Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers

I also came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers the other day, which appears to be a very elderly and incomplete list that was compiled when the world was young and we didn't have other lists. Candidate for retirement, perhaps? Johnlp (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me giving this its own section? I think that should be deleted. Better served by Categories, IMHO, or less ambitious individual articles. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I've PROD'd it. Johnlp (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well, simply PROD'ding these things isn't that simple. It's now been moved to: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket.2FList_of_cricketers. I wish I understood these things more: actually, no, I don't wish that, though it's probably good that there are others that do. Johnlp (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some cricket categories at CfD

Relating to gender by town. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

List of ODI Cricket Dubble Centuries

Dubble? PRODed as this page covers "dubble" centuries. Amusing nonetheless. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it, there was no need to wait the ten days, as it exclusively duplicated existing content. Harrias ^talk 08:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Occasional wicket-keepers"?

Hi all,

The reason I love cricket is neatly summed up by some commentary (I can't remember when, but it was most definitely by an English commentator in some recent Ashes series or other) along the lines of

" [bowler] bowls a delivery fuller than a good length and [batsman] nudges it out to mid-off, they run through for a single to bring up his fifty, which is politely applauded by a man dressed as a banana."

I've boldly added a Occasional wicket-keepers to the Wicket-keeper article. Good? Bad? Something else? What do you think?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. Johnlp (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point. There have been innumerable players who have temporarily gone behind the stumps either for part or all of a game and many of these have been recognised as "stand-ins" when necessary. I think I recall reading that WG once stood in for Lyttelton in a Test and took a catch off the first delivery he faced: is that right, anyone? Jack | ^{talk page} 13:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

W.E. Midwinter, caught Grace bowled Lyttelton 30: England v Australia, third Test, 1884. Australia were 532 for 6 when Lord Harris put Lyttelton on to bowl: all 11 England players bowled. Lyttelton had bowled earlier in the innings, unsuccessfully, but at that point Walter Read had kept wicket. Johnlp (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good & it makes sense cause the viewers will be able to differentiate the regular keepers (e.g. De Kock) and the occasional keepers (e.g. De Villers). Itz arka (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would describe AB as a wicket-keeper, not an occasional wicket-keeper, but that is beside the point I guess! Harrias ^talk 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So WG not only kidnapped Mid, he caught him out too? :-) Jack | ^{talk page} 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No Australian batsman caught by a very fat man off the bowling of a wicketkeeper would have been allowed back into Australia anyway. Johnlp (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here he is in 1885. Only mildly padded-up?

That's OK, because he wasn't that tubby yet in 1884. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Earliest cricket in Australia?

Something I should really have raised on here previously, so apologies for not doing so.

Before Christmas, I was contacted by three cricket lovers who wanted to ask me if I have heard anything about an Australian diary entry from the 1790s which mentions cricket in what is now the Sydney area. The first definite mention is dated December 1803 so a 1790s date would be a significant find, given that colonisation began only in 1787. Neither I nor any of my contacts have found anything more and my belief is that it is a hoax that has gone around the world. I'm afraid I can't give any sources as my contacts have themselves had only word of mouth on the matter from other people.

An unfounded rumour it probably is, but has anyone here heard anything about it? Jack | ^{talk page} 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. For the past few days, I have been busy reading the history of Australia and New Zealand. I have been through some sources where it is stated that the earliest cricket recorded in Australia was probably played around 1820s or 1830s. I am quite sure that the introduction of cricket happened there even 10 or 20 years before (although not recorded anywhere), but certainly not in the 1790s because if you go through the history, the colonization started in 1788 with British convicts and for the first few years they had to encounter the harsh and unknown weather and environment coz they had to build up a suitable and livable place first. After 10 years from then, the convicts did some sort of revolts against the admins who used to reduce their liberty by making some colonial laws. So I am afraid that they would certainly not prefer to play cricket in such conditions. So it must have had started around 1810s. And about New Zealand, Charles Darwin wrote in his diary that he watched some guys play cricket in the North Island around 1820s or 1830s. Itz arka (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sydney Gazette was founded in 1803 and it reports on 8 January 1804 that cricket was played in Sydney Town (actually where Hyde Park is now sited) by the officers and crew of HMS Calcutta. The wording indicates that the game was well established in the colony. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability for women cricketers

What's the notability criteria for a woman cricketer? Is it the same as the men's where they are notable if they have played FC or LA? Or is it that the women have to play international matches to become notable? Itz arka (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In theory it is the same, but in practice not many female cricketers that haven't played international cricket would meet the WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can a woman cricketer be considered notable if she has played only 2 or 3 List A matches in her own country? Itz arka (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There's no difference for women to men, as long as the match has been graded as List A/First Class, their biographies will be fine. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

V. V. S. Laxman

An interesting but minor issue over WP:V at this page has brought the wider text to my attention. If anyone fancies going on a copyedit cruise, they'll find a mass of POV and PEACOCK there. And probably OR too. --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"He plays with a high elbow and a steady stance and a textbook technique with natural elegance and flair". I see what you mean. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd love some help at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Repost:_V.V.S._Laxman Thanks --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how an alleged conversation can be used to remove a claim cited by WP:V. Hope my comment at the forum is useful and let me know if I can assist further. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I'm hoping to get a few more comments before I take things back to the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Viv Richards

Another article that is loaded with PEACOCK, POV and OR. I'm going to hack a bit of it away. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sir Viv is on my long-term list of articles to completely overhaul, but I'm not likely to do it any time soon. Hack away! Harrias ^talk 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50

I'm fairly sure that in the past, a similar template prompted a discussion about whether or not to include current players, with the decision taken to omit them, as misleading because many batsmen suffer a decline in average toward the end of their careers. Any views? --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 72#Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 is what you are thinking of. For the reasons given there, I think the problem is that if you remove all of the current players, some who deserve to be there would be cut (take Sangakkara or Chanderpaul as an example). But the presence of Steve Smith, Joe Root, etc. does give it a "recentism" issue. Harrias ^talk 16:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work. The template looks very bloated and makes it seem like it's a mundane achievement. Which it ain't. --Dweller (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Viv's early mentor?

"Richards initially practiced with his father and Pat Evanson, a neighbour and family friend, who had captained the Antigua cricket side".

According to Cricinfo/Cricket Archive, Patrick Evanson played a single f-c, a match for the Leeward Islands, and didn't captain them either. Is this a junk claim or mangled or what? --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Viv reckoned it was true, from his autobiog: "Mr Evanson was once captain as well as wicket keeper for Antigua." Harrias ^talk 17:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It would make sense, given Antigua is one of the islands in the Leeward Islands: a good Antigua player might only get one change for the Leeward Islands... Harrias ^talk 17:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

He neither captained nor kept wicket for the Leewards. I wonder if it was for an age defined team or sub f-c quality match[es]? --Dweller (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything implausible in this: don't forget that Leeward Islands had barely played any first-class cricket until the time Viv was in England under Mr Creed's tutelage, and Antigua is just part of the Leeward Islands anyway. Johnlp (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely sub first-class. His father played for them too. Harrias ^talk 17:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanford Superstars template

Expert input requested at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_10#Template:Stanford_Superstars_squad. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Runs/Wickets or Wickets/Runs Discussion

Please could someone direct me to the archive discussion which says that scores should be listed as Runs/Wickets (e.g. 300/3), except in Australia, where it should be recorded as Wickets/Runs (3/300)? I've seen a discussion where this was the consensus, but cannot find it now. I need it for Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup. Thank you in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in the style guide. WP:CRIC#STYLE. Harrias ^talk 12:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And I already put the link in the discussion page you linked to. – PeeJay 12:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus needed on Attendances

Closed Duplicate Discussion (Discussion still ongoing above)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This talk started on Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup, and I've copied the text from there to underneath.

After some reversions about whether or not to add attendances, I've decided to create this section to try to achieve consensus on the issue. The argument is: Should attendances should be added to the page, if there is a reliable source quoting the attendance?
My personal opinion is yes, since they add information about the topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't something that can be decided on one page alone, we need to stimulate the discussion at WT:CRIC. – PeeJay 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I still cant see the problem behind, see all the articles including Big Bash League, Ashes etc. Come on, there's no problem in making an article more informative. Why does it even matter to people whether attendance figures are included or not? It just depends whether they are properly sourced or not. Atleast 15 friends asked me about the India vs Australia warm-up attendance. When I told them to visit Wikipedia, they said that it does not have that information, really surprising when all other major cricket sites including Cricinfo have it. Karyasuman (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2015 (IST)

The attendance you added obviously came from somewhere. Perhaps you should have told your friends to look there. Furthermore, proper sourcing is not the only requirement for adding info; just because adding something does no harm doesn't mean it's editorially valuable. – PeeJay 15:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:England Test cricket centurions

I noticed this cat, along with cats for the other Test playing nations the other day. Now I'm far from a deletion monkey, but are these needed? From Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics, "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". I'm not saying that scoring a century isn't notable, but is it something to categorise an article by? Do people really think of Geraint Jones and think - "oh yes, that player who score a century in Test cricket for England!" (no disrepect to Mr Jones, he is a fine player). Why not cats for double and triple tons? Or for every bowler that's ever taken 5 wickets? Or 10 wickets? Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say it's one of those categories that were created in heat of the moment enthusiasm and, in the cold light of day, can be seen to add no value whatsoever. You are the cold light of day and you are right. Delete it. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

International cricket in xx page moves

For info, Kwamikagami took it upon themselves to move all the International cricket in yyyy–yyyy to International cricket in yyyy/yyyy, for example International cricket in 2003–04 to International cricket in 2003/2004, using the bizarre rationale "one year, not two". I think I've moved them all back, but something to possibly keep an eye on. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2003–2004 means it lasted two years. A single season that occurred across those two years would be 2003/2004. That's standard English punctuation. You said on my talk page that "there's a reason" why the articles are at yyyy–yyyy, and that I should check this page for that reason. Could you provide that reason here? — kwami (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of style states "Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06). The slash notation (2005/06) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources." I don't see any specific reason that we should stray from the standard notation, and we certainly shouldn't do it without gaining a strong consensus here (which isn't easy, as you can see above) or more likely, a WP:RfC. Harrias ^talk 18:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. Another example would be 2014–15 FA Cup, and not 2014/15 FA Cup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware the MOS had changed. — kwami (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup group stage match reports/merge proposal

Please see this discussion on the CWC talkpage regading merging the 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B articles into the main article. Either a few more match reports can be added to the group stage articles, or they'll be merged back into the main page. Any help in creating a match report, even if it's only a paragraph or two per game, would be most welcomed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Do England deserve even a paragraph? :-( Jack | ^{talk page} 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jack, I'd be quite happy for all content regarding the game against New Zealand to be deleted and never mentioned again. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attendances

I already raised this issue a few months ago here, probably that has been archived after that. Some people said that they couldn't believe that this silly topic was raised and being discussed here. But some other said that if those were sourced then those could be mentioned in the scorecards below the venue. Now as we have seen that attendance is playing a major part in modern day cricket, so I think attendances should be mentioned in the scorecards below the venue, if available. I added the attendances in the article of 'South African cricket team in Australia in 2014-15' but user Lugnuts removed them and told me to raise the issue here and then to add if people agree with it. In recent times, we have seen Ashes test attracting record crowds, even a Big Bash League game at the Adelaide Oval attracted 52,633 people which broke even the AFL records at the re-developed Adelaide Oval. The crowd attendances in cricket is now one of the most important talking points in media too. So why to remove those if someone adds them? I think it is the time to leave these orthodoxies and we should add the attendances like the other sport articles do in Wikipedia. Itz arka (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection if the figure is known and there is a reliable source for it. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too keen, since it's only really relevant to one-day games (inc. Twenty20), but if it's what the community wants, I'll say it absolutely has to be cited to a reliable source. But my first condition is that it has to be supported by consensus. – PeeJay 13:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And no approximate figures or rounded up numbers. Has to be a precise total. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. If all we have is "around 15,000 spectators", you can't put that in the box. – PeeJay 13:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course that round up numbers shouldn't be added. In fact in cricket matches in Australia, CA keeps the record of the attendances. The respective stadiums post their respective attendances in twitter after every match. Whatever, we can't put a link of twitter though. So we also have a reliable source of austadiums.com where the records of attendances of all the games played in Australia are kept, be it cricket, AFL, NRL, soccer, tennis or baseball. So I think as there are sources available, so we can add it. Itz arka (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see what harm it can do as long as it is reliably sources. Harrias ^talk 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So 3 people are supporting and one is partially supporting. Now can we get to a conclusion that it can be added if sourced? Itz arka (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion that has only been up for seven hours constitutes a consensus. Give it a couple of days at least. And even then, can we at least add a parameter to {{Single-innings cricket match}}? – PeeJay 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think adding it as an optional parameter in the match templates is the logical way to go. It should be pretty simple. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If an extra parameter "Attendance" can be added to the template, then it's okay I guess. Although we currently use the '< br >' to add it below the venue, but fixing it as an extra parameter would be a great idea I guess for limited overs' cricket. Itz arka (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So can we assume that we can add them? User:Lugnuts can I revert those edits on the article of 'South African cricket team in Australia in 2014-15'??? I hope that from now on no one will remove the figures. Itz arka (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for the idea. It's got nothing to do with the outcome or notability of the match. More than happy for it to appear in body copy. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Still more people have no problem in having these stats as I said that other sport articles also provide them. No harm done. Itz arka (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Dweller. This is trivial to the extreme. No-one cares how many people saw AB's 149 from 44 balls, or how many attended a certain day of a certain Test. Just because football games have this info doesn't mean we have to dumb down to that level. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your rudeness is just useless here. What do you mean by 'dumb down'?? Adding attendances in cricket or football articles means dumbing down to some lower level? Not only football, even AFL, NFL, Rugby all use to do that, except us because we have some orthodox users who just want to dumb down wikipedia by deleting facts randomly. And yes, people cared about how many persons watched AB's 149. If there were only 100 people in the ground, the TV ratings would be down too. The fact that IPL and BBL have become this much popular domestic leagues is because of the high attendances. And that's what differentiates these two leagues from HRV Cup or Twenty20 Cup. Please get right on your logic. Itz arka (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You've just proved my point by trying to get Test and ODI cricket in the same league as IPL and BBL. "If there were only 100 people in the ground, the TV ratings would be down too" - no WP:OR please. The only real attendance record that matters in cricket is Boxing Day in Melbourne. The rest isn't needed. Ever. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"The only real attendance record that matters in cricket is Boxing Day in Melbourne. The rest isn't needed. Ever." Well this is your view and it seems like that you think that whatever verdict you give is the ultimate one! And treating Test and ODI superior than T20 is only an orthodox idea, but Wikipedia guidelines don't think in that way. Itz arka (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia it is written that cricket pages except 'Boxing Day tests' can not add 'Attendances'. Itz arka (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere is it written that any page should include attendance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, if attendances at the ground were reflected in TV audiences, there'd be pretty much no televised coverage of county cricket. For that matter, there'd be no televised coverage of Test cricket from most countries. Sadly. But there is. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dweller well you are not fully correct. If that was the case, then county test matches and the Sheffield Shield would also be televised in India too. But they only televise the BBL and T20 Cup. So certainly the crowd and viewer interests matter. Itz arka (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If the size of the crowd mattered, county cricket wouldn't be televised by anybody. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the attendance is only notable when it's, er, notable: a record crowd, for instance, or if the crowd intervenes in some way. Not as a matter of routine. And I don't think attendance figures are routinely collected or published anyway. At rather a lot of Test matches and other important games in the UK these days, the joys of corporate hospitality mean that there are often more people there for the freebie lunch than for the cricket. Johnlp (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that they dont get published in the UK. But they are traditionally published in Australia. So why can't we add those figures for the matches being played in Australia? Itz arka (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they're not important/notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Itz, I admire your passion, but the voice of consensus is speaking. And sometimes (often, in my case) you have to shake your head and accept that everyone else has got it wrong, but that's just the way it needs to be. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Still the consensus is not over. four people said they have no problem with attendances while three people said they have a huge lot of problems. Itz arka (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, but IMO, any attendance figure that is reliably sourced can and should be added. Bizarre that there is any opposition to adding reliably sourced information. The-Pope (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TLDR recap: in the scorecard or in the text. I hesitate to say it, but I don't think anyone would object to the latter, if properly sourced. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I honestly see no reason to object this issue. Yes, it may be a tad trivial but other than that I don't see a big problem. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So more people are not against it and supporting this. And yes we are adding attendances with proper sources. It is sourced, sourced and sourced. Really crazy how some people are going mad over it and want to remove it! Itz arka (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Really crazy how some people are going mad over it and want to include it! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Good that you are repeating my words every time and I am enjoying the way you are giving me unnecessary attentions. Huh, carry on User:Lugnuts. Keep on ;-) Itz arka (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You've not presented any real arguments for this. But do carry on! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As more people have no problem with the topic, so it will be added and most importantly it will not be deleted by random people. But who deleted JustPlaneEditing's comment? Itz arka (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? His comment was rude and deserved to be deleted. Besides, I'd like to clarify that I am definitely against the proposal since no one has proven that reliable sources typically record attendances on a regular basis. – PeeJay 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Well, as I said near the top of the discussion, I expect a precise total from a reliable source and I agree with PeeJay that there is no proven reliable source for attendances on a regular basis. Certainly I can't find one though I'd be happy to be informed of one. So, sorry Itz Arka, but without that I'm against the proposal too. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Jack, I have said earlier in this discussion that attendances should be kept for games played in Australia. In the website www.austadiums.com they keep the record of attendances on a regular basis. Not for cricket only, but for all sports. Itz arka (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First, what makes that site reliable? Where do they get their info? Second, what makes Australia so special that they get to have attendances included when all we have to corroborate them is a questionable source? – PeeJay 21:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That is the official site regarding all information, not only about attendances, but all sports played in Australia. And it doesn't make Australia special, but they traditionally record attendances, that's why we can add those figures for the matches played in Australia. It's like how we use the scorecard template as 'wickets/runs' for Australia only, but not 'runs/wickets' like what we do for matches generally played outside Australia, just because it is their tradition. Itz arka (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything official about that website. Looks like a glorified blog to me. – PeeJay 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, would Cricinfo be a reliable source because some scorecards have attendance info? JustPlaneEditing (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the criteria that makes Cricinfo reliable? Exactly the same question came to my mind! :P Itz arka (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay, what makes a website official or reliable? Itz arka (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS. Harrias ^talk 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there is written below the home page of that website about the preservation of the copyrights of those facts. Itz arka (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as we don't reach to a consensus, let the attendance figures remain. I still cant see the problem behind, see all the articles including Big Bash League, Ashes etc. Come on, there's no problem in making the article more informative. Why does it even matter to people whether attendance figures are included or not? It just depends whether they are properly sourced or not. Its funny to see people question or argue about sites, for then, debates as such would really make websites such as Wikipedia take a backstage. Atleast 15 friends asked me about the India vs Aus attendance. When I told them to visit Wikipedia, they said that it does not have that info. Really surprising. Karyasuman (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (IST)

When there is no consensus, the default action to take is... nothing. We don't add it. – PeeJay 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't convincing. Something like, that's my side of view so let's do that. Karyasuman (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (IST)

It doesn't have to be convincing, that's how things work on Wikipedia. You've been here long enough to know that by now. – PeeJay 15:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All I meant was when the majority want the attendance to be included, its silly to keep deleting them. Karyasuman (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (IST)

What majority? I don't see any majority. Plus, that's not how consensus is achieved on Wikipedia, it's about strength of arguments, not just numbers. – PeeJay 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I did see the majority in support of the fact that having attendance figures which are properly sourced should be included, both online on Wikipedia as well as offline. When you talk about arguments, the argument in favour does have a lot of strength.--Karyasuman (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well said Karyasuman, but the problem with Wikiproject Cricket is that it has got all the orthodox old fashioned users while look at the articles of Rugby, Football and other spectator sports, they all have their attendances recorded. But here some people like to remove it, even if it is sourced. Even if we say that attendances are sourced, they are verified from reliable sites, then they have to say only one thing which is that attendances are not notable. And now they are questioning the validity of some official websites. And all their lame reasons are considered here as stronger opinions. In fact, till now I have followed many projects like Football, Rugby, Bollywood, Chemistry in Wikipedia, but nothing disgusted me as it did here about the mindset of the users of Wikiproject Cricket. Now how can I let them realize that those websites are official or not? Should I try hack them to get their license out from somewhere? LOL. More people have no problem here, and the fact they are saying about the stronger arguments is relative to each one. They say that their arguments are stronger while we think ours are. So better let the Wikiproject Cricket lay inside their nutshell, you can not change these little things. Go work in Soccer, Rugby projects, the users are more open there about innovative new ideas. And the attendance figures don't get vanished if they are not mentioned in Wikipedia. The ICC and the attendees really don't care about whether Wikiproject Cricket is adding them or not. The game will be as popular as it should be and Wiki will be in it's place. So I think if they really want to give lame excuses like questioning the validity of a licensed website just to stop adding the attendance figures for whatever reason, then let them do that. I have no problem. Itz arka (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It really is time to bring this thing to an end, like the attempted co-existent vote thread below that Harrias has rightly shut down. So far, I'm the only one who has actually posted an "oppose" vote and I remain opposed because I am not convinced that reliable attendance figures are available or that they would add any value even if they were. I must be "old-fashioned", I suppose. I bought a pair of cords the other day: is that evidence or are cords back "in"? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You think that attendances don't add values to the match, that may be your opinion. But that is not enough convincing to turn down a possible consensus. Let me give you some examples. The Big Bash match at the Adelaide Oval drew media attention for getting the highest ever attendance for any sport at the re-developed Adelaide Oval. The media is talking a lot about the possible ticket sales till now for the World Cup of over 825,000 tickets. They are also discussing every time about the possible attendances in the first fours matches this weekend. Look at these links from VERIFIED and RELIABLE websites [1], [2], [3]. And you are asking to bring an end to this discussion, but still no consensus have been reached. The media always discussing about it. Look at this for God sake [4], [5]. The leading media in Australia are discussing about the whopping attendances and TV ratings which have taken the BBL to newer heights. And I think now I don't have to give reliable website links to prove it even about the Ashes in Australia as well as in England. This much media attention and the official websites publishing and twitting the attendances after every match DOES MAKE ATTENDANCES NOTABLE AS PER WP:GNG. So when it is notable as per Wiki guidelines and also more people want it to be there, there is no meaning to end this discussion. And I think it should be there. Itz arka (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this must be an Australian vs English thing. Attendances at Australian sporting events are constantly discussed. At some grounds, with bar code tickets, the live number actually appears in the corner of the scoreboard, increasing as the game gets closer to starting (see this image from a footy game, 35,693 on the screen, and that matches the number in the match report). And BlackJack, you have created articles on players over hundred and 150 years old, with no birthdate or sometimes not even first name initial. Should we not bother about birthdates or first name for all other players because all aren't reliably sourced? Of course not. So, in this instance, in Australia, with lots of focus on them, it is a no brainer to include reliably sourced information about the game, and whether the attendances are high, setting records, beating forecasts, or low, it will be an issue. Just search for Asian Cup attendances to see how fixated the Aussie sports media is with attendances. I challenge you all, to try to find one full match report from a major Australian newspaper (smh.com.au or news.com.au) that doesn't mention the crowd. They even mentioned the crowd at the warmup matches! The-Pope (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting things in capitals and in bold is the equivalent of shouting: please don't do it. I am against putting attendances in as a matter of routine because they are not usually relevant to the notability of a match; where they are notable (by reason of numbers, or perhaps influence on the course of a match) then it'd be reasonable to have some mention in the text. But as a matter of routine, no. The fact that newspapers and media sometimes use these figures (and usually with cricket they don't outside Australia) is not a good argument: we're building an encyclopedia here, not trying to imitate news media. So where it's relevant and noteworthy and contributes to the notability of a match, then fine; but otherwise I'm not at all convinced. And please don't shout. Johnlp (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another lame excuse. When the whole Wikipedia articles and facts are only supported by reliable links from media and websites, then you can not ignore it by saying "we're building an encyclopedia here, not trying to imitate news media". This is a hypocrisy for an online encyclopedia which is supported by links from media. And note that I am not the first person to use BOLD words, rather user BlackJack used the bold ones first to oppose the issue. So you should rather ask him first to stop it. Ohh wait, how can you ask him to stop? you two are having the same negative opinion on this matter! And as I said, it is notable per WP:GNG. Itz arka (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And about 100 or 150 years old cricketers with no initial confirmed name, nobody really cares about them. Neither us, nor media, nor the fans nor do the Wikipedia viewers. And it can be palpable by seeing the page view statistics of those poor articles which are notable only through Cricket guidelines, not by GNG. Itz arka (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I support adding attendances for the World Cup. In Australian sport, including Australian cricket, the attendance at the game is a noteworthy event, for all the reasons that The Pope has mentioned. If we don't add attendances, then surely there's lots of other things that don't need adding? For example, is it important and noteworthy to know the umpire/third umpire/match official name? For non-Australian cricket, I believe that attendances are less cared about, but you won't necessarily find a reliable attendance figure. So, for this tournament (and Australian cricket series), I believe that attendances are noteworthy, and so should be added. It could always be an "only in Australia" thing, like writing 1/141 only in Australian cricket articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't care whether there are attendances mentioned in cricket matches outside Australia. But it's traditional and makes a lot of sense for matches played in Australia. And really, I don't care about who the umpires or third umpires are. Removing attendance figures and adding umpires' names some of whom don't even have Wiki articles, is a joke. Itz arka (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The joke is belittling the importance of the umpires by saying we don't need to identify them. Without the match officials, the game couldn't go ahead, whereas it could still happen without people to watch it. That's not to say attendance figures are totally unimportant, but I have yet to see any sources that traditionally record attendances as part of the basic match info. Even on the ABC Sport site, they didn't record attendance figures for the Australia/England/India tri-series that just finished. As far as I can tell, attendances may be recorded, but almost always in a prose match report rather than as a single stat in the overall match stats. – PeeJay 13:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already told you that austadiums.com keeps attendance records on a regular basis. While you questioning about the reliability of the website, I have also told you about that. The website obeys the copyright laws of the sources. So your question hereby becomes invalid. Itz arka (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They may record the attendances, but who says they're reliable? Where's the corroboration? My question doesn't become invalid just because you say so. There's no indication where austadiums.com gets their info from, which makes them pretty unreliable. Furthermore, a site that exclusively records attendances doesn't give any indication that attendances should be recorded as a matter of course along with cricket stats. – PeeJay 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Final 10 August Scorecard

New Zealand 288 (48.5 overs)	v	India 88 (29.3 overs)
Ross Taylor 95 (113) Ashish Nehra 4/47 (9.5 overs)		Ravindra Jadeja 20 (44) Daryl Tuffey 3/34 (8 overs)

New Zealand won by 200 runs Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium, Dambulla Umpires: Simon Taufel (Aus) & Ranmore Martinesz (Sri) Player of the match: Ross Taylor (NZ)

• New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat

---

Final 10 August Scorecard Attendance: 26,436[1]

New Zealand 288 (48.5 overs)	v	India 88 (29.3 overs)
Ross Taylor 95 (113) Ashish Nehra 4/47 (9.5 overs)		Ravindra Jadeja 20 (44) Daryl Tuffey 3/34 (8 overs)

New Zealand won by 200 runs Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium, Dambulla Umpires: Simon Taufel (Aus) & Ranmore Martinesz (Sri) Player of the match: Ross Taylor (NZ)

• New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat

Just to offer some perspective; I remain reasonably ambivalent: I really don't mind either way. But those who don't want it: If it is well-referenced to a reliable source, is it really so bad to go from the first example to the second above? (There are various places it could go, but there avoids lengthening the template.) Is it worth this much argument? There is no need to remove anything, or to make the template any bigger. It could be argued that it adds a little clutter, but it's hardly clutter-free at the moment. Why not try a trial: allow it for Twenty20 matches, and for the Cricket World Cup. After that, if it has caused issues with various sources disagreeing, or with unreferenced false looking numbers being added, we can re-address it? I'm just trying to offer a possible middle ground, to prevent this argument going on forever! Harrias ^talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to dissociate the attendance figure from the venue like that. It's better to put them together, as in Itz arka's example below. – PeeJay 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather prefer to have it in the following way...

Final 10 August Scorecard

New Zealand 288 (48.5 overs)	v	India 88 (29.3 overs)
Ross Taylor 95 (113) Ashish Nehra 4/47 (9.5 overs)		Ravindra Jadeja 20 (44) Daryl Tuffey 3/34 (8 overs)

New Zealand won by 200 runs Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium, Dambulla Attendance: 26,436[1] Umpires: Simon Taufel (Aus) & Ranmore Martinesz (Sri) Player of the match: Ross Taylor (NZ)

• New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat

And allow it for T20s, World Cups and all internationals played in Australia (including Big Bash). Itz arka (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So what's the final decision? Itz arka (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to add it until there is a consensus to do so. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Lugnuts, don't add them until there's a consensus. Although I personally think they should be there, I believe that continually adding and removing them will cause an unnecessary edit war (there's already been 2-3 reversions today). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, a simple !vote (as below) is not at all binding. I will add my !vote below, but the poll still means nothing, regardless of the result, especially if you're going to deny people the opportunity to clarify their !votes. – PeeJay 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

For all the reasons stated above, and to echo PeeJay, above, !votes don't offer any weight to gaining a consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But at the end of the day the clarifications won't matter if a voting is done. Right? And what will be the proper solution other than voting when a consensus is hung for weeks with no proper solutions being reached? @Lugnuts... Itz arka (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the comments above are so biased, looks like some people would do anything to defend their will. If possible, Would you change the democratic system followed in different countries given the result is not according to your choice? I hope no one would try to hang the issue to "nowhere". Ultimately, that will favor a particular group in the debate --Karyasuman (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Attention! How did User:DanielWarne find this and support the view with no prior edits? He created his page just today on 17th February and hence he is not auto confirmed user yet. Does he hold the rights to vote? Please some admins, investigate... Arka 92 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I couldn't vote here. I saw this page's reference in the talk section of 2015 Cricket World Cup. I had requested for editing in the same page and that's where I got the reference of this page. [6] Sorry, if I have done a big mistake by the way! DanielWarne (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Till now, all of the CWC '15 matches except the South Africa vs Zimbabwe match have been houseful till now. The two matches at the MCG till now have drawn more than 85,000 which are records in recent times ODIs in Australia. The NZ-Eng match at the Cake Tin, Wellington drew about 31,000 people and for the first time in the history of Cake Tin, a cricket match has been fully sold out. And how weird it is that we can not add these info in our CWC '15 article, because we have some orthodox opposition to that here. Surprised that we call it an encyclopedia. Arka 92 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's a record attendance, or the first time for a sell-out, then I have no problem with that being notable and recorded in the article. What I don't see as necessary is to record the attendance at every match as a matter of routine. Johnlp (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Johnlp, So you mean before reaching the consensus, we can add the record and sell out crowds, right? But I am afraid that Lugnuts will delete those too if I add them even if those are record or sell out crowds! The following are few of the record and sold out crowds this WC:

• NZ v Eng 30,148 at Westpac Stadium
• Aus v Eng 84,336 at MCG
• Ind v SA 86,876 at MCG
• Ind v Pak 41,587 at Adelaide Oval
• NZ v Sco 4,684 at Dunedin

and many more. Wish that the Gabba game wasn't a wash out otherwise that would be a record one too... Arka 92 11:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The attendances for these matches at MCG and Adelaide Oval aren't records, so why are they notable? (Adelaide Oval had significantly more people at a different match less than a month ago!) Lots of sporting events sell out; the first time at a particular venue might be notable, but subsequently and routinely? Unless there's an inherent notability about the attendance in terms of being a record or the first time for a sell-out or impacting on the play in the match or some such, it's trivial in the context of the game and therefore not encyclopedic. Johnlp (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Although it might be considered as an WP:OSE argument, but still... Why are those figures added in AFL, Rugby, NFL, Baseball and Football articles routinely then?? Arka 92 13:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right: WP:OSE and WP:ININ too. We can't (and shouldn't try to) answer for what other people and projects do. More broadly, there are other factors such as weather, light, pitch preparation, pitch properties (some grounds often seem to take spin, others never) that are all more germane to the outcome of an individual match than the attendance: we don't include these (and nor should we as a matter of routine). We don't include where an individual has achieved a personal best in a particular match (unless it's the best individual performance), or some player's debut or last appearance. You could go on and on adding these things, but that's what CricketArchive and CricInfo are for, not WP. I repeat: if the attendance is notable, then fine; but if it's not, then don't fill up articles with trivia. Johnlp (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless the umpires make some notable decisions, should we not bother to name them either? You call it trivia, I call it infomation. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. If we didn't have the umpires already included, and someone came here suggesting we put them in as a matter of routine, I'd probably be inclined to oppose. But that isn't the question we've been asked. Johnlp (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Think about it this way: what gets recorded on a matchday scorecard? The date, the venue, the umpires – those are all intrinsic facts to a game of cricket at any organised level. Not recording the umpires here would be lunacy. Recording attendances, however, is not a matter of course for most levels of cricket. As others have said, if the attendance is particularly notable, it should be mentioned in prose as part of the match report, but it doesn't need to be recorded every time just because we have a source for it. – PeeJay 18:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who come to Wikipedia to have an idea about the attendance of these world stage tournaments. I have a few of such friends. When there are the information available for this, then why not to add that? It's only about information. Although the two MCG crowds this time were not the highest ever for ODIs at that venue, but still it is making noise in the media a lot. I always support adding valuable information in an online encyclopedia. They may be trivial but of course valuable and notable. And not as routine for every tournament, but some world stage tournaments like World Cup should have it recorded. Arka 92 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies to this last comment. I'll not go on; nothing you've argued has budged me from my original view, which is that attendance figures are fine to use where the attendance is in some way notable or relevant to the course of the match in question. But not as a matter of routine, no matter what the tournament. Johnlp (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have produced enough logic throughout this thread to prove my point. But the only opposing logic I got was either 'it is trivial' or 'it is not notable' but never those were elaborated. So if you still can't get it, then I'm sorry. Meh, let this discussion get archived. No solution will ever be reached. Arka 92 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The points put forward by those opposing, I don't even get them. I mean you actually have a problem in adding "attendance" to these matches? They have become a regular feature to discuss popularity of a sport, even a dumb would say that (Please don't give me points which will say they are vague - I'm just saying in general). And if these stats are available, what's the problem in adding them? Well leave, can't stand this anymore. --Karyasuman (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, seems like some of the experienced users can't even withstand the fact that the consensus could go their opposite way and looks like that they want to care about their ego first. Arka 92 13:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And those points which someone said about not being able to add info about pitch conditions, weather conditions, those are all qualitative things. You can not put them in a scorecard template where digits are required to represent anything. While attendance is a quantitative thing. And even if you say that, then I don't have a problem to add some more attributes to the template like weather, temperature because Cricinfo presents those info in the scorecards. Arka 92 13:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To achieve consensus: vote here

Everyone with a firm opinion on this proposal should vote "Support" or "Oppose" below and then we will see in a week which way the consensus is. Don't write anything except "Support" or "Oppose", and your signature, as I'm doing immediately below this. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Moondyne (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:Support. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Meh Don't really care tbh. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. --Karyasuman (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Itz arka (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support'. The-Pope (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Marginally oppose. Not needed as a matter of routine, but where the attendance is material to notability, then it's fine. Johnlp (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong Meh. Sometimes we navel-gaze too much. And I'm a massive offender, usually. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1999 and 2003 World Cup Hosts

This issue has come up on a few pages, including most recently Cricket World Cup. Are the hosts for the 1999 World Cup: (a). England only (b). England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, (c). England, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands Are the hosts for the 2003 World Cup: (a) South Africa only (b). South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya.

I believe that they were all listed as hosts, so believe option (b). is correct for both. However, many people have been editing pages with other opinions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely (b). It's reasonably common to hear "the 1999 World Cup in England" or "the 2003 tournament in South Africa", given they were the primary hosts, but I think Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Put it this way: the World Cup isn't awarded to a country, it's awarded to a hosting Cricket Board, which in turn awards matches to various grounds, most of which are in the country controlled by that Board. In 1999, the World Cup was awarded to the England and Wales Cricket Board, which chose to award four of the 42 matches to grounds in Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. So when we talk about "the host nation", are we talking about the Cricket Board that was awarded the World Cup, or are we talking about a simple list of nations where matches were played? – PeeJay 14:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope that common people won't judge by the hosting board just because they are full members. So the option should be (b). Arka 92 11:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe (b) is the correct option, too. And, for that matter, I believe that it is correct to list Wales as a host country for the 1983 and 2019 tournaments.

IgnorantArmies, PeeJay and Arka raise some excellent points about (respectively) accuracy, how a particular World Cup and its matches are awarded, and the respective ICC member statuses of the hosting boards and other countries that may host matches. Bluebird207 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe (c) is correct for 1999, because Wales does not have a separate Cricket Board. If we would consider Wales as as host because games were played there, then we would have to consider Barbados, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada and St. Kitts & Nevis as hosts of the 2007 tournament. BLOGuil (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Master Blaster - quick question

Please take 10 seconds to add your views at Talk:Viv_Richards#Article_structure. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Manoj Prabhakar

I was always fascinated by this chap. In the modern era, it's perishingly rare for a Test cricketer to routinely open the batting and bowling. I wanted to reflect that rarity in the article but don't want to go all WP:PEACOCK or even WP:ORish. Anyone got a decent reference that could help? --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller, I've got a ten-year old copy of Test Cricket Lists which lists all first-innings instances in Tests up to 2005. It's not as rare as you would think – Prabhakar did it on 20 occasions (out of 39 Tests), more than anyone else, but was the only player to do so in the 1990s. Wavell Hinds did it against Zimbabwe in 2003–04, and it doesn't seem likely that anyone's done it since then. M. L. Jaisimha (12), Mudassar Nazar (9), and Syed Abid Ali (6) have done it more than five times. Every team except Bangladesh, New Zealand and Zimbabwe have had a player do it, though no Englishmen or South Africans have done it since the 1950s, and no Australians since the 1920s. Funnily enough, the list includes Victor Trumper (once), Jack Hobbs (three times, all against South Africa), Bill Edrich (once), and Sunil Gavaskar (four times, including once at the MCG). I might add something to Prabhakar's article later today, if you want any further details, let me know. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Superb stuff. Please do add it. So, it's pretty rare since the 1950s. My uninformed guess is that a lot of old time incidents would be when the pitch was a sticky dog. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just found a pair of lists on Cricinfo (Test and ODI), probably should've looked there first :/ Cricinfo's Test list includes third and fourth-innings instances, which are a bit less relevant, but I've dug through them, and turns out Wavell Hinds was not the last – in fact, there have been six further instances. Irfan Pathan vs Australia in 2008, Dilshan vs New Zealand in 2009, and Mohammad Hafeez four times (against Bangladesh and the Windies in 2011, and twice in the latest series against Australia in the UAE – not sure how we all missed that one). Outside of the genuine allrounders, I'd guess it's generally a result of tired/injured opening bowlers, with a few cases (Gavaskar, I'd assume) of sides fielding three (or more) spinners and needing someone to take the shine off the ball. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Australia-New Zealand rivalry

Do the 5 T20 matches played between Australia and New Zealand count under Aus-NZ cricket rivalry? If so, why aren't those mentioned in any of those rivalry articles? Arka 92 10:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There's only been 400-ish T20I matches ever, so there will be small numbers for any two teams. No doubt, the rivalry will grow. I see no reason to exclude it, so be bold and add it! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but where to add it? the article Chappell-Hadlee Trophy is about their ODIs only while their test rivalry is the Trans-Tasman Trophy. So should I create a whole new article about their rivalry? Arka 92 10:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a precedent for that in India–Pakistan cricket rivalry, which was created just a couple of weeks ago. JH (talk page) 16:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut

I and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) had a discussion here about the naming conventions of lists that fall under this category. He suggested me to rename "List of South Africa Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut" as "List of South Africa cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut". It seems logical to me as well. Look forward to your thoughts! —Vensatry _(ping) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Without the rename, it'd arguably include people who played Test cricket, but took 5 wickets on their debut in any other form of the game. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Johnlp (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree per Dweller's law. Harrias ^talk 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that makes it clearer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Will move the articles —Vensatry _(ping) 08:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Moores page move

Hi. Please see the discussion on Moores' talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wish Moores would move on, and take Downton with him. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Kamrul Ahsan

Dear cricket experts: I came across this article which has no references at all. Knowing nothing at all about cricket, I can't tell if this is a notable player. I don't see any news reports about this person. Should the article be improved or sent to AfD? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The article did have a ref in the infobox. The subject just meets WP:NCRICKET. Hack (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. There is a diplomat with the same name, which is how I came to notice this, but I have given his page an alternative title. Thanks for taking time to check it out.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Today's Top Tips

England Cricket Board:
Improve your team's performance by putting a southern cross on your flag.

England Cricket Team:
If the data says that 275 was chasable, do remember to actually chase it.

English Cricket fans:
Stop using words like "capitulation", "catastrophe" and "disgrace". Save that for the the Ashes.

Sports journalists worldwide:
Start using the word "pomnishambles" again, so it passes WP:NEO, and I can write a Wikipedia article about it. Also, please coin the term "ODIshambles", for the same reason.

(Be-doom-tish!) You've been a great audience. I'll be here all week. Please try the fish. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

From being the best team in the world two or three years ago, we have gone right back to the bad old days of the 1990s and before. I actually hope Afghanistan beat us too because we are an embarrassment. All the best to Bangladesh, of course, as they are improving all the time and could become really competitive in the next ten years.

There seems to be something cyclic about England with short-term spikes amid long-term troughs. We were briefly the best team in the fifties and then second-rate for several years until we were again briefly the best under Illy c.1970. Then we had three decades of mediocrity including a spell when we flattered to deceive because we were the team least impacted by WSC. Finally, under Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss we briefly came good again. And now? Will it be ten, twenty or thirty more years of mediocrity? Jack | ^{talk page} 10:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the Irish can possibly boast to have the best ODI team in Europe right now. What a shame Murtagh got injured and Rankin decided to waste his career chasing Test cricket and is now sitting at home playing for neither Eng/Ire. With them two playing they would have had a better attack than some full-members! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Ireland are certainly a better team than England. Give them Test status and they will beat England at Lord's in their inaugural match. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece in the Grauniad opines (as opinion pieces obviously do) that "My own suspicion is that the software has become sentient and is now actively working to sabotage the England one-day cricket side. It’s a small start, admittedly – but give it time and it’ll become Skynet."

As for "Skynet", it appears there is no free-to-air TV cricket at all in The Mother Country. Here in Erinsvalia, December and January are a feast of televised cricket, tests in the daytime and then the Big Bash League in the evening. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha, etc.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My top tip: England. Stop playing 50 over cricket. And preferably T20 while you're at it. Thank you. I'll now return to the 1950s, whence I spiritually came. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

POV/PEACOCK/OR

Sheesh --Dweller (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You missed one! ;-) Johnlp (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was testing you. You passed. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There was much debate some years ago when the article was created as to whether the chap passed WP:CRIN or not; we never realised then quite what a sporting genius he was. Johnlp (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing short of the new Garry Sobers --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we may have a general problem with Nepalese cricketer biogs. Here's the next one I looked at: diff --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I take it you haven't found the one with the immortal line: "Soaking pressure is his forte." Enjoy. Johnlp (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing how we don't seem to have PEACOCK problems with English cricketers, isn't it?... oh no, wait, perhaps it's not that amazing after all. "Getting out inexplicably at importune moments in the run chase is his forte". Richard3120 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've come across this editor and Nepalese cricket biographies before. I'm certain of WP:COPYVIO issues too. Take that final paragraph from the first diff from Dweller (titled "Speciality") - most of it comes from here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nadeem Abbasi

Times of India article Imposter posing as ex-Pakistan cricketer appears on BBC as expert Abbasi's Wikipedia page was also tricked by Alam's actions, with part of his biography reading: "Abbasi is now a freelance journalist and appears regularly on the BBC Asian Network and Radio Five Live." Just for information. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

India-Bangladesh Cricket Rivalry

Believe me, we badly need a rivalry page on India-Bangladesh cricket, at least for the ODIs played between them. You can't imagine what kind of buzz and war are going on in social media over the last few days for the upcoming QF match between India and Bangladesh. I myself am an Indian Bengali from West Bengal and the Bengali media across these two countries are also going crazy over this. We need an India-Bangladesh rivalry page. Someone please create it, cause I'm busy these days. If you want some reliable proofs of the intensity of this rivalry, then I will provide them. Thanks. Arka 92 18:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Then you'd better provide them because a "buzz" on social media isn't really a reliable source. Is there traditionally a rivalry between India and Bangladesh, or is it just because two geographically close nations are contesting a World Cup quarter-final? – PeeJay 18:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really, but there is an intense rivalry between us and Bangladesh and the local and national media are going crazy over it. Check these links [7], [8], also check Google India, they have set their theme based on this match for today [9]. Check these links too [10], [11]. And it is not a buzz that is going on. Rather it's a massive war going on in social media! The history and the geographical location both are responsible for the rivalry. Arka 92 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a list here: List of ODI cricket matches played between Bangladesh and India Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's just a featured list, not a rivalry article. Arka 92 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Check these links too User:PeeJay2K3 [12] [13]. Arka 92 21:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a very one-sided rivalry if it is at all significant and nothing like India v Pakistan. Bangladesh are still on the learning curve and roughly at the stage which India and Pakistan had reached pre-1970s. I've no doubt they will continue to improve and, maybe within the next ten years, will become a very competitive side. They've taken a big step forward in this World Cup but still have a long way to go. I think there will come a time when India has to see Bangladesh as a serious rival, but not yet. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

List of ODI Series Won by Indian Cricket Team

Thoughts/comments on the article for List of ODI Series Won by Indian Cricket Team? Obviously done in good faith, but I don't know where to start in picking it to pieces. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe leave it a few days, the World Cup will be over and all this recentism and over-excitement will die down and we can review what's worth keeping and what's not. Johnlp (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PRODed, but I expect it will need an AfD. Harrias ^talk 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User requested speedy, so it's gone. Harrias ^talk 08:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Cazalet

I'm working up an article on Peter Cazalet (racehorse trainer), who played for Kent CCC in the late 1920s. Assistance from members of this Wikiproject in expanding the article is requested. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone added that he played for the MCC to the lede, but it is not in the body of the article. Is this a fact or not? Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, according to CricketArchive. The-Pope (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Although really, he was more of a university cricketer. He played 17 first-class matches for Oxford University (including the University match in 1927), 4 for Kent and 1 for the MCC. Played for Eton against Harrow in 1925 and 1926 too. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to all who have contributed to the article, got a nice section about his cricket career now. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced edits that break height

At Chris Brown (Cook Islands cricketer) a recent edit changed the height in the infobox from none (displayed nothing) to heightft = 6.4 with nothing in heightinch. That leaves an error in the infobox. I can't find a source, and I'm not going to assume that 6.4 means 6 feet 4 inches without one (the edit also changed the birth date which agrees with the first external link). What should be done with edits like this? Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's unsourced, so I'd go with WP:BLPREMOVE and revert it. Which it has now been. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cricketers & University Challenge

Rather esoteric question this, but this player is on the current series of University Challenge on a team that has made the semi-finals. Can anyone think of any other first-class cricketers to have appeared on the show? Andrew nixon (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been one or two over the years. I see that the player in question appeared for the Cambridge University side as long ago as 2010. I'd always assumed that only undergraduates were eligible for University Challenge, but I take it that those studying for a Masters degree or a doctorate must also be eligible. JH (talk page) 09:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it was undergraduates only in the original Bamber Gascoigne days but you increasingly see mature students now and many who say they are studying for doctorates. There's a piece about Michael Taylor and his team here. They stand every chance of reaching the final but there is one very strong team from St Peter's College, Oxford who will take some beating.

Rather like this team when the County Championship starts again in a few weeks. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not quite the same calibre as Michael Taylor as a cricketer (I'm just a lowly scorer for my local club), but I was on University Challenge last year. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Now we can all Google to find out who you really are! Note: I'm not really a stalker. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How far did your team get, PJ? And what is Paxman like? Jack | ^{talk page} 17:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We got to the quarter-finals. Knocked out by SOAS and Manchester. Paxman's not too bad really. He's obviously quite brusque on the show, but he's actually quite a nice man. He took great interest in the T-shirts I wore for the show. – PeeJay 18:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You did very well. I've always thought of Paxman as humorous rather than ferocious, but then I'm not a politician! Jack | ^{talk page} 19:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope you all got the cricket questions on last nights edition. And spotted the wicket-keepers in Only Connect afterwards! My quiz show résumé only reaches the dizzy heights of an appearance on 15-to-1 the best part of 20 years ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually watch it last night, but I did get a cricket question in the first round last year. I correctly identified Alastair Cook as the youngest player to reach 8,000(?) Test runs. Sounds like I need to have a look at last night's episode PDQ! – PeeJay 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

SWALEC Stadium RM

I've requested that SWALEC Stadium be moved back to Sophia Gardens. It was moved apparently uncontroversially a few years ago, but I believe that it shouldn't have been moved unilaterally and that the former title remains the correct one. My rationale is further explained at Talk:SWALEC Stadium. – PeeJay 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Not only that, someone had edited the article to turn it into virtually a plug for the sponsor with constant unnecessary repetition of the name. I've done a bit of a copyedit to make it less so. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been using SWALEC Stadium in the lists I've been working on, but did notice then that CA uses Sophia Gardens. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 ICC Africa Twenty20 Championship

Can anyone find any sources/scorecards for this tournament that's apparently starting today? The top two teams will qualify for the 2015 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It will be on the International Cricket Council website, surely. Oh, no? User:Andrew nixon to the rescue. Again. Cricket Europe. The-Pope (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Scorecards are on CricHQ if you poke around. Can't expect ICC to pay attention to world cup qualifiers when there's press releases about how many people are watching the World Cup to write! Andrew nixon (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

But today's the big game - Namibia vs Tanzania! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Summer's Crown

There's a new history of the County Championship just out: Summer's Crown: The Story of Cricket's County Championship, by Stephen Chalke. My own copy arrived a couple of days ago. It's a good read, with all sorts of tidbits that could be useful for inclusion in our articles. Well worth buying if you're interested in English cricket history. JH (talk page) 16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I just ordered it from Amazon... on your recommendation! Johnlp (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you like it. Otherwise I shall feel guilty! JH (talk page) 20:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's due for delivery today. So I'll be round later for my refund if I don't like it. ;-) Johnlp (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally on-topic, not-WP:NOTAFORUM, here to build an encyclopedia comment

Hi WikiProject Cricket people
Do remember to change the verb tenses in World Cup 2015 articles to the past, once the final is over.

Now that I've got that out of the way, my head says AU but my heart says NZ, for a truckload of reasons. After all, it would be "un-Australia" <shudders> of me not to back the underdogs, right?. C'mon, Cricket Gods [needs article?], look at all those tiny but well-referenced cricket stubs I've started, even if you just let NZ win the toss...
Go Black Caps! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The playground bullies beat the talented new boys. Los dioses de Críquet no mi amo! aman! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Third person plural, not first person singular.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability question

I was thinking of creating an article "List of cricketers who have played for India Under-19 cricket team" or something like "List of India Under-19 cricketers". It's supposed to be a list of cricketers who have represented India national under-19 cricket team in at least one Youth Test/Youth ODI/Youth T20. But, I don't know whether such a list establishes "notability" on Wikipedia. Any idea on whether such a list is notable? Dee03 08:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

U-19 cricket is not counted as first-class (or List A) and is therefore outside the scope of WP:CRIN, so on that basis I think you'd struggle to get your proposed list accepted as sufficiently notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think it's a bit harsh to say that Under-19 matches are not notable. On both Cricinfo and CricketArchive, there are separate statistics sections for Youth Tests and Youth ODIs, alongside other forms of international, domestic and women's cricket. On CricketArchive, when you open the page of a player who has played Under-19 cricket for his country, you'll find separate career stats for Under-19 matches (such as this). I've also seen significant coverage on cricketing websites for Under-19 matches whenever the are being played. Dee03 13:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes Memorial Match at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

IPL scorecards

Please see this discussion on using either the IPL's website or another website for scorecard links for this years IPL. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FLC

There is an interesting discussion going on at this FLC. Feel free to leave your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Cricket centurion categories for deletion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Category proposed for deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

They come in threes

Here's another one up for CfD. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hameed Hassan

Can people keep an eye on this article. Someone seems very keen on vandalising it. Despite the similarity in username, it isn't me, obviously. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew nixon:, User:AndrewNixon79 was indefinitely blocked yesterday for impersonating you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Renaming of Australian cricket team in England articles

Someone - apparently a new user judging by the lack of items on their user and talk pages - has started renaming Australian cricket team in England articles. For example, they have just moved Australian cricket team in England in 1926 to Australia cricket team in England (1926). JH (talk page) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC) ‎

 Fixed They've all been moved back correctly, either by myself or User:Malcolmxl5- there were some templates that had been slightly edited too that I also reverted. I also dropped a note on the user's talkpage explaining the naming convention. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. JH (talk page) 08:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad Tauqir Birthdate

As I've highlighted as a note at 2015 Cricket World Cup squads, there appear to be 2 different dates given in sources for the birthdate of Mohammad Tauqir.

Some sources suggest that Mohammad Tauqir were both born on 21 June 1971, the same day as Khurram Khan, however others (including Cricinfo) suggest that Tauqir was born on 14 January 1972. To me, it seems likely that the 1972 one is correct (as the other one is identical to another player, Khurram Khan, and Cricinfo says 1972 date), but I wasn't sure what to do about this, especially as Cricbuzz says the 1971 date. My main questions are these:
(1). Is my approach (listing the above birthdate dispute as a note) on 2015 Cricket World Cup squads correct/acceptable?
(2). Should a note of this be made on Mohammad Tauqir's page, in case the 1971 birthdate is actually correct? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

References

If both Cricinfo and CricketArchive say the 1972 date, then I'd be inclined to accept that as likely. But in any case when you put in the references, you can add a note within the birthdate reference to the effect that other sites have an alternative birthdate. Shout if you're not clear how to do that. Johnlp (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Johnlp:, agree entirely with what you said, I assume Cricinfo/Cricket Archive are correct. Nevertheless, I've added a note to Mohammed Tauqir as well as to 2015 Cricket World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I redid it in a slightly less wordy way. Johnlp (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, the original squad list provided to ICC accidentally put Khurram Khan's DOB next to Tauqir's name, and the 1972 date is actually correct. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Category to be deleted

Came across Category:SACHIN TOMAR created by User:SachinTomarLtd. Looks like the user was experimenting while he created this. Can someone please delete it? Dee03 16:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've marked it for CSD as a G2. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Nadeem ghouri

Dear cricket experts: Here's an old AfC submission about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject, and should the page be kept and improved instead?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:, yes they definitely pass WP:CRIN- everyone who's played an international cricket match definitely passes notability, as does everyone who's umpired an international cricket match. This person has done both. I'll do some fixes now, and remove the stale draft notice, and look for more information later. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:, @Joseph2302:. There is already a Nadeem Ghauri article: this one looks like a draft under an incorrect name, and I think it can be spiked. Johnlp (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay. I made changes on the draft, I'll move them to Nadeem Ghauri then. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

West Indian Flag Icon

The flag icon that appears next to the West Indian cricket team in Wikipedia articles is the version used by the WICB before 1999 (e.g. when you type cr|WIN in {} brackets, this is the result - West Indies). Is it possible to change the flag icon to show the current flag of the West Indian cricket team?

Probably not, since the new flag is copyrighted (IIRC). The pre-1999 flag is the best we can do right now. – PeeJay 17:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"International centuries" or "International Centuries"?

The section header "International centuries" on most cricketers' articles keeps getting changed to "International Centuries" by User:Arjunsanyal. I'm pretty sure that "International centuries" is the correct usage. Don't think century is a proper noun. Can anyone tell me which is the correct usage? 61.3.107.189 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"International centuries" is correct, per MOS:HEADCAPS. If you look at User talk:Arjunsanyal, they've been warned multiple times for incorrectly changing this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'll try to change the headings back to the correct form. 61.3.107.189 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per 61.3.107.189, "centuries" is not a proper noun. I correct these when I spot them. Same for "Five-Wicket Hauls" too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:ESPNcricinfo player entry

FYI, I have created a referencing template for ESPNcricinfo. Hopefully it will make a little easier to reference to that site, and help us to use a generic format, rather than a number of different ones. This seems to be the preferred format (albeit not the one I've commonly used) from feedback at Featured reviews. If anyone has any thoughts or questions, let me know! Harrias ^talk 08:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Generalisation

Hello! I wished that all the countries playing cricket (and having that specific article: example Australia national cricket team) have one generalisation. That is all have a section of Current Squad. So the sub-heading must be the same. Because for England it is Personnel, for West Indies it is Squad.
It should have a common heading to avoid certain confusions (I did not know meaning of Personnel though). But Uniformity would be great!
In explicit way: Can I have a Yes to modify the sub heading of current squad to a specific term?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 01:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Is having such a section a good idea, though? Unless a country has centrally-contracted players like England does, there isn't really a squad in existence except when the selection is made for a particular tour, and then the article about the tour is a far better place to include the squad details. JH (talk page) 10:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jhall1: Okay. Then why does Australia has a mention of current squad. That must be changed.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Even though England have central contracts, their Personnel section includes everyone who's played in the last 12 months- some of these don't have central contracts, as you need to play 5 ODIs/T20s or 2 Tests to get an England incremental central contract. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhall1 is right that a squad really only exists within the confines of a particular tournament or tour or season, and selectors have a fairly frequent habit of pulling people in from the further fringes on occasion: remember, for example, the selection of Peter Taylor for Australia. So these sections probably shouldn't exist, and if they did it would be a tough job to keep them up-to-date. However, there is also an argument that people (readers, users) might come to WP looking for this kind of information, so if we were to get rid of them, maybe we ought to point the readers to, say, the ECB or Cricket Australia websites where this kind of information is likely to be more readily available. Johnlp (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that final bit from John about readers expecting to see such a list. Maybe it's worth linking to the current (or recent) tour that the team is involved in, which lists the "current" squad in more detail. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

FLRC for List of Zimbabwe national cricket captains

I have nominated List of Zimbabwe national cricket captains for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Harrias ^talk 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The efforts of this WikiProject

Apparently, we've come top of something. See [[14]] --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Now how do we make our articles popular as well as good. :) JH (talk page) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Post random articles on reddit with some sort of sensationalist angle (like the DYK section here). Hack (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as "England" and "Australia" also made the top ten, does that make the Ashes the least popular topic on Wikipedia? ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter May

Someone has moved Peter May to Peter May (cricketer), making Peter May a disambiguation page. It seems to me that he is far more well-known than the other two Peter Mays, and that the move was a bad idea. What do others think? JH (talk page) 20:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an RfC at Talk:Peter May (disambiguation) now. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. To my surprise, having read the discussion there I've been convinced that the move was justified. It's easy to forget that cricket - and especially anything other than current cricket - is a minority interest. It didn't help that I hadn't heard of the writer, though it seems that he's pretty well-known. I suspect that in fifty years time, though, the cricketer's name will mean something to far more people than the writer's will. Perhaps in 2065 it will be time to move the article back, though I shan't be around to do it! JH (talk page) 09:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that nobody who voted for the writer May had heard about him before this RfC came up and they are commenting based only on google hits. It would have helped if somebody who knows both could comment. Tintin 05:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Grounds

I had a couple of general questions about cricket ground articles that I've posed at Talk:Indianapolis World Sports Park in response to a recent edit. Not trying to canvass or anything, but hoping some experienced cricket editors might chime in on the general practices for these types of articles, as I am unsure. Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing what you can find

On page 7 of H. T. Waghorn's research classic Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730–1773) is the following entry which has been extracted from the 7 September 1734 edition of the London Evening Post:

(London), desirous of playing one match (more) before the season is expired, do challenge to play with any eleven men in England..... (except members of Croydon Cricket Club, with whom they were in dispute)

It is not known if this match came off but there is no reason to suppose it did not and, as such, it should be in all 18th century matchlists. However, it is not, because it has slipped through the net even the source is well known and has been read by countless people. I've just included it in our 1734 English cricket season list with a suitable caveat.

There is more to it than that. Assuming the match did take place, it is the earliest known instance of a team called England (or more correctly All-England) being formed. Previously, the earliest date for an All-England team was 1739 and that is sourced from the same Waghorn book.

So there we are, a piece of history unearthed by WP:CRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You say there's no reason to assume the game wasn't played, but there's even less reason to assume that it was. All we have evidence for is the fact that London Cricket Club wanted to play a match against any team that wasn't Croydon. Other than that, we have exactly bupkus to go on. – PeeJay 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I just want to know what the dispute between London and Croydon cricket clubs was all about, and does it still simmer to this day? --Roisterer (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Peejay, all the 18th century matchlists include matches that were "announced" or "pre-advertised" only; there is a high percentage of these. We know there was an intention to play them but there is no surviving post-match report. In some cases, we do know they were cancelled. The point about this challenge is that it was issued but the match, whether it occurred or not, has not previously been included in any published list. The ACS, Stumpsite and CricketArchive for example have all missed it, though they all include numerous similar cases of matches which were intended to be played but which might not have been. Any number of these "intended matches" might not have come off but, unless we know for certain that they did not, the sensible course is to recognise that they potentially did take place and list them accordingly. As long as there is a suitable caveat in each case, of course (e.g., result unknown).

But there's no evidence of anyone even taking up the challenge. You can't have a fixture without two teams, and all we know is that London CC was willing to play anyone but Croydon. – PeeJay 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, PeeJay, but the existing matchlists already include numerous similar matches where there is only an intention to play and, given the sparse and sporadic newspaper coverage of sport at the time, nothing else is known of them. The first such list to be actually published (I believe) was by the ACS over thirty years ago and, if I remember rightly, they did say in respect of 18th century matches that their emphasis was on historical references given that there was hardly any statistical information until the 1770s. As such, then, their list and those that have followed it all include matches that were potentially played so that the references are listed even though the details may be missing or, as with team names, have different versions. These lists include some matches that were definitely not played: for example, the ACS lists includes a game scheduled for 5 August 1730 between teams raised by the Duke of Richmond and Sir William Gage. This match was definitely not played (though it might have been rearranged later) because Richmond's star player, Thomas Waymark, was ill. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Roisterer, what happened was that London and Croydon were due to play each other at the Artillery Ground. They were arguably the two leading clubs of the early 1730s. Anyway, there was some kind of social event (okay, a booze-up) at which the Croydon players indulged to excess, shall we say, and suffered for it afterwards. The result was that they withdrew from the fixture and London fell out with them. London wanted another game before the season closed so they issued the challenge to play any eleven men in England (in practice, any eleven from the southeastern counties) but excluding all Croydon players. Neither club survived the 18th century, alas.

The contemporary report clearly says that London "do challenge to play with any eleven men in England (except Croydon)" so they were not seeking to play any one club as such (e.g., Dartford or Chertsey, who were also among the best teams in the 1730s), they were looking for a game against any eleven men and the implication is that they wanted to play the best eleven men they could. Such a team, assuming it was formed, can only be called an England XI or "The Rest" or, per our article for such non-international England teams, an All-England XI. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The full quote of the entry in issue of London Evening Post 5-7 Sept 1734 is: "We hear a Cricket Match was lately to have been play'd between the Gentlemen of London and Croydon, but the latter having been regaled with a good Dinner, &c. gratis, withdrew, and have not since been heard of; and the former, desirous of playing one Match before the Season is expired, do challenge to play with any eleven Men in England, with this Exception only, that they will not admit of one from Croydon; not that they object against them as good Players, but as Men they have an ill Opinion of; having so lately had the Credit of feeding the hungry, they would not expose themselves to the reflections of sending the naked empty away." RossRSmith (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

East Africa flag

I noticed the East Africa flag was removed from some articles, and then reinstated by another user. The original removal was on the grounds of "it's probably a copyrighted flag, therefore fair-use says it should only be used in the East Africa cricket team page, and nowhere else".

On 1975 Cricket World Cup, commented out or removed [15], [16], [17], readded [18].

Was wondering what people's views of this are? It's important to me since quite a few of the pages I created use it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My view would be that it shouldn't be used at all, because it's a logo, not a flag, and was probably never used by any East African team. What I've done in the past for teams that don't have a flag (where tables would look odd otherwise) is use File:Flag of None.svg, which generates . Notwithstanding the copyright issues, it definitely shouldn't be used on the 1975 World Cup article (or any tournaments featuring the East African cricket team), as the flag is very specifically for the East and Central Africa Cricket Conference, which was only created in 1989. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a similar view, if it's a logo then according to Fair Use policy, it's allowable only at East Africa cricket team. Removed it from 3 other articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a separate image I made myself based on the East Africa design. I've allowed Wikipedia to use it however it wishes, not putting a fair use restriction on it. Therefore it could be used on the world cup page??? Kiwichris (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Important Invincibles photo nominated for deletion

File:Bsb48052.jpg

This has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bsb48052.jpg on grounds for which I have no skills in assessing or making a case. As it is an important image in terms of several FA and GA articles, and considerable effort was made by project members in identifying the individuals, I mention it here in case someone with more knowledge of such matters than myself can make a case for retention. Kind regards. Moondyne (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

PR request

2003 Cricket World Cup Final is at peer review. I intend to take this article to FAC. Feedback and suggestions on further improvement would be much appreciated. Thanks, —Vensatry _(ping) 09:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

SWALEC Stadium listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for SWALEC Stadium to be moved to Sophia Gardens (cricket ground). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 12, 2015

Ian Craig is coming to the Main Page. This was one of YellowMonkey's, who's been gone since 2010, and I've got some questions.

• "Don Bradman, widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time": he was mainly a test cricketer, and his article says "the greatest test batsman of all time" ... which do I go with? - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If in doubt, go with the smaller claim (ie: say greatest Test batsman). You could certainly argue he was the greatest batsman full stop, but no need to go down that route particularly. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. "widely regarded as the greatest Test batsman of all time" feels like too much of a diversion for a TFA column that isn't even about him, so I went with "the great Test batsman". I just finished it up; see what you think. (I'm crap at writing about cricket.) I could comfortably fit in about 100 more characters, if anything I've left out seems particularly important. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Donald Bradman listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Donald Bradman to be moved to Don Bradman. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles about centuries

I was thinking of creating an article like List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut, but for cricketers who have scored a century on Test debut. According to [19], it's been done 100 times (not checked for duplicates), making it more exclusive than 5 wickets on debut (which 144 people have achieved). Do people think it would be a good idea to create such an article? Or does something similar already exist? Obviously I don't want to put lots of effort into it if it's not actually useful- but I see a century as the batsman's equivalent of a 5-wicket haul. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good thought, but we have an existing article. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Thanks for that- I was surprised that I couldn't find one, I thought it might already exist. I'll check it's up-to-date instead then. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is just Test cricket. We don't have one for ODIs. Considering that we have only nine centuries, it would be better to include them in this list and rename it accordingly. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a 5-wicket on ODI debut one with 9 entries, so it could work as it's own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel what I've said previously applies here as well. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nine should be plenty enough for a list, yup. Harrias ^talk 14:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Created it, at List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut. Also added it to cricket records template. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of cricket players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are two examples of Wikidata profiles for notable cricket players: Brendon McCullum and Virat Kohli. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Johnlp (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Watch for linkspammer

A user User: Tejasraomys is editing Indian cricketer biographies to include the name of their management- 69 of their 70 edits have been to add the same company as the management team to players. They asked for help at WP:Help Desk, and I've warned them about WP:COI and WP:LINKSPAM. If people see it continuing, please report them to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Twenty20 cricket records

This article List of Twenty20 cricket records is way too backdated. The last edits were done way back in 2013. So if someone can update them as per espncricinfo, it would be great. Thanks. Arka 92 07:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? – PeeJay 09:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Exam time until the end of July. Arka 92 10:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the article will be able to wait for you to finish your exams. Have fun with it. – PeeJay 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

List maintenance

We currently have a lot of statistical lists under the project and many of them get outdated for a variety of reasons. Towards a process to keep these updated I'd like to suggest something like a bit of an add-on to our {{Wikiproject Cricket}} talk page template. For lists we tag as "|class=list", and my proposal is that whenever the list class is picked up, a subsidiary template would be added to the talk page. This additional template could be a variation of the {{As of}} and {{Update after}} template. The As of section could include the date and the match number etc (easy for internationals, but not so for FC/List A) while the update after section would be much simpler in that for let's say List of international cricket centuries by Rahul Dravid we can just tag as "Never" but for List of centuries in women's ODI cricket we could use the date of the next scheduled game. The template could itself populate categories on the talk pages for "Update in May 2016" etc or we could ask help from one of the bot owners to prepare a list like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Recognized content. This might help us since many list creators (including me) haven't logged in for a while and some lists have therefore not been updated. At least this process might give us an idea of what needs updating. Thoughts? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I wouldn't have a clue how to go about this, but I'd certainly be happy to use this facility if someone else can provide it. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, sounds great, but I'd have no idea how to do the background work to get it going. Harrias ^talk 19:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll put together the detailed logic in my user space and bring it here for checking; once that's done we can probably look for help from a template whiz. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Historical flags

In List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on ODI debut and List of England cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut, should the flags be the current country flags, or the flag at that date? For example should Allan Donald's ODI five wicket haul use the current or former South African flag?

If the answer is former flags i.e. the ones used at the time, is there somewhere where I can find what flag was used at the time? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say you should use the flag that was in use at the time. Usually, the Flag of Fooland page gives historical info about what flag was in use at any given time. – PeeJay 14:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do these articles need flags at all? Johnlp (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Because I modelled them on other pages that had flags in these places? Although I'm confused about what MOS:FLAG says about this. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: So which flag should be used for pre-1901 Australia? According to Flag of Australia#History and List of Australian flags#National, they used 6 different flags for the 6 colonies before 1901, and only had a national flag from 1901. Should I use Flag of None instead?

Same question for flag of South Africa before 1910, according to List of South African flags, they had flags for regions but not a national flag. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

For Australia, the two most obvious choices would be no flag or the Union flag. The latter pretty much rules itself out. Hack (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

List of England cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut uses the WICB flag for the location of pre-independence Barbados. It's also used for some of the 30s and 40s WI teams – when was the flag first used? Hack (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the other similar FLs, the "Ground" column shouldn't have a flag in at all. For those pre-1910 and 1901 years, I would concur that no flag should be used at all. I believe that the West Indies flag has been used since they started playing Tests, but Sarastro1 might know better? Harrias ^talk 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

From memory (and I can't remember where I read it), the WI flag was originally designed for their 1923 tour of England, before they reached Test status. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The locations should also reflect names used at the time. Hack (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Chronological lists of Test/ODI/T20I series played by nation

Do we have anywhere a chronological list of every Test/ODI/T20I series ever played by each nation? I feel this would be a very useful addition for anyone looking to, for example, go back through every English cricket team in Fooland in XXXX and Fooish cricket team in England in XXXX article. I was trying to get from English cricket team in the West Indies in 2014–15 to New Zealand cricket team in England in 2015, but I couldn't work out how to do it. Obviously I could type in the name of England's next opponents, but if I didn't know the progression, that would be very difficult. Surely this is something that needs remedying? – PeeJay 19:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The "International cricket in XXXX" templates at the bottom allow you to do this in a couple of clicks. Johnlp (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Something like List of South Africa women cricket series? Harrias ^talk 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is a little out of date... Harrias ^talk 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean! I think there might be a few formatting changes I would make, but that's definitely the sort of thing I'm after. – PeeJay 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool, probably worth having a centralised discussion somewhere about the format: that sort of thing seems to have been lacking in the project lately, and we have quite a few different formats for a few things appearing. (Not a dig at anyone, it's just crept in.) Harrias ^talk 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Johnlp: That's a point, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to do it in one click? Template:Infobox album has a chronology feature that gets you from one album to the next in an artist's discography; we could use something similar. But I think my main point was that it would be nice to have a list article that compiles every series ever played by a nation (perhaps split into separate, conveniently sized articles if necessary). – PeeJay 19:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There are lists like this too, although the colour scheme makes me want to rip out my eyes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the colours. Anyone know why that article consistently refers to a ground called "Lord\'s"? --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the colours as per this table. Would there be an objections or any comments about implementing this to the other Test match lists?

Win

Loss

Draw

abandoned/cancel

Hack (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would go plainer still:

Win

Loss

Draw

abandoned/cancel

Harrias ^talk 06:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. More than happy for the lighter scheme to be replicated across the other lists. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

s:The Crisis in Cricket and the "Leg Before Rule" by R.H. Lyttelton (1928)

I am hoping someone may have, or have access to, a copy of this little book. I located a scan but pages 75 and 76 are missing. Any help to find the missing pages is appreciated. A clear photo of the pages will do. Moondyne (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see there, you're actually missing pages 74 and 75, and have mislabelled page 74 as page 76. I'll keep an eye out. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right. 74 and 75 needed. Moondyne (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't help, but am gob-smacked by the effort you're making. Amazing! --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Categorising cricketers by their role

I did wonder if Category:Leg spin bowlers, for example, might be a useful addition to our Cat trees... Not sure how we'd handle Garry Sobers but one bridge at a time... --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe no-one has a strong opinion about this? --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think we over-categorise anyway. But with this one, while it might (perhaps) be relatively straightforward to identify leg-spin bowlers (or leg spin bowlers), we'd then have to make judgements about other bowling styles and where do we draw the line between fast bowlers, fast-medium, medium-fast and medium? And how do we categorise players of the past that none of us has seen? I'd file this idea under both "too difficult" and "not needed". But I am feeling quite harrumphish today... Johnlp (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We could do a list, I s'pose. But Cat intersections are useful. If you were currently researching, say, West Indian left spinners, how would you go about it? --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I grant you it would be a bit of a slog. But my point is that a lot of cricketers are simply uncategorisable: because we don't know how fast or slow they bowled, because their styles varied over time (recent discussion on TMS about Liam Plunkett), because there is no standard definition of "fast-medium" and lots of other potential categories. So any category would of necessity be incomplete and subjective. Also, would you put Frank Martin (cricketer) and Ellis Achong in the same category of West Indies left-arm spinners, or should they be in different categories because one was an orthodox left-arm spinner, and the other was unorthodox? Johnlp (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding the Honors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shouldn't we start adding the list of trophies of domestic leagues and international ICC events won by a player with the team (along with his individual ICC and domestic trophies) in the last paragraph of the article of everyone under the title Honors? That will be a good idea for viewers who don't want to read the thorough paragraphs to know about his titles won but just want to have a quick look to have an idea about it. For an example, if you go to Adam Gilchrist article, then there is no listing of his honors so a viewer with less knowledge about him will have to read the whole achievement part to know how many and which world cups he has won, which IPL or Champions Trophy he has won. In fact he won't be even getting an idea of how many Sheffield Shield or Ryobi One Day Cup he has won. So I think we should start adding the Honors or Achievements in an enlisted or tabular form (I want to exclude the bilateral series from this as those will become too big and those are not regular tournaments. Also those are non ICC events. But the ICC events and the domestic leagues happen on a regular interval). Please share your opinions. Arka 92 08:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I do think that if we do this, we ought to be careful about what constitutes an "honour" first. It'd probably be worth working up a simple guide so that arguments are at a meta level, rather than on an individual biography. Is runner up in division 2 of the sunday league in England an honour? Is winning the Ashes an honour? Is being in the team that was #1 in the Test rankings an honour? Etc etc. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It will be like winning the World Cup is an honor, winning the Champions Trophy is an honor, winning the BBL, IPL, Shield, County first division are domestic honors. For an example, you can check the Footballers and Rugby players articles. Also it can be called 'Achievements' in stead. In football, they list the honors on a point basis in an enlisted form while those in the cases of rugby players, those are given in tabular form. In the case of bilateral test series, it will be a subject of discussion as the Ashes is a legendary tournament while an India-Sri Lanka bilateral test series is not. Arka 92 09:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We'd need to iron these things out. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Harrias ^talk 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because this leads to about 100 arguments like at WT:FOOTY, such as "Which honours are notable enough?" and "How many appearances do you have to make to win the honour?"- also WP:NOTSTATS, I don't see it adding that much to articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, then how can a person with the least idea about the sportsperson know about which trophies he/she has won in his/her lifetime? Such a person will think that Wikiproject Cricket is lacking on providing facts. Arka 92 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think adding a World Cup (or T20 World Cup) win might be okay, although it's in the text anyway, so in answer to your question, they would read the text and find it. If you start adding honours, then where do you stop? I don't think it's worth mentioning every domestic honour, and there aren't many international cricket honours to achieve (World Cup, T20 World Cup, ICC Champions Trophy, maybe the Ashes). Like how many people are going to care that Matt Prior won the County Championship with Sussex? Probably not many, they care more about the fact he played 70-odd Test matches for England (which didn't achieve any "Honours"). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph – it doesn't really add any "knowledge" about the person or how good a player they are/were. Alastair Cook might be England's highest ever Test run-scorer and century maker, but that's what people care about, not what honours he has won... which, speaking as an Essex supporter, are going to amount to two Ashes series and nothing else... does that really tell us anything more about him? Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And, if we add Ashes wins, surely Test series wins against South Africa and India. But if those, what about series wins against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, the West Indies and New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. And so on, and on, and on, and on. Oh, and his team won the County District Division 2 Under 9 "B" league. Harrias ^talk 20:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Cricket doesn't work in the same way as football or rugby, at least on the international scene, and even rugby articles here don't really list players' honours in the same way that football articles do. When you have so many games that aren't part of an organised tournament (such as rugby's Autumn internationals and summer tours), it makes a mockery of the "honours" system. That said, at club level, there could be an argument that we limit ourselves to first-class and List A honours, where List A would include top-level Twenty20 cricket as well. In England, that would mean the County Championship, the One-Day Cup and the Twenty20 Cup (and their predecessors). The problem then would be who do we give the honours to? Anyone who played any part in any match in those competitions? There's just too many pitfalls to make this workable. – PeeJay 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And as Joseph said, why do we need to list these things in a specific section when any trophies won by a player should already be mentioned in the prose section of their article. – PeeJay 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah then okay. But as Joseph said, can't we add the international ICC events as honors as those are organized regular tournaments like World Cup, Champions Trophy, World T20. Also there are official squads informed to the ICC can be found in Cricinfo site too. So the eligibility criteria won't be a problem for the international part. While I agree that for the domestic arena, List A and First Class eligibility criteria of a player would become difficult to sort out. Arka 92 06:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But then we could be accused of not including complete information. If we only include those honours, people may ask why we don't include others, when in fact our decision is quite arbitrary. International honours can be mentioned in prose just as easily as club honours, IMO. – PeeJay 09:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's simply unworkable, a Namibia v Nepal T20 is nowhere near comparable to a South Africa v India test. Does the batsman who got a duck get the same "honour" as the bowler who took six wickets just because they were both on the same patch of grass one day? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More than unworkable, it's simply unnecessary. WP is and should be primarily a narrative encyclopedia; boxes and templates are welcome where they add in succinct formats material that would otherwise be omitted or cloggy in narrative format, or to aid navigation. If the narrative doesn't make clear what honours were won by an individual cricketer during his career, then change the narrative so that it does so – certainly before suggesting a new box-style format that will involve huge numbers of satisfactory articles in a vast amount of negligibly beneficial work. Johnlp (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay okay. Let's put an end to this discussion. Arka 92 15:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide when a discussion ends. – PeeJay 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cricketarchive

The www.cricketarchive.com website seems to be inaccessible today. Maybe it's just a temporary maintenance thing, but we might keep an eye on it as so many articles reference it. I'm not around much at the moment. Johnlp (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that last night, so it's been down for at least a day. Hopefully it'll be back up soon. – PeeJay 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been increasingly spotty lately. I dearly hope it doesn't go, a lot of good articles rely on it! Get archiving your sources chaps! Harrias ^talk 20:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Philip Bailey says they have "a major server problem" which is being worked on. Johnlp (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tell him that Dweller is a big fan of Easy Lover. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would, but unfortunately it would be badly off-topic. Johnlp (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a shame, because now he'll never knooooooooooooow whoah whoah whoah, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which could be a relief all round. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd betta forgettit. You'll never gettit. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Johnlp (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's my earworm for the day sorted out, thanks a bunch... Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard3120 My advice is, don't try to change it, just leave it, leave it. --Dweller (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Cricketarchive seems to be back. Which is a relief. Johnlp (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox help

I'm trying to update Roelof van der Merwe's infobox now that he playes for the Netherlands. I've used Kepler Wessels' infobox as a blueprint, but I can't seem to get RVDM's infobox to display properly. Probably something really obvious I'm missing. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How's that? (As they say). Harrias ^talk 17:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Lyon page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Azhar Ali (Omani cricketer)

Hi all. Can someone help me out with this one? It was tagged with speedy delete in spite of being permissible as a List A cricketer. But I'm not around enough to keep an article up to date any more... Thanks in advance. Bobo. 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone removed the CricketArchive "external link" at some point (might've been an outage at the time). Dead external links are fair game for removal, so it highlights the importance of either using a general references section or footnotes. Hack (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice saving work all round. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia"

Hi, WikiProject Cricket people!
I'm sure we all know the story, and so I'm surprised that no-one had stated the article for Reginald Shirley Brooks long before now.
Could this possibly be a timely little DYK?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a doable DYK, it's 486 characters, so would need to be expanded to almost 2,500 characters. If someone has access to British Newspaper Archive, there's a lot of obituaries there, and also there appear to be hundreds of books mentioning it on Google books. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As it was created yesterday it qualifies as a new article, rather than an expanded one, so it only needs to be about 1,500 characters long. Harrias ^talk 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A site called Scoop, which has a database of biographies of journalists, has a biography of him. Unfortunately the site is subscription only, and it would cost £5 to access it. But if anyone happens to already have a subscription... JH (talk page) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If we have subscriptions to that and the BNA, 1500 characters seems doable. Unfortunately, I don't have much time this week to research. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have BNA access for my RL work, but I'm currently bogged down in using it to reconstruct the sordid sex life of a Warwickshire cricketer. Maybe later this week. Johnlp (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the character count excludes references and categories? Anyway I've managed to expand it a bit, adding another 300 characters or so. I make the length now 780 characters excluding refs and cats. Incidentally, the Sporting Times journalists back then seem to have been an eccentric and fast-living crowd. JH (talk page) 19:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've bumped it up a bit with some other stuff from newspapers. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I should be near the British Library on Tuesday, so will check British Newspaper Archive then. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Johnlp added plenty of British Newspaper Archive stuff, I doubt much more can be gleaned from there. Harrias ^talk 15:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume the ping was meant for me, but okay, I see you've added all the BNA stuff. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

National 'A' cricket teams

Are tournaments of National 'A' cricket teams deemed as international tournaments, so as to mention their statistics in page International cricket in 2015–16? For example tri-series between Aus A, Ind A and SA A.srini (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable enough to be mentioned there as a "minor tour" certainly, but I would say generally not notable enough for their own articles. Harrias ^talk 15:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Harrias Thank you very much. srini (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

John Scott (cricketer, born 1841)

Anyone wishing to polish their skills at rewriting pompous Victorian prose could find some rich practice at this article, which has been backfilled by a couple of IP editors with stuff that appears to have been lifted wholesale from local newspaper obits. I suspect the obits are well out of copyright, and it's the style that is the real problem, not so much the content (though there is no attribution). The newspapers do not appear to be on BNA. Johnlp (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article is strange too, given that his legal career was far more distinguished than his cricket. JH (talk page) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a product of its history: User:BlackJack (and I to a lesser extent) created it off the back of his short-ish FC cricket career, not knowing at that stage about his later legal career. It should probably be renamed if the legal stuff stands up to scrutiny after it's been de-hagiographied. Johnlp (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, assuming the legal stuff is true and can be reliably sourced, I'd recommend moving the page to something like John Scott (judge). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There should be no problem in sourcing it, as he was in the DNB, his article there being reproduced here. JH (talk page) 18:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

International tour match article structure

Out of interest, what is people's opinion on the way international tour articles are currently structured? Many of them appear to put the tour matches at the top (i.e. the matches against local club/county/representative sides), but I believe they should be at the bottom, since they are of far lesser importance than the Tests, ODIs and T20Is that are played on the tour. – PeeJay 19:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two plausible alternative ways of doing it: Tests first or in chronological order. But putting the Tests last doesn't seem to make any sense at all. JH (talk page) 20:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe chronological order is best, and is also how all other websites do it, for example BBC Sport. I don't believe Tests should be automatically first, as many people don't see them as the "most important form of cricket", and so this would lead to a long discussion argument about whether Tests or ODIs should be first. It's easy to navigate past the tour matches anyway, so I don't see an issue with the current, chronological format. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that Tests should always be placed ahead of ODIs or T20Is, only that tour matches should be placed last (although I would suggest that Tests should go first anyway, since it's the longest form of the game, not because it's the "most important"). – PeeJay 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would place the full international matches (Tests, ODIs, T20Is) in chronological order, and then have the tour matches at the end, myself. Harrias ^talk 06:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I'd prefer the whole list to be in chronological order, esp. if the tour match is a one-off match that happens before the Tests/ODIs, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with chronological order for the whole tour – that's how they are published when they are announced, and it gets confusing if you start having dates bouncing backwards and forwards throughout the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WG

A good documentary about him was broadcast on BBC Radio Five Live. It's available online here. JH (talk page) 19:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

2020 ICC World Twenty20 Hosts

Seems like it is really confusing. Some sources are saying that only Australia will host this event, other are saying that New Zealand will co-host the event too. Although a year ago, it was confirmed by the ICC that only Australia would host it alone. Anyone has a clearer answer of it? Arka 92 18:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Itz arka:Only Australia is right.--Vin09 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Read 3rd paragraph.--Vin09 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot man for making it clear Vin09. Now let's remove the name of New Zealand from those articles. Arka 92 12:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Template:Top 10 current ODI Batsmen based on average has been nominated for deletion. Please vote here. Thank you. 117.192.185.184 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Oval

Please all visit the above page and take part in the discussion there about the title of the article. Note that there has been what amounts to an edit war because a proper discussion and consensus process has not been given chance to develop. I think one of the CRIC admins should officiate by starting from scratch with the title amended back to its original The Oval and then commencing the discussion process to determine its future title (there seem to be three of four options). Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Jenks has immediately stepped in and reverted to the original title with an anti-move protection pending completion of the discussion. Can all interested parties therefore please go to Talk:The Oval and take part. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the 'current' discussion, but any interested parties should chuck it on their watchlist as I'm sure a new RM discussion will start in the next few days. Jenks24 (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jenks. I wrote to the main pro-move activist and told him he can start a new move request if wants to. I asked him, if he does, to place a notice on here as we are the most interested parties. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin needed

Could one of the admins please place some protection on Lumpy Stevens and Finch (Kent cricketer) which have been persistently vandalised for some time now by 82.44.222.145? There have been numerous reverts by several editors but he keeps reiterating. As the IP doesn't change, maybe a block on that too. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Left a final warning on the IP's talk page. Ping me if he just keeps at it and I'll block. Jenks24 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenks. I'll keep an eye open for him. Jevansen is watching too as he has reverted a few times already. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No result

Can someone with more patience than me explain to Srinu523 (talk · contribs) why we record the outcome of a match as "No result" and not "Match abandoned without a ball being bowled" on our articles? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ok Can any one? Please.Srinu523 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, so many times your edits remains Confusions/Objections. Srinu523 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, You can also stop posting on my talk page, until some one explain what is perfect. Also stop reverting my edit, If my edits is wrong I'll change when some one explain as per ESPN Score cards. If u want tell me any thing about No Result and Match abandoned without a ball being bowled. Srinu523 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A match can be a "no result" even though some balls have been bowled. For example, in a 50 or 20 overs a side match, the side batting first may face some or all of their overs, before heavy rain sets in and the side due to bat second never gets a chance to bat. Or the side batting second may face a few overs before the rain sets in, but not the minimum number that the rules of the competition require for there to be a result. JH (talk page) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But on the ESPNcricinfo scorecard, the result is listed as "Match abandoned without a ball bowled". It goes down in the points table as a "No result", but the result of the match itself is "Match abandoned without a ball bowled", which is a type of "No result". – PeeJay 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So the result is "No result". What's our manual of style here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the result is "Match abandoned without a ball bowled". We have a manual of style, which is to record the same result as ESPNcricinfo. That said, I haven't checked CricketArchive to see what they do, but I doubt it would be any different. – PeeJay 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the result is "No result", not "match abandoned". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I take it you've never done the scoring for your local cricket club. "Match abandoned" is a valid result, which along with "Match cancelled" and others, make up a larger category called "No result". In this case, the result is "Match abandoned", which is classified in the table as one of the various types of "No result". – PeeJay 17:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And lo and behold, the only difference is that they drop the "without a ball bowled" bit. – PeeJay 14:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So the result is "No result". IE the outcome is there wasn't one. "Match abandoned" goes in the rain parameter. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the result is "Match abandoned". Why not be clear about the type of result. The "rain" parameter is for the cause of any delays, e.g. rain, wet outfields, bad light, etc. – PeeJay 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"We have a manual of style, which is to record the same result as ESPNcricinfo" - Can you point me to this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of established custom. It's what we've always done, and there's no reason not to do so. – PeeJay 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So where is this manual of style that you said? Point me to it please, so we can avoid any further confusion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A manual of style doesn't always have to be written down. It's just what we've always done. – PeeJay 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3, Lugnuts, Vin09, and Jhall1:May I know what is the final decision for ICC World T20 3rd place and ICC World T20 Final. Srinu523 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Srinu523: I too don't know on this issue. Let the other users decide. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09:, ThankYou. Srinu523 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Srinu523: - the discussion is still ongoing. We need more input from other users. Until then, please do not change the text until there is a WP:CONSENSUS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, then as per your wish, If Team A won against Team B, Then you record as Team A won by XX runs/Wickets or Team B Lost by XX runs/Wickets. However records as Team A won by XX runs/Wickets as per ESPNCricinfo. You told me that "Don't Leave a message to your Talk page. So I am also said that matter to you that Don't post any thing related to this article topic, you tell me any thing post on this talk page only. Then how you can post. @Jhall1: already told that "A match can be a "no result" even though some balls have been bowled. For example, in a 50 or 20 overs a side match, the side batting first may face some or all of their overs, before heavy rain sets in and the side due to bat second never gets a chance to bat. Or the side batting second may face a few overs before the rain sets in, but not the minimum number that the rules of the competition require for there to be a result". Ok you can change the terms after some days I'll retrieve that edits. At that time can you noticed that, because as per your though, So many old article result status still as Match abandoned without a ball being bowled when no toss and abandoned without a ball being bowled.Srinu523 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:UE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am also one of the Active member of WikiProject Cricket. May be I don't know the rules, but so many Users know the rules. I followed them and enjoying my edits. Thank You. Srinu523 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just my two cents. The result of the 3rd place and final matches of the 2015 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier should be "Match Abandoned without a ball bowled". Here's why I believe that:

• A match that is abandoned without a ball bowled is not included in the statistical records while a No Result and Match Abandoned (with a toss) is recorded in the statistical records. Therefore, maintaining this distinction is important as it lets the reader know quickly whether or not the match is counted.
• Following this convention saves an extra line in the template as it is no longer necessary to clarify that the match is abandoned without a ball bowled.
• Both [Cricinfo http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/875555.html] and [CricketArchive http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/835/835407.html] follow the convention of calling the match abandoned if no balls have been bowled.

Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 15:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hurry, I got the exact solution to this problem from our Wikipedia. I found the difference between No Result and abandoned without a ball being bowled. I hope all of our Wikipedians accept this statement, because this statement from our Wikipedia only. As per that the result must be abandoned without a ball bowled when it has no toss in ICC World T20 3rd place and ICC World T20 Final. If in these matches take toss it will be No Result. So the result status must be Match abandoned without a ball bowled/Abandoned without a ball bowled in these Result status.

Here I add the Wiki Links:

1. No Resut
2. Abandoned
3. Statement of result

@Lugnuts:, I hope you can understood this. Now can change the result status as per this Cricket Article from Wiki @PeeJay2K3, Vin09, Jhall1, and Blackhole78:, I am very Thanking all of You.

• Finally I am very Sorry if I hurts You any one with my words. Thanking You - Srinu523 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts (talk · contribs), did you noticed this discussion. Srinu523 (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Call me back when there's a clear consensus. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: We don't need a "clear consensus" when we have an official definition derived from the Laws of Cricket. This is an open and shut case. – PeeJay 08:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts (talk · contribs) OK. May I know about your opinion on wiki cricket result articles.

I had also told you that please don't post any to my talk page. Any thing about this discussion please reply here only. If u post any thing on my talk page, then I'll also post reply for that on your talk page. Srinu523 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is any wiki cricket project admins, please make your choice ASAP. I don't know about the admins. Thanking You.Srinu523 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if this discussion has "no result" - it's definitely heading this way. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a storm in a teacup. In first-class cricket, the result of an incomplete match is either "match drawn" or "match abandoned". The former is any game which has started and has not been completed; the latter (e.g., the Third Test in 1970–71 which was the unexpectant mother of the LOI) is when a game is abandoned without a ball being bowled. I should have thought for the sake of simplicity that in limited overs cricket the "No Result" option would suffice in all cases where there is, er, no result. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would we introduce less clarity when we can use more? "No result" is for matches that have already started, "Match abandoned" is for matches that haven't. – PeeJay 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking through the articles of cricket tours on WP, and surprise, surprise, there are plenty of articles written by better cricketing editors than myself that use the term "No result" in the result field when a game hasn't started. Which is correct, as that was the result of the match. Now it would be WP:POINTY for an editor to now go through those articles and change them to fit their agenda. The argument of saying "we use what Cricinfo states" is also false. Looking at the recent ODI series between England and NZ the third ODI states "New Zealand won by 3 wickets (with 6 balls remaining)" and the fourth states "England won by 7 wickets (with 36 balls remaining)". But we don't add the "with x balls remaning" on WP articles. So much for going with what Cricinfo states. Furthermore, there is nothing written down that forms a consensus on this project to state that it must be recorded as "abandoned". This is the fundamental issue here. As there is no MOS written down and enshrined by a community consensus, there is nothing to say it must be changed from "No result" to something else. Unless, of course, someone can point me to this MOS. The result is "No result" and the notes field in the template is use for a further explanation. It's that simple. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there's nothing to say it must be changed, but maybe we should have a proper discussion about the pros and cons of each, instead of sniping at each other. I've often thought about including the "with X balls remaining" bit, but it seems there wouldn't be enough space to keep it on one line, which would be ideal. Is it worth also adding the target score to the template somewhere per Cricinfo? It's easy enough to work out if you're any good at maths, but it might be useful to add. And again, no, "no result" is only a type of result – just like wins can be by runs or wickets, a 'no result' can be before or after the game starts. The nature of the 'no result' is just as important to include as the number of runs/wickets a team wins by. – PeeJay 08:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As per the Result (cricket), there is lot of the difference between No Result and abandoned.

No Result: A "no result" is effectively the same as a draw, but in a limited overs match. In such matches, a team that is behind cannot secure a draw as above; if they have scored fewer runs, they have lost the game. A no result, therefore, occurs only when weather conditions stop play before the second team have batted enough overs to have a recalculated target under the Duckworth-Lewis method or other rain rules. In One Day International cricket, one team needs to have faced fewer than 20 overs (of the allotted 50 for a match) for a match to be a no result. In Twenty20, the threshold is 5 overs of the allotted 20.

abandoned: A match can be abandoned if weather or other conditions prevent any play from occurring at all. If the bowler of the first over of play has not started his/her runup when the officials decide to abandon play then the result is termed 'abandoned without a ball being bowled'. Such a game is not included in official statistical records.

Before July 2004, the same result occurred if the toss had been taken but the match was abandoned before a ball was bowled. Since 2004, the International Cricket Council for International matches has decreed that a match where the toss takes place but which is abandoned without a ball being bowled is either a draw or (for a limited-overs match) a no result. Such games are now included in statistical records, counting, for example, as a game played by the teams and nominated players.

Lugnuts (talk · contribs) hope all are understood this. Srinu523 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts (talk · contribs) How can you understand. So many users told that "The result is Abandoned and it is not No Result".

You are not ready to accept this. Can you tell me " Which users words can you accept ". Srinu523 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Status of a match

What is the status of international limited over match played by Associate and Affiliate members? For example a match between Tanzania and Zambia at 2006 ICC World Cricket League Africa Region Division Twosrini (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Srinivasprabhu933: New questions should be posted at the bottom of the page, so I've moved it there. If neither team has ODI status then the match is not classed as an ODI, instead I believe it's a List A match. So Tanzania vs Zambia would be a List A match. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

CricketArchive doesn't even categorise them as List A matches. Andrew nixon would know best if he's around. Harrias ^talk 07:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In the WCL Championship, the matches are ODIs if they're between the four teams in that tournament with ODI status (Scotland, PNG, UAE & Hong Kong), List A otherwise. In WCL 2, matches are List A. In WCL 3 and below, they're classed as "Other Official Internationals", as are those that are List A in WCLC and WCL 2. For regional tournaments, they're "Other Official Internationals", although teams with ODI/T20I status sometimes play in those tournaments, and so their matches are classed accordingly. For example the 2014 ACC Premier League had three ODIs played as part of it, with the other matches all being "Other Official Internationals". In the World Cup Qualifier matches are given status as with the WCLC. Same goes for the T20 Qualifier Qualifier, but with the T20I status teams instead of ODI status. And you're right, none of that makes sense. That's status for you - archaic, doesn't really correspond to how good teams are, doesn't really make sense, isn't logical and has no place in modern sport. But, for now, we're stuck with it. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Norton

I don't know if anyone is on this but the important Norton ground in Smallthorne has ceased to be a cricket ground as Norton CC have joined with my old club Bagnall and play now at Light Oaks. There is some screed on this at the Bagnall site. Norton was home to a club that had Worrell, Sobers and Laker as pros. The club was OK but they had a long running dispute with the Trustees of the ground.TMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.144.91 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly interesting, but is this relevant to Wikipedia? So far as I can see, none of these clubs/grounds have Wikipedia articles, and this talkpage is not a forum for general discussion about cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Norton is, or should I say was, in the North Staffordshire and South Cheshire League which is one of the ECB Premier Leagues, so it is of interest to us. Unfortunately, the NSSCL article has a very limited scope at present. As it is, if anyone does ever expand the league article, this is very useful information especially as the club employed some outstanding professionals.

Joseph, you can't fob people off with one of the site's stupid "rules" when they raise something that might be of interest. If it doesn't interest us, then no one will do anything with it but we do not want to stop people asking questions as that is one of the main purposes of a project talk page, and it is a forum of sorts. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to fob them off, I was trying to work out if it was relevant to editing Wikipedia or not. And no, this page shouldn't be used as a forum, "it is a forum of sorts" is just wrong per WP:NOTAFORUM. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you should remove the "No Result" discussion above because it is a waste of space. I have been a member of CRIC since its very early days and we have ALWAYS held that anyone can raise a cricket-related matter here. It is for the project members to decide if it is useful. If it is not, no action will be taken. We do NOT put people off from writing to us. Think of them as our customers and offer them a service. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Flags

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Flags to summarise what I think is the correct flag usage for different eras. Basically the only Test nations with variants (that we use, at least) are South Africa and Australia. Feel free to change or refine stuff if you think I've got anything wrong. Harrias ^talk 09:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: Why do Australia pre-1901 and South Africa pre-1910 have the Union flag? So far as I can see, neither country had an official flag at the time, and I doubt that they used the Union flag for their cricket team. In articles, I've previously used flag of none for these situations. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the Indian flag was only adopted in 1947, so before that they also had no official flag? Flag of India suggests this. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed the India one. The correct flag might be the File:British Raj Red Ensign.svg of the British Indian Empire. With Australia and South Africa, both used the Union Jack as the ceremonial flag at important functions, and this did include sporting events such as cricket matches. But you are almost certainly right that the teams did not identify with that flag. Harrias ^talk 07:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Did the England team actually use the St George's flag from 1877? Hack (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Club season articles

I've noticed our club season articles (the few of them we have, anyway) have titles that follow the format "[Club] in [Season]" (e.g. Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2015), similar to the international tour articles (e.g. Australian cricket team in England in 2015). This doesn't match up with other sports, however, which usually read "[Season] [Club] season" (e.g. 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season). Are we just trying to maintain consistency between international and club articles, or is it worth migrating our club season articles to 2015 Glamorgan County Cricket Club season, etc.? – PeeJay 12:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need such articles at all for county clubs. We're an encyclopaedia, not an annual or a newspaper. If we do have to have them, then I think it's more logical to be consistent with our international tour articles. JH (talk page) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That may be my fault for creating the skeletons in the first place. Sorry. Bobo. 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't apportioning blame. As far as I know, similar articles have been like that since at least 2005, I was just wondering what the reasoning was. – PeeJay 20:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a reason for every county team to have a Wikipedia article about their season, except possible if it's a very notable season. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we leave discussions about the notability of such articles for another time? This is about our naming conventions. Personally, I'm satisfied with us being consistent between international and club cricket, although it's possible others may come along and insist that our club season articles should match with other sports. – PeeJay 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I misread the purpose of this discussion. I agree with naming them like in other sports, so it would be 2015 Sussex County Cricket Club season for instance. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they should remain as they are, for the simple reason that I suspect more readers (and we do need to think of them!) would be likely to look under "Fooshire County Cricket Club in xxxx" than under "xxxx Fooshire...". Johnlp (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely ambivalent about the naming, I think either works: whether we match with our international articles, or with other sports is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Harrias ^talk 07:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I support keeping them in line with the international articles. Redirects of the other name can easily be created, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp and Lugnuts. No reason at all to change something that has stood us in good stead since 2005 especially as readers will focus on the club name rather than on the season. I don't agree at all with the football format for that reason. As Lugnuts says, create redirects to satisfy those who do look for the year first.

Having said that, I share the doubts of JH above re whether such articles are really needed. They stem from the project within a project that happened in 2005 when several then members got carried away with over-enthusiasm for England regaining the Ashes and decided to record every last detail of cricket in 2005. It was OTT and couldn't last. Even so, the articles have survived and I see no good reason for altering their title formats. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Stumpy (mascot)

I've proposed to merge Stumpy (mascot) to 2011 Cricket World Cup. Discussion is at Talk:Stumpy (mascot). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Chinaman: invented in Yorkshire!

I may have come across a little gem. Our article Left-arm unorthodox spin, in common with just about everywhere else, relates that tired old story about Walter Robins and Ellis Achong, and "Fancy being bowled..." etc. It turns out that, whether that actually happened or not, it cannot have been where the term "chinaman" comes from to describe the stock delivery of a left arm wrist spinner. If anyone can check, have a look at the Manchester Guardian on 29 April 1929 (p. 5). Cardus is writing about Constantine's league debut and talks about a left arm bowler bowling "chinamen" and links it to the Yorkshire team in the 1920s. This predates the Robins story. I'd put it in an article, but it would be outright OR and not justified. However, I've written a bit more here and given a bit more background, if anyone is interested. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting – and good to see you around these parts again. We had Charlie Llewellyn in the WP article about 10 years, but he seems to have disappeared in favour of something very anodyne nowadays. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This would tie in with the story I've heard attributing the term to Maurice Leyland, who bowled chinamen. In Maurice's own article we say: His lack of opportunity prompted him to experiment with wrist spin, and he later claimed that he originated the term "chinaman" to describe the delivery. Wisden suggests: "Whenever two batsmen were difficult to shift or something different was wanted someone in the Yorkshire team would say, 'Put on Maurice to bowl some of those Chinese things.' Roy Kilner explained, 'It's foreign stuff and you can't call it anything else.'" Another version was the Leyland believed that the particular delivery was only good enough "to get the Chinese out". (We give citations, which I've omitted) This is all anecdotal, of course, and I don't suppose we will ever know the true origin for sure. (Having now read Sarastro's blog article, I see that he's covered this, and thinks that the origin of the term probablt pred-dates Leyland's use of it too.) JH (talk page) 07:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more. So few people of Chinese extraction have played first-class cricket (are there any others beside Achong?) and so few cricketers have bowled the chinaman (one or two per cent, I'd guess), that if it's merely a coincidence it's a remarkable one. I wonder if one of the Yorkshire players could have been on a minor tour to the West Indies during the 1920s, came across Achong in a non-first-class fixture, and subsequently applied the term to the similar style of bowling practised by Kilner or Leyland? Pure speculation, of course, but Kilner did go on the MCC tour to the West Indies in 1925-6. Maybe a West Indian spectator came up to him and said: "Hey, you bowl those chinamen things like Ellis Achong." JH (talk page) 09:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's possible about Achong and Kilner, but I don't think Achong was playing much in 1925-26, I think he was more of a footballer then. Perhaps the coincidence is what prompted the association, but I think there is little basis in fact. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Achong played f-c cricket for 4 years before that 1933 Test. It's not very clear. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

He did, but there is little evidence that he ever bowled the delivery known as the "chinaman". Another version of the story has Patsy Hendren saying the "bloody chinaman" line in a 1930 Test, but Achong was fairly unknown in Trinidad as a cricketer before that: Victor Pascall was the main spinner in the West Indies before 1928. Also, the "chinaman" was also referred to, in connection with Yorkshire, by Cardus in an article in 1926 (Manchester Guardian 18 September 1926, page 16), although the meaning is vague and he seems to be talking about a straightforward "googly". Sarastro1 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It could be that it was used to mean various things, but after Achong's intervention, it was fixed at one. Whatever the story, it makes a great blog piece, but you're right about it being OR for Wikipedia purposes :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To answer JHall, Hunter Poon and Richard Chee Quee have played first-class cricket but neither could be the root of the Chinaman-as-cricket-delivery meaning. --Roisterer (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)