, but then I consider that an asset. Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ SGGH ^ping! 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the 1948 articles is that they form a designated topic and therefore constitute a mini-project. As SGGH points out, Bradman did not carry the team and, if you are going to present an individual view of one player, you have to do them all. Cricket is, after all, a team game. As for why, well, I imagine that our Aussie friends did it for the benefit of the readers and also because it is an interesting pastime. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Wisden, thought that Johnston's 102 wickets was the most important, and in terms of the tests, Morris did more with the bat YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fallacious to think the 48 team was a one-man show, or even a two or three man. Don't forget, the Invincibles' claim to fame is going through a tour unbeaten, not merely a Test series. It simply wasn't possible to progress through an England tour in those days without getting several beatings from county teams, unless you had a very strong squad. This was an outstanding squad in its day, with several all-time greats in it (like Bradman). --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I notice that a couple of you have edited Monster Bat Incident 1771 since it was mentioned in the unusuals topic above. Can anyone think of a better title for it?

Also, JH's latest edit to W G Grace led me to Charlie Townsend which is one of those "peacock/weasel" wotsit articles with lots of cliches and things. It talks about "his very slight build" and "treacherous pitches". There was even a reference to the "tender age of sixteen" until someone removed it! I strongly suspect that tracts of it have been copied verbatim from the various editions of Wisden that are listed, but I don't have those books to check. Can anyone help? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was cringing as a I read it *shudder* with all that POV-peacock stuff, but I refrained from mercilessly cutting it away until someone with access to the above mentioned books checks for a copy violation. SGGH ^ping! 06:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't take it. I gutted it. SGGH ^ping! 10:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

West Indies

Are there any editors in Australia going to the 3rd Test? Of the current West Indies squad, only the articles on Gayle and Chanderpaul have photos. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt around for the Adelaide Test but should be able to get both Pak and WI ODI players next year YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

James Tredwell

Our article on the newest member of England's squad is disgracefully poor. People will be coming here to find out who the heck he is, so this is quite a high-profile article. I've made a start on enhancing it, but it needs some basic work done swiftly. It particularly needs some referencing. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

When you're done improving it, perhaps you can explain what it is about his record that's prompted this advancement, because it baffles me... --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He had a decent 2009 with the ball, but his 69 first-class wickets came in the Second Division of the County Championship; the likes of Derbyshire, Glamorgan, and Leicestershire are very weak teams so make of that figure what you will. Unless England plan to play two spinners or they're worried about the fitness of Rashid I don't see the point of adding a second person to cover Swann; Rashid has demonstrated he's a talented bowler and a decent batsmen too. Nev1 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the 'like-for-like' argument - England want an off-spinner to spin the ball away from Smith, Prince & Duminy and there aren't too many of those about - or left-arm chinamen for that matter.JP (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers, this seems reminiscent of Joginder Sharma getting selected on the basis of a few 10 fors in the Plate Division against minnow and backward states, except that his bowling was even worse than Ganguly's, and his batting would be worse than Harbhajan. Tredwell's career stats are horrible for county standards YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How gutted must Monty Panesar feel? I've expanded the lead for Tredwell a bit, but the article is still a real mess; hopefully I'll be able to get to it later, but if anyone else can have a go through and just tidy up the horrible language that is there it would be appreciated. Harrias (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks there's anything interesting about Tredwell, another ~500 characters and the article can be suggested over at DYK. Honestly though, I've not seen much that would make a good hook. Nev1 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"DYK that a first class cricketer with a barely moderate track record was preferred over another who has a far better record but has fallen out of favour, even though both were in the right place at the right time?" Snappy, huh? --Dweller (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hooks don't have to have an unusual fact or ones that turns head. It used to be more strict, but people got angry and staged riots when told their article didn't have anything weird; they took it as a insult that their work was boring, so nowadays, it's basically only the quality of the article that counts YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I don't see the point if the hook/article isn't interesting. "Did you know" implies something interesting, and for a lot of hooks people think "no, and I don't care either". It's the front page of Wikipedia with millions of view everyday, it should be interesting. If people are insulted that others find what they do boring, they should stop thinking themselves so important. I am under no delusions that very few people care about Tom Smith (cricketer), but neither does that particularly bother me or deter me from editing the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well more people will get to read their stuff. I know one guy, he writes for the website of a banned terrorist group and just nominated any old thing, didn't care what people think, because he just wanted to advertise his suicide bombers and whatnot YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another cricketer AfD

Another cricketer is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gert Lotter. Harrias (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD re first-class cricketers - again

Please participate in the relevant discussions at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooker (Kent cricketer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew (Kent cricketer). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. I'm curious though. Question below. Bobo. 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Both these articles were kept. Thanks to all who contributed to the debate and especially to those who helped improve the articles, although they remain stubs. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Krom Hendricks

Can anyone help with this article? Cricinfo and CricketArchive do not seem to have any information on him at all ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This book indicates that he played against Read's English team in 1891-92, taking 4/50. This looks to be this match here. There are two Hendricks in that match Armien Hendricks and H Hendricks. Armien Hendricks is suppoesed to have taken the 4/50 but he is listed as a wicketkeeper. Can anyone shed any light where more information may be found? Birth and death information etc.-- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do. Hang on. SGGH ^ping! 09:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive entry I'll add info now. SGGH ^ping! 09:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go. SGGH ^ping! 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, great improvement! I take it there was no birth or death dates given? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The only dates that seemed to be indicating a range were about 1893-1897 or something similar, so I took that to be rough career dates. SGGH ^ping! 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)