Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Welcome back, AA

I am pleased to see that AA has been reinstated and I would like to thank Harrias for resolving the issue. Hopefully the episode can be water under the bridge and all members can move forward by working together and focusing on cricket. However, there is a need to remember that trolls and vandals must be countered via WP:DENY, no matter what the provocation, and that must be the lesson learned. HCCC14 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Broadhalfpenny Down

Last weekend I was talking to someone who believed that cricket was invented at Hambledon and that is why Broadhalfpenny Down is called the "Cradle of Cricket". This misconception is not uncommon. I explained to the chap that Hambledon began in the 18th century but cricket had been around for a long, long time before that. Today I remembered the conversation and had a look at the Broadhalfpenny Down article and, would you Adam and Eve it, the lead said Hambledon devised cricket and so the ground is called the "Cradle of Cricket"!!! Aaargh! I have made a suitable amendment. HCCC14 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if some well-meaning but ill-informed person put in the wrong material as recently as 28th February this year. I've added the page to my watchlist just in case it happens again. "The price of correctness is eternal vigilance", to adapt a famous quotation. JH (talk page) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

He was certainly well-meaning because he put Clanfield in, so he knows his geography but went a little bit astray on the history. The more articles on watchlists the better. Thanks. HCCC14 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

User:Masum Ibn Musa

Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for copyright violations. If you have time, please can people take a look at his edits, esp. around newly created cricket bios. Hopefully nothing too bad outside of terrible spelling/grammar, rather than the need to delete anything wholesale. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Tour articles

Earlier on, I updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles as I was doing some offsite work on tours and I'll leave the list for anyone who wants to take it further. Bye now. HCCC14 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Lists of county players

Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but today I noticed a discrepancy in the way some of our English county cricket articles are titled. For example, we have Yorkshire County Cricket Club but List of Yorkshire CCC players. There are many dozen such CCC list articles. In football, we have Ipswich Town F.C. and List of Ipswich Town F.C. players, for example. Is there a good reason why we abbreviate the title of County Cricket Club to CCC for these lists other than simply to shorten the title? If not, would the project members be amenable to a mass move from "...CCC..." to "County Cricket Club"? Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think just to shorten the title. No problem at all with moving them all to the full title. Harrias ^talk 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed New Article - Australian Cricket (Rebel) Tour of North America in 1913 -

Gentles, perhaps you might advise me in what might be a wiki Maiden Over !

I am considering drafting a new Article related to the 1913 "Rebel Tour" by the Australian Team of North American cities.

Any suggestions welcome - especially relating to best-practice content and format ?

That Team's Captain was Austin Diamond, who as well as playing NSW Sheffield Shield (and Club) Cricket, was also a Baseball player.

Among various anecdotes, I read that the Team visited a famous Baseball Stadium, and while the Baseball players had great difficulty dealing with balls delivered by Australian bowlers, perhaps not surprisingly Diamond could hit an American Pitcher's.

As an example of this, have a look at - http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/117421647

if you are interested in both Baseball and Cricket from an Australian's perspective in 1913.

180.200.138.170 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Homeworkgate is at AfD

I'd welcome some cricket experts' perspectives. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Internal template or external stats-scraper?

Hello WikiProject Cricket people.
Prompted by the Stars' T20 three-peat, I'm gnome-ing away with a view to create List of Australia women ODI cricketers modeled on List of England women ODI cricketers. I've written a few articles to this end, but I'm terrible at adding {{Infobox cricketer}}-s. Is there an internal template or external app that can scape Cricinfo stats up for this?
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Sorry. Johnlp (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag usage on sports articles

A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Player of the Match

Hi all. Does anyone know of an article or source on the history of Test MotM awards? I need a citation for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman/archive1. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the idea for Test MotM awards was inspired by the awards in ODIs (of which the first was in 1971), and that there weren't any MotM awards when Trueman was playing Test cricket. JH (talk page) 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

...and I think ODI awards were themselves inspired by the MotMs in Gillette Cup matches from 1963. Johnlp (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should go through FLC now, and I'm planning to put List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori up next. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

JH is right that there were no MotM awards when Fred was playing except in the Gillette Cup as JLP says (Fred won one in 1965). It was introduced immediately in LOI (John Edrich was the first winner) but I believe, though not sure, it might have been the eighties or even nineties before they started it in Tests. I'm intrigued now. I'll see what I can find out. Anyway, there can be no doubt that Fred was MotM at Headingley and Old Trafford in 1952, Headingley again in 1961 and Edgbaston in 1963, and he would certainly have claimed a few more besides! Good luck with the FLC. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to narrow it down and using Tests played in England only, it would seem that the first Test MotM was Bob Woolmer in the first Test of the 1977 series. I can't see any awards in England before that. However, it could have been introduced in other countries earlier. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Batsman and bowler of the match awards were around from 1966 (http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/28/28116.html ) There are occasional mentions of such awards in India since late 1960s but it is not clear whether they were official awards. Tintin 09:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And not surprisingly the first batting winner in 1966 was G. S. Sobers Jack | ^{talk page} 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Key Biographies

I was checking that page and looking at Shivnarine Chanderpaul's biography. Shouldn't it be rated a bit higher than Start Class. Also, shouldn't Kumar Sangakkara be on that page? He is fourth in ODI runs in career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket rules (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I made your title into a heading, hope you don't mind. And I fully agree these are both worthy articles that should be worked at to improve their quality. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The information in Key Biographies often lags well behind improvements in the articles themselves. If someone improves an article then, even if they are aware of Key Biographies, they will often forgot to update it. JH (talk page) 07:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a lot of input to this list in years past, especially the early people. I'll put it in my to-do and review it to update all quality ratings and add anyone who's been overlooked. They should all have importance=high, to be sure, but the converse of that is no one else should have importance=high. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I just bumped somebody up from a stub to a C class, though I forget who it was now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, an interesting little survey as I found that there are five articles out of 170 in the key biogs list which were not high importance. Conversely, there were 175 high importance biographies and there are ten missing from the KB list.

In KB list but not high importance (they are now):

• C. L. R. James
• John Nyren
• Kapil Dev
• Martin Crowe
• William Bedle

High importance but not in KB list:

• Bert Sutcliffe
• Bob Willis
• Colin Cowdrey
• Dave Gregory (cricketer)
• Desmond Haynes
• Inzamam-ul-Haq
• James Lillywhite
• Mark Boucher
• Tom Wills
• Tony Greig

Those ten are all significant so I'll add them to the KB list. I think there must be several more people who should be included too. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Moline

Here's a question. Why would a guy born in the Austro-Hungarian empire come to England with his two brothers, settle down in Gloucestershire where his brothers played cricket for schools in the Bristol area and one for Cambridge, himself play one match for Clifton and two for Gloucestershire, and yet somehow appear for a WG Grace XI in 1877? Anyone think we can find out more about this guy? Bare-bones stub at the minute. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done a quick bit of sleuthing: a W. Moline opened an "integrated spinning and weaving mill" in Ljubljana in 1837, and, given "Moline" isn't exactly a common name amongst the Slovenes, I'm guessing the brothers Moline were some sort of relation, who later returned to England. Edit: page 64 of this PDF, translated, has William Moline (1793–1878) founding breweries, refineries, and various other factories in Ljubljana and Rijeka, before returning to England in 1863. Charles (b. 1863 in Ljubljana) and Frank (b. 1868 in Bristol) fit in with that timeline – maybe grandchildren? Another edit: Charles (or Harry) apparently played for Clifton RFC. That page lists his father (presumably also his brothers' father) as Francis Moline. IgnorantArmies 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edgar's father, also Frank, was born in Godalming, and married a local woman, Emma Krauz, in Laibach in October 1852. By 1871, the family is living in some splendour in Bristol and Frank is listed as a sugar refiner: their first five children, Karl, Edgar, Paul, Amy, and Charles, were born in Laibach; the next two, Arthur and Frank, aged 5 and 2, were born in Bristol, which suggests the family moved to the UK between 1864 and 1866. Johnlp (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We could create quite an article on this little wanderer. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Harry Goodwin (cricketer)

While I'm sleuthing to try to get more info or sources for my cricketer stubs and starts, my latest - Harry Goodwin (cricketer) - has a playing absence of 1901 to 1906. Likely he just wasn't good enough to be picked, but that doesn't explain him coming back in 1906 so does anyone know of a source that might show that he served in the Boer War, as the years would roughly fit the absence? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, why did he die at a publich school in Horsham? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Goodwin was on the staff at Christ's Hospital from 1902, as shown here. The clue to a schoolmasterly life is that he mostly played FC cricket in August. Presumably they continued to house him after retirement. Johnlp (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice find! Added to the article. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ten wickets in an innings

I don't have much to do with lists, but someone asked at a PR if there was an article on cricketers to take ten wickets in a first-class innings. Unless I've missed it, there isn't one and it might make a nice one for anyone list-minded, and one a bit different as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If anyone fancies it, there's a barebones list of all the instances of a player taking 10 wickets in a first-class innings here. – PeeJay 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the priority is to ensure that all these 77 players have articles and that the feat is mentioned within them. I'll take that on but like Sarastro I'm not into doing a list. I've created Category:Cricketers who have taken ten wickets in an innings and started populating it. This has necessitated creation of Category:First-class cricket records which was something of a missing link in our records and stats structure and a lot of articles in the parent category need relocating to this one. I'll do this over the next few days, hopefully, and let you know how I get on. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman has been promoted to Featured List!

Thanks to everyone for their help! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cracking work, well done! Nev1 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumar Sangakkara

Just wondering, why is Kumar Sangakkara rated C-class in WikiProject Cricket but B-class in everything else? It seems to me that it meets all the requirements for B-class. Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm just a noob.Cricket rules (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably just that nobody at WP:CRICKET has nominated the article for B-class yet – at Wikipedia, you have to ask for an article to be rated, it doesn't happen automatically. You're not wrong at all, it looks like it would pass B-class requirements as it stands. Richard3120 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I've just seen that you're American... wow, never thought we'd have anybody from the US looking at cricket pages on Wikipedia. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard3120, I might be born in America but I'm from an Indian family.Cricket rules (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was given a B-class rating but the B-class criteria had not been added to the template and hence it defaulted to C-class on display. Kumar Sangakkara must be high importance so I'm adding him to the KB list (see above). Jack | ^{talk page} 10:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

For me the reason the article should be a C-class rather than B is the patchy nature of the coverage. The first 6 years of Sangakkara's international career (53 Tests and 146 ODIs, including the 2003 World Cup) are covered in two paragraphs. Articles such as that on Ricky Ponting (a hefty 16,600 words compared to the Sri Lankan's 3,200) may go too far the other way concerning how much information they cram in, but realistically that's a big chunk of Sangakara's career that insufficiently covered. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I admit I didn't review it earlier and simply followed the consensus of the other projects. It fails B-class criterion #1 re sufficient coverage. Changed it to C-class in all project banners. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

J. T. Tyldesley

A very interesting discussion has started at Talk:Johnny Tyldesley#"John Tommy" where one of our readers has asserted that "Johnny" Tyldesley was in fact known as "John Tommy" Tyldesley and this is borne out by evidence from Lancashire CCC itself per Google links. It would seem that "Johnny" was mistakenly used by Neville Cardus and later sources including CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo have followed his lead. Contemporary Wisden was of course very formal and used either his initials or his given first name.

We have a convention WP:COMMONNAME which requires articles about people to be titled according to the name that is most commonly used and not necessarily the subject's "official" name. It seems clear that Cardus made a mistake which has been perpetuated. The main sources here have to be Lancashire CCC and the Worsley Civic Trust. I would therefore propose a rename of Johnny Tyldesley to John Tommy Tyldesley but I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else has any additional information about Tyldesley. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In the 1901 census, he is John Thomas Tyldesley, which is unusual in that most people in that census are recorded with only the one forename. In his 1931 Wisden obit he is consistently referred to as "John Tyldesley". Johnlp (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The "John Thomas" usage is unusual, almost an Americanism. I wonder if his parents intended him to have a double first name as that would make sense with John Thomas becoming John Tommy? Wisden would never have used "Johnny" at that time: I think our reader is probably right that it was Cardus who first called him Johnny. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Inside that Lancashire site, there are 9 hits for JT Tyldesley, 3 for Johnnny Tyldesley, none for John (though it once refers to 'his brother John' while talking about Ernest), only that one for John Tommy. Most of the usages of 'JT' are in regular sentences as in "... Reg Spooner and with J. T. Tyldesley coming in .. " and "Four years later J. T. Tyldesley enjoyed a tremendous benefit match ..". John Tommy is obviously not common usage and I doubt if any of us had heard it before. Hence IMHO, the page title should not be changed. Tintin 11:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Worsley Civic Trust knows so little about it that on the link provided it separately identifies "John Tyldesley", "Tommy Tyldesley" and "Ernest Tyldesley" as three people. Cardus's mini-biog of him in Barclays World of Cricket refers to him as "J. T. Tyldesley" even when he gives first names to others (including Ernest) in the same article. I don't think any of this is conclusive for a page move, but maybe there should be more redirects in place from the various alternatives? Johnlp (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Tyldesley was always known as George(it being his first name) Mind you Harold Shipman was known as Fred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.233.244 (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there was a cartoon somewhere, yonks ago, perhaps in Private Eye, about "Fred (West) and Harold".

It looks as if there is nothing conclusive about JT's name but we ought to put something in the article to effect that he was sometimes known as "John Tommy" and cite these references. We can always do a move later if more conclusive evidence comes to light. It's a good job the Civic Trust didn't insert a comma on their plaque!! Jack | ^{talk page} 13:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

C. A. G. Russell

While we're on the subject of names... I'm minded to do a bit of tidying around this cricketer, prominent for some years after the First World War and just about the only English success in the disasters of 1920/21 and 1921 Ashes series. The problem is what title he should have. In his career, he was known as A. C. Russell as that was thought to be the order of his forenames, or Jack Russell, because then as now anyone called Russell seems to get that as a nickname. The current title is correct, but isn't one he was ever really known by, and apart from obvious cases such as W. G. we've tried to avoid initials in article titles. Advice, please? Johnlp (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive both agree he was called Jack, which he was, so I think this one is a definite rename to either Jack Russell (Essex cricketer) or Jack Russell (cricketer, born 1887). It is certainly wrong in his case to use initials especially with the confusion between A. C. and C. A. G. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A variety of "Jack Russell" would be my inclination too: I suppose I tend towards the Jack Russell (cricketer, born 1887) as more the way we've been doing these things recently, and also because a lot of his notability is in his Test career rather than his essential Essexness (eg, two hundreds in his final Test). That perhaps begs the question of what we then do with the other Jack Russell, whose article also has some issues. Johnlp (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would move him to Jack Russell (cricketer, born 1963). I think the "born" option has become something of a standard. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Both. Johnlp (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

W.G. Grace

I noticed this is the opening sentence of our article:

William Gilbert "W. G." Grace, MRCS, LRCP (18 July 1848 – 23 October 1915) was an English amateur cricketer who was important in the development of the sport and is considered by many historians to have been the greatest cricketer of all time.

There is considerable evidence of people describing him as the greatest, but I'm not sure [m]any of them are modern sources. I wouldn't doubt that until 1930, sources would be fairly consistent, but after that? He wouldn't even make my shortlist (without thinking too much, I'd have Bradman, Sobers, Warne and Gilchrist as my top batsman, all-rounder, bowler and wicket-keeper, respectively) , although he would probably make my shortlist of "most influential" or "most important" etc. Any thoughts on how we might tackle this, gracefully? [see what I did there?] --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't fully agree - although I would perhaps suggest "one of the greatest" which surely cannot be disputed, his achievements with the bat so outclass his contemporaries, his innovation and invention that crafted batsmanship as it later came to be, etc. I would argue that greatness transcends era, personally. And that is easily sourced to historians and suchlike from both then and now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair point but note that it is "many historians", not "all historians". The main sources used for the article are mostly post-Bradman, post-Sobers, the exceptions being Grace himself and Bernard Darwin who is lightly used. The likes of Arlott, Frith, James, Birley and Rae are relatively recent. The views they put forward tend to focus on the word "cricketer", rather than "batsman" or "bowler", because of Grace's critical importance in the development of the sport. As Ranji put it, he "invented modern batting". Furthermore, apart from Bradman who was a specialist batsman and not even an outstanding fielder, no one has ever so totally dominated the sport during his career as Grace unquestionably did. If we write that Grace was "one of the greatest", that does not do him justice because there are numerous players who are one of the greatest: Yorkshire alone has had Rhodes, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Trueman. All historians agree that these four are among the greatest but I doubt if anyone has ever asserted that one of them is THE greatest. On the other hand, "many historians" do say Grace was the greatest, just as many say it of Bradman or Sobers. I agree with SG that greatness transcends era. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really disagreeing with anyone here... but if one changes "is considered" to "has been considered" then perhaps we get a slight nuance that it's mainly the earlier historians who rate him as a cricketer – later ones may well rate him as the greatest cricket personality of all time while being less certain of his stature as a player in comparison to more modern greats. Johnlp (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

<-Of course greatness transcends era. Our grandchildren will talk in awed terms of Bradman, as I do of Grace. I just don't agree he's the greatest cricketer of all time and I don't think any of the modern sources in there say that either. Arlott says he created modern cricket. Frith says lots of lovely things, but doesn't call him the greatest cricketer of all time either - although he does say he was the most pre-eminent of his age and that this pre-eminence hasn't been exceeded, which may well be true, but still doesn't unambiguously add up to being the greatest ever. James says nothing on the topic and I can't see anything from Birley about him being the greatest, or Rae. That just leaves lovable old Ranji and Altham, whose book was published in 1962.

So, the most modern source we have for the claim is from 1962. Can we really leave this claim in, unamended? --Dweller (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"The most influential cricketer of all time"? Johnlp (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to compare the intros to the Bradman and Sobers articles:

Sir Donald George Bradman, AC (27 August 1908 – 25 February 2001), often referred to as "The Don", was an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest Test batsman of all time.

Sir Garfield St Aubrun Sobers AO OCC (born 28 July 1936), also known as Gary or Garry Sobers, is a former cricketer who played for the West Indies between 1954 and 1974, and is widely considered one of cricket's greatest all-rounders.

The word "widely" is common to both. No one can dispute either view. I would suggest an amendment to W. G.'s intro to read:

William Gilbert "W. G." Grace, MRCS, LRCP (18 July 1848 – 23 October 1915) was an English amateur cricketer who was important in the development of the sport and is widely considered one of its greatest-ever players.

It is futile to compare Grace with later players, even one like Hobbs who began as Grace was finishing. During Grace's career, pitch management evolved radically and the rough tracks he played on in his prime were near enough a thing of the past by the time of his retirement. No one can know how he would have fared on modern flat tracks, though one imagines he might have been successful, and no one can know how 20th century players would have fared at Lord's in the 1870s when its pitch was universally acknowledged to be downright dangerous. If everyone is happy with the suggested wording, I'll go in and make the change. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. I like the suggested intro. RossRSmith (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ross. Dweller, are you okay with that? Jack | ^{talk page} 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can go with that. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. It is more objective to say that. Many Indian fans today will say that Sachin was the greatest ever and, after all, he was good enough to play for Yorkshire so he must have been all reet. Gary Sobers played for Yorkshire too, though not many people know that. But there is an interesting thought here which is that people who remembered the "scientific and manly game of cricket" before W. G. came along would have insisted that the greatest player of all time was Alfred Mynn, or Fuller Pilch, or Billy Beldham, or John Small, or Richard Newland. Depending on how far back you go. All that anyone can aspire to is to be the best in their own time because conditions change. Who knows, but Bradman facing Lumpy "o'er a brow" in 1772 might never have scored a run. I think that with any greatest-ever claims, we should always temper them by saying "one of" or else "in his own time".

Another thought is that W. G.'s death centenary is in October next year so would anyone be interested in trying to get his article up to FA standard for then? The content is mostly there although I think a lot still needs to be taken into the sub-articles and summarised, plus there may still be some salient points about his later career that should be included. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be a nice idea. We have Hobbs and Bradman at FA already, Grace seems to be a notable omission. (As well as Sobers, Richards (V), Tendulkar, Warne...) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Cricket At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This event is, it seems, taking place in London. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do this. Anyone disagree? Seems a no-brainer. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Would be nice to see more people working on stuff around here. Johnlp (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not. Anyone prepared to jot down 200 words about the project? (Broken down into a 50-description and 150-words on how and why people should get involved by the looks of it.) The project logo is straightforward, anyone think it needs altering? Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't we all edit something there, collaboratively? --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Started but not finished --Dweller (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori/archive1

The above is a Featured List candidate. Please feel free to take a look, and if anyone can lend a hand as they did with the Fred Trueman one that would be great! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

County in Year

(e.g. 2014 Warwickshire County Cricket Club season) Would anyone here support the creation of these sort of articles, such as are created for football (e.g. 2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season), to document each season per club? - 97rob (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some of these for some of the counties, with perhaps Derbyshire having the most complete set: usually they take the title style of Fooshire County Cricket Club in Xxxx rather than the football format. The content can be a bit variable too, because they were created at different times by different people. But my view is that it's a perfectly valid set of articles to aspire to... and a lot of work! Why not try some and bring them to our attention here if you want feedback and discussion? Good luck. Johnlp (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't realise there were already some created! In that case, I'll probably start working through some Warwickshire ones, and I'll see how that goes. Thanks! - 97rob (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Warwickshire is particularly bereft of them, with just 1994 and 2005 in any state of completeness. So there's lots to go at there! Johnlp (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed with the Derbyshire ones that there's a lack of links from the main Derbyshire County Cricket Club article, for example a current season link in the infobox at the top. A template to put at the bottom of the article as well could be good, such as the one I've created for Warwickshire. I'll see what I can get done tomorrow, I'm stopping for the night now! - 97rob (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can do Glamorgan as well, if you like (or at least try to get them started!) – PeeJay 10:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There's clearly a lot that need doing, so the more people we can recruit to them the better! - 97rob (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we consider drafting a Manual of Style for club season articles before we get too far into this? The extant articles for 2005 are OK, but I think they could be formatted better. The Glamorgan one splits up results by month, indicating the competition of each match in the section header, but I'm wondering if it might be better to divide the articles up by competition first. Plus we also need a decent infobox. – PeeJay 17:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a good thing to do. It's probably best to divide matches into competitions, rather than months. From the two Warwickshire ones I looked at, the infobox for the 1995 season is much better than the 2005 version. - 97rob (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not blowing my own trumpet, but Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 is a featured article, so is perhaps a better example to use for appropriate formatting etc. Harrias ^talk 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should blow your own trumpet: that article is very good. Hopefully not dauntingly so... ;) Johnlp (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and follow that as a guideline then, as much as possible - 97rob (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to get the Template:Test match to have a 'collapse' option, so that matches could be displayed with the full amount of information given by this, but without taking up too much page space. I've tried looking at the code, but I can't figure out how it could be done. Template:Football box collapsible is the sort of thing I was hoping to be able to achieve, if the source code from that can help anyone? - 97rob (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard, I'll try and take a look at it. Harrias ^talk 08:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had another go at it today, and I think I've managed to create a collapse feature. It isn't included unless specified, so shouldn't affect any articles which don't want it, and there are some (very very minor) realignments. My code for it is at User:97rob/sandbox/collapsibleTest, with examples of it's usage at User:97rob/sandbox/collapsibleTest2. It would be good if someone could have a look over what I've done to check there's no issues with using it, before I replace the template at Template:Test match. - 97rob (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've posted on Template talk:Test match#Collapse option about this, so any comments in regards to the test template should be posted on there. - 97rob (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@97rob: I've been thinking about this for a while, but now that we're tinkering with the templates it seems like the right time to bring it up – don't you think the match result templates could do with a better name? After all, {{Test match}} isn't only used for Test matches, it's used for any match with two innings per side. How about we move both it and the collapsible version to {{Two-innings match}} or {{Two-innings cricket match}} or something? Same for the {{Limited overs matches}} template and any collapsible versions: that could be moved to {{Single-innings cricket match}} or {{One-innings cricket match}}? – PeeJay 14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the names could do with improvement, {{Two-innings cricket match}} and {{Single-innings cricket match}} are probably the best options. What's the procedure for moving a template which is going to affect so many articles? - 97rob (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No different than moving any other page, actually. Redirects will remain in place from the current names to the new names, so any pages using the old template names won't be affected. They can be edited in future if absolutely necessary, but there's no real need. Would be nice to get the templates to sensible names though. – PeeJay 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's straightforward. I think {{Two-innings cricket match}} is best for {{Test match}}, but I don't really mind between single- and one-innings cricket match. - 97rob (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I'll be bold and go for "single-innings". – PeeJay 17:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, I've amended the documentation to use 'single-innings' and 'two-innings' instead of what they previously had. - 97rob (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting up t20 articles

With 2009 articles mentioned above, I noticed that the 2009 Twenty20 Cup was split so that the match information was on seperate pages, e.g. 2009 Twenty20 Cup Midlands/Wales/West Division. Would this be a better idea for this season's 2014 NatWest t20 Blast, or 2014 Royal London One-Day Cup pages? - 97rob (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say be bold and just do it. If it doesn't work, the articles can always be re-merged. – PeeJay 11:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at splitting them up then, once I've finished working my way through another article which I'm currently in the process of creating. - 97rob (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Free Foresters Cricket Club

Anyone think we should have a Category:Free Foresters cricketers? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is one: Category:Free Foresters cricketers. Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno why I couldn't find that! Sorry S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mind you, categories like this are currently organised as being for FC/listA/T20 cricketers, as non-FC matches are not deemed as being notable except under special circumstances. Johnlp (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Was it not an FC club for a time? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, for quite a lot of years up to 1968. Just that players who didn't play FC for it probably shouldn't have it as a category... though this is a bit of a grey area. Johnlp (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a club as such, more in the way of an occasional eleven, and it only played first-class matches against CU and OU from 1912 to 1946, plus some matches thereafter. It started out as a "Gentlemen of the Midland Counties" team in the mid-nineteenth century and played a number of matches against teams that were nominally first-class, including Notts and MCC, but the matches were not rated first-class by contemporary sources. They only got first-class status for their CU/OU games in 1912 after they made an appeal to MCC based on their fielding stronger teams at that time than they had in their early days. I got this from an ACS handbook. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, which ACS handbook? I've got a decent collection of ACS material but have been looking for Free Foresters' related stuff for ages. --Roisterer (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roisterer. It's the Guide to First-class Cricket Matches played in the British Isles, second edition, 1982. In Part Three on page 14, they list the FF first-class matches to 1946, which are all against CU or OU. In the Notes section on page 23, they give the information I've summarised above. If you need more detail I can give you that. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

North Wales Premier Cricket League

North Wales Premier Cricket League has been nominated for deletion by User:Velella. The deletion discussion can be found here. I've asserted that we deem all the ECB's regional premier divisions as notable, but if that is not right, please correct my post on the AfD page. – PeeJay 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right. It's in WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed non-free copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/GordyB.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Shudde ^talk 08:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

William Armitstead

Cricket Archive says he is credited with introducing white coats for umpires, but it doesn't elaborate. Any thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

When he was batting, he couldn't see the ball out of the bowler's hand so the umpire put on some sort of white garment.[1][2] Hack (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hack: Thank you! I thought perhaps a DYK could have come out of it but the article is too old now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Crease (cricket)

I've tried to tweak this a little to make it less confusing for the layman. It's a tough thing to describe. I've included some images in a gallery but if anyone can think of, or make, more suitable images or any other changes please feel free. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricketer

Can I make a request of the editors of this project to please make sure that the clubs listed in Template:Infobox cricketer on player articles are in chronological order with the earliest club listed first? It makes little sense to list the most recent club first, as far as I can tell, and I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia has guidelines about ordering chronological lists in this way. – PeeJay 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Hartopp (cricketer)

For amusement only... I've been looking at this chap from the 1840s and 1850s. I know we always say it was a different game then on different wickets, but he does seem to have been remarkably untalented for someone who managed 69 first-class games. Perhaps it was his bat and his ball, so he had to be in the team. Johnlp (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that he went to Eton and Trinity, and finished up as the auditor of MCC's accounts, so he was obviously just the sound sort of chap that one would want in one's side. :) JH (talk page) 08:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CCI project notice above

It's mostly rugby league but there are some cricket articles which have dubious content, particularly a "timeline" in the two Bangladeshi articles which looks to me like a blatant copy-and-paste job from an unknown source. I think we need to take a bit of time to investigate and rectify. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we don't need to worry about this. There was a violation in the Bangladesh history which has now been resolved. GordyB created a number of "cricket in Country" articles and these are on the list but, apart from the need for more sources in many of them, I can't see any problems. With Bangladesh history sorted, I think that concludes our part in this investigation which is essentially about rugby coverage. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

1. Kay Green: ta:1997 இறப்புகள்

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

S.G.^(GH) (supplying the year of death) and I (supplying the exact date) have now addressed this. I was impressed to see that she was in the England squad for the inaugural 1973 women's World Cup at the age of 45! JH (talk page) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori/archive1

Anyone who could help review please? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Young (MCC cricketer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Young (MCC cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young (MCC cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Played at first-class level and satisfies WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Anurag Singh

One of my articles was speedy deleted earlier (while we were all asleep, probably). The version that was speedy deleted was a vandalized version of the original. Can people please keep their eyes on it to make sure it doesn't happen again? Obviously I'm not around as much as I used to be. Thanks. Bobo. 10:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just reinstated the article, and was told it was a copyvio - from a page which *mirrors* Wikipedia! Bobo. 10:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Robinson (cricketer)

Had this guy wrongly listed as a redlink in my first-class players list - needs a teeny bit of cleanup. Bobo. 10:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Initials in score templates

Are we resolved as a WikiProject to use players' full names in the cricket score templates (Template:Single-innings cricket match and Template:Two-innings cricket match)? It's far more traditional to use initials, isn't it? And yet I keep seeing full names in new articles. – PeeJay 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. There is, as far as I'm aware, no convention to use first names and I agree that initials are the preferred form. Using the title of the article instead of piping to initials is laziness, really. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I had the impression that historically (long before Wikipedia) it was initials for amateurs and first names for professionals. Now that they're all professionals, using first names, just as with all other sports, should offend nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Until the distinction between amateurs and professionals was abolished in English cricket after the 1962 season, the usual convention on scorecards was to have amateurs denoted as, eg, "Mr. D.R. Jardine" and professionals as, eg, "Hobbs J.B." or - more commonly - simply "Hobbs". As for what we should do on Wikipedia, so long as the names in scorecards are wiki-links to the players' articles I don't see that it greatly matters. Incidentally, I think it's a great pity that players' entries on CricketArchive and Cricinfo don't tell you whether they were amateurs or professionals, as that is a vitally important element in understanding their careers. JH (talk page) 06:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you see, they'd probably feel bound to tell the truth and put "W. G. Grace – professional". :-) Jack | ^{talk page} 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So we can go back to using initials like the stats sites do? – PeeJay 19:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the sense in using initials when most of our articles on cricketers use their full names. Just because someone annotated it in a particular way a century and a third ago in very different circumstances and for a rather different purpose to our own doesn't mean we need to follow slavishly, and very rarely are we trying to reproduce full scorecards as, say, cricketarchive.com is doing, where some compression is advisable simply because of the forest of names. Simple direct links are best in my view. Johnlp (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think space is the key to it. If compression is necessary to prevent space problems, as might arise when you have two of the longer Sri Lankan names on one line, then piping to initials should definitely be used. I've been looking through a whole raft of articles that have these templates and really it's a fait accompli as far as use of full names is concerned. No one is going to go through the whole lot and change them now so I think we just need to ensure that presentation is tidy by using piping if necessary to retain balance and keep things aligned. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with this. But I think the default should be full names, not initials, lest we appear wedded to archaic notation. On JH's point above about amateurs and professionals, there might presumably be scope for us to put it as a line in the Infobox template which, if left blank (e.g. for all except pre-1962 English cricketers), then doesn't appear. There are already lines in the infobox (height, nickname) which are usually omitted. Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As a project we had a vote a couple of years ago and decided to use the first name rather than initials as it is more accessible to casual fans. Harrias ^talk 11:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you give us the archive number for that. Just for interest. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

67. Harrias ^talk 14:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ivor Mendonca

Recently deceased, and maybe worth keeping an eye on. An IP who seems to know about him has changed the running order of his names: I've asked them to supply a reference for the change as it's not what is on the standard database sites. Johnlp (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember him as I. L. Mendonca from scorecards in the early sixties and that appears to be verified by current online sources. Is it someone messing about or does he "know" something no one else does? Reminds me of the argument about Gary Sobers' second name. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he's I. L. Mendonca everywhere. But this IP user was very quick on the draw with details of his death, so it may be that they have inside info. I'll leave it a few days, but if they haven't replied to my note I'll revert again... unless someone else gets there first. Was that "Gary Sobers" or "Garry Sobers" whose second name was problematic? Johnlp (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Or Garfield? :-) Jack | ^{talk page} 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Need help

The article on "MCC Bicentenary Celebration match" keeps getting redirected to a new page called "Bicentenary Celebration match" by a particular user. Cricinfo calls the match as MCC Bicentenary Celebration match. This user also thinks that the match was an ODI. It was actually an exhibition match without official status. I need some help in determining the correct title for the article. Dee03 19:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the bicentenary of the current Lord's cricket ground, not of MCC, whose bicentenary was celebrated in 1987. So your proposed title is wrong. "Lord's Bicentenary Celebration match" might be better, though there seem to be too many capital letters there. It's not an official ODI. Johnlp (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

CricketArchive calls it the Lord's 200th Anniversary Match which is accurate and verifiable. See [3]. And it was not an international match, only an exhibition game. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Slovakia national cricket team

Someone has moved this page to Slovak National Cricket Team. If I recall correctly, isn't this against the project's style guide? Andrew nixon (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, convention is as per the original title with the name of the country and then "national cricket team" in lower case. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cricket controversies

I came by this cat because it was added to N. Srinivasan and that's a clear vio of BLP -- this isn't a category meant for bios and while there can be different opinions on the individual, our policy clearly requires a conviction before such things are added. However, I noticed that other BLP articles have also been added to this category, so before I remove them all I just wanted to check if there's been any discussion on this over here (I couldn't seem to find anything on the archives). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I think we should move remove the category from those bios immediately. I'll start on it now. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The category is of course for controversial events and situations, not people as otherwise anyone from Grace to Pietersen could be in there according to some people's point of view. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed all the bios from the category and added a note about bios and BLP on the category page. As an additional issue, I'm not entirely happy with the titles of these three articles which name four specific individuals, two of whom are living: Chappell–Ganguly controversy, Controversies involving Donald Bradman and Mike Denness and Indian cricket team incident. Should they be renamed? Jack | ^{talk page} 05:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The first is probably what's being used all over (and I guess it's difficult to say Captain v Coach controversy), but the second and third I think require some sort of rethink at least. I'm not even sure if #3 merits an article in the current form. The Oval incident is titled as Ball tampering controversy in August 2006, so perhaps something like that ought to be considered. —SpacemanSpiff 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox cricketer" only allows four columns: why not six?

Hello WikiProject Cricket people.

At present Template:Infobox cricketer only allows four competition fields.

It would seem sensible that the infobox should allow six columns. Like this:

Career statistics
Competition	Test	ODI	T20I	FC	LA	T20
Matches	1	1	2	3	5	8
Runs	1	2	3	5	8	13

This would allow the inclusion of international and domestic T20 stats.

OK, OK, so if T20 was a snack food, it would have to include on its label:

Artificially coloured and flavoured sports entertainment product. WARNING: may contain traces of cricket.

But, like it or not, T20 is here to stay as a major form of international and domestic cricket. And I suggest the template be extended to include T20 stats.

Your thoughts? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I would not even include LOI or LA. With all forms of limited overs play, I think it is sufficient to say within the narrative that his HS was z and his BB was x for y, though I personally do not even do that. I just do not see the point of creating lies, damned lies and statistics out of a form of cricket which is so inherently artificial. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Arguing that limited overs matches are artificial is like arguing that ice is a chemical. Both statements are true, but fail to recognise that they could also be applied to other forms of the same sport/compound. Considering professional cricketers may play hundreds of list A or twenty20 matches, it seems only sensible to lay aside our personal opinions and give those games some attention.

As for how it looks in the inofbox, my instinct is that four columns can look crowded anyway at the moment. Six may be too many. But didn't someone create a mock up of how it would look? Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nev1. Take the case of Brendon McCullum -- he's played almost as many T20Is as he has Tests and more T20s than FC, but all six groupings of them have substantial numbers. It's quite annoying to not include his T20Is or T20s in the infobox when his stats in those are as notable as the rest. Same for Dwayne Bravo, as also many others. We probably need to look at actually filling the columns on a case by case basis -- e.g. in Sachin Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid we wouldn't want to include T20I, and so on. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that we need to work against an anti-T20 bias in our infoboxes now. In many ways, T20 is the leading format of the game. One issue, however, I see with Spacemanspiff's idea is that the arguments resulting from decided who would warrant T20 stats and who would warrant only LA/FC stats as prominent. Is it an issue of spacing, having six columns? If so, can we have a laterally scrollable stats area? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I still think, given the sheer number of statistics now, especially for up to six forms of cricket, the best option is to have a much shorter infobox, WITHOUT the statistics, and put the statistics in a separate table at the end of the article, similar to how it is done for ice hockey players. (See Claude Giroux for example). It would be a huge change, but it would allow us to include all the information, neatly without having an infobox that often as not is longer than the article anyway, clogging things up. Harrias ^talk 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Or could it be a separate stats box underneath the infobox? Another benefit of your suggestion would be for people who are only secondarily notable as cricketers, for they could have their primary infobox (for whatever they were, politician etc.) and then a cricket stats box elsewhere in the article. That would avoid the ugly 'infobox in the middle of article' thing that we sometimes get. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I like this option, a lot cleaner than either a six+title column stats section or a scrolling stats section in the primary infobox. Perhaps a bit radical, but if RD can support day-night Tests, I can support a split infobox for personal and statistical details. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be most happy with this option. Cricket seems to be the only sport to have such extensive stats included in the infobox. If we cut the stats out of the infobox and created a separate table, that would not only make the infobox easier to handle, but it would also provide a way of making new articles more substantial with the minimum of effort. – PeeJay 10:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Away at present, so weighing in late... A consideration when we've discussed this before is that the stats that are important in T20 are not necessarily identical to those in Test or FC (for example). So rate of scoring or runs per over bowled may be more relevant, as a measure of quality of T20 player, than batting average or 5wi/10wm. I'm somewhat against wholesale revision since for the vast majority of CRIN-notable cricketers (who pre-date 2000) the current infobox which copes with up to four columns is fine. I agree we should do something about current/more recent cricketers to accommodate T20, but personally I would prefer it not to be a drastic change. Johnlp (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we not format is to that SR is not an option for FC, but only for LOI/T20 columns? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 04:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion about this in the archive. See, for example, January 2014 and April 2013 - that latter includes some links to earlier discussions in May 2010 which include some mockups.

For what it is worth, T20 does not seem to be going away, and for some players is an important part of their career. I think the time has come to include it in the infobox, which means six sets of stats, and I would prefer the first of the collapsible versions of the infobox from the 2010 discussion - separating the stats into two blocks of three, domestic (FC, LA, T20) and international (Test, OSI, T20I) - rather than a separate free-floating databox, but we need someone to create some examples so we can compare and then decide. -- Ferma (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricketer

A Dutch Wikimedia Nederland board member User:Ad Huikeshoven took it on himself to alter this template this evening with the result that the many thousand articles that use it, if they have been opened, carry the full tabular workings of the template as their introductory paragraph. The change has been reverted and where pages retain the altered version they can be purged by resaving. I've asked him to come here to discuss if he wants to change things that are fairly fundamental to the project. Johnlp (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for disrupting your project. My intention was to add TemplateData. They help editors using VE. In the template structure they would belong at Template:Infobox cricketer/doc. That would punt them automatically between <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Are you guys ready to add TemplateData yourselves to infobox and other templates within scope of your project? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain, please? I'm sure we don't want to be unhelpful, but your edit last night made a mess of quite a lot of our pages that carry this infobox. Johnlp (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Purging by re-saving. The most convenient way to set the "purge" facility is to access Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance and check the option: "Add a Purge option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache when followed". This adds "Purge" under "Move" in the "More" tab at the top of each article/talk page. Click that when you need to purge and it does it in a couple of seconds. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I know how to purge. What I'm looking for is an explanation why this change needs to be made and whether, if it is done, any casual passer-by (a reader, perhaps, who might not know how to purge pages or even know of the need) will come across the kind of fluff that was obscuring the main text in pages with this infobox last night. Johnlp (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

First class cricketer up for deletion

Morning all. C. Lodtag up for deletion here. Stats here.

Hope you are all keeping well. Bobo. 09:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wounded Tiger

Anyone interesting in Pakistan cricket would probably find it worthwhile to read a newly published history of the subject entitled Wounded Tiger by Peter Oborne. The Telegraph have published some extracts from it in recent days:

• How Pakistan became the kings of swing
• How the new country of Pakistan put itself on the cricketing map by beating England in 1954
• Pakistan's history is littered with remarkable teenagers
• How Imran Khan and Javed Miandad turned Pakistan into world-beaters

JH (talk page) 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

He did it first

I just came across the John Atkinson Pendlington article, which is written almost entirely in a "he did it first, not the other guy, here's some proof" style. Almost certainly written by the grandson or other relative, I don't have access to either of the Richie Benaud or Bearders books that apparently verify the claims. Can someone who does have those books, or knows of other historians of 19th century cricket scorers, please review and rewrite the article to say what he did, not just that he did it before someone else. The-Pope (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article seems fine. It is correct and the references are true - they do not apparently verify the claims but as anyone who has them will know, they do!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.98.250 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found a few additional sources that largely track back to Benaud (which is in Google books) and Frindall (ODNB mentions Pendlington in Frindall's entry, for example). It would be good if we could identify the 1914 newspaper report / obituary to verify Benaud's account, but the fact of Pendlington's existence and life can be verified He would not be notable without the (reputed) invention of linear scoring, though! -- Ferma (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly people don't believe the Frindall book so cut the fellow out. You know best and of course WP does notaccept primary sources which the paper would be. Any serious scorer knows Mr P invented the system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.98.250 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link. And here is the blurb for Frindall's own book. There was also a letter to The Times a couple of days after Frindall's obit correcting the impression the obit had given that the bearded one had invented the scoring system. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There was an Australian scorer named J.G. Jackscohn who used scoring 'tables' which enabled him to keep track of balls faced per batsman, balls faced per bowler and what the batsman did with it. For instance, a report of a Shield hundred by Victor Trumper in 1906, derived from Jackscohn's tables, tells that "he played 61, missed six and scored off 34, with one six 18 fours, two threes, four twos and nine singles. He made 51 off 23 balls from Saunders, 19 off six from Collins, 16 off 13 from Laver, 9 off 15 from Christian and 6 off 6 balls from Tom Warne". Most of this would be impossible to track from the conventional score book. Jackscohn used some of form of it at least as early as 1891/92. However it is not known what these tables looked like, and most of this is original research which cannot be added to wiki. Tintin 12:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now that is interesting. No mention in any of the usual places, but there is enough in the contemporaneous Australian news reports to cobble something together, I think: see J.G. Jackscohn. I wonder if Bearders was aware of him - probably not. -- Ferma (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Doubly amusing, as Jackscohn scored for WG Grace's team in 1891-2, and then Grace saw Pendlington's system in Scarborough in September 1893! -- Ferma (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Jackscohn may have been either a misprint or he changed his name at some point. There are a bunch of sources that give his name as either John Gottlieb Jackschon[4] or Johann Gottlieb Jackschon[5] (also his father's name). Hack (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In a lot of early reports, he appears as "Jackson", like in the first paragraph here. You'll find a few more hits if you search for Jackson and scorer.

Ferma - I found his DoB as 23/1/1846 based on the mention of another birthday somewhere. Have to go back and find that reference again. Tintin 08:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/128106818 - unfortunately it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Tintin 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A very knowledgeable acquaintance says that according Ray Webster, Story of a Cricket Country, Jackscohn scored at SCG from 1887 - 1895, and again from 1905. Tintin 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

NSW register of deaths has the spelling as Jackschon for both the man and his parents: here. Johnlp (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

His marriage records list his name as "Johann Gottlick Jackschon" while his death record has two entries - one for "John G Jackson" and another for "John G Jackschon". Hack (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But happily, both have the same registration number ! Tintin 09:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Various unofficial family trees have him born in 1844 or 1845 in an unidentified place called Maust in Spree-Neisse, Prussia; his father certainly arrived in Australia in 1852 and became a naturalised Australian in 1855. Johnlp (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maust is in Teichland, just north of Cottbus. Richard3120 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of that. Clearly Jackscohn is one possibly incorrect variant of the surname. Jackschon makes more sense. I've moved the article and added some of the material you have suggested. Feel free to add in further details. Now we need a cricket historian to pick up the baton and convert the primary sources the article relies on into some nice secondary sources. A Cricinfo article would be great :) Hmm. Is this DYK-able? -- Ferma (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Pendlington again, is the name of the 1914 newspaper mentioned anywhere, or do we know what exactly the paper said ? Tintin 03:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The only 1914 mentions of Pendlington in UK newspapers that have so far been digitised in the British Newspaper Archives are the death and funeral notices of 16 and 17 January and the details of the will on 13 February, all in the Newcastle Journal. None of them mention anything to do with cricket. The BNA digitisation process has only reached a limited number of newspapers so far. Johnlp (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan

We seem to have lost our way re Afghanistan in terms of naming convention. We begin with the root category Category:Cricket in Afghanistan which complies with the standard "cricket in name of country" concept. This decomposes at present into:

• Category:Cricket administration in Afghanistan
• Category:Afghan cricket coaches
• Category:Afghan cricketers
• Category:Cricket grounds in Afghanistan
• Category:History of Afghan cricket
• Category:Afghanistan in international cricket

All of these are named correctly as three require the country and three the nationality. Difficulty arises in the next tier where we have Category:Afghanistan cricket tours abroad which should be Category:Afghan cricket tours abroad. Within that are nine articles:

• Afghanistan cricket team in Canada in 2011
• Afghanistan cricket team in Kenya in 2010–11
• Afghanistan cricket team in the Netherlands in 2009
• Afghanistan cricket team against Pakistan in the UAE in 2011–12
• Afghanistan tour of Pakistan in 2013
• Afghanistan cricket team in Scotland in 2010
• Afghanistan cricket team in the United Arab Emirates in 2011–12
• Afghanistan cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2009
• Afghanistan cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2014

The national team article is correctly named Afghanistan national cricket team (e.g., per India national cricket team and the rest) but, in the tour articles, the adjectival form should be used and so the first should be entitled Afghan cricket team in Canada in 2011. The 2013 title is, obviously enough, incorrect in any case.

I'm taking the appropriate action but this is a problem that could recur and we need to ensure that we differentiate between the nominal and adjectival forms as appropriate. The main exception is of course New Zealand. We could use "Kiwi", I suppose, but.... Nah! Jack | ^{talk page} 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tours of the West Indies

Following the above re tour article status, Jenks has contacted me to point out that tours of the West Indies should be titled "Team X in the West Indies in YYYY", rather than simply "Team X in West Indies in YYYY". As he says, the latter does not look good and is not grammatically correct. I know there was consensus years ago to use this form and I believe it reflected a view that we should comply with CricketArchive which uses titles like "New Zealand in West Indies 2014". I agree with Jenks that we should rename all these articles (107 at present including redlinks) to "Team X in the West Indies in YYYY". What do you all think? Jack | ^{talk page} 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We rely on CricketArchive a lot, but don't have to follow them slavishly on every point.Johnlp (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mainly thanks to Jenks, the name changes are complete. This covers all articles and categories which had "in West Indies" in the title: these now say "in the West Indies". If anyone should spot one we may have missed, can you please do the move so all are in synch. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar (4th) GA nom

Please note that Sachin Tendulkar had been nominated for GA (fourth time) and is currently under review. Due to the unavailability of the nominator, requesting anybody interested in getting it passed as a good article to respond in the review here. Otherwise, the reviewer will have to fail it within a week. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cricketers with with unidentified given names

We have a number of very short stub articles, with little chance of expansion, about cricketers with unidentified given names. For example:

• Smith (Cambridge University cricketer (1825))
• Chitty (Surrey cricketer)
• Baxter (Cambridgeshire cricketer)

and many more in Category:English cricketers of 1787 to 1825. They probably fail notability requirements.

Rather than deleting them, the content should be added, and the pages redirected, to list articles.

See List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names for a comparable list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. They are all first-class cricketers and they meet WP:CRIN. There is a recent precedent at AfD in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young (MCC cricketer) and as research is going on there is always the possibility of additional information becoming available about any first-class player. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see that a list of these less-than-fully-identified cricketers might be useful for primary researchers as I'm not sure that such a list exists anywhere else, and you can add in people like A. E. Bailey whose first name is unknown. But whether that's WP's job is another matter... As far as notability is concerned, Jack is right: they meet WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that people are so willing to suggest what articles are acceptable or unacceptable by their own reckoning, but not so willing to suggest alternative inclusion criteria? ;) Bobo. 10:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Test cricketer up for deletion

Yes, you read that correctly! Riaz Afridi has been sent to AfD. Discussion here.

Thanks all. Bobo. 14:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

International tour articles

I've been reviewing and revising international tour articles lately, which is what led me to the Afghan articles as described above. I think we would all agree that we need to present broad coverage of international tours but the situation is that we have a handful of very good articles such as the 1884 and 1948 Australian tours of England, several which deserve to be rated B- or C-class and a large majority which are either basic starts or mere stubs. Even of the starts, many contain statistical summaries only. The worst problem I found, though, is that there were over a hundred "bluelinked" articles in the various tour templates which are actually redirects, usually to general history articles which are themselves only summaries.

Other problems include lack of inline citations and sources with many articles not having a reflist or an external links section. Most of the articles did contain a tour template which is good, though these in themselves have needed work to update them. Categorisation is surprisingly quite good except that some category types have evolved over many years and action is needed across the board to ensure synchronisation.

Back in 2006/2007 when we had a drive to get tour coverage up and running, we agreed that there should be five category types fundamental to all tour articles, plus others as needed. At that time the five types were, using for example Australian cricket team in England in 1964:

• Category:1964 in cricket – i.e., events in cricket by year
• Category:1964 in England – i.e., events in host nation by year
• Category:Australian cricket tours of England – i.e., categorising all tours of x by y
• Category:English cricket seasons from 1946 to 1968 – i.e., to incorporate the domestic cricketing view
• Category:International cricket competitions from 1960–61 to 1970 – i.e., enabling navigation via a whole menu of international events

Evolution in categorisation has necessitated change to the typical set, such as the above. The "ccyy in cricket" category type has increasingly been decomposed into sub-categories termed "ccyy in (nationality) cricket" so now we can use Category:1964 in Australian cricket and Category:1964 in English cricket. The latter has also replaced the "ccyy in nation" type as that has decomposed into sub-categories termed "ccyy in (nationality) (activity)" including, for example, Category:1964 in English sport. This has been further decomposed by sport and so we arrive at Category:1964 in English cricket by two routes, the national one and the sporting one. The other three category types (tours, competitions and seasons) are essentially unchanged except that competition and season categories in the 21st century tend to be period-specific whereas in the 19th and 20th centuries they remain ranges.

As a result, the fundamental categories for Australian cricket team in England in 1964 should now be changed to:

• Category:1964 in Australian cricket
• Category:1964 in English cricket
• Category:Australian cricket tours of England
• Category:English cricket seasons from 1946 to 1968
• Category:International cricket competitions from 1960–61 to 1970

I've reached a point where articles, categories and templates about tours of Bangladesh, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe are satisfactory and the next thing needed with any of those is article expansion. Many of the articles are stubs but in every case they contain a summary of the Test series including venues, results and references while the article also summarises things like tour dates, team captains, LOI series result (if applicable), etc. Therefore, although they are stubs, they are at least meaningful and this has to be the minimum standard.

Apart from a detour via Afghanistan, my next jobs are to bring India, South Africa and the West Indies up to the same minimum standard. To illustrate the status of these three, I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles. This shows what is needed at article level but work is needed on the tour templates and categories too. As for the two big ones, Australia and England, I'm leaving those till last. Although they are the two biggies, I think they will need the least work because of all the effort that has gone into them over the years and it will just be a housekeeping job for the most part.

If anyone would like to get involved, you are most welcome. The best thing to do is pick up some of the items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles where the main headache is the number of South African redirects. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

BUMP. Articles about tours of the West Indies are all bluelinked with a series summary at least in each one. I will be away for a bit now but will continue with India and South Africa in due course. If anyone would like to help out, especially with the redirected South African ones, please feel free. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut

I'm looking for thoughts on what number should justify the creation of branch articles from List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut. I've arbitrarily proposed a minimum of eight; other thoughts? Seattle (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support —Zia Khan 09:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• I think five or more should be fine. Why eight out of interest? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having trouble understanding the reasoning behind this too – a five-wicket innings or ten-wicket match are standard, recognised achievements... why not five or more? Richard3120 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean players for the list, i.e 8 players that have five wickets on debut would be enough to branch a list off. Seattle (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I'm with you now. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So when you talk about branch articles, do you mean by country, i.e. each country should have a minimum of eight bowlers who have achieved the feat in order to justify the creation of a similar article by Test playing nation? Sorry if I'm being a bit dim, I'm just trying to get clear what exactly you are proposing here. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Seattle (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of full sets, so I don't see a problem with creating all by-country lists, even those with only one player. They might not meet FLC standards, but that isn't the main reason we create articles. Each country article could go into more detail about each 5-for, leaving the global article to be a true summary. The-Pope (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no mention of the players who have taken two five-fors on debut. And surely it should be "a five-wicket haul" in the title, not "five wickets", as the latter implies the wickets were taken over the course of the match. —Raven42 (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done! —Zia Khan 10:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct death date for Brian Roe

Could I get some expert clarity about the correct date of death of Brian Roe? It is variously reported as 27 June [6], 28 June [7] and 29 June [8]. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you can get any clarity. As you say, different sources say different days... the North Devon Gazette says "over the weekend" which isn't helpful either. I can't find a "family notice" in any national or local paper. Johnlp (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oswald Lancashire

Created an article about this fairly obscure (and unsuccessful) 19th century player. But as Lancashire played for Lancashire and was a Justice of the Peace in Lancashire there's significant scope for confusion. So perhaps someone could read it through and clarify where necessary. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of test matches outdated

Some of the lists of test matches are outdated. List of Sri Lankan Test matches and List of Pakistani Test matches are two examples, as well as List of Test cricket series against Sri Lanka. I've recently updated the South African list, but any other eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Greenman (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of List of sporting deaths article

List of sportspeople who died during their careers is up for deletion here. If it does get deleted, do you think we should fork out the cricketers into a dedicated list, with more precise qualification guidelines (ie having played First class/list A/T20 in previous/current season)? There is already List of cricketers who were killed during military service, I see this new list as covering all other deaths. The-Pope (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's decided that the sportspeople article does merit deletion, wouldn't the same arguments justify the deletion of an article limited to cricketers? JH (talk page) 09:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the delete arguments are "it's too vague", "no clear qualification guidelines". Sport specific rules could be a lot easier to define, which would then allow the list to satisfy the requirements of WP:SAL. The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Belarus national cricket team (and others) at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Twenty20 International records

The article is up for FLC here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Twenty20 International records/archive2. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 05:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Bowling strategy

Scratching my head over the value of this article which reads as one big heap of OR. --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

... and more suitable for a coaching manual on captaincy than an encyclopedia. Johnlp (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of nominating for deletion. Anyone got a view? --Dweller (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, this is unreferenced. So I agree with you! Khadar Khani (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The ACS

The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, generally known as the ACS (because "and Historians" was added later), has broadly similar aims to ourselves except they utilise primary sources (beyond our brief), are essentially offline (though they do have a website) and their profile is therefore relatively low, while ours is potentially very high indeed and we are obliged to use secondary sources. Like ourselves, the ACS have had experience of the moron whom we know as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. They sacked him and we banned him. Last week, Daft was on here again and produced a typically incoherent post entitled "ACS" in which he tried to claim that he left a legacy to the ACS from which they have drawn immeasurable benefits. It was reverted immediately. I've had a call from a chap in the ACS about an early cricket question and I drew his attention to this post. His comment was: "Complete and utter bollocks". He is going to consult other members including, I presume, someone in the ACS committee (which sacked Daft several years ago) as they do not want Daft alluding to them, understandably so.

He did ask if we would please continue to be vigilant and to immediately remove anything written about the ACS by Daft as soon as we see it. Which is what we do anyway because Daft is subject to WP:BAN and therefore anything he writes on here, even if it's a "good edit", must be reverted. I think it's likely I will be contacted again and I'll let you know if there's anything worth raising.

I would like to add, however, that this chap uses WP himself as an IP and he reckons that dozens (perhaps many more) of his colleagues do likewise. Daft has always tried to claim that the ACS deprecates WP (and I suppose it's possible that one or two technophobes might) but the consensus in the ACS is to wish us well and hope we are ultimately successful, whilst accepting that Rome was not built in a day. The ACS is an eminent source and we should reciprocate by using them accordingly if their material is to hand. CricketArchive was originally, shall we say, an offshoot of the ACS but has outgrown its origins.

So, it is nice to be appreciated by the ACS. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good morning. I am one of "the dozens", being an ACS member who edits WP. A few of us have seen the above post and have noted sadly that your estimate of our number is probably incorrect. I heard at an ACS function a few months ago that the membership has slipped below the thousand mark. That is subject to confirmation but it is true that we are demographically an ageing association and new blood is not easy to find. My friends and I have wondered if anyone in the WP cricket project would be interested in joining the ACS? There are some very good researchers and writers amongst you who would be most welcome. Please think about it and see our website for more information. Thank you.

May I add that we regret the reprehensible attacks on the home pages of User:Harrias and User:Johnlp. We wish to make clear that the person responsible is NOT – I repeat, NOT – a member of the ACS. Neither does he speak for the ACS nor represent the ACS in any way. Any views that he expresses on WP are his own and no one else's. You are absolutely right to revert his edits without hesitation. ACS Wisden (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Good evening. I am the former ACS Wisden, author of the above post, now to be known as Music Troy. I have always edited via my IP address and only created a userid for discussion purposes to protect the IP, but I did not realise that using "Wisden" is a transgression of the site's naming convention regarding trademarks. My apologies, but it was a genuine mistake and I am grateful to the administrator who explained the situation. I have come back here to assure you that my intentions are sincere and that you cricket project members would be welcome in the ACS. I will say no more. Thank you again for your time. Music Troy (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this site be used for recruitment purposes by an external organisation? GnGn (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that an aside saying "cricket project members would be welcome in the ACS" can be said to amount to recruitment. It seems harmless to me. JH (talk page) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Noting that there's now an AN/I post about this. I don't expect it will go anywhere, everything in the above seems benign. But figured I'd leave a comment here for the record. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. GnGn (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I used to be a member of the ACS and wrote a couple of so-so quality articles for their journal. Living the nomadic life I live however, meant that keeping the ACS up to date with my current mailing address was a full-time job in itself so I sadly had to let the membership lapse. Of course the incredible work done creating the cricket archive site has meant that research that once took hours upon hours now can be done in minutes so one day I plan to rejoin as a thank you. --Roisterer (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A soldier and a cricketer?

John Lambert (British Army officer) and John Lambert (cricketer) have the same birth/death dates. I can't figure out whether they are the same person, or whether the army officer's dates were inappropriately attributed to the cricketer at some point. Can anyone find a source that confirms that General Lambert was in fact a cricketer as a young man? And then combine the two articles? Brianyoumans (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As both articles say that their respective subjects had the ranks of captain and colonel during their army careers, I think we can be sufficiently confident that they are one and the same to combine their articles, even without any further information. JH (talk page) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, so have moved cricket info to the soldier (which was the fuller article) and redirected where necessary. Johnlp (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A user has stated that none of WikiProject Crickets lists should be FL due to the key

See here. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's nonsense and can be entirely disregarded. It's a purely subjective view and has no bearing on the FL criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Would you mind reviewing the FLC if you have time? - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So the Structure and Style/Visual Appeal sections of the FLC are nonsense are they? Accepting the status quo is also purely subjective. The earth is flat, phones should be connected via wires and music should be played from large round black discs were also once considered the norm. Being so dismissive of a consenting view doesn't do much to help improve things. And no, I'm not going to try to get the lists demoted, I just want them to look better, especially as they breed like rabbits and no-one seems willing to improve on what was first done years ago whenever the first of these lists was featured. The-Pope (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So, to make it clearer, for those who haven't seen these lists, after a few introductory paragraphs, you get this (in most of these "best possible" lists that we have, the Key is actually in its own 2nd level heading section!). To me, that is just a giant roadblock before you get to the actual data. Move it to the side or end, do it via popups, notes or links or something clever (these are meant to be our best possible lists, remember). But to tell me that Date means the Day the game started, before you give me any actual information that I came to the page to see is just ridiculous.

Tests

Johnson fielding during a tour match against Northamptonshire during the 2009 Ashes series.

Key

Symbol	Meaning
Date	Day the Test started or ODI held
Inn	Innings in which five-wicket haul was taken
Overs	Number of overs bowled
Runs	Number of runs conceded
Wkts	Number of wickets taken
Econ	Runs conceded per over
Batsmen	Batsmen whose wickets were taken
Result	Result for the Australia team
♠	Johnson was the man of the match
‡	10 or more wickets taken in the match

Five-wicket hauls in Test cricket by Mitchell Johnson

No.	Date	Ground	Against	Inn	Overs	Runs	Wkts	Econ	Batsmen	Result
1	20 November 2008 ♠	The Gabba, Brisbane	New Zealand	4	17.3	39	5	2.22	Jesse Ryder Daniel Flynn Daniel Vettori Ross Taylor Chris Martin	Won

Surely I'm not alone in wanting information over guidelines? Does Wisden put any notes at the top of it's pages of stats, or are they hidden at the back? Just checked the other sports FLs and it seems everyone puts the key at the top. Staggered by this. Most are much smaller than our box, but can't understand why. The info in the lists isn't that hard to understand that we need to explain everything up front. Why can't we trust the reader to be able to find the explanation IF they need it. I think this discussion probably needs to be wider than just WP:CRIC. I'm going to ask it at WT:MOSLIST. The-Pope (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this, I'm wondering why the key has to be so long – it seems to me you could convey most of the information simply by expanding the header row to say things like "Match date(s)", "Overs bowled", "Runs conceded", etc... that would cut the key down by about half, maybe even leave just the two symbols for man of the match and 10 wicket hauls to be explained in a couple of lines instead of a whole table, which would be much less obtrusive. Richard3120 (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard3120 The problem is that so many WP:CRIC articles need changing. No other list has ever been commented on this way at FLC, and the key on all those articles were considered fine. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 10:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the second time in two days I've seen someone on Wikipedia declare that it's all too hard to change because we've been doing it the one way for so long. (On two entirely different topics.) It saddens me to see Wikipedia reach that stage. It was once the wonderful new thing. Now it's the too hard to change thing. That's sad. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's entirely subjective. That's the whole point. It's a case of hundreds of articles which have been reviewed by hundreds of people and viewed by thousands without issue versus this opinion. We don't have a "back" of our book or encyclopaedia, the key has to go in the article somewhere. Frankly, wherever it goes it makes little difference, it'll still be there. Expanding the header row is a possibility but that would make the columns ungainly wide. As for changing the existing FLs, no, that wouldn't be necessary at all. They are just fine as they are, but can be changed should there be a consensus to do so. Right now I'm just hearing a couple of dissenting voices. Please wind the hysterical screeching down to an audible point, all the declarations of doom and "the end of Wikipedia" are counter-productive. (Also, for what it's worth, please remember FLs must also comply with WP:ACCESS so pop-ups etc are a no-go.) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

if you hadn't been so rudely dismissive in your first reply (It's nonsense and can be entirely disregarded) we could work collaboratively towards improvement, not just a "go away, we've always done it this way" cop out.The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Get a grip. I stated that the claim that all cricket FLs should be demoted was nonsense. That kind of claim should be disregarded out of hand as hyperbolic stupidity. Oh, and remind me where I used your so-called "cop out" clause please, I'll be delighted to see that diff. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rule #1 of Wikipedia disagreements seem to be to ignore 95% of any argument and focus on 5%. Maybe it's the text only nature, maybe it's the delayed process (ie not live), but it happens time and time again. The-Pope (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how that response answers my question. Diff please. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not just about you. The-Pope (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you were mistaken in your claim, I understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My claim was correct. You incorrectly attributed it to yourself, but it was to others. Glad you agree that articles should be improved, and we shouldn't just accept what's been done previously is good enough. As you say on your talk page. "Do not be scared to challenge the status quo. Wikipedia is now old enough to have a clique of "veteran editors" who can't see the wood for the trees and will resist change... We're a dynamic, young, flexible, agile project." The-Pope (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps in future you should use the indentation scheme correctly so we know who "you" is when you respond directly below someone's comment. And yes, I'm happy to accept change, but not on the basis of one stroppy editor who goes into crazy hyperbole at the sight of a larger-than-he-prefers key in a place that he personally doesn't like it. Get over yourself. We work on consensus, not childish outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And again you attack me. Read my original comment in the FLC. The "I would have rejected all of them as feature lists with such an poor article design" was a throw away line at the end of a list of my reasons why I think the default key layout is poor. As per my 95% ignored/5% focus rule, this is what Nick brought here. And what you childishly responded to with your nonsense comment. Which was then transposed back to the FLC as "already strong opposition". Without that nonsense/disregarded comment, none of this would have happened. We might even be talking about improving articles. Excluding you, me and Nick, the 1 of the other comments on this thread seem to agree with my view that the Key is not optimum. The-Pope (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well "attack" is completely histrionic. Tone it down. Subjective screeching about "hating" the layout of an article is completely unnecessary and will doubtless lead to inflammatory discussion. You could have started by saying "Hey, any reason why we couldn't shift the key a bit?" Instead you went off on one and hence you're now reaping what you've sown. Which is a shame. Your "rule" is fascinating but ultimately of no interest or relevance here. The point is that you need to understand how indentation and interaction works. Which, given your experience, I'm mildly surprised you don't. In any case, the "nonsense comment" (sic) wasn't childish, it was fact. My response to a claim that all cricket FLs shouldn't be FLs because of their key format as "nonsense" remains true. You summed it all up perfectly in your own edit summary where you substantiated your position as "Coz I hate it". Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to both sides, can we not focus more on the discussion about the place of keys in our lists and featured lists? Albeit I mostly skimmed all the above replies here, but they all seem to focus on a back and forth between users about each other's civility (which is sometimes warranted, sometimes not) but not about the actual reason that Pope has come here. There's a good fifty lines or more and no yet had much discussion.... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. The first idea would be to provide alternative practical solutions which comply with the standards of FL so that can be assessed (both subjectively and objectively) against the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As this issue doesn't just apply to WP:CRIC, the discussion on what should be the preferred style should be held at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#The_List_Key. The-Pope (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you close this discussion here then. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

David Warner's batting and bowling styles

A user has repeatedly reverted my correction to David Warner's infobox. Warner is, as stated by CricketArchive, ESPNcricinfo, and anyone who watches him play, a left-handed batsman and a leg-break bowler. The infobox currently reads "Left hand bat occasionally right hand bat" and in addition to leg break "Right-arm medium-fast". Warner plays 99.9% of his shots as a left-hander and occasionally plays the switch hit, which played with the right-hand still involves starting the shot as a left-hander, but nonetheless am I alone in thinking the above is rather a ridiculous statement to put in the infobox? As goes for his bowling style, do we not go with the dominant style? Warner bowls mostly leg-break and the user produced an article of a 2-day Ashes tour match where clearly it was a knockabout and he is bowling medium pace (nowhere near medium-fast), then produced a video on YouTube of him bowling medium-pace in a Test. Given Paul Collingwood bowled most of his deliveries as a medium-pacer, but bowled the odd over of off-break (if that's what it could be called) does that mean we'll add "right-arm off break" to his infobox, or even occasional wicket-keeper as he kept once for England several years back following an injury to Prior I think? Or how about Shane Warne who bowled medium-pace for Hampshire in 2006 when he got bored of Lancashire refusing to declare. Shall we also put alongside leg-break "right-arm medium"? I mean it's ridiculous, surely we lead by the dominant style and not some odd occasion where they do something different or have a laugh? Consensus please!!! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Was the switch hit the only evidence given that Warner is "occasionally" right-handed? if so, then surely by that criterion most one-day batsmen these days are ambidextrous? Whatever Warner's bowling style, he has certainly never been medium-fast – as you say, medium at very best. But I think you are correct on both counts. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right on the batting side, and the switch hit is a batting stroke, not a change in batting stance. It's more complex on the bowling side because lots of cricketers over the years have had more than one bowling style (not just Sobers), and may have modified their styles with increasing age (mostly getting slower!), with the condition of the pitch or to suit the needs of the game (different styles for FC and List A cricket, for example). If a player has a predominant style of bowling, then that has to be the main one we record, I'd have thought, but it doesn't stop us from adding something like "(occ. leg-break)" in the infobox after the main style has been set down, if he (or she) does it on occasion. I agree entirely that when someone bowls in a different style as a one-off or a joke, it shouldn't count; similarly when someone substitutes for a wicketkeeper during a match (rather than being selected as the keeper). On a tangential point, Cricketarchive and ESPNcricinfo sometimes have bowling styles for people who don't seem ever to have bowled: I've often wondered how they know. Johnlp (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 2nd XI or club matches or anecdotal evidence. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And the user has added sources now that read "Warner said he had been developing his medium-pace and leg-spin bowling to give captain Michael Clarke an added option when spelling the established bowlers to create even more of a role for himself" and "But Warner kept telling us he was good - batting either left or right handed - and he continued to produce remarkable innings..." so... hmm? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He bats as a left-hander though, always in every innings I have seen him play. The right-handed part is referring to his switch hitting ability I think. It would be interesting to see what % of his deliveries are seamers compared to leg breaks, I think his bowling medium in one Test was doing something different. Those sources don't confirm either of the users statements, so we should go with the general consensus of left-hander and leg-break bowler? I've seen a few wicket-keepers who have never bowled, yet have bowling styles recorded. I agree with SGGH, likely from club matches? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support AA. Warner is a left-handed batsman. The switch hit is only a stroke, not a style. Batting style is defined by the batman's stance as he faces the bowler during delivery, not by any stroke he might choose to make in response to delivery. I don't like infoboxes but the information needs to be brief so for bowling I would say the most usual style should be given (I've seen Warner bowl LB but not sure if he uses other styles so I'll go with the flow on that one). If it is someone like Sobers (h'mmm, no, there is no one like Sobers), then say "left arm multi-faceted" or something like that! Jack | ^{talk page} 17:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Handedness

It would seem that the resident moron has difficulty with this word which is sometimes employed in biographical articles when we don't know a batsman's style. He only needs to use a dictionary to find out what it means and what its origin is, but then he is somewhat daft, isn't he?

I've noticed a few of his inane "messages" posted while I've been offsite, containing the usual lies and infantile imbecility (this by a man who is, I'm told, "about sixty"). He is still banging on about the ACS. Funny, isn't it, but I received a mail while I was on holiday from the ACS secretary who tells me, inter alia, that anything Daft says on here is entirely his own view and nothing whatsoever to do with them. He confirms that Daft is not a member of the ACS. Now isn't it surprising that Daft has been caught telling lies yet again? He will no doubt come on here ranting and raving that I did not receive any such mail so, if those of you who have e-mail contact with me (which is just about everyone; apart from AA – we should rectify that) would like me to forward you a copy of the mail, let me know and I will happily send it to you.

Sorry I've been offsite so long. I went on holiday in August and then got involved in a new business venture which two members of my family are starting. I agreed to help design their website and that's taken all my spare time lately. I should be able to contribute more frequently now. Glad to be back. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I confess I don't like the word "handedness" either much, and of course it's not a constant: lots of players bowl and bat with different hands (I used to do so myself though I was ambisinistrous: equally clumsy with both hands). So I don't like the phrase "unknown handedness" and would prefer "it is not known if he batted or bowled right- or left-handed" which is to my mind clearer. BTW didn't David Gower always claim to be right-handed though he batted left-handed: he reckoned he got more right handed power and control batting "the wrong way round". It was particularly galling when Daft, in what passes for him as wit, added "of unknown handedness" to a biog I wrote. I'm pretty easygoing but I wasn't standing for that. Johnlp (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it's an American word really so I doubt if I would use it. I think I've tended to say "unknown batting hand" or something like that. Even so, it is a bona fide word and no reason why it should not be used. The golfer Phil Mickelson is naturally righthanded in everything he does except his golf and he says he learned to play golf by "mirroring" his dad's swing. I wonder if David Gower did the same? Jack | ^{talk page} 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to be honest I do use the term "unknown handedness" particularly when making articles on the more obscure 1800s cricketers - sorry! :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's wrong or not a word: just that I don't like it much. Please feel free to go on using it if it meets your needs: the variety in the way we approach articles individually is one of WP's charms. But I was also making the point that "handedness" is not a constant except in terms of the activity for which a single hand is used: it would, for example, using the Mickelson example that Jack quotes above, be correct (though silly) to write: "Phil Mickelson is a right-handed golfer who plays golf left-handed." Mickelson is (mostly) right-handed; Mickelson is a golfer; Mickelson plays golf left-handed. ...Enough. ;) Johnlp (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we've had the conversation before that the hand a player uses to bat or bowl is not necessarily their natural hand, so it would be more accurate to write "bats left-handed" rather than "is a left-handed batsman". Richard3120 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Fakhar.9995

User:Fakhar.9995 has made a slew of very slight height changes to a number of player articles(and probably also a couple under an IP address prior to creating the account). I would not be concerned except for the strange rationale s/he has provided in the edit requests made for similar height requests (1, 2), which brought things to my attention in the first place. If I could figure out where the original height figures were coming from, I would deal with this myself but I can't seem to find where they're from. The player profiles in external links and the most likely pages I've glanced through don't give this information. Help would be appreciated. Cannolis (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I Am From Lahore Pakistan, I Have Met Most Of The Pakistani Cricketers Thats The Reason I Am Updating Real Heights Of Players From My Country As They Are Wrong! According To My Experience... I Am New To Wikipedia Didn't Knew How To Message So I Posted Here ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fakhar.9995 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use our own judgment of their height. It has to come from some sort of reliable source, rather than our own experience. Heights have been raised as an issue before, not all sources contain them and many contradict, or seem to have pulled their facts from nowhere. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 ICC World Cricket League Division One (and other possible hoax articles)

Did this take place? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Harrias ^talk 19:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It was never even scheduled to take place. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. And the same for the division eight tournament? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm now a bit concerned by all the articles created by Sunresh. This his is log of new pages created. I stumbled across this article when I was creating this article. I find it hard to believe that two tours that include the same nation, albeit Hong Kong, will overlap in two different countries. Cricinfo confirms the upcoming fixtures for PNG against HK in Australia. The page for Nepal shows no such fixtures coming up. I can't find anything else on Cricinfo about the Sri Lankan tour either. What do other users think? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should remove it TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Re Hong Kong and Nepal in Sri Lanka, the tour seems to be legit, according to these sources [9] [10] (the ACC's website should be pretty trustworthy). It looks like Hong Kong are in Australia from 8–13 November and then flit over to Sri Lanka by 19 November. IgnorantArmies 12:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I would believe that the Division one tournament is hox. No such info is present on the official ICC web site. As far as Nepal v/s HKG in SL is concerned it can still happen since it is advertised heavily on the ACC web-site. Ankur (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2014 (IST)

Thanks everyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Any articles mentioning Division Seven and Eight of the World Cricket League post the 2013 Division Seven tournament can be deleted. Division Six is now the lowest division. The Hong Kong and Nepal visit to Sri Lanka is legit, and the Hong Kong fixtures don't clash with their games v PNG in Australia. More from me on the latter here if you need it. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

For info, I've now listed them all here at AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Cricket notability

Following on from the above discussion, WP:NCRIC states "has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Five status or above since 2007 as a player or umpire" while WP:CRIN states "has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above as a player or umpire". Which should it be - division five or six? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there was a discussion on here last year to expand it to Division Six. It was Division Five when the WCL went down to eight divisions. With there only being six divisions now, it makes sense to just expand it to six divisions rather than have one division not count and all the rest count. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a very similar discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) a few days back. I first raised this under the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Clube. I'm happy to kill that other discussion and move it to here as this seems a better place for it. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'll change the division five reference to division six, unless anyone has any objections. Perry - I think your discussion is something slightly different, but a valid point about explaining what a "major" cricket match is. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough I've been looking for a case like this for a long time. Let's say for the sake of argument that this man is of "borderline notability" for everything non-cricketwise he has achieved in his life. And our response as cricket fans is that he passes notability having made first-class cricketing appearances. Makes applying notability criteria a lot easier for us! Bobo. 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had a few articles I've created taken to AfD because the nominator used the rationale of "he fails to meet X", even though he clearly meets another set of notability criteria. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave the discussion running over on the other page with the idea of updating it in a week or so. I'll make sure any new notability criteria align with the changes here. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bridges (cricketer) page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rohit Sharma

Appreciate a couple of extra eyes on his article now he's broken the ODI score record. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Place of attendance

Seems like there are a lot of confusions regarding the position of mentioning the attendance. Some people prefer to write it below the wiki scorecard and some others prefer to write it below the venue. While all other sports include it under the venue position, I think we should mention this under the venue. Please share your thoughts and let's come to a decision regarding this. Itz arka (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Before agreeing a placement for this, is this snippet of trivia needed at all? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course needed. As I said, every other sport mentions their attendances in their scorecards. So why shouldn't cricket do it? And Wikipedia is about having facts, so this kind of a very less kilo-bites facts will not make the articles unnecessarily lengthy. As I say, cricket has got the pessimists everywhere and that's why this is the most unfortunate sport in the world. Wiki cricket people are reluctant to mention attendances while the football and rugby users are mentioning it in their articles. Itz arka (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for any reason why to not include it is for multi-day matches, as what number is relevant? Each day's attendance (will take up lots of space), the total (will multiple count some people) or the max? Of course any number needs to be reliably referenced. And whichever number or position, please avoid making sweeping accusations and claims of what we are and focus on this issue. It's only a number of a page. It isn't that important. Which game(s) are you interested in? Is there a game results template that you could use and is position fixed in that, or do you want to change the template? The-Pope (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Itz arka: What do you mean, "Of course needed"? Who says? Football and rugby articles record attendances because the attendance figures are commonly noted in the media for those sports. Cricket attendances are rarely recorded. We shouldn't be adding information just because we think it's relevant when most of the media does the opposite. – PeeJay 10:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay So you say that you think that media doesn't pay attention to it. How did you know? You know the recent T20I matches played in Australia against South Africa had some poor attendances but well over 20k, and it made news all over the Aussie media. From Sydney Morning Herald to Herald Sun to Daily Telegraph all went on to search the reason behind it. And that's how it gets media attention. Also ESPN Cricinfo keeps attendances record of some specific tournaments. So here I want to say that if you have that figure for some specific matches, then why not to put it? And for test matches, we can use a separate wikitable format at the end of the article to record those figures. while checking the articles, people may have the curiosity to know how the attendance was. So why can't we provide it being Wikipedia users? Itz arka (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The-PopeOf course not accusation or anything else, but here we can keep attendance records for the World Cup, Big Bash League, IPL (although BCCI don't publish it officially, still if we get any referenced source), popular test tournaments like those in England and Australia. If we can change the template for it, then it's rather good. For multi-day matches, we can use wikitable format at the end of the article to mention the daily and average attendances. If possible, then also we can modify the templates to include it in an organized way. But the worst idea is to simply ignore it unlike anything else! Itz arka (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The only match attendance figure worth noting, is a new record at the MCG on Boxing Day. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not the other figures??? What are the lacks in those? Itz arka (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If we can get figures, and if they're noteworthy, then fine. But as a matter of routine? I don't think it's that important. For some matches, when a Test series has "grabbed the collective imagination", TV viewing figures might be a more pertinent stat. Cricket isn't the same as soccer or rugby: people wander in and out of watching, I've myself several times been to a morning and evening session of a game and missed the afternoon, and in these days of corporate hospitality many of the "spectators" don't seem interested in the cricket at all. If it's noteworthy – a new record at MCG, full house every day – contemporary reports will note it and we can follow. But there's a danger of OR here and it's really not that important in my view. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you that it should not be a matter of routine. But if someone gets and puts the figure on, then there is also no point in deleting it. There have been instances where I have put on the attendance figures but those have been deleted instantly! Doesn't make any sense. Why to delete it as you are not interested when someone who found out the actual figure and put it on previously? That's my point. Itz arka (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

But no WP:OR. Johnlp (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Again you didn't get the point. I didn't mean to say that the person found it out on his own original research. I want to say that if he/she finds out the attendance from any reliable source, then if he/she puts it, then why to delete that??? Itz arka (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you don't get it. OR doesn't just refer to material you have sourced yourself, it also refers to the addition of material that is not routinely presented by reliable sources. Reliable sources do not routinely present cricket attendances, therefore for us to do so would be original research. – PeeJay 22:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that that comment is OR, or possibly location specific. In Australia, crowd figures are regularly reported. The-Pope (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Australian media, but even if that were the case, is it wise to let one nation's practices inform the way we present cricket info on Wikipedia? – PeeJay 10:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not only one nation thing, attendances are also recorded during the cricket world cups every four years. While only BCCI is reluctant to report the attendances. Itz arka (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not one country trying to influence anything, it's just information. If it's reliably sourced, then it's fine. Can't believe this is even being debated. The-Pope (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay it may not be worth debating, but it will be a rather wise decision not to delete any attendance info if someone puts it on from a reliable source. Itz arka (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Centuries

A few months ago, all the cricketers' articles used to have their list of centuries tabulated in them. but for last few months, it's been seen that some of those have been removed suddenly. I was inactive for last few months, that's why I don't know whether any discussion has gone on regarding that. List of centuries has been removed from articles of Virat Kohli, Chris Gayle and some others. Please share your opinions on this. Itz arka (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's because they've been spun out into their own articles, such as List of international cricket centuries by Virat Kohli, so it's not needed in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Gloucestershire CCC players

Unless any have slipped through the net, I believe we now have an article (a stub at least) for everyone who has played in a first-class match for Gloucestershire since the club was formed c.1870. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Irish cricket clubs: notability

Good day. I note from the guidance on the notability of clubs, teams and venues, that "It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure," but that such a view has only be taken thus far in relation to Great Britain and Australia. In relation to Ireland, the de facto position that has evolved is that clubs competing in the top division of each of the three provincial leagues (i.e. the top level of club cricket) are, by definition, notable. This seems reasonable, as clubs at this level invariably employ professionals, and first-class and Test cricketers have emerged through these leagues.

My specific query relates to Cork County Cricket Club, an article about which was previously deleted (see here). The article was deleted on the ground that the club was not playing at the highest level of club cricket in Ireland (namely Division 1), but rather in Division 2. My request arises now because the club has now been promoted to Division 1, and thus the reason for the previous deletion is no longer valid. There are articles for all the other clubs in the top division. I have consulted the deleting administrator, who has directed me here.

Grateful for a consensus view on my proposal to create an article on Cork County. Mooretwin (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My view is you should go ahead: not a problem. Johnlp (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it now passes the notability threshold, so be bold and re-create it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a problem, of course we now also have the Inter-Provincial Championship, which I've heard will be granted first-class status in 2015, not sure if this is true though? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that, if clubs are frequently promoted and relegated between the top two divisions, articles will keep on being created, removed and then created again, which wouldn't make a lot of sense. Can I suggest that, if a club reaches the first division, that should make it notable indefinitely thereafter? JH (talk page) 20:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that is sensible. In effect the notability (for Ireland at least) is that the club "plays or has played" at the top level of provincial club cricket. (This is similar to the criteria for football clubs at WP:FOOTY, which applies to a club that plays or has played in its national cup competition.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To note - I've now created the stub at Cork County Cricket Club. Would there be any objection if I updated the project page to reflect the apparent consensus here as regards notability of Irish cricket clubs, i.e. clubs who play or have played in the top division of the relevant provincial league are considered notable? Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Harrias ^talk 13:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As there appears to be consensus and agreement, I've added the criterion for Irish clubs. Regards Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nepal national cricket team

Can people keep an eye on this (and possibly related pages such as player pages) regarding the first-class status of two matches played by Nepal on their recent tour of Sri Lanka. Nepali media reported that the two three-day matches were first-class, and I've had an e-mail from the Asian Cricket Council stating that the matches were first-class, but both Cricinfo and CricketArchive list them as not being first-class. I say we go with the latter two as they're our main sources. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually this raises an interesting point as your sources are presumably reliable and could be cited as verification that the matches were first-class. I'm always conerned when CricInfo and CricketArchive are taken to be definitive sources because they are both flawed in many respects. CA and CI should not be seen as the arbiters of which matches are or are not first-class if another reliable source disagrees. There are numerous cases where CA or CI go against the views of another source and indeed where they do not record certain matches at all. So, I disagree. I believe we should accept this tour as first-class, subject to the alternative sources being reliable, but perhaps note the views of CA and CI per whichever site policy it is that says we must present a balance. Can I just say, though, that I accept the views of CA and CI on status if there are no other sources that differ. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the Asian Cricket Council have the right to determine what is and what isn't a first-class match or is that the province of the International Cricket Council? CI and CA would presumably (eventually) follow an official ruling in this area and don't determine these things themselves. But they are the main secondary sources that I suppose we ought to take our lead from. Johnlp (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As the match took place in Sri Lanka, the status is the decision of Cricket Sri Lanka. I only e-mailed the ACC when I got no reply from Cricket Sri Lanka. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Further to this - I've received an e-mail from the ACC who have confirmed that Cricket Sri Lanka declined the request to grant the matches first-class status. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems clear enough. Not first-class then... at least until someone changes their mind. Johnlp (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That's good enough. No doubt a change of mind will happen one day. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, Kerry Packer always dreamed of having the WSC Super Tests granted first-class status, and while Cricket Australia was firmly opposed, there was talk that Packer would provide the West Indies Cricket Board (where some Super Tests were played) an offer they couldn't refuse to grant the matches there first-class status (at the least; I'm sure Packer's ultimate aim was for the matches to be granted Test status). With his passing and his heir Jamie showing little interest in cricket, I suppose the matter rests, although it would be nice to think that at some point in the future cricket administrators will recognise that, for example David Hookes's 116 against a rampart West Indian fast bowling attack, should be considered at least as important as his century against a woefully undermanned Sri Lanka a few years later. --Roisterer (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability Criteria

According to Wikipedia:CRIC notability criteria, a player who plays FC or LA cricket is notable, but a player who appears in the U-19 World Cup is not notable. But that kind of a player will be notable as per Wikipedia:GNG. So there's a dispute and confusion. According to media and television coverage, an U-19 WC player is more popular than an FC or LA player because an U-19 WC player gets the coverage both in online and offline media. So do you people think that the guidelines in Wikipedia:CRIC should be modified and the notability for the U-19 WC players be included in that? Itz arka (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. If a particular U-19 player or team passes GNG then the project's criteria are irrelevant. GNG always overrides any project specific criteria; or in other words a project's criteria can never be used to exclude a subject that passes GNG because project criteria can never be stricter than GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming that a player that appears at an U-19 World Cup meets GNG, but I don't think that's automatic. I'm sure some would, but equally sure that many would not. My understanding is that subject-specific notability criteria are supposed to comprise of criteria where one could safely assume a subject would meet GNG. Don't think many U-19 WC players would meet GNG, although some certainly would. So no, I don't think notability criteria should be changed. -- Shudde ^talk 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually after the last U-19 WC, there was a dispute over the existence of the article Aiden Markram in Wikipedia because at that time he hadn't played any FC or LA cricket but was the captain of South African U-19 team and led his team to win the world cup. Also he scored back to back hundreds in that tournament which was a record. A voting was done after that article was nominated for deletion, but most voters voted in favour of keeping the article. So it stayed. Although he played FC and LA cricket later, but if such happens again with other players, then will it be proper idea to have a voting every time? Itz arka (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My view is that Aiden Markram was an exception in that because of the extensive coverage of what he did as a U-19 cricketer he just about qualified under GNG. I see no reason to have a vote every time: in fact, I can think of no other U-19 cricketer that has had such coverage. The WP:CRIN line is clear-cut: FC or List A is above that line; U-19 is below it. GNG can confer notability through the extent of coverage whether or not a player qualifies under CRIN: I argued in the Markram vote that his notability rested (at that stage) on GNG and I considered then (and now) that he did not at that point qualify under CRIN. A. E. J. Collins is in my view a similar case. Johnlp (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Collins is the classic case in point because of his remarkable achievement in a schools match which received wide publicity at the time and is mentioned in numerous books. The definition of notability we use in CRIN was agreed several years ago after a prolonged discussion and, though it has been subject to minor amendments subsequently, there has always been a clear consensus that anyone taking part in major cricket is notable while others such as writers, scorers, administrators and minor players must have their notability explained and verified. I really don't think an under-19 tournament can be classified as major cricket. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG is key. If they initially fail to meet WP:NCRIC, then each article should be looked at to see if they pass WP:GNG. If in doubt, make the project aware of the discussion/article to help decide its future. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Collins (who died on 11 November 1914; lest we forget) would it be possible for someone to undelete File:AEJ Collins.jpg and File:Aejcollins.jpg, and put them back in the article? They must be PD by virtue of age, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.205 (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Category for discussion

Category:Cricketers who died while playing has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Category has been reverted to its former name. We've just dealt with a crass piece of insensitivity, IMO. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes

I have updated the Phillip Hughes BLP re his being taken to hospital in "critical condition" after being "knocked out" by a bouncer at the SCG today. [11] May need a few watchers to prevent him being prematurely declared dead by trolls.--220 of ^Borg 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The incident is disturbing to say the least and I'm sure all genuine CRIC members are hoping for good news about Phil Hughes. I don't think players duck as much now as in the past because generally the ball striking the helmet does no harm, but one thing that must come out of this is an inquiry into overall helmet safety, especially the back of the helmet. As for the article, I've added it to my watchlist and I agree several of us should do the same. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @BlackJack:. A few dopes misguided IP editors did declare Hughes dead in the next <2.5 hours after I updated his page, see [12] and [13]. Though the first one was pretty quickly removed by another IP editor! [14], and the next mostly by another new editor. [15] I also notified on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and the page was then semi-protected. The point about the helmet, I removed some details about that because the media reports seem to vary about exactly where it hit. Some said at the back as you note, beneath the helmet; others said the side IIRC. The event was also on the Sean Abbott and Bouncer (cricket) pages, so they may need to be watched particularly for premature 'death' announcements! (Just saw it was removed from Abbott's page about 10.5 hours ago. [16]) I must admit I'm actually not much into cricket. :-| --220 of ^Borg 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be a nice tribute from WP:CRIC if a competent editor could get his up to GA or better. Just a thought! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Shocked. I knew a guy who knew Phil. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone living in a cricket-playing nation could take a picture of those bats that people leave out as a tribute? It could be used to illustrate the article I guess... OrangeKnight (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And now former Israel captain Hillel Awasker.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.229.251 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell! Cited report says he died today after being struck by a ball when officiating (which must mean umpiring) but doesn't say if he was at the stumps or at square leg. Has anyone got any other sources? Jack | ^{talk page} 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This adds some more. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrew nixon has written this article on yet another sad day for the cricket world. The-Pope (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been the darkest week in cricket that I have known in my 24 years. Today (30th Nov) would have been Phil Hughes' 26th birthday, so happy birthday Little Don. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh T20I lists

I found this category and it's mainly full of articles for Bangladesh against every country they've played a T20I against. Does one entry make a list? Anyone have any objections if they were merged into one all encompassing article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem until the merged single article doesn't become too much long to read. Itz arka (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need lists of matches? We're not Cricinfo... PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need any cricket biography article? We're not Cricinfo... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Parent categories and sub-categories

Please take a look at this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitchell Johnson (cricketer) to Mitchell Johnson?

I think it'd be best to move "Mitchell Johnson (cricketer)" to "Mitchell Johnson". The other Mitchell Johnsons are largely unknown personalities ("Mitchell Johnson (painter)" has less than 10 views per day, "Mitchell Johnson (murderer)" is a redirect) A separate disambig page "Mitchell Johnson (disambiguation)" can be created to list the other Mitchell Johnsons. 117.216.147.162 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Park

The usage of Stanley Park is under discussion, see Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) ツStacey (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 27, 2014

I need some help here ... Bencherlite wrote it and I'm trying to copyedit it, but cricket banter is beyond me. "When it was Bradman's turns to bat"? (Whenever it was Bradman's turn to bat?) What does "the Australian pace attack ... dismissed England within the first day for just 52" mean? "bowled second ball"? "fixtures"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"When it was Bradman's turns to bat" looks like a typo. I think it should be "When it was Bradman's turn to bat". Regarding your other queries, like baseball cricket has a lot of jargon of its own, which those who have ever followed the game are familiar with but which can be confusing to outsiders. In a lot of cases, it is hard to avoid using these terms without being extremely verbose, but some such as bowled have their own Wikipedia articles to which the first usage in the article could be linked. "the Australian pace attack ... dismissed England within the first day for just 52" - the fast bowlers in the Australian team took all the England team's ten wickets within the first day of the match, England managing a total of only 52 runs. "bowled second ball" - the second ball that the batsman received hit his wicket so he was out. "fixture" is just a synonym for "match", in common use for all sports in at least the UK. I think it's probably unrealistic to expect someone wholly unfamiliar with cricket to totally understand such an article, any more than I would expect someone totally unfamiliar with baseball to fully understand the Wikipedia article on Babe Ruth or someone who knew nothing of atomic physics to wholly understand an article on quantum mechanics. But someone wholly unfamiliar with cricket is surely unlikely to want to read the article anyway. The article on cricket itself is the one that needs to make every effort to explain all its terms to those totally unfamiliar with the game JH (talk page) 08:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood that people won't understand, but your wording makes it more likely people will make the effort to understand, I think. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

One more thing ... we'll probably get people changing "an innings" to "an inning" on Main Page day, no matter what we do. It's not just that many readers won't know that "innings" is singular in meaning, it's that even if they know that, the "an" will still sound wrong. Is there any other word that would work, such as "inning"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Inning" is completely wrong in cricket; "an innings" is the only correct term here. Bencherlite^Talk 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame (but helpful, I have to know this stuff cold now). Divided by a common language and all that. Is everything else okay now? - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Brian may well know a bit of cricket-related stuff, otherwise there are plenty of people who do. I've made a couple of minor tweaks but I think it looks good. Mind you, I've been a cricket fan since I was a nipper, so I'm not the best person to tell whether it is appropriately worded for a non-expert. (The reverse of the situation that would arise when I wrote American football or ice hockey blurbs!) Bencherlite^Talk 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks. I want the stuff to sound completely natural to you guys. I've been interested in sports (off and on) since I put myself through college tutoring the athletic teams, and some weeks I read more BrEng than AmEng ... but I never got around to reading British sports pages, and I'm paying the price for that now. I'll run sports stuff by Brian, and I'll keep coming back here for cricket questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

One thought inspired by the above discussion: the article should probably have a "use British English" template at the start. It probably won't stop people trying to be helpful and "correcting" "innings" to "inning", but it might make it a little less likely. JH (talk page) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 ACC Championship and ACC Championship at AfD

Hi. I've nominated both articles for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dilscoop/Marillier shot/Paddle sweep

This may have been brought up before (several times) but I'm still wondering: Why do we have Marillier shot and Dilscoop? The former even has the latter's name in it's first few lines? Merge? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never heard it called the Marillier shot (here in the UK), so a redirect from that name to "Dilscoop" would seem to be the best solution, with the Dilscoop article to include the info on how Marillier was the first to play it. JH (talk page) 10:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would have Paddle scoop as the main article, and include the Marillier shot and Dilscoop as variations of it, but that's just my preference, as I think "paddle scoop" is the most descriptive title, and gives a better idea of what sort of shots they are. Just my tuppenny worth. Harrias ^talk 16:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with Harrias on that, paddle scoop seems to the most sensible, neutral term compared to dilscoop, and far more prevalent than marillier shot. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles Buller

Hi all. I got a couple of links confused on my page.

• Charles Buller (cricketer, born 1892), played for Northamptonshire (CA link)
• Charles Buller (cricketer, born 1846), played for Middlesex, among others (CA link)
• Charles Buller (cricketer) will need un-redirecting

If anyone has a minute to sort these out and/or fix the links, can someone please do so - perhaps setting up the 1846 player might help?

Thanks in advance. Bobo. 11:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've turned the redirect into a disambiguation and fixed the one link to it from Charles Buller, and created a super stub for the 1846 player. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cricket in Australia

I notice this morning that our colleague User:Lugnuts has added an entry into the "Cricket in Australia" template, namely John the bookmaker controversy.

I can see the interest in a subject such as this but I'm wondering if it might be better to incorporate this into a higher level piece, such as "Controversies in Australian cricket". Such an article would include the bookmaker article plus details of such topics as: Bodyline, match-fixing, cricketers called for throwing, Test team walk-offs, "monkeygate" etc.

Any thoughts? Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Perry. Always good to see a cricket article (esp. a FA) on the front page, and I thought it would fit nicely within the broad remit of the template. The article is in the categories of Australian cricket in the 20th century and Controversies in Australia too. So I was bold and added the article to the template! Yes, if there is a higher level template, then that would be good too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge University rowers who happened to row in the Boat Race

Hello all. Some of you may be aware that I'm endeavouring to get as many Boat Race annual race report articles to good (or featured!) article status (I have two FAs so far 2012 and 1993 for two examples of what I'm trying to churn out). Recently I've been focused on the mid-to-late 19th century races and it's become apparent that several rowers who don't appear to have articles, actually do have articles because they're cricketers who have played First Class cricket.

To cut a long story short, if anyone comes across, or knows of any articles about cricketers who happened to have rowed in the Boat Race but aren't categorised using Category:Oxford University Boat Club rowers or Category:Cambridge University Boat Club rowers, could you drop me a line, or better still, add the cat and link the relevant articles? Thanks all! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Park Blackpool

Hello, I am a complete idiot when it comes to Cricket so I thought I would call on the experts to help me out. I have re-written the Stanley Park, Blackpool#Cricket Ground and the Blackpool Cricket Club articles and would appreciate any review of the information to ensure I haven't made any obvious errors. Any advice is much appreciated :) ツStacey (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've created discussions for merge of Nepal cricket related articles here and here. Please consider providing your opinion in the talk pages of the articles. Thank you, Cricshady (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Big Bash League cricketers

If someone plays in only one BBL match, do they meet the notability requirements? The List A article suggests not. Ben Dwarshuis, for example, made his BBL debut yesterday, and that's the only game he's been in. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've thought about this for some time, and I would say the player is definitely notable. It's obviously not a List A match, but I would say it's more significant and notable. Here in Australia, at least (but I expect in every other country as well), BBL matches get much more coverage than List A matches. I think we need to adjust the notability requirements - perhaps to include "highest national level T20 matches," or something like that. In any case, I used either WP:GNG or WP:IAR when I created the Pat Cummins article after he'd only played Big Bash games. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anselm. Yes, I think these players are notable too, along with the other top-tier T20 matches (IPL, T20 in England and the West Indies too). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, without a doubt they are notable. WP:CRIN states that playing in "Major domestic limited overs competitions include all List A matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc." bestows notability. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks Harrias. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Crocodile gloves"?

Hi all,
On the TV commentary of the second Test Au v Ind today, Ian Healy (I think) described the way M S Dhoni caught Mitchell Johnson as "crocodile gloves", but said his keeping was otherwise so good it didn't matter. The way he caught the ball was with his gloves held horizontally, with one hand above the other hand, instead of the usual way to catch. I've never heard the expression before (but, there are a lot of things I don't know). Was this just something the commentator made up on the spot, referring to the way it looked like a crocodile opening and shutting its mouth? Or is this a term regularly used - and Heals knows a thing or two about wicket-keeping - in coaching keeping techniques?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was Ian Healy JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it was how I was taught not to catch a ball when I was a kid - though I think the term was "alligator". But crocodile catch seems the preferred term. StAnselm (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard that exact term used, but I also was taught as a kid to never catch "like a crocodile". High risk of breaking fingers if you close the croc's mouth too soon. The-Pope (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not heard it before. Johnlp (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nor me. Maybe it's used only in Australia. JH (talk page) 18:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm in Australia, and as I said, it isn't a commonly used term, but is a commonly used concept. I think it was probably just a Healy neologism, <neologism portmanteau>a Healologism?</neologism portmanteau> The-Pope (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a term used commonly enough at my club ten years ago. Crocodile hands were not restricted to keepers either, and actively discouraged as you're much more likely to fumble the ball like that. Not much Australian influence in northern England! Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting audio files

• 17 year old Adam Gilchrist BBC interview in 1989

Ummm.....video has been on YouTube for the last 5 years [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.24.238 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• First Sachin interview 1989
• Tony Greg (RIP), Classic Interview with Brian Lara 1992

Enjoy. Moondyne (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Gold! TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability of international tours

The discussion at this AfD raised an interesting point about the notability of individual cricket tours (of ones that actually happened). Maybe I'm missing the bit of the cricket notability guidance, but I can't see anything about tours, as its focus is about individuals. Has this been addressed elsewhere? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of covered in the criterion that teams that take part in major (FC, ListA, T20) games are notable: the articles are nominally about the "Foo-land cricket team in Fum-land in 20xx-yy", because the team has FC etc status and doesn't exist, as a collection of individuals, outside the confines of that tour. I agree that if a tour doesn't take place and a team isn't selected, there shouldn't be an article. A grey area might be if a team is selected but the tour doesn't then take place: eg English cricket team in India in 1939–40, where the side was picked but the Second World War intervened. Johnlp (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers John. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

South African cricket team in England in 1970 would deserve to be created as well, wouldn't it? OrangeKnight (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not as such, no, because the side was, IIRC, never selected and the tour did not take place. It is covered in part in the articles on the history of South African cricket and the earlier D'Oliveira affair. There may be a case for an article on the cancelled tour and the reasons behind cancellation, but it shouldn't be under this name, because this name implies it is part of the series on tours that did take place. There is already an article on Sporting boycott of South Africa during the Apartheid era which outlines some of the wider points. Johnlp (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of categories for various cricket teams

I just discovered that someone has proposed a mass renaming of categories for cricket teams. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 27#Cricket players by team

I'm not sure what I think about this. The proposed new names seem rather unwieldy. and I don't think that confusion is very likely with the existing names. JH (talk page) 21:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

English first-class teams list + status of 2015 Irish domestic league

I'm not very active these days, so I'm mostly creating the odd article on some obscure first-class cricketer! Back in the summer I made this time consuming list listing all teams which have played first-class cricket in England, with number of matches played, won/loss/drawn, win % ect. As I'm not that active, if anybody wants to play about with it and possibly make an article of it, please feel free to do so!

Secondly, I've heard rumours that the Inter-Provincial Championship will be afforded first-class status in 2015? Has anybody heard similar? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Younus Khan page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Bash League Derbies

Last year the two articles Melbourne Derby and Sydney Derby were deleted because it was said that the term 'derby' was not widely mentioned in the media and the intensity of these derbies were not upto the level to include it. But at this mid way of the BBL04 season, all these derby matches are getting 30,000+ attendances, high TV ratings and a lot of media attentions with the mention of term 'derby' in its articles. So can there be a re-think whether these two articles can be created again or not? Itz arka (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FLC

Hi guys, I would be great to great some more reviewers at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket/archive1. One point of discussion that needs resolving is whether to include to a innings columns in these types of lists. Any and all feedback is welcomed. Kind Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How to gain a consensus??

How to gain a consensus here over any cricketing matter?? Itz arka (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just outline your proposal and anyone interested will support or oppose it. If no one is interested, then go ahead per WP:BOLD. I'm intrigued. :-) Jack | ^{talk page} 14:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested photos for cricket grounds

I've started building a list here of venues which have held major international/domestic matches, but are missing a photo of the venue. As we're mostly an Anglo-Aussie project, I doubt many of the missing ones outside of Aus/England will ever get pictures! If anyone lives locally to any of the requested venues, a picture would be most excellent! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion: tag the talk pages with {{Image requested|date=January 2015|cricket}} and you'll have a management category at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cricket to work with. Moondyne (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get out and finish off the Somerset ones this summer, although we'll see what the weather has to say about that, as I prefer doing it when there is actually cricket to watch! Harrias ^talk 23:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Cricket grounds have much more beauty to them with a blue sky for company. Bramshill House still needs a picture, and as far as I'm aware it's for sale! So if anyone has £20 million spare, a picture would be great! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The List of cricket grounds in South Africa page is a sea of red, many first class venues don't even have articles yet, nevermind photos. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

1999 Cricket World Cup

Anyone know why one match was played in the Netherlands? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they were the co-host along with England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. That's why. Itz arka (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I know they co-hosted it, albeit for one match, but I was wondering why they had that token game there. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? I guess it's like the Tour de France – it visits various countries outside France every year, like the UK last summer, which gives fans the chance to see a major sporting event on their doorstep and it's good publicity for generating interest in it at home. Richard3120 (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wanderers in Johannesburg, the highest international stadium?

Various commentators have mentioned the altitude as a factor in the high scores achieved at the Wanderers in the context of the current SA-WI ODI match. Is it the highest cricket ground regularly used for international matches? Is altitude really such a significant factor? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

According to this baseball article, drag forces are basically proportional to air density, and at 1730m, 25 deg and 40% humidity, the air is almost 20% less dense then those same conditions at sea level. Cold air is more dense than warm air, so that might also explain the extra swing you get in England compared to hotter climates. The way AB batted today, no ground or conditions would have stopped him. A truly staggering performance. The-Pope (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazing stuff... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this venue is the highest that's held an international match. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

At 1753m the Wanderers Stadium is actually almost 300m higher than Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association Stadium at 1457m. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the stadium in Kashmir? Two international matches were hosted there back in the 1980s, one against the Windies and the other against Australia. Kashmiris raised slogans against Team India and that's why no further match was held there after that. Itz arka (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Which stadium in Kashmir, do we have an article about it? BTW in my original question I did say "regularly used" to exclude once off venues or venues that no longer exist or stopped hosting internationals years ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is being used for first class games since 2009. Beforehand, it wasn't used for security concerns. Look at this article Sher-i-Kashmir Stadium. Well the elevation of Srinagar is 1585 meters, so it is lower than Jo'burg but higher than Dharamsala. And it is also listed among the ODI venues in India. Itz arka (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Graphs/Requests

We have a banner at the top of this page, pointing to the Project page I've linked in the header. There are two "active users" listed there who're doing these charts. Neither have edited for a fairly long time. I'll ping them both. If the (very helpful) Requests page is defunct, we should archive it until such time as someone wants to resuscitate it. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)