Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Infoboxes again

Right, last time I brought this up, there was little objection to my proposals. I've made a few tweaks following the discussion then, and unless there are strong objections, I'd like to start rolling out the newer, shorter infoboxes, as can be seen here:

• User:Harrias/Cameron White (as opposed to: Cameron White)
• User:Harrias/Craig Kieswetter (as opposed to: Craig Kieswetter)
• User:Harrias/Damien Wright (as opposed to: Damien Wright)
• User:Harrias/Jahid Ahmed (as opposed to: Jahid Ahmed)
• User:Harrias/Lewis Gregory (as opposed to: Lewis Gregory)

I toyed with removing the FC / T20 (for Gregory) and Test (for Craig Kieswetter) columns, but on reflection I feel that actually it's quite a nice balance with the empty columns. Please let me know if you have any problems with this, otherwise I will start converting infoboxes in the next few days. Regards, Harrias ^talk 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but on the Cameron White infobox the 'Domestic stats' section also includes the international stats, so maybe 'overall statistics' would be a better heading? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good idea for current cricketers whose stats will change, but I would retain the fuller version for those whose careers are in the past and won't need updating. Johnlp (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, these look good, but even if there was little objection before, I don't remember there being anything that could be described as consensus for such a big change - remember that there are, as usual, a lot of people who will come from the woodwork when they discover there fav infoboxes have changed. I would like to make sure it was unequivocal here before anything gets rolled out.

My other major concern, in particular reference to Johnlp's comments, is that we spent a lot of time making one infobox fit all, historical and current (migration of which hasn't been complete 2 years on...!), so possibly introducing a "which box do we use" dilemma needs careful thought. My thoughts regarding these comments are

a) do we want extended statistics (i.e. the status quo, plus possibly run rate/strike rate etc) at all – something that is particularly keen with the limited overs/T20 supporters and is the norm at present

b) a snapshot of stats (as in the examples) in the infobox, which will probably call for people to argue "where are they" and "if they have gone, can we have them in other tables in the article" - meaning an infobox that is barely shorter, but does increase the columns to 6 from 4 - which 6? any 6? AndrewNixon wanted scope for U-19, needs clear documentation - but an increase of tables for the inclusionists that would like all statistics present in one form or the other - for players with long biographies, I feel the least intrusive place is actually in the infobox.

For my tuppence (at this moment in time!) I think I would prefer the infobox split domestic/international as in the examples, allowing for the 6 columns, as there seems enough demand to at least try this, but with all the current stats auto-hidden. To allow the greatest flexibility in relevant columns, 3 hideable sections for Test/FC; ODI/List A; T20I/T20 would seem the best solution, can't remember how far we got in developing examples for this.—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A huge improvement! In regard to the infobox in general, we should focus on providing information of encyclopedic merit and in the main we should provide this in the form of prose. A wiki is not the place to develop a statistical compendium, even if the scope of Wikipedia allowed us to do so. In my (very humble) opinion, we are much better off focusing on a small set of core stats for each player, (matches played, runs scored, wickets taken) and link to CA or CI for more detail. We should leave compiling and listing stats to the websites that do it much better than we ever could. Given the ability to link to other sites, I see no reason to keep an extended version of the infobox for past players. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the infobox we're currently using for past cricketers is fine and it achieves the aim of corralling all the stats stuff into one place so the articles can be decent prose. I can see there's a problem with current players where stats need updating frequently and where there are umpteen different types of cricket, and Harrias's changes seem to meet that problem. Stats are, though, an integral part of the game and I'd oppose strongly any move to reduce existing infoboxes to a small core of stats (which ones?) or to force readers to go elsewhere for information that's central. Johnlp (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On another matter, are we going to get a bot to again update the players' stats? Because many do not get updated anymore since the bot died. Aaroncrick ^TALK 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice...User:Sam Korn (who ran User:Sambot) hasn't been around for just over 12 months now, and his bot broke anyway. I don't know if anyone can "take over" the bot and fix it, but presumably all of the technicalities are held privately by Sam, and we have no access to them any more. I guess that would mean somebody making a new bot to screenscrape CA.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Would be excellent if we could acquire the bot or create another to update stats. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd asked User:ThaddeusB about this a while back and he said if we could get a scope sheet to him, he could try getting one up, but he hasn't been very active of late. Maybe post a request at WP:BOTREQ once we can get a spec sheet together (maybe what Sambot was running off of)?

"Big Match"

Big Match

Thoughts please.

—User:MDCollins (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's notable, and even if it was, it's at the wrong title. After all, wasn't there a football programme on Granada called "The Big Match" some years ago? – PeeJay 15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There was, well remembered: The Big Match. The fact that this creator thinks it is Test cricket seems to point to it being very nn to me.—User:MDCollins (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's one Sri Lankan schools match that is notable enough to have warranted live coverage on Cricinfo in recent years, which may be worth an article. This isn't it though! Andrew nixon (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Schoold cricket seems to be extremely popular in Sri Lanka, so the subject may be notable. But the article clearly needs some work and a better title such as "The Big Match (Sri Lankan cricket)". JH (talk page) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it was notable as per wp:sources. Shall I prod it?—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather sceptical of the notability of school derbies in football/cricket/chess etc in any place. The school's article is good enough for the usual patter about "fierece rivalry". The two most famous private schools where I am has produced quites a few Test players and captains, but on average the school teams are really bad. I saw them play and a specialist batsman missed three consecutive leg stump half volleys. Really poor YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking further, I hadn't realised that the 5 "Big Matches" listed in the article have their own articles - incidentally none of which mention the words "Big Match". Royal-Thomian looks notable, but some of the others are pretty poor.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review (another update)

Featured article

• Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 • Discussion
• Roy Kilner • Discussion

Featured list

• List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers • review

Good article

• Norman Yardley
• Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009

Good topic

• Harvey family • review

These need to be signed or the archiving bot can't pick them up. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think archiving is needed for this, it's more of a scoreboard than meaningful discussion YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for Sarastro1 and Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 passed FAC YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But if the archiving bot doesn't pick them up, they get left here for evermore, like two others I manually archived recently. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Upd for Lindwall, Meckiff YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

More updates. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Afghanistan FLC. Harrias ^talk 11:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

English cricket grounds: Progress update

• Completed up to and including Hampshire. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Completed up to and including Gloucestershire. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Completed up to and including Glamorgan. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• All grounds that have held FC, LA, T20 or Women's Test's ODIs, T20s in England and Wales have now been completed. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Template protections

Recently a lot of templates were fully-protected en masse. I've downgraded {{Infobox cricketer}} to semi-protection as a majority of those who edit that particular one are not admins. If there are other WP:CRIC templates that should be downgraded to semi, please list them here and I'll change those too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Guyanese cricketers

Shouldn't Category:Guyanese cricketers be Category:Guyana cricketers given the description of the category? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. Barbados has both formats though -- Category:Barbados cricketers and Category:Barbadian cricketers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. At least one (Rupert Roopnaraine) is Guyanese but never played for Guyana. Johnlp (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be a case for two, like Barbados. Why stop there... Have a look at all these which need proposing at CfD. If anyone has more time than me atm feel free to do something with it!—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, all the "List of Fooian ODI cricketers" are modelled in that format - guessing all of them probably need renaming to "List of Fooian One Day International cricketers", to boot. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

James Taylor (cricketer)

Will need an infobox, future England player? 65.96.195.105 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Added. Harrias ^talk 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

South Australia playing well; what gives?

As a long suffering South Australian cricket fan, I was shocked enough to find that we had qualified for the Champions League, let alone actually beating other teams in the League, with Shaun Tait taking wickets and Callum Ferguson scoring runs. I haven't seen any of the games but was wondering if we're playing well and I can look forward to a season with South Australia not at the bottom of the ladder, or if I shouldn't get too ahead of myself. --Roisterer (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of articles relating to WP:CRIC, not for idle discussion of what might be happening on the field. – PeeJay 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was asking if it should be merged into the Pakistan spot fixing scandal... they have to be related, don't they?The-Pope (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I think SA fluked it in the Big Bash, they can't match the other teams over four days and half the team (eg Borgas, Cooper, the spinner/allrounder depending who they pick), Putland) aren't really FC standard. As for beating Mumbai, it was a good chuckle to see Harsha Bhogle (also a MI employee, or was) trying to say how good SA were when it was really Mumbai who were just playing like Pakistan....Especially when they were trying to say that SA had a good spin attack (Aaron O'Brien doesn't spin or flight the ball and is worse than Yuvraj/Clarke and Cullen Bailey bowled 60%+ half-volleys/full tosses or long hops and doesn't do anything at all) when SRT and Duminy got out for no reason related to good spin bowling. They should have just chucked out one of the IPL teams and given NSW a wildcard for winning last yr, they would have battered most of the teams again with the full team available YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm beginning to think it is match fixing related too. --Roisterer (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No replay here in Tas. Victoria have to win to have a chance of making the semi finals now don't they? The were horrible the other night. The Australian Domestic circuit is really fairly even, though. Tasmania were bottom of the T20 and won the one-day comp. Maybe South Australia might win something this year? Is there much media about the team in South Australia? Aaroncrick ^TALK 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only relatively even because the teams with the best players and depleted due to international duty. The CL teams look rather unbalanced with the best Aus, Ind, RSA teams all lumped into one group. Wayamba are pretty good too YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The SA media are just as shocked as I am. --Roisterer (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Really?? cricket is about the 5th sheet in from the front, the state league Australian football is more important, apparent, as are meaningless nothing stories on the national league for football (AFL) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about SA, but Somerset may be about to end 135 years of consistent under-achievement in the County Championship. But I think we still emphasise the "may" for the next 24 hours. Johnlp (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't curse it! Harrias ^talk 17:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

When Yorkshire are strong, England are strong (so they say, and probably Surrey too). England is in a bad position then YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshire are pretty strong; they're still in with a good shout of the Championship, and in their current match against Kent, they have five English bowlers bowling well: all are 26 or under. Surrey, well that's another matter! Harrias ^talk 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This was from 2001-02 when the jiont ABC/BBC radio commentary team were discussing England's woes wrt Australia. I'm guessing they meant the 1930s and 1950s when Surrey/Yorkshire were responsible and England's strength, battering Australia three series in a row with half the team being greats, which isn't the case now YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it didn't happen for Somerset... Johnlp (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cricket Grounds

There are major problems with the links. These refer to 'the last recorded match.' It means the last match recorded by criinfo or ca. Thus the County Ground at Stoke evidently saw no matches after 1968. Cricket was still being played there ten years ago. I have had a quick look at some of the Staffs grounds and altered a few. Also some of the 'defunct' grounds are still in use at a higher or lesser level eg: Uttoxetter(Bamford's Ground) Reference should be made here to the books on cricket grounds for each county produced by the ACS. These have chapter and verse on openings and closings. Also. The Minor Counties grounds are listed but NOT the fc counties Second XI and Minor Counties grounds. That may be just incomplete I don't know.KestevenBullet (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A solution for the first point might be if the heading was amended to say "Last recorded major match" or "Last recorded county match". If "major" was used then what we meant by "major" in the context of the article would need to be defined. JH (talk page) 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All articles are mostly stubs, starts which can be expanded, which last time I looked is what wikipedia is all about. As they are simply stubs sourced from CA and CI and hence incomplete, editing them would be an answer instead of wasting time mentioning they are evidentally incomplete. If you know cricket was played there 10 years back, mention it in the article.

"A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion."

Also, seeing as we don't do articles per WP:CRIC on solely minor counties cricketers, the same is done for the grounds. They have to have held first-class, list-A, twenty20 or a womens international to have been notable. Likewise Havant Park isn't notable just because it has held a Second XI fixture, as these fixtures are not notable, seeing as John Smith who played a single Second XI fixture in 1907 for Blahshire fails WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

County Championship tables

While updated the tables for the conclusion of this year's County Championship, I stumbled across this template which works wonderfully well for seasons prior to 2010, for example here, but less so for this year's table due to the changes in points gained for wins and draws. Looking at the history of the template, I guess AMBerry is the creator, but he has not been around for 6 months or so, so I was wondering if anyone has any ideas on how to edit the template to incorporate the 2010 changes, without messing up all previous seasons. Many thanks, Schumi555 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer the table as it looks in the 2010 article (and in the Somerset County Cricket Club in 2010 and 2009 articles I've used it (or a slight alteration of it) on). Harrias ^talk 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 10 and 11 column versions I did years ago in a fairly unsophisticated way in my sandbox, if that helps. User:Johnlp/sandbox. Johnlp (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Upul Chandana

It seems to me that U. Chandana is none other than Upul Chandana himself. Upul is from Galle, he was playing for Tamil Union in 95/96 season and has played against Galle CC on 22 March 1996, one week after the Lahore final. U. Chandana appears for Galle CC one month later on 19 April, incidentally against Tamil Union. Perhaps Upul might have decided to join the club from his hometown. Changing one's club thrice a season is not a novelty for a SL cricketer. Bowling styles of the two are contradictory though, it says U. Chandana bowled Right arm offbreak, while we know Upul Chandana is one of the best legbreak bowlers Sri Lanka had in the mid 90s. Bit of a mystery to me.--Chanaka L (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - if anyone wishes to redirect U. Chandana to Upul, please do. I was unaware of this when I created the article and was merely taking the information from the list on Cricket Archive. Thank you, Chanakal. Bobo. 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, we can't redirect U. Chandana to Upul Chandana based on the above the information, the evidences are not conclusive. That would be an Original Researching if someone does that. Bobo, I don't think you have done anything wrong, you have written the article according to the source. We need new evidence to go beyond the current situation. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

True true. But a very interesting find, nevertheless. All the best. Bobo. 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CricketArchive are very approachable if you think you find something wrong or that needs checking. I've had nothing but courtesy and a keenness to rectify any errors. Theirs is a fairly thankless task... Johnlp (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've sent a mail on Johnlp's instructions to the CricketArchive and received a reply saying U. Chandana is a different player who has played just once. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cricket articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Cricket articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell Starc

Hasn't done anything yet. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Must be just about due for his Baggy Green, then. Surprised the selectors have made wait so long! On the article, all that junior cricket content is entirely uncited. Any objections to wholesale removal? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Batool Fatima

Found this article while doing new page patrol. I don't know squat about cricket or cricketers so can somebody here give this stub enough content to avoid deletion? A source or 2 would help as well. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. The infox is also the whole article and is reffed (already was) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Fletcher (cricketer)

I suspect, but do not know for certain, that Fletcher, who played four times for Oxford University and once for Somerset in 1939, was the son of Sir Frank Fletcher, headmaster of Marlborough and Charterhouse and allegedly the first man to be knighted for services to education. Does anyone have access to the Dictionary of National Biography where there is apparently an entry for Frank Fletcher (1870-1954) that might just confirm (or deny) this? Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

According to DNB, Frank Fletcher was married but had no children. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Johnlp (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

biogs of current umpires

Need lots of watchlisting, disgruntled fans are always there. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ijaz Butt

Coming along --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, always need more info about corruption in cricket and deranged subcontinental looting admins `YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone able to snap a photograph while he is in country? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Digvijay

Hi all. User:Dalgspleh moved this article from Digvijay (Kerala cricketer) to the undisambiguated form - where there may be other cricketers with this surname in existence. At the calculated risk of being seen as wheel-warring an article I created myself, could someone please give this a look and act as they feel necessary? As I say, I don't feel comfortable doing so myself. Thank you. Bobo. 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought I wouldn't move it back because there was another to disambiguate from, however the name appears in the full names of some other articles so the disambiguation is probably still prudent. Done. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox update dates on retired/dead cricketers

I've been asked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1 whether it is necessary to retain the date the infobox stats were retrieved given that the "as of" factor is irrelevant for dead/retired players. I see other dead/retired players have the date of retrieval even though there is no question of the "as of" being a factor YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The date the website was accessed is relevant not because it shows how up to date the statistics were but for the same reason we show the date of access for any online source. See {{cite web}} for example. Websites are dynamic and adding the access date means that the content can be checked against the site as it existed that day. WP:CITEHOW says "Citations for World Wide Web articles typically include ... the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown)". Unless this changes, I think the date the stats were retrieved need to be retained. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that there are errors in CricInfo and CricketArchive, which even for a retired/dead player coul result in changes to the published statistics when these get noticed and corrected. David Underdown (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the latest ruling on which matches are Tests or first class status, and the 197-199 debate. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that if it said effectively "(stats correct) as of..." then we should alter the text. As it just says "source: ", I don't see the problem. It's certainly more of a problem to remove it - and wouldn't somebody come along later and say why aren't the stats referenced?—User:MDCollins (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket is in need of some attention

I'm looking through the oldest Featured portals to see which have been kept up to modern standards for featured portals and which need attention. I'm afraid that the cricket portal is one of the latter, but it should be relatively straightforward to bring it back up to speed. I've left a note on Portal talk:Cricket with my comments/suggestions, and I hope that these matters can be resolved without the need for a featured portal review. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review

Featured article

• Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 • Discussion
• Roy Kilner • Discussion
• Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 • Discussion

Featured list

• List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers • review
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham • review

Good article

• Norman Yardley
• Abe Waddington

Thought I'd create a new one to allow the older one to archive, and drop it down the conversation a bit! Harrias ^talk 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Harrias ^talk 09:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And again. Harrias ^talk 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Windsor cricket club

Just spotted Windsor Cricket Club, and it's related AfD which resulted in "Keep" basically because the nomination was a weak one. It does appear that the club fails CRIN, and is basically unreferenced. As the nom (User:StAnselm pointed out during the AfD, attention solely from local media (the sole argument) does not satisfy WP:ORG, therefore shouldn't pass WP:N too. Is it worth renominating? —User:MDCollins (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, not in an ECB Premier League so non-notable. I'd renominate it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Austwick

Has played only Minor counties cricket, so non-notable. Put for discussion at AfD. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Buxton

The former Derbyshire Captain's death has been reported on Cricinfo.121.213.28.62 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mohali

Gee, for two Aus-Ind Tests in a row, a lot of batsmen want to waste a flat pitch YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Test Match referral system

Do all test matches use this system now, or can teams opt in or out of it? I'm sure the match that finished today (India vs Australia) has not used the referral system. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Cricinfo "As per ICC regulations, the host country - in this case India - takes the call on whether to use the UDRS in consultation with the visiting team." The BCCI decided not to use the system for this series. Jevansen (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The visiting team can also object. India objected when touring SL just 2 months ago. SL wanted it. The 2008 India/SL series was the first time they had it, and Kumble completely fluffed it. If you check the commentary logs, India used their appeals very quickly, often in the first session or so; Kumble got too excited each time him or Harbhajan beat the bat, and they wasted a lot of their quota on nonsense appeals and then had nothing left when the umpire did make a mistake; they've been opposed to it ever since. I think there was a report saying that SL got 10 to 1 successful overturns or something. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Graphs

Wrote up this guide on how to make teh batting graphs. Thought I should do it, in case I cark it. Good thing I got it off Raven4x4x when he was still active. Can it be stuck on the project page or toolbox somewhere. Unforunately, can't upload xls files on wiki or commons, so if anyone wants the template sample, I'll email it around, and hopefully it spreads around unlike many bot owners who quit and the bot dies :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an unanswered question on the Infobox cricketer talk page with a proposal to add these graphs to the infobox "for consistency". Regardless of the form of infobox (whether we can agree on a MarkIII version), I would suspect that the size of the infobox would render the graphs completely unreadable especially for the players with a substantial number of matches. I'll reply to the proposer, but if anyone else has any suggestions etc, head over to the talk page.—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox would work. It would just fatten the infobox too much or make it unreadable YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

There are too many good articles being bombarded with spurious - Citation Needed - tags. Established facts do not need them. If they did practically every word would require it. eg: Jack Hobbs is called Jack Hobbs. However it is not necessary to say Jack Hobbs was elected to ICC Hall of Fame. It itations are needed for disputable facts.could be removed if untrue. KestevenBullet (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how would you define an established fact? Hack (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like a citation so I could go read about Hobbs joining the ICC Gold Club S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kesteven isn't objecting to citations, he is objecting to the overuse, and actual misuse, of the citation needed template. The template should be "used to identify questionable claims", Hobbs being in the ICC HoF, being WCoY in 1926 or dying in 1963 aren't questionable claims, the placer of the template knows they are correct. In the long term this should make the article more verifiable but in the short term the article is left as an eyesore. I say 'should' because the Brian Close article is still a total mess two and a half years after similar behaviour. --JP (Talk) 18:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Kesteven Bullet completely misses the point. The cn tag is used as a reminder not only to the community at large but to the editor himself that a citation is needed to verify the statement in question. It is not a case of overuse, but of encouraging development and eventual completion of the article. I notice that he has once again used for his example an article that I am working on (coincidence?). Perhaps he should follow previous advice and "put up or shut up". Putting up means taking responsibility for an article himself and developing it, but despite all his "noises off", we have never seen any work of his which is worth a mention.

While I respect JP's view, I don't agree that an article is an eyesore because it has a lot of cn tags: it is an eyesore if it is nowhere near complete, it is unstructured and it contains material that is highly questionable. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

New Test cricketers

The articles about the newest Test cricketers—Peter George (cricketer) and Cheteshwar Pujara—both need a lot of work ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

did just a bit YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Berkshire redlinks

All done! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Where to next? Harrias ^talk 11:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiltshire! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Five-wicket haul list

As part of the review process at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham/archive1 , a question has been raised regarding the format of these lists, and more pertinently, the fact they include Economy, but not Bowling average or Maidens. Between Struway2, The Rambling Man and myself, we've failed to reach any real consensus. I would invite comment from those here on the opinions offered there. Harrias ^talk 11:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Hughes (cricketer)

Can some others please keep an eye on this article. The subject will be in the news for the next few days and may attract a bit of drive-by editing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed why he will be in the news, anyone fill me in? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Involved in a court case. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Collins (cricketer)

The good old Cricinfo and CricketArchive differences! Today's test subject is Andrew Collins. According to CricketArchive he died on 25 December 1999. But according to Cricinfo he is still alive. I have search through Wisden and found no obituary for him. I've searched media sources (which being a fairly minor cricketer he would struggle to get in) and some death registers, but have found nothing. I know some of you guys have better research tools which can get better results; so the question is: Is he dead or alive??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't found any other sources, but I would err on the side of the website who thinks he's dead (CA) rather than the website who may not know he might be dead (CI)!—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review

Featured article

• Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 • Discussion
• George Macaulay • Discussion

Featured list

• List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers • review
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham • review

Good article

• Abe Waddington
• Adelaide leak
• Stephen Newton

Valued picture

• File:Sammy woods.JPG • Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Sammy woods
• File:Adil rashid.jpg • Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Adil Rashid

Updated again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And again. Harrias ^talk 21:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And added some valued pictures for review. Harrias ^talk 20:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And another update. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cricket Grounds

I have taken the liberty of amending many of these in respect of the 'first' and 'last' recorded match. The trouble is, some ARE correct but others merely take the first match recorded on CA. This only records important matches and those from certain leagues where the info has been supplied. In some entries the ground is reported as being still in use fifty years after the last so called recorded match. I have removed most of these errors. However the framework of the article is good and I accept a lot of hard work went into creating it. All the accurate info regarding first-last match can be found in the ACS series of Cricket Grounds of..... It is not a subject to tackle without a lot of sources because the history of grounds is positively byzantine in complexity.KestevenBullet (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Harrias ^talk 07:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Did we not discuss this recently? I may be wrong as I can't see it in the archive. I had a feeling we were using the first/last major (FC/ListA/T20) match as it was easier to reference? Also, I can't see many editors revising the numerous hoards of now (non-county) smaller grounds everytime two local teams play on it.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. The ground is still functioning or it isn't. In which case the last f-c or List A match was hardly the last recorded match was it. I mean they didn't run bulldozers over the minute the county men left the pitch. For example. Staffs played at Knypersley in July but Knypersley played at least twenty games there since then. Also the first match on some grounds is listed as the first match noted in CA. In some cases the first match was over fifty years before. F-c games(with rare exceptions)are hardly the first fixture played on a club ground. At Knypersley the club have played there 100 years. What bthe first match was is listed somewhere in the local press archives. Any organised match is the first match on a ground. The last match(If it is not still in use) would have been the very last match played on the field not the last recorded by CA which does not cover much in the way of league cricket. It is a little daft to say you simply choose the first match listed in CA or Cricinfo because it is easier. What is the point of producing accurate records and information when we can buy a kids encyclopaedia because it is easier - if you take my point.KestevenBullet (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, and see your point. I would have thought however, that as it is the notable matches played there that make the grounds notable in themselves, (i.e. a ground has to have hosted fc/lista matches in order to have an article), then it is those matches that should take prominence in the articles, but they shouldn't be marked as the last "recorded" match, as that would be plainly incorrect as you have pointed out.—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add some new lines to Template:Infobox cricket ground to get people writing these articles to put in the dates of first and last FC and List A matches? The template already does that for all manner of international cricket, but doesn't bother for the more common varieties. Where grounds are still currently used for FC or List A, it'd be possible to have a "current" line that would switch off the "last" dates, in the same way that the "living" button on the biography infobox switches off the dates and places of death. Johnlp (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alignment in Infobox Cricketer Biography

The alignment in some of this seems to have gone a bit awry, with the left-hand column of "headings" now centred rather than ranged left, and where the infobox has only one form of cricket played, that form of cricket is out in the middle of the box, with the stats that relate to it awkwardly ranged left underneath. I don't remember it being like this a few days ago. I'm far too timid to attempt to rectify this myself. Johnlp (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay to me at the moment, are there any particular pages that are doing this for you, or is it all of them? Have you updated your internet browser recently (maybe the new version doesn't support part of the code?). I don't really know what I can suggest, as I'm not suffering from any issues! Harrias ^talk 19:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Interesting. It is out in IE, but not in Firefox (which I use). How strange. You're right about it looking weird! I'll try having a look at the code, but I'm not expert in these matters. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I updated from IE7 to IE8. Used to be OK in IE7. Johnlp (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we have an idea of what caused it. Unfortunately, I can't see anything (beyond an addition of left align to each element) that I can do to fix it. User:MDCollins is more likely to have some idea. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what - I think I'm going to have to pass. My best solution would be don't use IE8! but that's probably not very constructive. Unfortunately my strengths don't lie in the coding of things that appear differently in varying browsers. I can have a look, and see if anything pops up - is it all the headings or just some in particular? I'm thinking maybe it's the ones with the switch coding or some other common syntax, rather than a random occurance. The user with the real skill in the actual coding of things who tidied a lot of the box up was Chris Cunningham; possibly User:Pigsonthewing might be of assistance here too.—User:MDCollins (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should just go for Firefox! Johnlp (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

... and having just done that, I remember why I don't like Firefox... horrid spindly typography on my rubbishy screen! Ah well. Maybe IE9 will be better. Johnlp (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It corrects itself in IE8 if you click the "compatibility view button" at the top of the browser page. Makes you wonder why they couldn't get the compatibility issues right first time... Johnlp (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

South Australia rather than Southern Redbacks

I'm sure this discussion has been had before but I still question the use of Southern Redbacks to represent the team that represents South Australia. At times, "Redbacks" has been used as a nickname for the side but I noticed at the recent Champions Trophy that while Victoria were called the Bushrangers, SA were called South Australia. And in the (admittedly unlikely) situation that the ghosts of George Giffen, Clem Hill, Don Bradman, Vic Richardson, Clarrie Grimmett and Neil Hawke et al. decide to look up their Wikipedia articles, they are going to scratch their heads wondering what this Southern Redbacks creature is.

Summing up the previous paragraph, can't we just rename it South Australian cricket side or similar? --Roisterer (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• PS: You heard it here first; Peter George to be Australia's Ashes trump card.

If Bradman, Grimmett, Giffen, Favell look up their Wikiarticles, it will be displayed SA even though the link goes to SR. I'm not aware of articles engaging in anachronism, and in any case, in most modern players, they just pipe to NSW etc anyway and the nicks aren't in the readable parts. What I saw of the CL was that when they had a shorthand, eg in the league tables, they just showed the nick :(, still it could be the Adelaide Rams, fancy naming a rugby league team after a bunch of apathetic sheep..... I don't think George will get to play, unless they go 4 quicks or lots of injuries. And barring the odd century on a flat first innings pitch with Australia already 4/200, North never delivers when it's important. They should be back to the old days and just chop guys more ruthlessly, eg Taylor, M Waugh, S Waugh (ODI); Khawaja, Hughes, Hodge (discriminated because he complains too much), Klinger, Rogers are all better than these "captain's mates". When they culled Hayden, Hughes was a key in RSA....This stuff with out of form batsmen is like the Indian stagnation of 2003-06 when Ganguly, Tendulkar and Laxman were all averaging about 30-35 excluding the odd booster against Bangladesh/Zim, and it's not as though Hughes and Khawaja are limited players like Kaif and Yuvraj YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Best to take it, and the other Australian FC teams to WP:RM or if you feel confident enough, just be bold. I agree wholeheartedly with you and it can't happen soon enough. The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Victoria (Australia) cricketers (what fun that was!) includes my arguments against the inclusion of the nickname in the article title. It is horribly anachronistic to call the team that Giffen et al. played for by its nickname! I would suggest South Australia cricket team would be the preferred treatment, in line with other representative cricket team articles (Sindh cricket team, Barbados cricket team etc. etc.) Note that the NZ teams such as Canterbury Wizards, Central Districts Stags have the same issue. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree absolutely with User:Mattinbgn. These "new" names are very confusing to people outside the countries involved. Johnlp (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. When I'm editing any Australians for infoboxes and the like I always make sure all the links are piped to "South Australia" anyway. Nicknames can change; Certainly for the English counties we tend not to use them.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the Australian teams known by their nicknames in all forms of the game or just the one-day stuff? Personally I would prefer the traditional names, but if they are known as the Redbacks whenever they play then I don't see a problem with the current title. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy way to gather all players from state/county etc

Does cricket archive/cricinfo or similar give a list for all players from a particular side (such as for List of Victoria first-class cricketers) or would you have to compile such a list manually? --Roisterer (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the kind of page you're after, right? You have to select the letter (by surname) and it'll give you a ton. You can find similar ones by going Archive -> Teams, click on the country. Then click by letter for the club's name and find it on that list. Get a few options there, but you should be able to find what you want, I'd imagine? :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, just what I was after. --Roisterer (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shaun Udal

Shaggy has finally retired today. His article needs some expansion to cover his notable county career. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline of cricket

There is no Outline of cricket.

To create one, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|cricket|Cricket}}

Then press save and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at Outline of birds, it seems to me that it must take the category structure and reconstitute it into a list. It might be useful in some way but I would prefer to use the categories personally. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they seem very "in". I'll start one. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I made a shell of one and summed up my feelings on it with my edit summary: '?' off to work now so feel free to tinker(/delete) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon Gymkhana cricket team

Started the article for Rangoon Gymkhana cricket team who played a single first-class match in the 1926/27 season against MCC. Thus far it constitutes 3 sentences!!! I'm trying to expand it, but having no luck finding any sources!!! Feel free to expand what remains Burma's only first-class domestic team. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the match was given f-c status even though of only 2 days duration. It's quite a strong MCC side. It might be worth following up the players in the Rangoon team, to see if any of them played any other f-c cricket. If anyone has the 1928 Wisden they might be able to tell you more. JH (talk page) 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Intriguing - of the six first-class debutantes in the Rangoon Gymkhana side, (MB Padgett (CA), Patrick Dodwell (CA), Edward Gibson (CA), Sydney Stubbs (CA), William Giles (CA) and Herbert Aston (CA)) four played no further first-class cricket. Bobo. 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wisden 1928 does a fairly perfunctory job of individual match reports. The gist of this tour was, of course, that the 1926 Imperial Cricket Conference had decided to open up Test cricket to teams beyond the original three (England, Australia and South Africa) and this was one of a number of tours in this period which were designed to encourage the development of the game (and specifically the development of national organisations for administering the game) in India, New Zealand and the West Indies. That probably accounts for rather lax views on what constitutes first-class cricket. There seems to have been particular pressure to get India up and running and there were suggestions that the 1928 "All-India" team that came to England might have one or more of its representative matches designated as Test matches: in the end, this didn't happen and the somewhat similar parallel tours by MCC to West Indies and New Zealand in 1929-30 had their representative matches retrospectively designated as Tests, so these teams got into Test cricket before India did. Most tours of India at this stage would have taken in matches in Burma and Sri Lanka as well as India (which included Pakistan and Bangladesh at that stage). The big name in the Rangoon Gymkhana team is Hubert Ashton; Gibson played for Scotland pre-First World War. I rather hoped "H G Nicolson" was Harold Nicolson, the diplomat, politician and diarist, but his diaries indicate that he was in Tehran, where he was chargé d'affaires, finishing off a book at the time. Johnlp (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Spin bowling animations

As you are probably aware, we have a collection of four spin bowling animations. I nominated the first of these (as a test case) to Valued picture, where it currently has one support other than myself. However, I found myself wondering something. This image is, without a doubt, correct as an off break delivery from a right-arm bowling coming over the wicket. However, surely it would also be correct for a left-arm unorthodox (chinaman) delivery from around the wicket? But basically, I've fuddled my brain thinking about it all, so would like someone else to confirm / tell me I'm talking rubbish! Harrias ^talk 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just gone through the motions of having to think something other than leg spin! Going through the motions a few times, I think you're correct. Although maybe we're both talking rubbish, but your logic seems correct to me! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks right to my non-expert eys. --Roisterer (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the spin is right for a left-arm legbreak. But the release point is a little close to the stumps, though – he'd have to run into the umpire and non-striker's ends stumps in order to bowl that ball, ha. Still, I'm not sure moving it over two dozen pixels to the left is particularly worthwhile. Unless someone wants to be particularly pedantic. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Eagles

Further to the Australian team names/article nicknames debate above, I have just found Diamond Eagles in South Africa. As far as I can work out, this team has been rebranded as "Chevrolet Knights", what seems to be it's third name in recent times. (There is no mention of this in the article yet). I was thinking about moving the article to the new name, but it just seems silly really. Would it not be better back at "Eagles cricket team", with redirects from the sponsored names? I imagine some of the other teams suffer from this too.—User:MDCollins (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Or "Knights cricket team"? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

...I think this is the first time they've been called Knights. Previously they have always been "<sponsor> Eagles".—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Four Corners on matchfixing tonight

May cause a flurry of edits YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

International cricket tours of COUNTRY

Hi, just looking over a few pages, specifically the International cricket tours of XYZ. Should these be tours where XYZ is the (nominal) home country, or where XYZ are the (nominal) away country? Or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.83.97 (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's "tours of" rather than "tours by". Thus XYZ is the country being toured, and hence is the home country. JH (talk page) 08:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bosanquet questions

I've just expanded the article on Bosanquet, the googly inventor. It left me wondering, does anyone still call a googly a "bosie" anymore? And for the more historically minded, what would the line of succession be for googly bowlers? What about Bosanquet, Schwarz, Faulkner, Vogler, White, Carr, Horden ... ? (And if anyone has a ref for that, it would be great!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term "bosie" has always been used a lot by Australians but not much by other nationalities. One of the pre-WW1 South African googly bowlers spent a season or two with Middlesex and learnt the googly from Bosanquet, and on returning to South Africa taught the others. I think that's mentioned in the relevant players' articles. JH (talk page) 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I once met one of his [adult] direct descendents, who shares his surname, and sadly knew nothing about her ancestor, other than that he'd "played cricket". I found that astonishing. If I had a famous direct ancestor, even if their field of interest didn't rock my boat, I'd be curious enough to find out more about them. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To start heading off on a tangent, I once met the great-great granddaughter of Walter Giffen who said that none of Walter or George's memorabilia remains in the family as George & Walter used to provide free coaching clinics to poor children around Adelaide and gave all their caps, bats etc. to the kids. --Roisterer (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lancashire League cricket clubs

The articles withins this category have a wide table in the top-right of the article where an Infobox might normally be. Is there a Cricket Team Infobox that could work instead? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Try Template:Infobox cricket team now added to the list of templates on the WP:CRIC homepage—not sure why it wasn't there!—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That infobox is for 'county' though. It doesn't seem to have a row showing the league the team play in, the current professional or last years league position. Are there not other 'league' cricket clubs out there already using an infobox? Eldumpo (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly not. They seem reasonable fields to add in though. If you wanted to add fields to the infobox detailing such things, I'm sure nobody would mind. If you would like one of us to look at it, specify exactly which fields you would like and we'll see what we can do.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'county' row should be changed to say something like 'team name' so as to work for all county/region/state/club sides. Regarding the specifics currently in the Lancashire League articles, there is a heading for Lancashire League so could the infobox add a row saying something like 'Competition'. However, I realise this does not work so well for counties etc who actually play in a number of competitions each season. A 'Year xxx position' line (for most recent position in league) could be useful. The final bit of information that is at the Lancs Lge clubs tables is Club Professional, so is it reasonable for this line to be added. I'd be grateful if someone could consider the above. I appreciate the infobox shouldn't necessarily change to meet the needs of one league. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to make life easier, just use the "county" to mean "team name" (it doesn't display anyway) - if we change the field, every article using the template will need changing. I have found clubs that do use it (Goodwood Cricket Club) being one example. I'll look into the rest when I get a chance.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Darren Sammy

An image has been uploaded to the page of the new West Indies captain Darren Sammy, it is from the West Indies Cricket Board website. Is this allowed, and does it mean we can use other player images from the site? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect not. I have tagged the image as having an incorrect copyright tag and have removed it from the Wikipedia page until we hear anything more back. Harrias ^talk 15:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think it was right. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Suresh Raina allegations

An person keeps on putting it back, but I don't think it should stay, as apparently it was a beatup and all the serious sources eg Cricinfo and other respectable parpers couldn't be bothered YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this is pointscoring. The adder is a Pakistani with hardly any edits YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Chahar

Not a bad first-class cricket debut at 18 years of age by Deepak Chahar! [1].Hyderabad all out for 21! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the way all the Indian pacers flame out and lose pace after doing well for 2 years at a young age, I wouldn't be surprised if he's the next Pathan....On the video he seemed to swinging it well but maybe good batsmen might be able to survive and wait for the conditions to improve. The Plate Division is really poor in India as the usual big teams eg Delhi, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Mumbai win a lot and the poorer or smaller rural states are always permanently... Joginder Sharma (the Glenn Trimble of Australia) has a FC average of 20, playing mostly in Plate, despite bowling at 115kph and being more inaccurate (at least 2 grasscutters or full tosses each over) than Johnson, Tait....and three of those guys in the Hyderabad top order are quota players for the Deccan Chargers and have trouble scoring double figures in the IPL on pancake/chapati pitches against other quota players bowling at 115kph.... But in any case, cricket needs quality swing bowlers, or any type of bowler for that matter.... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

When does a falsehood become truth?

On Wikipedia, the threshold for inclusion is what is verifiable, not what is true. However, sometimes one can find a verifiable source to say something is true when it actually isn't. For example, see 2012 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup. It says that the Under-19 World Cup in 2012 will be held in Argentina. And I could indeed verify this with a reference to this article on the Asian Cricket Council website.

Just one problem - it isn't being held in Argentina. Argentina has just four grounds with turf wickets so obviously can't host the event. So far as I can tell, the first mention of it being held in Argentina was the article here on Wikipedia.

Through my contacts, I do actually know where it is being held, but as there has been no official announcement, I can't provide any verifiable source. Meanwhile, if I remove it from the article someone can justifiably add it back in with the justification that a regional governing body has announced it.

So we have a problem - I can't add what is true, but anyone can add something that is verifiable but not true. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

See CricketarchiveKestevenBullet (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See what on CricketArchive? Andrew nixon (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this 2007 article on the ICC's website, it is being held in Canada. Is it the correct answer? OrangeKnight (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Canada withdrew from hosting the tournament. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Zim Cricket and Dutch cricket sites, prepaarations are being made for 2012 World Cup in Argentina.
'ZC Begins Preparations for 2012 , U19 , World Cup Thu, 19/08/2010 - 08:35 — After a disastrous outing in the 2010 edition of the tournament, The Herald reports that ZC's efforts to prepare for the next edition, to be held in Argentina in 2012'(Zim Cricket)

And from the Asian Cricket Council
NEWS 'Afghanistan Trialling U-19s Afghanistan, who won through with Hong Kong to play in the ICC U/19 World Cup in New Zealand earlier this year, have started their campaign to qualify for the U/19 World Cup in February 2012 in Argentina.'(WWW.Asiancricket.org)

See also(http://www.sportspundit.com/article/5127/) news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/8846148.stm www.cricket-kenya.com/index.php?option=com_content.. allafrica.com/stories/201008260882.html
So our falsehood correspondent was barking up the wrong tree I think.KestevenBullet (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know about those articles, indeed I linked to one of them above. But it isn't being held in Argentina, nor can it be. I also know where the tournament IS being held, but nothing has been announced yet. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well rather than engage in espionage - where is it being held? That is quite a lot of evidence that it is in Argentina although one can see it seems unlikely if Canada couldn't hold it.KestevenBullet (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An Englishman as 12th man for Australia?

Ian Stafford popped up on an unreferenced BLP list today, and this statement caught my eye: In "Playgrounds of the Gods" Ian played squash against Jansher Khan, boxed against Roy Jones, Jr., was a substitute for the Springboks rugby team against Ireland, was 12th man for Australia in a one-day cricket international against New Zealand, ran in the Kenyan 3000 metres steeplechase national trials, and partnered rower Steve Redgrave at the Henley Royal Regatta. Now, does anyone have the book and know in which game it happened, was he named as 12th man, or did he field for 1 over as a 13th/14th man (often you here about trainers, team managers physios of touring teams making up the numbers)... because although I agree it's a great idea for a book, surely we didn't let a Pommy journo get on the field in an Aussie shirt in a real game! The-Pope (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have the book, he actually batted against Australia for New South Wales, scoring a duck, before operating as a 12th man in an ODI against New Zealand. He didn't actually field though, he just brought on the drinks etc. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the book, the match took place in Brisbane, New Zealand were bowled out for 151 and Australia easily won "thanks to a half century from Gilly and a brutal, unbeaten 98 from Junior" I can't find the scorecard though. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that never happened then... and Junior Waugh never made 98 in a ODI. I wonder if the book gets filed in the non-fiction or fiction shelves? Could it have been junior/amateur/women's cricket?The-Pope (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the match referred to. It's 12-a-side, so he certainly wasn't "12th man". Oh, and it wasn't in Brisbane, but that's the least of the worries. —Raven42 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it doesn't say Brisbane, I got that wrong as well. Maybe he was 13th man then? lol. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And unless he pretended to be Tom Moody or Ricky Ponting... or it was only in the nets, the rare the NSW vs Aust game doesn't seem to mention anyone unusual either. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the game, it says in the book that Australia made 211. It says that he was fielding for the Australians when at 76/8: "...made a suggestion to Tug. 'Look, would you have a problem if I came out as an extra batsman for NSW?' I asked him. 'They need all the help they can get.' Tug agreed. 'You're on' he said". I guess extra batsman means that he played after the game had officialy finished. As for the NZ match, I have just realised that the book doesn't call it an ODI at any point, I just assumed it was, maybe just a warm up game then? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any reference of him being 12th man, like the rest of you I'm struggling to find any of it be factual. Seems either completely inaccurate, referring to some other amatuer match or blatant nonsense. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this guy the new Rick Strandlof??? In the mid 1990s in a Vic/SA match in Adelaide, Victoria had two injuries, and Jamie Siddons donned a blue cap and fielded for them for a while; he was captain of SA at the time YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw Don Topley (Essex) fielding for the opposition during a match several years ago when they needed a 13th man; he actually took a catch! I have a feeling it was this match (I have Colchester stuck in my mind, I thought it was Yorkshire, but Lancashire's close enough...) but can't find out details of the sub who caught Mark Waugh in the second innings. Bencherlite^Talk 11:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP Cricket tagging

As some of you may have noticed, I spent a fun few hours last night on AWB tagging a number of article with the talk page banner for this project. I was going for 6 hours (on and off) and I barely brushed the surface. Looking about, User:Xenobot Mk V will do this job automatically, and can also inherit classes from other projects. I feel this would be worth doing, as I would suspect that we have probably a few hundred, maybe over a thousand untagged articles purely relating to players out there, and we have practically 3,000 unclassified articles. If there are no objections, I'll request a run to classify the unclassified articles, and to add any without the banner from the subcategories of Category:Cricketers by nationality. Harrias ^talk 08:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A thankless task as I know from experience. Well done. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno generally wants a list of cats to be trawled, rather than a tree, so if you want me to make one, let me know - or does one already exist somewhere in the project? You have to be a bit careful about recursive category trees, sometimes all sorts of strange cats end up in your tree. Sticking to something "clean" like you suggested is probably OK, and the advantage of making a page of them is that others can check it. The-Pope (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I was going to give it a list Category:English cricketers, Category:Australian cricketers, Category:Fooian cricketers etc etc. Harrias ^talk 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(And not worry about non-biography articles to start with, but if you want to put the time in to create a more comprehensive list, that'd be greatly appreciated! Harrias ^talk 14:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If bot-adding the project tag, could you make it {{WP Cricket|class= |importance=low}}, rather than just {{WP Cricket}}. That'd help with the assessment backlog. (I'll manually scan the list in the next day or so and do the few that are importance=mid). –Moondyne

Yeah, I was going to suggest that: I meant to do it yesterday, but didn't remember unfortunately. I figure at least they are in the project now though! Harrias ^talk 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB can do a recursion to get all teh subcats. Then you cut and pasted the list into Excel and sort it alphabetically, as the recursion picks up cats multiple times due to multiple inheritance. This allows duplicates to be deleted YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with 21 items that were in category:Unassessed cricket articles of Low-importance. This leaves a total of 6,790 tagged articles of unknown importance, of which 3,974 are stubs and 2,816 are unassessed. There are no unassessed articles at present that have an importance rating. For details, see: Category:Cricket articles by quality and importance. Looking at this practically, I don't think it matters too much that stubs and unassessed articles have not been given an importance rating as the importance may not become apparent until the article has been developed to start-class at least. I think we should always ensure that anything which has an importance rating also has a quality rating and that anything of start-class and above must have an importance rating. At present we satisfy both of those criteria. It will be interesting to see how many cricket articles are untagged. I wouldn't like to try and guess the number of categories we have now. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But 2,816 unassessed articles, many of them about well-known subjects, is something we do need to address. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

T:CRW - 1,847 2002 categories as of July now. –Moondyne 07:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot more than I would have expected. We definitely need a bot.  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality of article tagging

I just took a peek at the list of top-importance articles. There are some very strange inclusions that don't seem to fit in our definition of top importance:

This article is of the utmost importance to the project, as it provides key information about a major topic that is fundamental to a study of the subject. Reserved for articles that are strictly related to the game: rules of the game, key roles, key equipment, federations, etc.

--Dweller (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the definition needs to be made into a definition because at present it is a guideline that is open to interpretation. There are currently 51 top importance articles. While they are all high importance at least, I think only ten should be top importance because the rest can be seen as second tier items per the list below:

• Batting (cricket)

Batsman

• Bowling (cricket)

Bowler (cricket)

• Cricket

All-rounder

• Cricket clothing and equipment

Cricket ball

Cricket bat

Wicket

• Cricket field

Cricket pitch

• Fielding (cricket)

Wicket-keeper

• Forms of cricket

Cricket World Cup

First-class cricket

Limited overs cricket

Major cricket

Test cricket

Twenty20

Women's Test cricket

Women's cricket

• History of cricket

History of women's cricket

• International Cricket Council

African Cricket Association

Americas Cricket Association

Asian Cricket Council

Bangladesh Cricket Board

Board of Control for Cricket in India

Cricket Australia

Cricket South Africa

England and Wales Cricket Board

European Cricket Council

ICC East Asia-Pacific

Marylebone Cricket Club

Pakistan Cricket Board

Sri Lanka Cricket

West Indies Cricket Board

• Laws of cricket

Captain (cricket)

Dismissal (cricket)

Extra (cricket)

Innings

Over (cricket)

Result (cricket)

Run (cricket)

Scoring (cricket)

Toss (cricket)

Umpire (cricket)

I would transfer the 41 secondary items to the high importance category. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think people should lose too much sleep over important ratings, apart from maybe creating a list of 200 important ones or seomthing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Making use of maps

Maybe this suggestion is not needed on the County Cricket page, but maybe it would help people know the locations of the counties that make up English cricket. I found this map which I have put on my sandbox which has the boundaries of the historic counties, with the county name linked on its location on the map. I wonder if there is any way to use this map, adjusting only the names to link to [[Blah County Cricket Club|Blah]]. Maybe the respective counties could be colored different to represent first-class, minor county, others (like Huntingdonshire and the IOW) and no representative side (Westmorland, Rutland ect). Might be a useful addition to the County Cricket article, might not. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They really carved up the old West Riding, didn't they? I think there are two main constraints with the 1851 map which are its size and the absence of Wales. But it would be useful to include something like this, or at least link to it, in each of the county club articles (minor as well as first-class) to show just where that traditional county actually was. By the way, I notice that the Isle of Lundy can be seen on the map but not the Isles of Scilly. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted on Wales, missed that one completely! I will have to find a map with traditional English and Welsh counties. Kinda like it how it is on the map, find these UA's rather pointless! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a map of old Wales in Historic counties of Wales, AA, but again there's a size constraint. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Good find Jack. Will have to try and mold something together; although when it comes to putting links on maps, I am 100% clueless!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1950–51 Ashes series and others

New user User:Philipjelley has been doing valiant work on the 1950–51 Ashes series and more recently 1954–55 Ashes series and 1962–63 Ashes series, plus some related articles like English cricket team in Australia in 1962–63. However they could do with a copyedit, he goes for a rather chatty style that isn't as encyclopaedic as it could be. You can't fault his enthusiasm, would someone mind taking a look and perhaps taking him under their wing? I love the one about 20 wickets falling in one day of the 1950-1 series being blamed on the atom bomb tests at Bikini Atoll - it's currently making a (debatable) appearance at T:TDYK Le Deluge (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see talking as one of the more viable options. Post-completion editing is the only thing that works YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New user? He's been editting since April 2009... Harrias ^talk 17:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Will also need to be split into more manageable paragraphs. Though to be honest better that than the two line paragraphs that are the trend across many articles! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 04:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Usman Sarwar

Started an article on a mysterious cricketer who could be in the news more in the following days following Haider's disapperance to London. He played a single List A match, conceding 78 from 3 overs, with a target of 123 chased down in 6.1 overs - fixed much? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Test cricket grounds

I came across Category:Test cricket grounds when looking at University Oval, Dunedin. The category has been around since 2006 but not been populated other than with List of Test cricket grounds. Is this a useful category worth populating or should it be deleted or should we just leave it sitting there as it is. While thinking about that, Category:Test cricket looks a bit strange too. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We could make this a subset of Category:Cricket grounds, and divvy it up by country/Test playing group: Category:Test cricket grounds in India which becomes a subset of Category:Cricket grounds in India and so on? —SpacemanSpiff 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a sensible way of proceeding. To answer the original question, having one or more categories for Test grounds seems useful to me. JH (talk page) 12:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done India, will take care of Sri Lanka and Pakistan too (Bangladesh could just go to the main cat as there're only two grounds). —SpacemanSpiff 18:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Aust and NZ. Just a note on the Bangles - List of Test cricket grounds shows six grounds, enough for their own cat, I think. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just some thoughts before we go too much further. Are we categorising these by political nation/country or by national cricket association. That is, should SWALEC stadium be shown as Category:Test cricket grounds in England (clearly geographically wrong) or Category:Test cricket grounds in Wales? (but there is no stand-alone Welsh Test cricket team). What about Indian Test venues pre-partition that are now in Pakistan? Ditto for Pakistan Test venues now in Bangladesh. What about Pakistani Test matches in England and the UAE? Should the West Indies grounds be further sub-divided by constituent nation? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, when I made the suggestion I was thinking along the lines of "Test teams", so the UAE would be the only non-Test team location. That appears to be Cricinfo's system of classification too, they have Scotland but not Wales (Sophia Gardens is listed in England, although address etc show Wales), Bermuda is included but not Guyana.

On the Test Grounds List, some sort of sanity check might be needed, the Cricinfo page for Bagh-e-Jinnah shows that it hasn't hosted a Test, but it's on. Likewise the RG stadium in Hyderabad will be hosting its first Test starting tomorrow, but it's already on the list. There are likely more such listings on there that would need to be checked. —SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is by "Test team" wouldn't "Test cricket grounds of XXXX" be preferable? Then it would show the UAE grounds (and Lords!) as "of Pakistan" but "in UAE" (and "in England") ditto for pre-partition grounds and SWALEC. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm holding of on SL and Bangladesh for now. Will do those after we finalize the structure. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

When I went through and did the rest of the outstanding redlinks for for cricket grounds in England and Wales, I categorized the Welsh grounds by their geographical location Category:Cricket grounds in Wales, because they form a part of the English domestic set-up (those which have held County Championship or Minor Counties matches) I added Category:Cricket grounds in England. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Work on the venue categories

I've been doing some category work on the venues although I'm waiting for the outcome of the discussion above before doing more. I've nothing to add to that, by the way, except that I think Mattinbgn is going the right way about it. I drew up a list of all venue articles and checked out the talk pages for redlinks which enabled me to place an assessment on a good number that were unclaimed by CRIC. I noticed that a substantial number of defunct English grounds were in the current venues category so I've removed them from that. There were a couple of Welsh ones in England and we know they won't like that so I've put them back in Wales. And I did a bit of tidying up of the West Indies section. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Status report

Outline of cricket is coming along nicely, but still has a ways to go.

Other sports outlines currently under development include:

• Outline of basketball
• Outline of tennis
• Outline of running
• Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

• Outline of cell biology
• Outline of meteorology (weather)
• Outline of Iceland
• Outline of Japan
• Outline of anarchism
• Outline of chocolate

The Transhumanist 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of these "Outlines". –Moondyne 03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Moondyne. Pretty much covered on or linked from the main cricket article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. They seem to me to be a verbiose summary of all that our categories achieve. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; although not entirely. I accept that it might be "a verbiose summary of all that our categories achieve", but that isn't necessarily a bad thing: if someone uses it to find articles, then what is the harm? It certainly seems more useful than the portal, which is rarely updated and definitely no longer deserving of its featured status. Although, that is probably because, like these outlines, portals were a fad of the time that got worked on then forgotten: this will probably go the same way. I'm not sure that blanking it and then redirecting to Cricket is the way to go: a few comment that people don't see the point isn't really a consensus.Harrias ^talk 21:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I still think it's ****.  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree (with regards to both the general concept and the curernt state of the cricket outline). The cricket outline is being mostly written by The Transhumanist who as far as I can tell knows precisely nothing about cricket at all, which is resulting in a pretty awful article full of inaccuracies and with no coherent order to it. There are two ways to go. Either people who know about cricket fix it up, or we go to AfD and try to get rid of it (which may prove difficult going by the results of recent outline nominations). _wjemather^bigissue 08:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

List of players

Over the coming months I'll be creating Lists of players for players who have represented a Minor County or County Board in List A cricket. Using List of Cornwall CCC players as a guide, I have so far created List of Dorset CCC players and List of Hampshire Cricket Board players. More to follow! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another epic project, AA! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Dorset CCC players and List of Hampshire Cricket Board players? Harrias ^talk 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the one Harrias! Woops! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous international cricket

A CfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 14#Category:Miscellaneous international cricket. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category was redirected soon after creation. There is a bot that periodically removes empty categories. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2006 State Twenty20 Cricket Knock-Out Tournament

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a basic reference. Seems to have been a bit of a washout of a tournament. Johnlp (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajat Sharma (cricketer)

I have listed the following article at AFD. The page is so non-notable it is unreal, yet seems to have survived speedy deletion and PROD because someone thinks the 'references' on it make it notable. The said references mostly come from the article creator, who I believe is using a sockpuppet to remove tags. Anyhow, we'll get it at AFD!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Right on. The AfD page is here. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Under-19 cricket team template

We currently have a men's and women's team template but not an under-19 team one although there are many articles on under-19 cricket teams. At the moment, the men's team template is used in all articles referring to under-19 cricket. I was wondering whether it would be possible to create a new under-19 template that would link directly. I have no idea how to do so and was hoping someone here might be able to get it done for me! Thanks Waterhogboy (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review (updated)

Featured article

• Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 • Discussion

Featured list

• List of I Zingari first-class cricketers • review
• ICC Cricket Hall of Fame • review
• List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace • review

Good article

• Adelaide leak
• Herbie Hewett
• Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics
• Len Hutton
• Kim Hughes

Updated and dropped down conversation. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Updates. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

More updated. Harrias ^talk 16:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated again. Harrias ^talk 12:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Waddington done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Adding one. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Added Grace centuries list. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy catalog rename requested

I've added Category:Irish cricket clubs to WP:CFDS because the name doesn't comply with the format used in all other cricket club by country catalogs. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully in the not too distant future we'll see a first-class setup in Ireland... wait the ICC (BCCI) run the game, obviously never going to happen! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable or not notable?

The article Shakib Al Hasan's Ball of the Century, detailing Shakib's ball to remove Ian Bell this summer, to me just isn't notable; not notable when put in the league of Warne's or more recently Swann's. From what I can remember from watching it, it was a good ball but nothing too amazing. Perhaps in the same league as Panesar's to remove Inzamam-ul-haq in 2006, but certainly not worthy of an article. What do you guys think? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not notable enough. But neither is Graeme Swann's Ball of the Century! How many balls of the century can there be? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's getting silly. I spotted the Swann article recently when I was helping Moondyne with the project tagging and I wondered than if there would be more to follow. Sure enough, here it is. I expect we'll have one per country before long. I've no doubt the likes of Richard Hadlee and Malcolm Marshall must have produced exceptional deliveries at times so wait and see. Even though these articles have verifiable sources, don't they somehow breach the site's guidelines on objectivity because, even if some excitable commentator like Colville has screamed "that was the ball of the century", the opinion is entirely subjective?

And shouldn't the Warne article be retitled The Gatting Ball? Or perhaps The Nicked Lunch Ball? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I for one thought that Swann's Ball of the Century article was pushing it abit, but decided to not raise that one, possibly biased of me because it was one hell of a delivery! Completely in agreement with you Jack on the others. Being just 20 I've not seen too many of the old school, but how long before someone creates Harmison's Ball of the Century when he dismissed Clarke in 2005? I'll take it to AFD, see how that goes. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD here AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth including in the article on Shakib Al Hasan? At the moment it's not mentioned because it sounds like hyperbole. Has anyone actually called it the "ball of the century" except in the immediate aftermath of the match? Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually disagree with AA and have AfD'd the Swann one also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind a number of days ago about Swann's, once al Hasan's was done was going to AFD it! Beat me to it :) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done!!!!

I've finally done all the redlinks on at Bobo's page, leaves a few on the following page to do, some of which are Somerset cricketers I think I will let our resident Somerset expert complete!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured list (List of Test cricket triple centuries) at risk

I just wanted to draw you attention to the List of Test cricket triple centuries which, I think, needs a little bit of TLC to keep it up to par with our current WP:WIAFL standards. Instead of listing it at WP:FLRC, which seems a little harsh to me, I'm bringing it here, along with some suggestions on the talk page which should be addressed. If the comments are not addressed or, at least, responded to then I'll need to take the next step and list it for demtion. But I hope that won't need to happen, since my comments are easily resolvable. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey project. Some work has been done on the list by User:Harrias but more remains including a maintenance tag which ordinarily would render the list un-featured by default. Please help out there if you can. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review

Featured article

• Herbert Sutcliffe • Discussion

Featured list

• List of I Zingari first-class cricketers • review
• ICC Cricket Hall of Fame • review
• List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace • review

Good article

• Adelaide leak
• Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics
• Len Hutton
• Kim Hughes
• George Headley

Updated and dropped down the list so that someone might notice it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Priestley

 Done I have just been tidying up and expanding the article on Sir Arthur Priestley, MP (1865–1933).

There is a lot of material there about his cricketing career, but it is wholly unreferenced.

Would anyone with access to cricketing sources be kind enough to take a look and see if they can sort out this article? I've done as much as I want with his political career. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) for sorting this out so promptly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Teston Independent Society of Cricket Ball Makers

One of the smallest trade unions in the UK based at Teston, Kent. Surely deserving of an article? Any editor willing and able to create it? Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricket tournament main

I added a new parameter "trophyholder". "champions" is fine for IPL etc but Ashes etc deserve a bit more respect. –Moondyne 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First-class cricketers list

On Bobo192's first page of redlinked first-class cricketers, there are according to Bobo "2000-odd" to do... ouch. Anybody with time to crack on with some, even the simple quick ones who have played one first-class match would be a great help. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just in case people haven't the slightest idea where these redlinks are, as I haven't partcularly made it clear, they can be found here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so no one starts a similar list, I'm working on a "list of South Australian cricketers", which is a multitude of red links. --Roisterer (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I probably will write a list of those at some point as well, mostly for my own personal reference, but I'm a long way away from Wikipedia at the moment so I don't expect it to happen any time soon... Bobo. 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First-class cricketer up for deletion

Hi all - an article I created back in January 2009 - that of Jitender Mehra, onetime cricketer for Himachal Pradesh - has been put up for deletion here. Any help - especially given that I'm barely around - would be useful.

Hope all is well. Bobo. 15:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed (by me) as "keep" after nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. Bencherlite^Talk 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

George Hirst

I was looking at this article with a view to sorting it out and realised the page was George Herbert Hirst rather than George Hirst. The latter is a redirect, and the content was moved to "George Herbert" in 2006. The reason given was that at Headingley, people confirmed that he was known as "George Herbert". I know quite a bit about the period and, yes he was known as George Herbert locally, but not by the wider public I don't think. It seems a little odd to me, and I think it would be better at George Hirst. What do other people think? --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Seem to remember querying it at the time, but there was no consensus. Johnlp (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The original thread is here. As a bit of context, Cricinfo, Wisden, his cricketer of the year profile, and cricketarchive all call him "George". However, a local profile calls him "George Herbert" and includes a foreword by his granddaughter. But even if he was known as George Herbert, I still believe he was more widely known as George and that is what we should go for. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think we should be global rather than local. Johnlp (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and have moved the page.Harrias ^talk 15:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp that we should be global instead of local. I think, being local myself, that "George Herbert" was a nickname of sorts but, since the discussion in 2006 (was it really that long ago?), we have established standards which are outlined in WP:CRIC#STYLE and include naming conventions. The more general sources that I have all refer to "George Hirst" unless they are being very polite, proper, introductory, whatever – and then they might say "George Herbert Hirst" in just the same way that some introduce another great all-rounder as "William Gilbert Grace". So, George Hirst for me. According to received wisdom, George Herbert was a very happy and jolly man, unlike the other great all-rounder from Kirkheaton who, reportedly, was decidedly grim. I do think the article needs to explain the local version, however. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found a few bits which say that it was kind of an affectionate "nickname" rather than anything official. I'll stick it in the article at some point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all that's been said. I suspect that the "George Herbert" began as a bit of good-natured dressing-room ribbing, because it was unusual for a Yorkshire pro of the period to have a middle name, and then stuck. JH (talk page) 09:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cricketer templates

Does anyone know what the purpose of the templates in the Cricketer templates category are for? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they appear to be pointless to me. Certainly I cannot imagine any use for such templates. They all appear to have been created by Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk · contribs) who may be able to shed more light on their purpose. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to have created an article on 1979 Cricket World Cup squads using these templates as the raw material. Seems a very convoluted way of going about things. Johnlp (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And more. They've been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_5#Cricketer_templates. –Moondyne 04:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More eyes on Mitchell Johnson

Hi everyone. The article on Mitchell Johnson (cricketer) seems to be attracting some attention from drive by editors. Would some of you mind watchlisting it please? Either that, or semi protecting (if possible) because some of the changes are not very helpful to say the least. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have my eyes on it now. Probably not a semi-protection candidate just yet. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The same editor (different IPs) is continuing adding "information" to a number of articles, namely Phillip Hughes, Xavier Doherty and the Johnson article. I'm not going to revert at the moment because frankly I'm a bit over it, and also I want a second opinion from regular cricket editors. Is this vandalism, disruption or just an editor writing with "flair"? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly vandalism. This is not a creative writing class. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I agree, the additions to Johnson are clearly vandalism, and Doherty probably also, but I'm not sure about the additions to Hughes. They are poorly constructed (the bare urls etc.), and shouldn't be in the lead, but is it vandalism? Not sure, really. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, aye, captain --Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding the situation as I've not had much involvement with the cricket project so far. Cheers for your help, Mattinbgn and Shirt58. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hertford Cricket Club

Meets project notability, up for deletion. The article was created by a newbie who has been treated like crap, saving it would put certain users back in their place! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

International tour coverage

Although our coverage of international tours is quite broad, we are still missing a lot and even have the following redlink categories:

• Category:West Indian cricket tours of Bangladesh
• Category:Zimbabwean cricket tours of India
• Category:South African cricket tours of New Zealand
• Category:Zimbabwean cricket tours of New Zealand
• Category:New Zealand cricket tours of Pakistan
• Category:South African cricket tours of Pakistan
• Category:Sri Lankan cricket tours of South Africa
• Category:Bangladeshi cricket tours of West Indies
• Category:New Zealand cricket tours of West Indies
• Category:Australian cricket tours of Zimbabwe
• Category:English cricket tours of Zimbabwe
• Category:Pakistani cricket tours of Zimbabwe
• Category:South African cricket tours of Zimbabwe
• Category:Sri Lankan cricket tours of Zimbabwe

It would be good if we could at least create some useful stubs that would get these categories up and running. The ultimate goal has to be an article about every international tour. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Under-19 cricket template

I've created a template for Under-19 cricket teams as {{cr19}} so that articles on U-19 competitions can link directly to the U-19 team and not the main national cricket team. At some point I'll get round to changing this in key articles such as U-19 world cup etc. but if you come across a page where you notice it hasn't yet been done feel free to change it yourself! Waterhogboy (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is Michael Beer?

Michael Beer (redlink) has been included in the Australian squad for the third Test in Perth. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Stub started now, feel free to help expand. I don't think he has much chance of playing... the "home ground knowledge" doesn't really count for much when he's only played at the WACA 3 times, having just moved from Melbourne! If my initials were N.H. I'd be pretty annoyed at the moment.The-Pope (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Desperate much, Australia? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Very strange selection. If Johnson was so out of sorts then, why should he be OK now? Steve Smith can't be a part of a four man attack, can he? And Beer? Have the Aussies gone back in time and borrowed England's selection policy, c.1988? David Capel and Chris Cowdrey... clean your whites. --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the selection decision (I'm in waiting for football season mode already) I'll try to expand it over the weekend to become a DYK candidate... I think that a hook along the lines of "Did you know that... after losing the second Ashes Test, the Australian cricket selectors thought that more Beer would help them in the third test?" might work. Everyone has a tabloid sub-editor in them trying to escape. The-Pope (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it. More accurate without the "more". --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Given how they played in Adelaide I'm assuming that quite a lot of beer was involved there!The-Pope (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So Australia have gone from Bollinger to Beer! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the Aussies are certainly drunk on plenty of beer to make this selection!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the barrel...—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for DYK.The-Pope (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's on the Main Page now. If only I had anything else cricket related to be pleased about today...The-Pope (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

2012 Under-19 World Cup

A little something I've written on the 2012 Under-19 World Cup not really being held in Argentina and the perils of journalists using Wikipedia for research: http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES3/articles/000052/005242.shtml Andrew nixon (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about this! I spent ages trying to find a reliable source on Argentina Under-19s supposed automatic participation in the 2012 World Cup when I created their team page. Unsurprisingly, I couldn't find one anywhere - now I understand why!! Thanks for clearing this up. Waterhogboy (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edward Hornby

I have just created a stubby article on Edward Kenworthy Hornby (1839–1887), who was a Conservative MP from 1869 to 1874. However, the article on his brother A. N. Hornby says that he was also a cricketer.

I don't have any decent cricketing sources or expertise on cricket ... so once again may I ask whether anyone in this project would be kind enough to give the article some attention, and add a bit about his cricketing career? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Howzat? He played in a single first-class match so he qualifies for cricket coverage per WP:CRIN. He obviously wasn't a patch on his brother who captained England, rivalled WG and was a Lancashire legend: "O my Hornby and my Barlow". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ashes-related article for Main Page?

We've a host of cricket FAs that haven't yet appeared on Main Page. I was thinking of nominating Paul Collingwood for the opening or closing day of one of the remaining Tests, (perhaps the last day of the final Test) but then thought I'd come here and see if someone had a better idea. There are bonus points for centenaries and the like - anything unused that directly connects to December 1910? Or possibly Dec 1960 (etc)? --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured_articles_that_haven't_been_on_the_Main_Page#Sport_and_recreation --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great to get one of the YM's in there, given his troubles lately. Ian Meckiff was a central figure in the Tied Test which ended on December 14, 1960. –Moondyne 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea. Not aware YM has had troubles, thanks for the tip-off. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#YellowMonkey. –Moondyne 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If I can be pardoned for pushing my own stuff, some suggestions:

• Hugh Trumble, like Peter Siddle, an Ashes hat-trick hero (twice!). The second hat-trick was after Trumble was convinced to make a come back to the Australian team, ending his retirement, after the Australian team lost the first Test in the series. (Warne?) He took his hat-trick in the fifth Test and played the key role in Australia winning the Test but sadly the Poms won the series and the Ashes 3-2.
• Harry Trott - He went mad ...
• Ian Johnson - With Ricky, the only Australian captain to lose two Ashes series. Ponting is about to go one better it seems. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What do people think? Collingwood? Trumble? Trott? Johnson? Meckiff? Someone[thing] else? --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Meckiff is good. Or Johnson. Johnlp (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tempted to go for Meckiff, but feel it's a shame that there's no Test on the anniversary. Also, not sure if the anniversary is too much of a stretch to count for much at WP:TFAR. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New suggestion: Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). The last day of the next Test match would have been his 105th birthday. And it might help cheer about YM (and all Aussies - in fact, it might spark a call for him to be recalled). Agreement? --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good choice. I am all for it. Probably will prompt another move discussion but ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Johnlp (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll take that as consensus and I'll do the nom. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Brace yourselves for another WP:RM. –Moondyne 12:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Ashes cricketers, Shane Warne's article is looking lame when compared to those of Bradman and O'Reilly. Needs some work!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly is scheduled for 20 December. Well done. Johnlp (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Earliest surviving Wikipedia edits to cricket articles

Members may be interested in this little bit of Wikipedia history, compiled with assistance from User:Graham87. Not all the edits from 2001 have survived; see Wikipedia:Usemod article histories. The first English Wikipedia article appeared in January 2001. The following article appeared when the project had about 7,000 articles.

• Cricket/Fielding positions [2] 18:38, 22 June 2001. Created by User:Gareth Owen, and still going strong.

Others

• Ashes series [3], 5 July 2001.
• nost:Australia v England 2001 [4], 6 July 2001, deleted in June 2004 after this discussion.
• Leg theory [5], 31 August 2001
• First-class cricket [6], 1 September 2001
• Cricket [7], 27 September 2001
• Sir Donald Bradman [8], 4 October 2001
• Shane Warne [9], 17 October 2001

–Moondyne 13:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ashes

Hi. Why is there a raft of different naming conventions used for The Ashes articles? Why are some titled Year Ashes series and others in the style of x team in y in year? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They are redirects just to help in search queries. --Umar1996 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really—redirects in a category will show in italics. Some are articles about individual Ashes series (ie. Tests only) and some cover a whole tour which include non-Test matches. –Moondyne 09:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is no consistency. I think they all should be "X team in Y, YEAR" because it is rare that the touring matches are so notable that they can't occupy the same space as the Ashes Tests. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ashes? What is that? I have never heard of it. I am convinced all you Englishmen are making this up :) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd currently prefer not to have heard of the Ashes; it's carnage out there at the moment. I haven't seen an Australian attack so toothless since the mid 80s. Harris is the sole bowler causing any problems while Doherty is bowling as well as you'd expect the second string spinner from Tasmania would. Drop North and Doherty and bring in Daniel Christian and Hauritz for a start. --Roisterer (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How many players will Aus have played by the end of the series? sheesh Aaroncrick ^TALK 22:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At least 20 at this rate. Clarke is clearly injured and should not be playing. Doherty is out of his depth. North can't have any lives left and the theory behind his selection is flawed in any case. Harris' body will not stand up to the strain of bowling 30+ overs an innings. Siddle tries hard but is one-dimensional. Hilfenhaus and Bollinger are no longer up to it. Johnson appears to have lost his mojo, and permanently this time. Unless he can start swinging it back into the right hander, he is a shot duck. Our one in-form batsman at present is pushing 35. I suspect we will be very busy here adding names to List of Australia Test cricketers] (see, this comment is about improving the encyclopedia! :) ) I haven't seen a worse Australian team in the field - fair dinkum, they remind me of England circa 1991. Still, all credit to the Poms. They are batting well, and what Australia wouldn't give for an Anderson-type bowler. :( -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall a previous Australian team with no good bowlers. Your best is Siddle, who would never be picked by England. Even though we have lost Broad, we can bring in Shahzad or Bresnan or Tremlett; and these are all better than Siddle. You have no one who compares with Anderson and Swann. Several Aussies I know have said that the 1981 team was your worst ever but that team did have a couple of good bowlers – their problems were poor attitude and lack of leadership. If England win the next Test and so retain the Ashes, I think Australia should implement a youth policy. Ponting has to go and I suppose Clarke will be the next captain. You cannot continue with Watson opening, but he should stay in the team as an all-rounder and bat at six instead of North. It looks as if you have lost Katich anyway so you need two promising young openers and another at three. Hussey and Haddin are good and you have to keep Siddle because there must be one experienced bowler; the rest have to be replaced by younger models. Besides Ponting, I would sack Johnson, North, Doherty, Harris and Bollinger. I can't see Australia seriously challenging England again before 2014–15.

What a shame.  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, good call: Johnson 9/82, Harris 9/106, Watson 95. Not a South African in sight. Fire up your singing voice for a bit of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.168.206 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:National cricket teams

I noticed that this category mostly has teams in the format '...national cricket team', but that some entries are just listed as '...cricket team', the latter notably includes England and West Indies, so presumably the thinking was that non-sovereign countries should not have 'national' in front of them? However, Wales and Scotland are listed as 'national'. However, is there in reality a need for these distinctions. Would it actually be simpler if all the entries just said '...cricket team'? I'd be grateful for any thoughts, or links to past discussions on this. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Bader Article

WP Cricket,

Would like to bring to your attention the article on Douglas Bader. His WP Cricket is rating class is as "C" and importance as "Low". While it hasn't been checked by the "B" checklist. If someone could click on "edit" and see what it says in WP Cricket, it shows it's rated as "B", while it appears as "C" in an unedited version. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've filled out the check-list and re-classified the article as 'C' class. As it has no mention at all of him playing cricket, I don't think it can meet the comprehensiveness criterion for this project. Harrias ^talk 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Only One FC game whilst in the RAF.The-Pope (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw, but there should at least be a sentence mentioning it. Harrias ^talk 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cricket infobox up for delete

Please see this discussion about proposed deletion of a cricket infobox. This process reminds me of CFD in many ways: they don't usually advise editors (although, to be fair, on this occasion the nominator did advise me) or projects that something has been nominated for deletion and they seem to think in terms of their schematic solutions rather than considering the views of a project or what might have been done for the benefit of the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Celeghin

Non first-class cricketer I have put at AfD. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Left a note on your talk page, AA, before seeing this, but feel free to AfD the others in Category:Austrian cricketers too. Bobo. 04:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, this brings the WP:CRIN criteria into question. Besides players who have taken part in at least one major cricket match, we allow notability to any player who has appeared in at least one ICC Trophy match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire. I think we need to consider the position of international players representing associate/affiliate teams and it may be that we need to widen this "ICC Trophy" (an obsolete term, incidentally) definition.

Austria is better known for football than for cricket and I don't suppose many would challenge the notability of an Austrian footballer. But the reverse must be true of India which, unless I am much mistaken, is no better at football than Austria is at cricket. Yet the football project has Category:Indian footballers with over 200 entries. Are they all actually notable?

I'm asking if we should extend WP:CRIN to include any player who has taken part in an ICC-recognised international match (or words to that effect)? This would be an improvement on the current woolly definition but the issue is if players taking part in an Austria v Croatia game are actually notable. Is it enough that they are internationals when the standard of the match may not equate to, say, the Bradford League?

We need people like Andrew and AA who have extensive knowledge of the associate/affiliate structure to guide us on this one. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Would this render the Austrian and Belgian cricketer(s) notable or not? Just as a clarification to ease my mind... Bobo. 12:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from Jack, that's how I used to view it. Maybe now I'm stuck in the traditions of the game as to what is and isn't notable. Rationally thinking, Moosa Kaleem is more notable than say Septimus Brutton, having played numerous times for his country whereas Brutton played one first-class match for Hampshire. Then again, if WP:CRIN were to change to meet this, would we be doing it on a quality basis? Afterall, Dorset would wipe the floor with the Maldives, as would pretty much every Grade club. Yet players who play for those are non-notable, despite being of a higher skill. It is a contradicting issue as to what we qualify as notable and not as notable. In the greater scale of the project, I'd say sticking by having played first-class, List A or Twenty20 would save a whole load of random articles appearing for people like Aung Aung!!!! Just my view on the subject, discuss away! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Other team sport projects must face the same problem. How do they deal with it? Is there any consensus? JH (talk page) 21:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A thorny one. The problem we have is that standards are so poor for many ICC representative nations, yet they play against some teams that are actually very good, including some that have played official ODIs, for example. I'm loathe to make all in or out. Love to hear Johnlp's view on this one. --Dweller (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As Blackjack says above, the ICC Trophy term has now essentially become obsolete. WCL 1 and 2 are List A, and teams from WCL5 upwards are of reasonable standard - let's not forget that Afghanistan went from WCL5 to a World Cup in less than two years and to ODI status in less than one. The USA could be playing in WCL2 in April if they finish in the top two of WCL3 in January, which is almost a certainty, and will have gone from WCL5 to List A status in a little over a year. A good performance in WCL2 would see them end up playing in the Intercontinental Cup, therefore giving them first-class status for two years. Two of the four teams currently in that division have played first-class, List A or official Twenty20 cricket in the last five years. Therefore, I'd suggest that WCL5 would be a reasonable cut off point for notability. I did once suggest the top division of regional tournaments would also be a cut off point, but the regional structures will be undergoing significant upheaval in the near future. I'd also chuck in something about major multi-sport events. We already have articles for all the 1900 Olympic cricketers, even though only a couple are technically notable under current guidelines. Of course, other things make people notable. Moosa Kaleem, mentioned above, is one of only six batsmen to make a double century in an international one-day match, which makes him pretty notable in my view. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Having just spotted the above, I thought I'd give the football perspective. All international footballers are considered notable if the country is a member of FIFA and have played in a senior international, even if it is non-competitive. I guess the difference with cricket is that the big cricket teams will not play the smaller ones, whereas in football you could have San Marino and Germany meeting in a World Cup qualifying match. The other difference though is that many of the smaller football countries will still have a lot of interest/sources for their international players, whereas in cricket there will be a much bigger drop off in sources after the best 20 or so countries? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There will certainly be a drop off in sources, but still enough there - scorecards and (some) player profiles will be on CricketArchive and Cricinfo, whilst the latter will have occasional reports, whilst CricketEurope covers right down to the bottom and beyond that to non ICC members. If we cut off at WCL5 as I suggested, we'd still only be covering less than the top 40 teams in the world out of more than 100 ICC members. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What we need then is a consensus to change WP:CRIN. A vote or something??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we therefore vote on a proposal to change "anyone who has appeared in at least one ICC Trophy match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire" to something along the lines of "anyone who has appeared in one ICC-recognised match of at least WCL5 standard, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire"? When did WCL5 commence? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WCL5 started in 2008, but the World Cricket League itself started in 2007 - the first tournament was WCL1 - which is an ODI tournament, and this was followed by WCL3. I don't think we need to specify a start date though, as the World Cricket League didn't exist prior to 2007. I'd not include phrasing along the lines of "at least WCL5 standard", as that opens us up to interpretation calls rather than a straightforward criteria. The "ICC-recognised" bit is redundant, as the WCL is self evidently ICC recognised as an ICC organised tournament played to ICC rules. As I said above, I'd also like to bring in the Olympic and Asian Games cricketers into the notability criteria. So I'd change your criteria to "any one who has appeared in at least one match in WCL Division Five or higher, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, or at least one match in the Olympic Games or Asian Games cricket tournaments". Andrew nixon (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Votes and consensus are all very well, but actually this question has been around the block so many times without resolution that really what's needed is a bit of benevolent despotism from someone: in the spirit of WP:BOLD, just do it. I don't much like deleting reasonable articles anyway when we've got so much else to do, and Andrew's argument that cricket status is now much more fluid than it's ever been is a persuasive one. And Eldumpo's exposition of the football policy is helpful: it's hard not to think that an Austrian cricket international is at least as notable as a 1927 San Marino wing-half. Various of us tried to bring this to a head in the Basanta Regmi deletion debate a few months back: we ended up keeping the article but not resolving the issue, which wasn't logical. Let's just get on and do it this time. Andrew's form of words looks fine by me and presumably accords with WP:ATH, which is the ultimate authority in this area. Johnlp (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be very cautious about any "weakening" of CRIN, whether real or apparent. The feeling in many pockets here is that notability standards are too low already, especially in the sporting realm. In my mind, sport specific notability is a way to circumvent the "google effect" of having periods of time that aren't covered well online. Cricket is lucky that it has cricinfo/cricketarchive/wisden/etc as very good reliable sources that would allow most if not all first-class/list A cricketers meet the WP:GNG, which is the real target for all articles. A guy who plays a single shield or county game is likely to have some coverage - other than just a scorecard - is that true of everyone in WCL5? Should we only accept those in the lower levels with significant coverage/captains/records and redirect the rest to the team/squad/tournament page?The-Pope (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree very strongly with the above. If the only source for an affiliate player is Cricinfo or CricketArchive, then in my books they are non-notable. I am happy to allow some weakening to include Affiliate players who meet GNG but no further. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get caught up in distinctions between associate and affiliate here - Afghanistan are an affiliate and are an ODI status team ranked higher than all but three of the associates. The only sources these days aren't just Cricinfo and CricketArchive. There is CricketEurope, regional and national governing bodies and the media in the countries concerned. WCL3 - 5 (we're talking about three tournaments here!) all have official tournament websites too. I'd certainly say that everyone who has played in WCL5 to date (and lower for that matter) has much more coverage than the vast majority of the players who played one first-class game in the 19th century, for whom this project would jump all over an AFD to prevent deletion. Would Mattinbgn say that if the only source for a first-class player from the 19th century was Cricinfo and CricketArchive that they would non-notable? There is no weakening of CRIN going on here, only a strengthening to reflect the way cricket has changed in the last ten years. All this quibbling to prevent the players in three tournaments being included - really? Andrew nixon (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't kept up to date on the entire WCL system... and having now seen it... my god, were Duckworth and Lewis involved in setting it up! What a mind bogglingly complicated system. And now that I think I really understand it, I absolutely think that EVERY player from below WCL2 or 3 almost certainly does NOT deserve to have a page. I'd almost think that only players in the final qualifier should be eligible. I'd be doubtful about the Asian Games too - I struggled to reference another sportsman from the Doha games as their website had gone offline - I think the wayback machine was the answer. I fully endorse putting in a "unless significant coverage of significant achievements in lower levels of WCL cricket" GNG based catchall for clearly notable players that don't fit the basic rules, but the rest of them at best deserve a redirect to the WCL tournament or national squad pages.The-Pope (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst your confusion on the early days of the WCL is understandable, given that it is now mostly a simple two up, two down system, I fail to see any confusion. The only excception to this is the combination of WCL1+2 every other time it's played, which isn't an issue as players in those tournaments are already notable under the current guidelines, and for WCL8, which we're not talking about including. I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the Doha Asian Games cricket tournament - there wasn't one. The recent one in China though was well covered by the ACC website, Cricinfo and CricketEurope, scorecards are on the ACC website, Cricinfo and CricketArchive (with profile pages for all the players on the latter two), and the official website was still live last time I checked. As for the WCL3-5 players, all but maybe a handful will have entries on Cricinfo and CricketArchive, as well as coverage of the tournaments on official tournament websites (all still live), Cricinfo and CricketEurope. Just how much more coverage do you need to consider them notable? Because there's less coverage of some players this project considers unquestionably notable. We're talking about what is, in the grand scheme of things, a small number of players - I doubt they'd even make up 1% of all cricket biographies on Wikipedia. I checked the first WCL3 tournament in 2007 - 75% of the players were already notable under current guidelines. Let's not forget that these are all players to have represented their country in full international matches. I'd say that alone makes them notable, but appreciate the desire of some to put a limit on it. Just what is it that makes a player in WCL3-5 not notable to you, or to anyone? Andrew nixon (talk)

Unless I am wildly mistaken, most, if not all players at these lower levels are amateurs, and maybe "cricket's a funny game" and the appearance of Bermuda, UAE etc at past World Cups proves me wrong, but most would have little or no chance of actually making it to the World Cup. They generally won't be playing in a notable league outside of these WCL games, so we are suggesting that we publish articles on guys who are notable for a couple of months of their lives. I'm struggling to think how we could get any more info on any of the unlinked players on 2008_ICC_World_Cricket_League_Division_Five other than the bare basic cricinfo/cricketarchive profile. I'm normally one to like the idea of a "complete set", which is why I'm not anti the "single FC game in the 1890s", especially where the team still exists, but this just seems too much. And I didn't say I was looking for a cricketer from Doha, it was another sport.The-Pope (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"So we are suggesting that we publish articles on guys who are notable for a couple of months of their lives"? Well, there are numerous people in all walks of life who are notable for just a few days, or a few hours or for Andy Warhol's classic fifteen minutes. We can't put a time limit on notability. Numerous first-class cricketers, who are notable by that definition, played only a single match and are otherwise unheard of; the only source for them is a scorecard now reproduced on CA. I have my doubts about the Asian games and I'm not happy about the Olympics either. I would rather focus on the World Cricket League for the notability of associate/affiliate players. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to scrap any inclusion of the Olympics and Asian Games players (most of the latter are already notable anyway) but some limit needs to be put on it. Would you be happy with a cut off at WCL5? Andrew nixon (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would. How would you like to word it? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've been WP:BOLD for Christmas and have changed WP:CRIN. I suggest we take this into a new topic (see below) and discuss further till we're happy with the wording. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this potential solution

The decision to which we're edging seems rigorous. I'm just curious (this shouldn't affect the decision made) - if we imposed this tomorrow, is there an easy way to count how many biogs would need to be scrutinised to see if they are otherwise notable? Just to reiterate, if it's the right decision, it's the right decision, whether this answer is 10 or 10,000. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is no but I think it would be well into three figures. See new CRIN wording per the above. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Bosanquet

If anyone has access to Benny Green's History of Cricket, could they see what he has to say about Bernard Bosanquet and let me know? A few more sources needed if possible! Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's unaware, Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer), a fine article for a distinguished cricketer, is up for discussion at WP:FAC. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And begging again, a reviewer has asked if he is mentioned in Frith's The Golden Age of Cricket, or any of the Middlesex histories. If anyone with access could have a look, I'd be very grateful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sachin tendulkar twitter page

I kid you not! A few more such redirects and the main article now has this content. Blanked once, restored again. If someone would like to keep watch on this it'll be good, I'm not going to be online for a bit. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The cult followers of Sachin get worse! I think the section on the page about him using Twitter is unnecessary! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Hampshire players

Finally finished my Hampshire CCC players lists. I'm pretty sure they're all there (if any are missing drop me a line), all the stats are correct and the dates fine. They're pretty basic lists, stating basic stats and not going into huge detail on career stats for each player. The article leads are pretty short, so if anyone wants to expand and source those it would be much appreciated.

Now for List of Hampshire county cricket teams first-class players (1772-1861)!!!!

• List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1895-1914)
• List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1919-1939)
• List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1946-1980)
• List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1981-present)
• List of Hampshire CCC List A players
• List of Hampshire CCC Twenty20 players

AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Screwed up

Well I've just screwed up List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1864-1885). I meant to access my sandbox to compile the List of Hampshire county cricket teams first-class players (1772-1861), but accessed List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1864-1885) instead. I'm trying to undo my edits to it, but it won't seem to revert back. Obviously I need all the 17?? players to go and for it to revert to how it should be. I know I can look at a previous version and note down the names and redo them, but I cannot be bothered, so if a shorter option is around that would be much better!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Think I just did it. Happy Christmas. Johnlp (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIN

Per comments made in two of the topics above, I've made changes to the wording of WP:CRIN to accommodate international players who have taken part in the ICC World Cup Qualifier and the ICC World Cricket League (i.e., WCL5 and above). This is easily reverted if necessary but, for now, could you all please consider the draft wording and advise if you agree with the substance and the terminology. Please feel free to be WP:BOLD per Johnlp. Merry Xmas. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mostly fine, but I'm not sure about making all ICC Trophy tournaments notable - that's a lot more players being made notable than if just WCL3-5 was made notable (up to 50% of those players are already probably notable anyway!). Prior to 2005, I'd just stick with the final of the ICC Trophy/World Cup Qualifier. Since 2005 it's been a List A/ODI tournament anyway, so isn't an issue. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see the change: now if we continue to debate this periodically, which is almost certain as these things are rarely set in stone, we'll be debating from a different standpoint, and I think that is helpful. We'd been going round in circles for a while over this... Johnlp (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I've changed the second criterion to read:

has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire

This is similar to the former statement except for the ICC World Cup Qualifier. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with the rewording to CRIN. It nows seems more inclusive of international cricketers, who as discussed are notable, yet still rightfully so, excludes those who are less notable and for which sources become hard to find. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Amateur first-class cricketers

Hi all. Merry Xmas. I've been reading and thinking about the Marco Celeghin question above and how to amend WP:CRIN. The deletion discussion led me to earlier discussions about Basanta Regmi and James Rice. I am very interested in a comment made in the latter by MDCollins where he says: "I wonder if WP:CRIC should link "amateur" to something - can't quite find what - along the lines of Gentlemen vs Players for historical players such as this. Amateur to modern eyes does imply non-notability, hence this debate". He is right. A lot of articles about pre-1963 players begin by saying that "X was an amateur cricketer" and there is nothing in the article lead or elsewhere to make clear that an amateur who played in major cricket was equally notable with professionals. I think the solution is an article to be called Amateurism in first-class cricket, or similar, that these early bios can link to. I'll make a start on one when I have more time and I'll also do the WP:BOLD as suggested re Celeghin by Johnlp and come up with a revised wording for WP:CRIN (most of which I wrote in the first place). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There's already this, but a stand-alone article would probably be better. Merry Christmas to all those who celebrate it, and Season's Greetings to those who don't. JH (talk page) 09:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done Jack - that helps a lot, forgotten I'd said that! For my tuppence, I think Amateur status in first-class cricket is a slightly better title; having never used the word "Amateurism" before, it seems to be used more to mean opinions/beliefs regarding playing without remuneration, whereas the article is referring more to the status of the players (/"Gentlemen"), rather than their practices. The prose favours "amateur status" anyway!—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is a much better title so I've moved it. It certainly was all about social status. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. It is not clear why the article has been tagged for your project - as this appears to be an error, the tag will be removed after 14 days unless notified otherwise. SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been tagged for our project most likely because Bader played a single first-class cricket match for the RAF, which kinda brings him under this project as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added info citing CricketArchive to the article. Must admit, I didn't know he had played in a first-class match. I don't think they had any footage of it in Reach for the Sky. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Australia's worst-ever day in Test cricket?

I think so. Even the umpire took pity on them by giving Cook out when he plainly was not. Cook was nearly laughing when he gave the T-sign. Ponting must go, Johnson is over-rated and that Smith is not a Test cricketer. But for Mike Hussey and English complacency, which has hopefully been eradicated on today's evidence, this series would have been done and dusted by now. And what happened to that 84,000 crowd after tea? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably have been worse, but not too many much worse than this! What is evident about Ponting is what an awful captain he is. The Aussies record under him is pretty impressive, but in no small part to Warne, McGrath, Gilly, Hayden, Langer, Lee ect. Any given person could captain that dream team and win time and time again. I remember watching the 2005 Ashes and at the end of an over, where the camera would zoom on a clueless Ricky, off he would walk to talk to Shane. Says it all! Shame this series in Australia! Hussey averages about 55 in Aus and something around 38 overseas. As for Smith, 5 years down the line he might be cut out for it, but the way he constantly followed the curve of the ball speaks of a one-day player, not suited for settling down for the long haul. Siddle looks his normal unthreatening self, except for the 1st Test fluke, he looks quite contempt to bowl line and lenght (aka Brendan Nash bowling!!!!) and offer up the odd pile of rubbish to put away. Maybe they need some ghosts of boxing day past? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

They reminded me of England in the bad old days such as the final days of this Test and this one. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Way too harsh on Ponting I think. A tactical genius he is not, but tactical knowledge is only one part of the role of a captain, and not even the most important one. I am very dubious of claims that great tactics turn a team of poor cricketers into great teams. England are winning because they are better cricketers and nothing that Ponting could do tactically would help much. He would have been much more help making runs. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Celeghin

The AfD of Marco Celeghin has been relisted. Given our recent adoption of new notability guidelines, now would be a good time to implement them! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A shame given the man's obvious enthusiasm for the game, but it has to go. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A strange old sport when it comes to notability! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus North

Can I get some confirmation that a list of test ducks is not appropriate for any cricketer article - at best, a fully referenced mention of it (not just a stats page link) might be acceptable if it is a notable part of his career, but a list is (IMO) just being vindictive and WP:UNDUE applies. An IP has been adding it, along with a "he won't ever play again" comment, and I'll skating on the edge of WP:3RR if it I'm unable to classify it as a BLP issue. So any more eyes on the article would be greatly appreciated. (And may I say that I don't think North would have done any worse than Smith at this stage - hopefully that will mozz Smith into a double hundred in the second dig!)The-Pope (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the previous edits of the user (although under a slightly different IP) I think it's clear he's pushing his opinion that North is not fit to play Test cricket, albeit in a way that might give one pause for thought. As such, I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Of course articles should not just be about a player's career highs as that's not balanced either, but my instinct is that including a list of ducks places undue emphasis on them. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely undue emphasis to list ducks but I don't think it is wrong to present a list of centuries or fivefors as those are achievements. The thing with ducks is to mention them in the text but, given that someone who plays Test cricket is by definition a good cricketer, the way to do it is to word it so that you are effectively saying he failed on this occasion (even Grace and Bradman got ducks on occasion). Clearly this editor has some kind of prejudice against Marcus North who did really well in England last year, though admittedly I don't think he's up to the mark any longer. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The editors contributions to the article seem to be very much "North is crap, shouldn't be playing...". As Jack says, he seems to have something against North. Don't see how a list of ducks is worthy of existing. What next? List of (fill this space). Keep it to centuries and fivefors.

England for an innings and around 150 run victory. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

^^^^^^I was spot on with my prediction! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What's your prediction for this week? Depending who bats first, I'll say England by either 200 runs or 8 wickets. Swanny to bowl them out. But I think the convicts will show a bit of spirit and avoid an innings defeat this time. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Swann should play a big part after day 3. Bat first, 400+ first innings, then have fun with the confidence sapped and technically flawed Aussie batsman. I have the feeling the Aussie selectors were pissed when they selected Beer (pun intended!!!), I expect the bloke would stuggle to get into a Minor County first XI. Spinning wicket or not, I think we'll have another Bryce McGain on our hands!!! End result, England by 9 wickets after making the Aussies follow on. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"I expect the bloke would stuggle to get into a Minor County first XI" Beer has been a star in Victorian Grade cricket for St Kilda for several seasons now and was unlucky to not be playing FC cricket for Victoria earlier. He may not be Test-class (I am sceptical myself) but writing off the standard of Australian first-class cricket based on one Test series seems a little premature to me. Any player making an Australian first class team can actually play the game and Australian cricket is not on its death bed just yet. England is playing very well and deserves to retain the Ashes and certainly there are some major concerns about the immediate future of the Australian team but I seem to remember that the much derided 1986/87 Australian team pretty quickly became the all-conquering 1989 Australian team. Australia might not win this Test but I would not write them off just yet. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The master retires. The panic ensures: MacGill, Casson, McGain, White, Doherty, Krezja, Haurtiz (minus MacGill, best of a bad bunch), Smith and now Beer. Maybe next they could try Steve O'Keefe? How about Clarke, his bowling has to be better than his batting right now! I'd say the selectors are somewhat insane and Austrlian cricket needs to get a grip with the spin bowling department. Warne was a once in a blue moon freak of nature, they need to keep with a spinner, my opinion Haurtiz, instead of looking for the next Warne. Guys who average 50.11 (Doherty), 43.52 (Cason) isn't great, but at least they have experience. Beer averages 39.93, only 5 first-class matches and hasn't even stepped foot in, let alone played at the SCG. Ladies and gents, the Darren Pattinson of Australian cricket!!!! Australia suffered from an over-reliance on the golden generation, it didn't plan for their passing. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Who was dragged out of Newcastle club cricket to play against England in 1987 and did OK as a stop gap option. Australia only has six FC teams and players don't tend to move around from team to team as much as they do in England. Not being able to make the Victorian team - the strongest team in Australia over the past few years - does not mean that Beer is a poor cricketer. Hauritz's reputation has been enhanced by his not being selected in the floggings this season. In reality, he has been rather rubbish himself - his figures flattered by picking up some dodgy hauls against Pakistan. (Interestingly, like Beer, Hauritz was dragged from Grade cricket - he was not good enough to be a regular player for NSW at the time - directly into the national team.) He may have performed better than Doherty but he wouldn't have been the difference - Australia would still have been pummelled. Spinning has not Australia's big problem this series. Australia's bowling has been woeful at times but Australia's real problem has been the batting and that is where the big selectorial errors have occurred. A shot making, eye-player like Hughes is a luxury a strong team can afford but a brittle team like Australia would have been better selecting a more experienced sheet anchor type opener like Michael Klinger or Chris Rogers. Smith is not in the best six batsmen in Australia nor is he a Test-class bowler - his selection is an absolute mystery. Again, if Australia was actually interested in winning the series, they would have selected someone like a David Hussey or a Brad Hodge, with solid techniques and a mature approach to the game. These selections would not be the best ones for the development of the team over the next five or so years but bugger that - This is an Ashes series for crying out loud! - pick the team best placed to win it and use other series to introduce young blood. Has Australia's succession planning been poor? Absolutely and Hilditch and company did not seem to have had a plan at all leading into this series. On the other hand, I think that succession planning for national teams is much harder than most think. There is a wave of pessimism in Australia at the moment but I am a little more sanguine. These things often turn around reasonably quickly, Clarke and Ponting are both too good to be kept down forever, and I am confident that some Australian players that the Poms have written off as plodders - Siddle for one - will be fine Test cricketers. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is nothing new about Aust struggling to find a decent test spinner. How quickly we forget the past. Remember the 80s? Higgs, Mallett, Bright, Sleep, Hogan, Matthews, Holland, Bennett, Taylor, May, Hohns. And the best of the bunch was probably Border! The-Pope (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All fair and valid points Mattinbgn. I have little doubt though that Beer will be a one Test wonder, so better get ready to add his name here!!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi,

Just a heads-up that there are loads of biographies wanting a decent infobox. The list of requested infoboxes is mainly those with hand-created boxes, or none at all, so doesn't tend to include the transclusions from the older boxes; these are just the really bad ones.

Any help gratefully appreciated! —User:MDCollins (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Many thanks to User:AssociateAffiliate, User:Mr.Apples2010, User:Moondyne and User:Harrias who have assisted in reducing the backlog by about 100 infoboxes in the last few days. The majority of these were Tasmanian players with <10 FC matches. There's a long pile of Bangladeshis to get stuck into now.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Queensland photo library

A struggling Australian team

A incredibly strong England team

Hi all.

Have you seen the Signpost story about the donation of 50,000 images to Commons by the State Library of Queensland? There must be a lot relating to cricket. I spent a few minutes and found this one, for example. Does anyone know how to search within a Commons category for words in the Description parameter? I'm going to cross-post a version of this to [10] --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo identifying

Some assistance in identifying the cricketers in these two SLQ photographs is required. The match is this one - the only Test at the Ekka ground and Bradman's first Test. I note that the scorecard for this match reads a lot like some recent ones! :( It is remarkable, to me at least, that even ignoring the cap badges etc. the two teams are easily identifiable as a English team and an Australian team. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw those. Note the second is the same as File:England test team 1928.jpg, but with rather stronger provenance. I suggest that one, which appears in various articles, is replaced. --Dweller (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the Australian team. The England one came up before. Left to right, it is something like: Herbert Sutcliffe (obscured), Jack White, not sure who third one is but could be Larwood, Maurice Tate, Patsy Hendren, Wally Hammond, Percy Chapman, Douglas Jardine, Phil Mead, George Duckworth. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Third one is more probably the Master. That would mean Larwood is the shadow on the left. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the Australian cricketers, Jack Ryder is leading them out and Bill Woodfull is next to him. Bert Oldfield is the wicket-keeper and Bradman is next to him, bringing up the rear! I think that Jack Gregory (in his last Test I think) is the tall fellow without a cap, next to him I think is Alan Kippax and Clarrie Grimmett is the little bloke fourth from the right. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo tagging

Sorry for cross-posting again, but I've not had a reply at Commons... How do I tag on File:StateLibQld_1_233108_Autographed_photograph_of_the_test_cricket_batsman,_Chapman,_1928.jpg that it's this chap? --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by tag? The description states it is him and includes a link to his enwiki article, it is in Commons:Category:Percy Chapman - short of adding a (unnecessary) note to the picture (see Commons:Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator) I am not sure what else you can do. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol. When I posted the question on Commons, it preceded your amendment of the description. Thanks for fixing it - now I know how to do it, too. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRIC#STYLE

Following the recent update of WP:CRIN I believe we should also reconsider the wordings currently used in WP:CRIC#STYLE, which has not been subject to any substantial change for some years. One of the problems in using the site generally is that there are often no clear guidelines or any consensus around the differences in style between what Americans call British English and the variations in English used elsewhere. I would point out that I do not know of any key differences between English as written in the UK and English as written in the rest of the main cricketing countries; it seems to me that the differences are essentially re American usages and spellings so if Australians or Indians, for example, have any key differences, could those please be mentioned here?

As far as I am aware, although I can't see a relevant section at present and this may be historic, WP:MOS and its sister policies require that an article should be written in compliance with the style of English used in the subject's country. Hence, I would expect to see "color" in the biography of an American and "colour" in the biography of an Englishman.

I don't think spellings per se present a problem but that is not always so with usages and I would like to make a few proposals to amend WP:CRIC#STYLE with a view to establishing a WP:CRIC-based WP:CONSENSUS to which we can defer if and when necessary.

WP:CRIC#STYLE currently has five sub-sections. Under the one headed "Teams and matches", I propose that we add a new point as follows:

• Where an organisation such as a club, team, ground or other entity is generally known by an acronym (e.g., Marylebone Cricket Club and Melbourne Cricket Ground are widely referred to as MCC and MCG respectively), the article title must be the full name of the entity and the acronym must be a redirect to it. But, if the acronym is used in the body of an article, its style must comply with modern usage in the relevant country and with current usage by the organisation itself, the latter taking precedence. Hence, the acronyms for Marylebone Cricket Club and Melbourne Cricket Ground must be styled MCC and MCG per each organisation's own usage: i.e., MCC and MCG. Historic styles such as "M.C.C." and "M. C. G." are thus deprecated as being outdated and should be avoided. Other common cricketing acronyms of this type include BCCI, ECB, ICC, SCG, WSC, etc.

Under the second heading "Cricketers", I propose that we merge the second and third points which currently read as follows:

• Where a person is best known by their initials and surname (as in W. G. Grace), use either W. G. Grace or WG Grace for the title of the article, depending on the article creator's personal preference, and always create a redirect to the other style. Avoid using W.G. Grace, W G Grace, W.G.Grace or William Gilbert Grace.
• If using a form such as W G Grace in the body of an article, ensure that it is redirected to one of the acceptable title forms – e.g., WG Grace

And I further propose that we amend the wording so that the new combined point reads as follows:

• Where a person is best known by their initials and surname (e.g., William Gilbert Grace is called WG Grace), use the form W. G. Grace for the title of the article per WP:MOS to comply with consistent use of article titles throughout the site, regardless of this being a predominantly American style. In the body of an article, use a style that is consistent with modern usage in the relevant country as exemplified by current publishing and broadcasting concerns. Therefore, whereas an American writer would use W. G. Grace in accordance with his national style, a British writer should use WG Grace per current BBC usage. If, for disambiguation purposes, it is desirable to use the initials alone (i.e., without the surname), again use the modern national style: e.g., WG per current BBC usage or current Daily Mail usage.

I also propose an expansion of the fourth point about biography titles with a new final sentence, thus:

• The title of a biography must reflect the person's used name and must NOT display a nickname unless it can be categorically proven that the nickname is the person's used name. For example, John Berry Hobbs was universally called Jack Hobbs; Ernest James Smith was universally known as Tiger Smith. Conversely, none of Ian Botham's many nicknames are his used name and his article must be entitled Ian Botham. It is fair comment to mention a nickname within the body of the article but it must never replace the subject's used name. Where there is evidence that a player is known by more than one name, consensus among sources must determine the name to be used and the "casting vote" must rest with CricketArchive as the major internet source for player information.

We must seek to achieve consistency in naming standards and, because sources differ so much (even within the same source), we need a modern standard for use as a final arbiter. We have had situations whereby people are arguing that one style should be used because it is in a 19th century book despite 21st century websites and publications using a style that complies with modern usage. I do not claim any special status for the BBC, the Daily Mail or CricketArchive but the first two do largely influence use of English in the 21st century and the latter is widely regarded as the pre-eminent current source for information about cricketers. More to the point, they all comply with what may be perceived to be the usages in current general use, especially as they are all in agreement with each other (e.g., they all use MCC and WG Grace).

While it is a good idea to be WP:BOLD and forge ahead with the proposed changes, I will do that presently but first I think I should invite comments in this forum so that we may be able to point to this discussion as proof of WP:CONSENSUS among the cricket writers on the site. If no one disagrees with any of the proposals, that means we are in agreement and we do have a consensus on style. So please put forward any other proposals or changes of wording before Sat 15 Jan as I will then update WP:CRIC#STYLE accordingly. Also, if anyone wants to amend any of the other style points that I haven't covered, please include those proposals here too.

Remember that the purpose of this initiative is to try and achieve consistency of style across the cricket project according to generally agreed formats. And one thing that should especially be borne in mind is that style is not substance. Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hagiography

We have often had problems with people who insist that so-and-so is "the greatest" and I think we have been presented with a brilliantly simple solution to this tendency which is to replace "the greatest" with a phrase like "one of the most significant players". That was recently done by a new user Wallywangle per this diff in the Grace article. So, as I'm sure we all agree that Sachin is one of the most significant players of all time, especially in terms of his contribution to Indian cricket, I suggest we say that in his article in place of the usual excessive idolatry. The same should apply to all articles containing undue superlatives. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Farooq Tirmizi

Farooq Tirmizi is either a blatant hoax or someone this project should be able to source an article on. Anyone here care to take a look? ϢereSpielChequers 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a hoax and you should speedy delete it if that's a good enough reason for the process. There was a player called Farrukh Tirmizi who played a single first-class match in 1977 but clearly not the same person. I'm afraid we get a few of these. Thanks for pointing it out and it definitely should go. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

England Cricket Batting Stats

I found this in the root category where it had been dumped with an empty talk page (and was thereby unassessed). I moved it to a more appropriate sub-category and supplied the project tag but, looking at its poor presentation and bearing in mind WP:STATS, is it useful and should it be retained? Do we need an article that is purely about the stats of current players? Will anyone update it when England plays its next series in five months time?

Although we recently had to delete Marco Celeghin because of CRIN, I would rather have kept that article than short-term statistical stuff like this. Anyone for AfD or does it have some potential that I can't see at the moment? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, and I think it will get lost and will not be updated. Purely to collate current stats is a bit pointless; if anywhere (I'm not advocating it is, but if it were...) it would be better placed by extending the squad table at England cricket team#Current squad which list players "in the last year" (dated when I don't know, and does someone check it each day to ensure not more than 12 months have elapsed for someone?). Incidentally, someone has written on there that Collingwood retired from Test cricket in January 2010. Did he? ;-) —User:MDCollins (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he announced it during the fifth Ashes test, see this Beeb report. – ukexpat (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Doh, now I see 2010 and read 2011! Too many long hours at my PC.... – ukexpat (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England Cricket Batting Stats S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)