Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

The "leg trap" for offspinners

Watching this I wondered why you don't see "leg trap" fields like this for offspinners any more? --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Right link? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, no! Try this --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that not long after 1956 the Laws were changed to permit no more than two fielders to be behind square on the leg side. JH (talk page) 17:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought of that. But that Laker film shows three close catchers to leg (eg at 12 seconds in) doing a lot of damage, only one of whom is definitely behind square. The man in the middle is occasionally fine of the batsman, but he's never more than a step from square, and sometimes he seems definitely in front of square. One's a short leg, and I've seen them plenty, but the other two - have they gone out of fashion? Is that why finger spinners without a doosra struggled until the advent of DRS? --Dweller (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

[Commenting without seeing the video] The batting technique has also evolved a bit. The batsmen used to mostly put their bat infront of their pad then. By the 1970s and 1980s, they started keeping the pad beside the bat against spinners(less often so now, I think, since umpires give lbws liberally). The effect of this was that bat-pad catches in front of the wicket became more common than catches directly off the bat towards backward short leg etc. Bat-pad catches mostly go to forward short leg while inside edges off the bat could go anywhere between short fine leg to forward short leg. So I guess old style fields for off spinners are less necessary now.Tintin 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's really interesting. Thanks. Wonder if that's a fall-out from the changes to the LBW law, encouraging onside play, but discouraging legside. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Om nom nom nom

Hello all,
Yep, that's the sound of me eating my words.
I confidently predict that my All-Blacks will triumph in the 2015 RWC.
Peter in New Zealand (well, actually in the country next door to New Zealand, but yeah, no-one can tell the difference except Australians and New Zealanders) aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

KL Rahul/Lokesh Rahul

@Lugnuts: Here KL Rahul is redirected to Lokesh Rahul. Once upon a time he was known as KL Rahul, but now Lokesh Rahul. In wiki we have to prefer Direct page after that redirected pages. Now in the Indian cricket team in Sri_Lanka in 2015, we have to record as [[Lokesh Rahul]] Not as [[KL Rahul|Lokesh Rahul]] or [[KL Rahul]]. In past all article also recorded as KL Rahul, now changed to Lokesh Rahul. in our wiki also moved the page KL Rahul to Lokesh Rahul. Then why we use KL Rahul to records.

'See Here:'

• [ESPN]
• [Cricbuzz]
• [Cricket Archive]

Thank You. Srinu523 (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what you are talking about. If you want to talk to Lugnuts use his talk page, or if this relates to a specific article, use that article's talk page. If you are posting here, do so with more background information explaining what the hell you are talking about. Harrias ^talk 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's about Lokesh Rahul, I think @Srinu523: wants that article moved back to KL Rahul (the revision history shows it was moved from KJ Rahul to Lokesh Rahul 3 days ago), and is arguing that KL Rahul is the common name. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for an admin to move Lokesh Rahul back to KL Rahul as an undiscussed controversial move, and then I'd recommend anyone that wants it moved to Lokesh Rahul should set up a requested move discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it back, and put a move protect on it for the moment. Harrias ^talk 11:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make a request to move to Lokesh Rahul again. Srinu523 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 and Harrias: I think you've both misinterpreted the original request. I believe User:Srinu523 was saying that the article was (correctly) at Lokesh Rahul and that in other articles User:Lugnuts should link to that title instead of linking to the previous title, KL Rahul. Am I wrong? – PeeJay 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3:, Thanking You. Can you help me to make a request to move please. I have a little confusion to make a request. Srinu523 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Or can you make a request to move the article to Lokesh Rahul. Srinu523 (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, since User:Harrias has put a move protect on the article, I'd say it's probably within his power to move it back to Lokesh Rahul. What say you, Harrias? – PeeJay 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a contested move, see the talk page of the article. It needs a move discussion. Harrias ^talk 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion on Home/Away team in cricket tour squad box and Tour box

I followed so many cricket tours all are home team as team 1 and away team as team 2, but in Australian cricket team in England and Ireland in 2015 there are totally inverse. @PeeJay2K3: told that Team 1 must be away team and Team 2 must be Home team. May I what is correct? Srinu523 (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make it look like that's a direct quote from me, because you're misrepresenting what I said. What I actually said was, when I started editing cricket articles on Wikipedia, I noticed there was a custom to list the touring side first in infoboxes and squad tables, and I've tried to stick with that custom ever since. I obviously can't monitor every single article there is, so I just keep an eye on a few. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me to put the touring side first, since it seems like an issue of courtesy, i.e. the hosts allow the tourists to be listed first just to be nice. This isn't an uncommon practice, since American sports always list the away team first. I don't know where this custom originally came from with our cricket articles, but I imagine it was adopted from copies of Wisden. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong though, because that would mean I've been doing it wrong for several years. – PeeJay 07:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it really matters, the articles are clearly named, and it isn't going to confuse someone whichever way around it is. Harrias ^talk 07:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it would be nice to be able to settle on a consistent format. If we have some articles one way and some articles another, people are going to think we don't know what we're doing. What does Wisden say, by the way? – PeeJay 08:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, consistency would be good, but I don't really mind which way around the infobox is. For the record, Wisden list series as Home team v Away team, so Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 2005–06 is Pakistan v India (for example). Harrias ^talk 08:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm happy to go with that. I wonder how we ended up putting the away team first in some articles though. Must be one of the great mysteries of life. – PeeJay 08:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Presumably because of the title? "Away cricket team in Home in YYYY–YY" does then put the Away team first in one's head. But as I say, I'm not bothered which way around they go, as long as, like you say, we try to be consistent. Harrias ^talk 08:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If its not a matter on team 1 and team 2, then why we use (Home team) Vs (Away team) as in the result of match box when the schedule was announced. why not as (Away team) Vs (Home team). We change that as a manual of style after the toss only. Srinu523 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Pudiyangum Krishnakumar

Dear Cricket experts: This article is calling for references, so I tried to find some news articles, without success. Is this a notable cricket player? Not being a follower of the sport, perhaps I just don't know where to look.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He is definitely a notable player. All first class cricketers are considered notable for Wikipedia and Krishnakumar is a fairly successful one. He turned out one of the top all round performances in Indian first class cricket in http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/60/60156.html . As for the Cooch Behar Trophy, he did not do that as a player as you can see in http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/8/8108/Miscellaneous_Matches.html . Perhaps he did that as a coach. You could walk through the recent Cooch Behar seasons in http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Events/IND.html , find the recent year where Rajastan finished second and then look up the news reports for that year to check if he was the coach. But it is probably not worth the effort. The award too will be difficult to find online.

Off topic : In the context of the Rahul discussion above, from what I remember, he was known as P Krishnakumar. Cricinfo, as it usually does, probably blindly expanded the initial. Tintin 05:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Shall we move this to P. Krishnakumar ? Anne Delong has now added four news links, three from his playing days, and it can be seen that he is called "P." Krishnakumar in each. Tintin 13:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to Tintin, who suggested that he is normally referred to by his initial, I was able to find a few news reports. If you move the page, it would be a good idea to leave a redirect behind with the full name. Alternatively, you could just make a redirect with the initial. Either process would be effective in helping people find the article.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, when a page is moved a redirect is automatically created at the original location pointing to the new one. JH (talk page) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, the redirect appears automatically.Shall wait for a day or so and then make the move. As in the Rahul case, Cricinfo influences the names of the present players. But they shouldn't be allowed to redefine how the past players were addressed ! Tintin 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. Some years ago, when I was creating the article for Harry Parks, I was astonished to discover that Cricinfo appeared not to have an entry for him. Then I found that they had him as "Henry Parks", a name probably only his mother used. JH (talk page) 08:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Result Status

Hello every body. At 2015 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifiers some matches has the result status as No Result. These matches were like Warm up, Group A, Group B, Semi finals, finals. Few of the matches called off with some play and some matches has no play. As per Result (cricket), a match result should be 'No Result when a match called off due to rain at any time of play is in progress, and a match result should be 'Match abandoned/Match abandoned without a ball bowled when a match called off due to rain before the facing the toss.

This was already discussed in this talk page, but that was Archived in Archive 78. So many user accept as Abandoned when it was not face the toss. However Lugnuts (talk · contribs) not accepted that not change the status.

Here once again I add the Links:

• 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.

May I know what is the correct? Thanking You - Srinu523 (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No result is correct. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As per the Result (cricket) the result should be Match abandoned, I checked few ongoing series and also past Cricket World Cup tournaments and few Cricket leagues, its just Match abandoned expert in the 2015 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier. @Joseph2302, Bluebird207, Harrias, PeeJay2K3, and Blackhole78: can you help on this discussion please.Srinu523 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Assassin20X and Masum Ibn Musa: Can you help me on this discussion please. Srinu523 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that you are correct, Srinu.

I cannot find many examples of matches that have been abandoned before the toss (although I am sure there are many), however the ones that I did find e.g in 2013 Yorkshire Bank 40 and 2013 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier., have the result as Match abandoned without a ball bowled.

What I would suggest is:

• If no toss has taken place the result is Match abandoned without a ball bowled and put No toss beside the toss result.
• Otherwise the result is No result

I think that no matter what we do, it must be consistent with other articles. A good way to look at it would be that once a toss has taken place a result could have happened but didn't, whereas if no toss has taken place there was never an opportunity for a result to take place because the match was abandoned Assassin20X (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

However Lugnuts (talk · contribs) not ready to accept it @Assassin20X:. Srinu523 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Lugnuts (talk · contribs) Why did you not accept the Manual of Style, which is easy to understood. Srinu ^Talk 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

But it's not. Maybe if you put in this much effort into cricket articles and stopped worrying about the minutiae, WP would be a better place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, back off. Srinu has put quite commendable effort into our cricket articles, see this, and doesn't deserve the treatment you are giving him here. English is not his first Language I'd say, but he is clearly trying to improve the article. If you are so sure you are correct you need to amend quite a few Wiki articles, starting with Result (cricket) which unambiguously says that for an abandoned match "the result is termed abandoned without a ball being bowled", and the articles mentioned by User:Assassin20X, 2013 Yorkshire Bank 40 and 2013 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier. Moriori (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is quickly turning into one of the dumbest discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. We are bound by what reliable sources say: our most reliable sources are ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive, so we should take the match result based on what they say. To do anything else would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. – PeeJay 13:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Question re: quickest 1/2 century in minor cricket

I'm currently researching an article on the wonderfully named Hurtle Binks Willsmore and came across an astonishing innings of his in an Adelaide district match (the level below first-class in South Australia]] in the 1921/22 season where he hit each of the first seven deliveries he faced for six and then, sadly, went into his shell, only hitting the next three balls for boundaries. Therefore he got to 50 in nine deliveries, and as far as I can tell, that's an unbeatable record for the quickest 50 ever. So I'm not criticised for OR, does anyone have a ref for "quickest 1/2 centuries in any form of cricket"? --Roisterer (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Victor Trumper once scored a fifty in five and a half minutes. But he faced at least 10 balls - at least because all the 10 balls were from a single bowler and from the reports it is not clear whether he faced any in the intermediate over. Tintin 05:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(writing from memory) Dudley Nourse hit nine sixes off consecutive balls during a war-time match, including all six in an over. The stuff that I have read never said during what phase of the innings they were hit. Tintin 05:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

ISTR that Don Bradman is supposed to have once reached 100 in three (8-ball) overs in a minor match in Australia, but I don't know how many balls it took him to reach 50 (or even whether the story is apocryphal). It's not impossible, especially in a minor match, for someone to score an 8 (all-run four and four overthrows), so although it's hard to believe anyone has ever reached 50 in fewer than nine deliveries it's not quite beyond the bounds of possibility. JH (talk page) 08:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bradman story is curious, because he was famed for playing the ball on the floor. If you're not going to hit any sixes, the three overs must have included a number of no-balls. Do these records count only legitimate deliveries? If not, someone could theoretically hit 50 off zero deliveries, which just sounds silly. --Dweller (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bradman's century was off 22 deliveries. His fifty came off 12. StAnselm (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Which, of course, is the same as Yuvraj Singh's T20I record. StAnselm (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Sixes galore! --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And if we're going with apocryphal stories then the record for the fastest fifty is one delivery. StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Extraordinary hitting by Willsmore, yes. But it occurred later in his innings after he'd reached his century http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/63576521

RossRSmith (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Roisterer - what is the news article that you are referring to ? Tintin 09:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

List of fast bowlers

A few days ago List of Fast Bowlers was created. It does not appear to be a useful list and probably should be deleted? 117.192.163.110 (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from anything else, there are many bowlers that some people would rank as fast but others would say were only fast-medium. I think for something to be suitable for a list (or indeed a category), there can't be any room for doubt as to who qualifies. JH (talk page) 20:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag or Crest

I noticed that in television and in official websites of ICC and BCCI, they use the crest to represent the team whereas in wikipedia we use the national flag of the country(except for West Indies), I think we should o the same.srini (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Minimum qualification for inclusion in Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40

A couple of IP edits have tried to bump up the qualification for Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 from 20 innings to 50 innings. This seems to me to need discussion first, since "20 innings" is widely used in cricket statistics as a qualification for batting average lists. I wonder if we can increase the ODI average on the template to 45 or 50. Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 has 44 names; this template has 51 names. If we increased the ODI qualifying average to 45, it would trim it down to 17 names. What do people think? StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to side with the IP and change the innings criteria rather than the average to be honest. Harrias ^talk 21:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not opposed to that in itself, but for consistency that would mean changing a whole lot of other lists and templates - e.g. List of cricket batting averages. Hence, we should get some sort of consensus here first. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as Test batsmen goes, it knocks out Pollock and Headley, who were #2 and #3. With ODI batsmen, it knocks out ten Doeschate from #1, and puts Hashim Amla on top. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a single IP edit(or) changing the inclusion without any rationale. They've been invited to discuss it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they wont. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, they did offer a rationale: "20 is too low for ODIs. These days everyone reach 40 in 20 innings. Also, lower order batsmen easily reach 40 in 20 innings since averages boost up with not outs. Hence for ODIs minimum 50 innings is common sense". I'm not suggesting it was the most convincing, or best thought out, but it is not without merit. Harrias ^talk 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys, please check my response below Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#More_templates and respond accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.234.74 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

More templates

I would like some help, and hopefully a consensus on Template:ODI All-rounders. In January 2014 it was arbitrarily changed from "ODI cricketers who have scored 1500 runs and taken 150 wickets" to "ODI cricketers who have scored 3000 runs and taken 150 wickets", and then in July 2015 it was changed to "ODI cricketers who have scored 4000 runs and taken 200 wickets". But no-one has ever changed the transclusions, so the template is still sitting, for example, on Sachin Tendulkar's page. Could someone tell me please, what's it supposed to be? StAnselm (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thirty years ago, 50 runs had same weight as 2.5 wickets. But today, its a different scenario. Scoring runs are easier than taking wickets. There are many examples & reasons for this, which we need not discuss on. Today, its 50 runs= 2 wkts. Heck, i would even say, 50 runs = 1.5 wickets (or) 100 runs = 3 wkts. But, for the sake of it, lets agree on 50 runs = 2 wkts. So, the Template:ODI All-rounders should be 4000 runs & 150 wickets. But 6 players misses out including klusener in 4000. So, we should go with 3000 & 150.

Also I do not agree on minimum criteria on other templates. Game has changed drastically. It has become a batsman's paradise & bowlers nightmare. Hence we need to look at stats/records in a new light.

For example, Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 The minimum criteria for this should be 50 innings. 20 is too low for ODIs. These days everyone reach 40 in 20 innings. Also, middle/lower order batsmen easily reach 40 in 20 innings since averages boost up with not outs. Hence for ODIs minimum 50 innings is common sense.

Another example, Template:Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140 The minimun should be 500 balls faced. For all bowling records on List of Twenty20 International records & on cricinfo, the minimum is 500 bowls bowled & for batting records, it is 250 balls faced, clearly favoring batsmen. Anyone with cricket knowledge knows that, the minimum criteria for batsmen should be more in ODIs & T20s unlike Tests. If we keep 'minimum criteria' low, then almost all players making the list would be recent/current players. We need to have a balance to respect players from all eras & for the records to make sense.

Lastly, i don't know how to change the transclusions of any template. Heck, i don't even know how to create a new template. Need some help. Vjbxk (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the key ideas of Wikipedia is following the sources. If cricinfo uses 250 balls, then so should we. If that means favouring batsmen, so be it. Maybe people do "need to look at stats/records in a new light", but it's not up to Wikipedia to lead that revolution - see WP:GREATWRONGS. In any case, I guess in a match with five bowlers and ten batsmen, the batsmen do face twice as many deliveries on average as the bowlers bowl. Finally, "transclusions" means removing the template from players who don't belong, and adding them to those who do. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the allrounders' template, the problem with a 150 wicket minimum is that Tendulkar and Waugh get included, when they weren't really genuine allrounders. (The whole favouring the batsman thing again!) So following your formula, 3000 runs/200 wickets would make sense. This time we do need to part company with cricinfo: their only list is 1000 runs/100 wickets, which clearly isn't going to work for a template. However, it does make me think we should keep that ratio and have 2000 runs/200 wickets, which is what we have for test matches. StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem either way. But, i have a solution.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS TEMPLATE IS TO INCLUDE ALL GREAT ALL-ROUNDERS.

Based on runs, wickets, higher batting average & strike-rate, lower bowling average & strike rate

Great ODI All-rounders: watson, klusener, kallis, Imran, kapil, afridi, Jayasurya, razzaq.

Great ODI Batting All-rounders: Watson, klusener

Great ODI Bowling All-rounders: Imran, kapil.

Equal at batting & bowling: razzaq, cairns, waugh

Bowlers: akram (not all-rounders, but useful batsmen)

Batsmen: sachin, gayle (not all-rounders, but useful bowlers)

Waugh has been a all-rounder for a good length of his career. Bowling average & Strike-rate should be low. He has better stats than most.

Bowling ....Inngs ...wkts ..bowl-avg ..bowl-SR ..bat-avg

Waugh ......207 .....195 .......34 ..........45 ............33

harris .........232 .....203 ......37 ..........52 ............29

Jayasuriya .368 .....323 ......36 ..........46 ............32

afridi ...........372 .....395 ......34 .........44 ............23

Hooper .......203 .....193 ......36 .........49 ............35

Symonds ....158 .....133 ......37 .........44 ............39

If we go with 150, everyone (all-rounders, batsmen, bowlers) will make the list. In 200, many greats miss out. THATS THE PROBLEM. Moreover, 200 is a joke. 2000 runs & 200 wkts are not equal. If you notice the stats of these great all-rounders, people who scored above 4000 runs took 200 wickets and people who took 300 wickets, scored over 8000 runs. So, 2000runs is not equal to 200 wkts, unless you are a bowler like Akram (Batting avg 16), Vaas (13), Vettori (17) who scored 2000 & took 200 wkts.

I HAVE A SOLUTION. There is a way to eliminate batsmen & bowlers by adding 'eligibility' or minimum criteria. WE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE Sachin, Gayle, Akram.

170 wickets eliminates batsmen sachin, gayle. Minimum batting average 20 eliminates bowler Akram.

There are many other factors for a allrounder such as bowling strike-rate & bowling average. We can use 'bowling strike-rate & average stats' in future if required.

So, the Template:ODI All-rounders should include these cricketers But watson misses out. He will make the list sooner or later. 3000 runs & 170 wickets has all great all-rounders with Eligibility: Minimum batting average 20. We can even change it to 180 in future if required since it will be the same list. Vjbxk (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't address St Anselm's point. Wikipedia isn't meant to be putting forth new interpretations of records and statistics. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not reply to his '250 balls.. minimum criteria T20I strike-rate' comment. I did not reply to it. I replied only to this Template:ODI All-rounders. There is no 1500 runs & 150 wickets on cricinfo. But it was created in wikipedia, in 2012 with 1500 runs & 150 wickets. And the template has been there for 3 years. So, my point... just read my last post. Vjbxk (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion templates of this sort are opinions masquerading as statistics and should be deleted, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia should not be presenting a novel view of statistics. Nev1 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nev1. In fact, I was going to start a deletion discussion earlier, but frankly it was too much effort! Harrias ^talk 14:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Opinions masquerading as statistics"? "presenting a novel view of statistics?" What nonsense. Just like runs define batsmen, wickets define bowlers, runs&wickets define all-rounders. There are several templates for batsmen & bowlers & your opinion is to delete a template for all-rounders???? when the fact is, there is only one template for all-rounders. If you think that this template should be deleted, then all the following templates should be deleted as well Template:Batsmen who have scored 100 first-class centuries ... Template:Batsmen_who_have_scored_10000_Runs_in_ODI_Cricket .... Template:Batsmen_who_have_scored_10000_Runs_in_Test_Cricket ... Template:Batsmen who have scored 3000 Runs in Women's ODI Cricket ... Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 ... Template:Batsmen_with_a_T20I_strike_rate_above_140 ... Template:Bowlers who have taken 100 wickets in Women's ODI ... Template:Wicket-keepers with 300 ODI dismissals ... Template:Wicket-keepers with 300 Test dismissals ... Template:Hat-tricks in Cricket World Cup ... Template:First-class cricket all-rounders ... Template:400 Test wickets club ... Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in ODI Cricket ... Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket ... Template:Bowlers who have taken 5 wickets in a ODI innings 5 times ... Template:Bowlers who have taken 5 wickets in a Test innings 25 times ... Template:Bowlers with career strike rate of 50 or less in Test matches ... Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50. ALL THESE TEMPLATES DO NOT EXIST IN CRICINFO AS RECORDS. THEN WHY DO THEY EXIST HERE? YOU SHOULD HAVE A OPINION TO DELETE ALL OF THESE AS WELL.

For all-rounders, there is one in cricinfo with 1000 runs & 100 wickets, but that can't be used as a template since tons of players make that list. Hence we need to make it 3000 runs & 170 wickets which is suitable for a template & all great all-rounders make the list. Vjbxk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Vjbxk, I agree that they should all be deleted. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fair Harrias. Vjbxk (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The concept of greatness is also very subjective. Making the judgement of who is and isn't great by including them in a template is not what an encyclopedia is for. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree – all the templates should be deleted. It isn't up to us to decide which great players should or should not be included in a particular category. Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course Nev1. Who said anything otherwise. The point is, all the above mentioned templates should be deleted. I am amazed that no-one (including you) raised voice to delete all these templates for all these years. Some of these templates are on wiki for 11 YEARS (i.e., SINCE 2004) (Examples: Template:Bowlers who have taken 5 wickets in a Test innings 25 times ... Template:400 Test wickets club ) & some are here in wikipedia for 8 YEARS (i.e, SINCE 2007) (Examples: Template:Batsmen who have scored 10000 Runs in ODI Cricket ... Template:Batsmen who have scored 10000 Runs in Test Cricket ... Template:Wicket-keepers with 300 Test dismissals ... Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in ODI Cricket ... Template:Batsmen who have scored 100 first-class centuries ... Template:First-class cricket all-rounders ) and other templates for 3-4 years.

All of a sudden, after these many years, someone is complaining only on one particular template that is created 3 years ago. That's BS. Vjbxk (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

First-class cricketer up for deletion

Same old, same old. [1]. P. Balsara is the article. Thanks in advance. Bobo. 14:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nasir Hossain page move

Please see the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

New images

I found a compatible gallery on Flickr and it's now available as Commons:Category:India Vs New zealand One day International, 10 December 2010 with pictures of Indian and Kiwi cricketers. Feel free to use. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Tables in the "Awards" section

User:Gihan Jayaweera has been adding colored tables in the awards section of Indian cricketers' articles. We've been using the standard format (colorless) tables over the years on these articles, but the user has been changing them to colored ones recently. Here are the standard format tables and the colored tables. I'd like to know which format you people think should be kept on these pages. Dee03 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I vote for one that doesn't have hideous bright blue! Either way, the "venue" column shouldn't have a flag in. Harrias ^talk 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Without colours please - I assume that blue was chosen to reflect India's ODI colours. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User has changed the color tables of all popular cricketers, not just Indians. For example, australian cricketers have yellow colored tables in their awards section, new zealand cricketers have black, Srilanka blue, pakistan green,.......

That being said, i prefer only colorless tables. Vjbxk (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was right then, they've been changed to match their one-day colours in the World Cup. Seems a bit pointless to me, and if they're anything like the players' "pyjamas", they'll hurt to look at. Richard3120 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya, especially, the yellow, on Australian cricketers page. User had good intentions & i appreciate his efforts (considering the amount of time it took in editing pages of all cricketers), but it should be colorless. Other colors looked fine. But, the yellow color in Australian pages is disgusting & looks cheap. Vjbxk (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, the editor did it in good faith. But as Harrias has said it is unnecessary: if you have the team name, the country's flag and the colour of their uniform doesn't help to identify the team any better. Richard3120 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Now... Who is going to revert all his edits back to colorless tables? I ain't got the time.

If they are not reverted as soon as possible, there is the danger of other nerds (young people) getting inspired from it & adding their own choice of colors to other tables. Then, it would be hell lot of work reverting all such edits. Vjbxk (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, shouldn't someone, out of courtesy, tell the editor that his changes are being discussed here? Oh, all right, I'll do it. Johnlp (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks all of you that just concerning the edits I did to cricketers. I must say that I did all those edits with good intentions and not to harm anyone's character. I know that, the yellow color can be little embarrassing in Australian pages, but I added it just because that, Australians are the only one with yellow in international cricket. The usual Australian kit is also disgusting to me anyway when it appear in the pitch in ODIs. I noticed also that, in some pages, the man of the match columns are highlighted in blue color, and if the tables should be in colorless format, all those blue colors in the columns should also reverted. My only intention was to give a good idea for all the article viewer, who are also in non-cricketing nations. All know that Eoin Morgan represented both Ireland and England internationally. He also won a man of the match award when he was with Irish cricket. So, color tables clearly indicates that he has represent two countries internationally and he won awards in both teams. So, I think that my time for the work will be in vain finally. Anyway, it is up to you guys to edit them. Thanks...Gihan Jayaweera (talk), 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gihan Jayaweera, Everyone knew that you added it with good intentions & we appreciate your efforts. And i guess your work will not be in vain since no one got time to revert all of your edits. I prefer colorless for a good overall appearance of the article. Having said that, I am not against your edits, except for the yellow on Australians & 'magenta' in T20 section of West Indian cricketers. Avoid bright colors, they look cheap. Just saw 'shades of yellow' in wiki & i think (style="background:#FFFF66; color:green;") is visually appealing than bright yellow. Just make sure you don't choose bright colors. Dark & dull colors are fine. But, Personally, i prefer colorless since it looks decent & is far, far better than a colored table.Vjbxk (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also WP:COLOR which is important from an accessibility standpoint. —SpacemanSpiff 07:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Many many thanks to you. So, yes of course, I will continue on that. But, I have one problem. If you see my programming text in those awards, you will see that I gave the color code with the name such as green, blue, yellow. This is due to I couldn't found exact color programming codes for each color like "#03530f" etc.. So it is good if someone can give me the color codes that can use for each international cricket team. Thanks again....Gihan Jayaweera (talk), 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hex codes of all colors are here. Other links which might be helpful.. See this, this & this. But.... as i already said, there is no need for colored tables & they do not look good. Grey tables are classic which enhance the overall appearance of an article, whereas colored ones spoil it. I guess you are a fan of Fruity pebbles, Gihan Jayaweera. Vjbxk (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again and again chap... Yes of course these cords might help me to do some edits, not just in cricket but in others. So thanks for it. And I must say, as all of you, I won't add colored table anymore for any player and it will as past. But, I cannot revert all I edited, because there are many more to edit. So, if someone can, please edit them.. Pleasure to coop with you all. Cheers....Gihan Jayaweera (talk), 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Newly created template

Template:Batsmen who have scored a century in all formats of cricket - is this template really useful? There are way too many trivial/statistical cricketers templates already (probably more than any other sport) and this one doesn't seem to be that important. 59.93.150.77 (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a meaningless template and must be deleted, because the history of the game is over 200 years & ODIs has been there for 50 years, but T20Is are there only for 10 years. This template eliminates all players before 2006, & hence has no meaning. And also scoring a century is not a bid deal in ODIs & Tests. Anybody & everbody can do it. So, This template is equal to 'Batsmen who scored a century in T20I' Either the template should be deleted or it should be renamed as 'Batsmen who scored a century in T20I' Vjbxk (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Now, who is going to delete this template? Before we know, there will be many more, such as, bowlers who took 4-for or 5-for in all forms, batsmen who scored 1000 in all forms, batsmen who average 30 in all forms, strike-rate 90 in all forms, bowlers who took 50 wickets in all forms, man-of-the-match in all forms, player of the series in all forms, most hundreds in all forms, most sixes, catches, stumpings ........... any rubbish stat one can think of. Vjbxk (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Put it up for deletion via TfD, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 18. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

John Sidoli

Can anyone find anything on John Sidoli (also called "Jack") for his cricket career? He was a Port Adelaide footballer of the 19th century, but his obits seem to focus more on his cricket exploits (as a player and umpire), yet I can't find a listing for him with Cricinfo/CricketArchive. I'm probably missing something obvious, but my time to spend researching it is a bit limited at the moment and I'd appreciate some help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You won't find him on Cricket Archive or Cricinfo because he never played first-class cricket. The obits you've found so far are in error as to the level of cricket he played. I'll have a look and see what else I can find but as an example, this one in The Advertiser seems a more rounded and accurate picture http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/35016640

RossRSmith (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. So you think that he didn't represent SA in any cricket match, or just that he did and they weren't deemed FC for whatever reason? Would they also be incorrect as to the level of cricket he umpired, i.e. he wasn't a FC umpire? Incidentally, the history of the Port Adelaide Cricket Club is a bit of a mess. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

South Australia didn't play a great deal of first-class, or even significant, cricket during the period he was active. I would suggest that any games he played for them were "exhibition" matches, probably often with uneven teams (11 vs 15 or similar). Harrias ^talk 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, but even so I thought CA would have had the scorecards if he had played for SA in any match – they do have several scorecards from the 1870s and 1880s with South Australia as one of the teams, even if most of the matches aren't categorised as first-class. Having looked into it a bit more on Trove, I think the claim he played for SA in any sort of cricket match might be incorrect. Jenks24 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Imran Khans

We're in a bit of a tangle, especially regarding this chap: Imran Khan, Sr.. Is this the one who's really called Imran Khan Jr (born 1988), or another cricketer altogether, born in 1992 (as the infobox says)? Either way, he's not Imran Khan Sr, because he's this one, born in 1987.

I think.

Just in case you're not confused enough already, Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1988) currently redirects to Imran Khan, Sr. ... as does Imran Khan, Jr.

My brain is as numb as Adil Rashid's fingers must be. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The player whose article is currently at Imran Khan, Sr. was born in 1988, but an IP editor messed with it. As you said (and as the note in the article specifies), that player is not known as "Imran Khan, Sr.", but rather as "Imran Khan, Jr.", assuming that sort of labelling is used (which isn't always the case). I think in this case we should stick to the (cricketer, born xxxx) format – as you can see from Imran Khan (disambiguation) the list of first-class cricketers named "Imran Khan" is ever-increasing, and that seems like the best way of distinguishing them. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original title, after IA's note above. Unfortunately GreenCricket has this habit of moving pages to some weird titles (e.g.: 10:03, July 8, 2015 GreenCricket (talk | contribs | block) moved page Indian Institute of Technology Bombay to Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (Mumbai) (According to wikipedia rules) (revert)) and I had to spend a lot of time fixing those. GreenCricket, please stop with these moves and use the WP:RM process. —SpacemanSpiff 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work, you two, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the article for Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1987) and I've lost count of how many times someone has moved it to another title. These Imran Khan, Sr/Jr links should redirect to the disambig page (which I've now done). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all just one editor. I've left a final warning now as it is getting to be highly disruptive. I thought the 20 odd articles I dealt with a couple of months ago were an aberration, apparently not. —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention fantastically useful articles such as Brighto Paints and a whole load of Pakistan university articles with no sources at all. Richard3120 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• A lot more moves today. While these moves don't fall into the earlier category as this seems to follow the ODI list naming convention, it would really be helpful if GreenCricket either responds here or on their talk page where both Dweller and I have left messages. —SpacemanSpiff 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I have moved them because they should follow pattern of odi and test records lists which includes word 'cricket' in their naming but was not there in twenty20 so i included it..i think universities articles include sources which i have added and improved i think they must be observed by Pakistani wikipedian so he can remark on that GreenCricket (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you were asked not to make unilateral moves because they were getting to be very disruptive, then you went ahead and made ten more. Please check here (or at the other relevant Wikiprojects) before your moves. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Harry Pougher

I'm just going through the list of players for minor counties to make sure any notable ones end on my to-do lists, while looking up Lincolnshire players I came across Harry Pougher.[2] CA has his date of birth as 1941, with his debut for Lincolnshire in 1952, during which he opened the batting and scored 80-odd. Surely this has to be incorrect, as he would have been 11 in this match! His obituary in a local paper says he first appeared for Lincolnshire when he was 18. CA wrong for once? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wisden's Minor Counties averages have an "A. Pougher" playing a single innings in 1959 (1960 edition); in 1952, there is an "R. Pougher" playing five matches (1953 edition). Looks like it could be a bit of CA conflation of two different people. Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Johnlp, that makes sense. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I know little about cricket, so I need some definite help with this. I restored the article for Prakash Nayudu per a WP:REFUND request and found a source about his cricket career so it's not completely unsourced. However that's where my expertise with this ends, since I don't know if his position was the type that would show notability or not. There should be sourcing out there somewhere (although I don't know where to look for it), especially as his father was a notable cricket player. I figure that there's got to be something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely notable per WP:CRIN as having played first-class cricket with Madhya Pradesh. StAnselm (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I wasn't sure of any of that, so it's good to have confirmation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Virat Kohli page

The man of the match awards table of Virat Kohli is obstructing the method of man of the match tables of other cricketers. I reverted them into current format, but they are always reverted to the old version. Also, the table of T20I of Kohli is outdated, only single man of the match award is cited. The other two awards are not citied. So, anyone can change the format of Kohli awards to the format of others. Thank You.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk), 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, although we generally prefer it, Wikipedia has no particular policy saying that similar pages and tables have to be consistent with each other. So, while it might be preferable, unless there is a compelling reason that one is better than the other, it might be easier to just leave the formatting as it is. Obviously though, the information should be correct, cited and up to date. Harrias ^talk 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Template:Batsmen with an ODI batting average above 50 has been created. It is kind of pointless as we already have a template for "average above 40".

Also how about renaming List of 400+ innings scores in ODIs to "List of highest team scores in ODIs"? (in line with List of highest individual scores in ODIs)... 117.192.178.12 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there's more call for a template showing average over 50 than for one at the totally arbitrary figure of 40. If one is needed at all. --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This sort of thing has been discussed here before, and there has not been any consensus to change the parameters. I think there should be some consensus here before changing the template structure like this. But I note the corresponding ESPN Cricinfo list actually uses 38 as the benchmark. StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Pointless. Average of 50 is a thing for modern/recent/current ODI players. Its easy these days. The list has only current players except for Bevan. Every template should include players of all eras. We can create n number of templates only for current cricketers. For example.. Batsmen with an ODI strike rate above 100 will have 21 cricketers of which 20 are current players. One must understand that the game has changed so much in the past decade that, due to the lack of quality pitches, batsmen have higher averages & strike-rates by playing on dead tracks. In 5 years, averages of 55 & stike-rates of 110-120 will be common. What will we do then? Create templates for that too? If this goes on, 90% of all templates will have recent players only. We might as well rename all templates with "Batsmen of the last decade with .....xyz stat...."

Next time, when in confusion whether the template should exist, just check if the template has players from all eras. If not, template shouldn't exist.

As already been discussed on Template talk page & here, the minimum innings criteria for Template:average above 40 should be changed from 20 to 50.

And yes. I agree with renaming List of 400+ innings scores in ODIs to "List of highest team scores in ODIs." Either way, there shouldn't be 'match summary of every match' on that page, because there's going to be hell lot of 400+ scores in next few years. Vjbxk (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template overload

Cricket is a statistical game and it's quite nice to link related articles, but where do we draw the line? Take a look at Waqar Younis or Kapil Dev for example, we now have so many templates at the bottom that they no longer serve the purpose of being a useful navigational aid. We already have a lot of statistical insight and graphs linked within the articles and the colourful nature of the templates at the bottom is also a bad distraction. Perhaps it's time to come up with some sort of a formal guideline on templates and start enforcing it. Thoughts? —SpacemanSpiff 14:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For a start, I'd get of all the batsmen and bowlers who have done X templates. They're completely arbitrary accomplishments and not what navboxes are for. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a TfD for deleting templates for the teams that were semifinalists and losing finalists. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a TfD is fine for individual templates but I'm thinking along the lines of some sort of WP:CRIC guideline on creating templates, like identifying markers for which templates could be created -- triple centurions, 100 Test caps, 100 wickets in Tests combined with 200 wickets in ODIs etc etc (just throwing stuff here, not actually suggesting them). Also, related, we have squad templates and we should create a guideline that all squad templates should be under a master squad list or something like that. If we get some ideas floating and then create some acceptable standard, we could run an RfC and settle this matter once and for all. TfDs at that point could be handled referencing the RfC. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As you say, we've got to template overload. Category:Cricket navigational boxes has 110 pages, plus at least the same amount again hidden away in subcategories. Some of them are useful and appropriate, but too many of them are just clutter. A lot of them overlap significantly too; look at Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket, Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in ODI Cricket and Template:Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career for example. The problem is, with so many, where do we start! Harrias ^talk 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with the team/squad ones, because each one appears on at least a dozen biog pages and I'd guess we can probably get consensus fairly quickly on them. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with targeting those is that they are present across sports; see Gary Lineker and Jonny Wilkinson for example, which might make getting a consensus harder than you would think. Incidentally, if you think we have it bad, look at Michael Jordan!! Harrias ^talk 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Michael Jordan article shows a simple way to alleviate the problem, which is roll up types of template under a master. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Implementing something like "XXX with the Fooian cricket team" and "Achievements of XXX" master templates might be a good interim measure at least. Harrias ^talk 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some ideas:

1. Limit Runs template to one single template: {{Batsmen who have achieved scored 8000 runs in a single format}} (8000 being modifiable to whatever is considered significant) and list Test and ODI stuff there.
2. Limit wickets template to one signle template: {{Bowlers who have taken 300 wickets in a single format}} (300 being modifiable to whatever is significant) and list Test and ODI stuff there.
3. Limit to one T20 international stats template: {{T20I milestones and achievers}}, listing batting and bowling records
4. Limit to one template per team for world cup squads with individual years listed as rows {{India national cricket team world cup squad}}
5. No templates based on batting averages, batting run rate, bowling economy rates, runs per wicket etc etc
6. Fielding and/or wicket keeping template if others think it might be good

If we go for something like the above for internationals then it might bring down the number of transclusions by at least 50% in most articles and up to 80% on some like Kumble and Younis. Also, I like Harrias' idea of the Achievements of XXX, but more as a sidebar than a bottom navigational template. Thoughts? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another idea is to have a single team/caption nav box: merge Category:Cricket captain navigational boxes for the three formats into one single one with rows for the different formats. Also, how about merging {{National cricket teams}} and {{ICC Cricket Team Ranking}} and keep a single team linking navbox (including others that I may not have across yet) instead of the different ones now.—SpacemanSpiff 04:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates that should be taken to TfD

1. {{Cricketers who have won most man-of-the-match awards in ODI cricket}}
2. {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}}
3. {{Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career}}
4. {{Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in ODI cricket}}
5. {{Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in Test Cricket}}
6. {{Australians with 100 or more Test caps}}
7. {{Indians with 100 or more Test caps}}
8. {{South Africans with 100 or more Test caps}}c
9. {{Pakistanis with 100 or more Test caps}}

These templates are either redundant to existing ones in terms of scope and/or categories. If you look at Jacques Kallis, the template area is now larger than the 2008-current section! Pinging GreenCricket and SWASTIK 25 as these are their creations. These are just ones I came up on my watchlist recently, so there are obviously others, including older ones that we have to look at. I'm ignoring the averages one for now as that may be covered by a proper discussion above. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the back of the first two, especially. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The first five are really just "some scribe/commentator mentioned this" type of statistics, not really relevant to the game in particular, and anyone featured on any of those is already featured on the other templates that are included in the article, so the purpose of navigation doesn't exist. But this brings up the issue of future template creations in the absence of some sort of guideline; every time Bhogle or Morrison say something, we'd be looking at a new template. —SpacemanSpiff 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree that a lot of these should be deleted, navbox pile-up seems to be an issue across all sports. I find point 4 of WP:NAVBOX to often be good guidance, if the topic of the navbox doesn't have a notable article about it then it's probably not worth keeping. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The reasons to delete these templates are many.

1. Cluster of things is irritating & makes a viewer to skip it altogether.

2. A viewer would not know which ones are important & which ones are not.

Yes Jenks24, point 4 of WP:NAVBOX is the only/perfect solution for this problem.

And there are many templates on records which shouldn't be here. There can be n number of templates created (on cricket records) based on users imagination. Hence only the most important ones for the batsmen, bowlers & all-rounders should be allowed.

Fielding records are useless. Two same useless templates are created by same user. {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10,000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}} and {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}}.

Just to mention the silliness of users, there are 2 almost same templates in kohli's page {{Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40}} & {{Batsmen with an ODI batting average above 50}}. Just imagine the number of bowling records (on avg & SR) one can create, if this is allowed.

Adding to the list above by Spaceman

10. {{Hat-tricks in Cricket World Cup}}

11. {{Wicket-keepers in ODI cricket}}

12. {{Wicket-keepers in Test cricket}}

13. {{West Indians with 100 or more Test caps}}

14. {{Englishmen with 100 or more Test caps}}

These templates are as irrelevant as 2 drops of monkey piss.

And there are too many color squad templates on cricketers page. They should be hidden under master squad, like the one on Gayle's page. Vjbxk (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

15. {{All-rounders-Double}}

16. {{Bowlers with career strike rate of 50 or less in Test matches}}

17. {{Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140}}

Some of these are pure rubbish and should be deleted without any discussion. 117.192.184.54 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there are a lot of these now -- some may be acceptable to some editors while not to others, therefore my original point of some sort of a guideline. I can start that up and based on discussion here, it can be modified. I prefer that approach as if we don't do something like that we'll probably continue to end up discussing individual templates here and at TfD. —SpacemanSpiff

There's a simple solution. If templates of statistics are allowed on wiki, then, In tests & ODI's, most important stats are runs, wickets, average. In T20I's, it is strike-rate. Hence only the following are allowed.

10,000 runs for batsmen

300 wickets for bowlers

3000 runs & 150 wkts for allrounders

Average 40 in ODIs & 50 in tests

strike-rate of 140 in T20Is

Every other stat is useless in wiki. So, except for the 17th one, the mentioned 16 templates makes no sense whatsoever in wiki. If you ask me, since most important stats are already mentioned in the career section of the respective players, there is no need of a template on stats. If templates of most important stats are necessary, then apart from the above mentioned 5 stats, nothing else matters. Vjbxk (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Guideline proposal

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Navigational templates to document a proposed guideline for this. I've just started with a couple of entries now and we can add/remove/whatever based on consensus here. Critiques, suggestions etc etc area all welcome. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Spaceman, Before that, someone should put the above listed 16 templates for mass deletion at Tfd. Vjbxk (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Central Districts (New Zealand)

I'm not that familiar with domestic cricket in NZ, but there seems to be an oddity with the categories. Central District has its players in the category Category:Central Districts Stags cricketers, but the article is at Central Districts cricket team. Compare with all the other NZ domestic teams, they omit the nickname element, eg Wellington cricketers and not Wellington Firebirds cricketers. I found this CfD from three years ago that had a weak proposal to move it from Category:Central Districts cricketers to Category:Central Districts Stags cricketers. Any objections for this to go back to CfD to move it back? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd even try for a speedy rename under WP:C2C (bringing category into line with established naming conventions) or WP:C2D (renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article). The standard for first-class teams in Category:Cricketers by team is not to use nicknames. It's obviously a different case for the more recent franchise teams, Twenty20 or otherwise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IA. Sorry, forgot about this - will do it now as no-one else has added an objection. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

List of centuries

Are there no criteria for creating "List of international cricket centuries by X" articles? Steve Smith has only 15 international centuries to his name (as of now), but already has his own list. Without any criteria, we'll have hundreds of such lists being created. 117.192.172.86 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion but if you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 73#Criteria you'll see reference to minimum 25 centuries or 15 fifers for stand-alone lists. I do remember the discussion taking place. —SpacemanSpiff 13:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the unattributed copy paste move for now. There's also no pressing need to do away with the 25 suggestion in this case. —SpacemanSpiff 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's back. I still don't think there's a SIZE or other reason for the split, but I'll wait to see what others say. There's also a unattributed copy-paste split for Brendon McCullum now. —SpacemanSpiff 03:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 2

Notification regarding three templates now at TfD: 500 wickets in international career, ODI treble, MoM in ODIs. These are the first three from the list above. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 3#Template:Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in Test Cricket and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 3#Template:Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in ODI cricket. This takes the total at TfD to five now. —SpacemanSpiff 08:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom Graveney

If anybody fancies helping to improve Tom Graveney's article to a state where it might be good enough to appear in the "recent deaths" section of "In the news" on the main page, now's your chance. Bencherlite^Talk 17:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All-stars

We have Cricket All-Stars Series 2015 and Cricket All-Stars for a future exhibition series. Someone who knows about this should take a look and merge or whatever. —SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors. The cruft has started infecting the retired player infoboxes too. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Bundled all three into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket All-Stars Series 2015. At the moment there isn't enough to warrant more than the parent article. Harrias ^talk 18:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

On another note, I'm not sure that Cricket All-Stars passes WP:GNG, and as an exhibition match, it doesn't pass WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of coverage for the parent article to fly through the GNG criteria. Harrias ^talk 22:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

One more at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cricket All-Stars cricketers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD

There is a cricket-related AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindteck-Buchi Babu Invitation Tournament in 2005–06. Fenopy (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article about cricket will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied here: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Harrias ^talk 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, good discussion. I've voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

First-class cricketer up for deletion

Good evening all, first-class cricketer up for deletion as always...

S. Perera is the article, here is the AfD debate.

Thanks in advance. Bobo. 00:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is actually S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), I've recommended a speedy keep and a proper discussion about WP:NCRIC here or at WT:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Participants will be interested to note that the result was delete. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dates for a Test match

Hi. I'm pretty sure we record the dates of a Test match as being the full five days on all articles, even if the match ended in 3 or 4 days. User:Sidhant99 is adamant that they should be recorded as the days the match actually took place, and not the scheduled duration. See the recent edits on New Zealand cricket team in England in 2013, for example. Is this correct? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Cricinfo seem to list them according to the days that were actually played, e.g. this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the basis for the other user's changes. I can't see anything in the style guidance, but the {{Test match}} states: Date - "The scheduled start and finish dates for the match." (my bolding). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a good one. On the one hand, we live by RS and Cricinfo is probably the one we use most often. On the other hand, you can't otherwise distinguish between a match scheduled to last different numbers of days. I presume there are RS that list the scheduled days... fairly sure Cricinfo's big brother, Wisden, does. Can someone confirm? --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Cricinfo also list the scheduled dates, just not near the top of each scorecard. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got last year's Wisden at home - I'll have a look tonight. Meanwhie, my arch-enemy, Cricket Archive lists the example match Rambles linked to as being a - five-day match. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The template documentation was added in 2009 and probably therefore should be followed unless there's a consensus not to do so. It seems to be a case for asking the community what they would prefer to see and then going with that if it's becoming an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wisden states the dates when play took place but does not specify the length of the fixture. So you may see 18 to 21 June but nothing to indicate that it was scheduled for five days. CricketArchive invariably states the dates on which play took place but with a "number of days" qualification immediately following. So, in your example, they say "5 to 8 Nov (5-day match)", which is potentially confusing. Down in the footnotes, it says "the match was scheduled for five days but completed in four". Jack | ^{talk page} 15:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Going the other way, I'm assuming that for the timeless Tests we list the full 7-10 days - so actual, not scheduled? For rest day tests we'd list the 6 days? For old rain day ODIs, do we list both days? Based on that I'd lean towards actual days, not scheduled days. Looking at the template, there's plenty of room on the left hand side of the box, any chance of having both? Actual on top line, scheduled in smaller font below? The-Pope (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that not every page has not followed the same template, e.g. this one. I think the length of the Test match should only be specified in non-five day fixtures. Sidhant99 16:20, 17 November (UTC)

Player of the Match awards (cricket)

Thoughts? Harrias ^talk 11:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Statistics. Isn't there a policy which deprecates excessive overuse? In any event, I would think "man of series" is something to be mentioned in an article about the series. Furthermore, an MoM award is based on the opinion of one or a few persons and is subjective, and an article about such subjective opinions may be an indirect form of WP:POV. On the other hand, it could just be me that is guilty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely statcruft. Along with man of the match and Most Valuable Player, there's definitely a case for this type of award to be covered by a single article. – PeeJay 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion as a A10, as almost all the text is covered in Man of the match#Cricket. Should this fail, I'll probably just suggest a merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not eligible for a speedy I'm afraid, so I've removed that tag; too much additional information is present for that to apply. Harrias ^talk 19:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say just redirect it to Man of the match#Cricket. Jenks24 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of trivia, there's this article, which is on the frontpage in the DYK section. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not eligible for deletion since it's on the main page, but it should be nominated once it's off. StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It was nominated for FL status and some concerns were raised there too. 61.3.105.152 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Eyes please

Can someone please help with this user's development, as there's a lot of poor English and POV coming into a large number of articles. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

He does have an obsession of adding tables for MotM, 5wkt hauls and centuries. Even if the player only has one of those accolades. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Rahul Dravid trivia

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid seems to cover more of trivial information than awards or achievements of Dravid. Can someone prune the list or better just merge the necessary details into Rahul Dravid article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.61.57 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What should be in the main article is already there. This should be deleted or at the least be titled appropriately as List of Rahul Dravid trivia. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bunch of Invincibles articles at AfD

Members of the WikiProject really ought to give their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just two, Ron Hamence and Colin McCool. One editor has suggested we throw a lot more in the pile. But yes ... I'd really like to see more votes, I'm currently thinking of downgrading my vote from delete to neutral ... at first, the balance of comments from people into cricket seemed to me to indicate that project standards had changed, and you guys didn't want the article anymore; the way things have developed, I can't tell if that's true. What I don't want is for people to think that TFA is bureaucratic or obstructionist. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that I started the AfD, and I'm not associated with TFA, I would like to think that no one from this project would judge TFA at all on the process. Harrias ^talk 16:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain that :) I'm actually not aware that my corner of TFA has raised any eyebrows during my tenure (I hope people would tell me, I spend a lot of time responding to feedback), but it happens at FAC and GAN ... not constantly, but regularly. Individuals (or groups, such as wikiprojects) show up, they get the sense that they're being told they can't do something they want to do, so they leave. I was a little concerned that something like that might happen with this one ... I assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that someone would post a notice at WT:FAC about the AfD, and I had visions of all the wikiproject people piling in with one opinion and all the FAC reviewers piling in with the opposite opinion. That's the kind of thing that can cause divisions. (Different people have different trigger points, of course, but I know that there are a few who have left FAC or GAN for good after one big disagreement.) IMO, we didn't get that this time around, but I want to hear about it if someone else sees it differently. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say I sit in both camps. So everyone's an idiot. :-b --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what's leaning me towards neutral ... a lot of voters are in both camps. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Got to laugh that this is now today's FA. :D Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, that was pretty much the whole point. Harrias ^talk 09:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to cry. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If that makes you cry, don't, whatever you do, read, watch or listen to any news. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Cricketers up for AFD

Eight cricketers are up for AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Musa... Fenopy (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Few players have appeared in 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament, so i believe they are notable.srini (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:CRIN allows for notability of youth internationals. Probably because legions of them never go on to play first-class cricket. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed when I checked Musa's article that the tournament is an LOI for under-19s and I voted "delete" because I don't believe such a tournament would meet official List A criteria. To help your case, Srini, you would have to show that the tournament is List A. I admit I don't know if it is or not as I have minimal interest in limited overs, but my assumption would be that it is not. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

List of nicknames used in cricket

Very dubious about the encyclopedic content of much of this page. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The page has been nominated for deletion once before, unsuccessfully, although only five editors participated in that discussion. I think deletion would be a much more likely outcome this time around (if nominated), given you've raised it here. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is quite useful though. There is nothing else available online that is this detailed. Tintin

I agree with Dweller and what I really don't like about stuff like this is the inevitable recentism employed. I will readily support deletion if anyone wishes to AfD it. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

World Series Cricket statistics

…per this article. I'm not too sure whether this would mean the matches are simply recognised as first-class/list-A fixtures, or as full Tests/ODIs. From memory, each ICC full member has the final say on the status of matches within their particular country, so I assume recognition by Cricket Australia translates to recognition by the ICC's statisticians. But I guess we can't (and shouldn't) go around changing things unless Cricinfo and CricketArchive update their own records. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being a bit too hasty. From the article: "Going forward, players from that era will have a standalone line-item in their career statistics recognising their efforts in WSC. […] The new category will not incorporate the matches into Test or first-class statistics, but instead let them stand alone." I'm not quite sure how this will work, but it's something to keep an eye on. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We have to abide by the Cricket Australia ruling on status and, as you say, we'll see how this develops. I would, however, reiterate from WP:CRIN that we are not bound by anything in CricketArchive if another substantial source has a different version and I always recommend the alternative. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ravindra Jadeja

• Ravindra Jadeja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A bunch of IPs have been posting junk on this page for a while. I noticed it when they broke a template. I put it on my watchlist and am happy to help revert, and I can ask for semiprotection at WP:RFPP, however what is needed is someone with a clue who can restore the statistics because I can't work out what is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tidied this to what I think is the last decent version, updated the statistics, and put an IP protect on it for a month; if problems re-occur then, we can look at longer protection, but hopefully they'll find something else to do. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you're faster than WP:RFPP! Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Two GAR

Shakib Al Hasan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Mashrafe Mortaza, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Fenopy (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Cricket (1888) by A.G.Steel, R.H.Lyttelton, W.G.Grace and others

I just finished transcribing the above book at Wikisource and mention it here because it was a great read and thought you chaps may enjoy it also. Interesting chapters on early history and Gentlemen and Players. Regards. Moondyne (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What a wonderful thing to do! Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Major cricket

Could someone take a wee look at the article that's recently been recreated. My views can be found at User talk:BlackJack#First class vs Major cricket. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: in a couple of sentences, could you explain what you are proposing? Hack (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a people to look at it and tell me whether they think the term is worthy of an article in it's own right. There seems little point in taking an article to AfD when there's a clear wikiproject to discuss that on first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an assessment for Big Bash League

I think significant changes have been made to the above-mentioned article. I think we can improve its rating from C-Class to B-Class. I would like one of the project members to assist. Karyasuman (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

While you've made some good improvements to the article, I still think it lacks prose to properly meet the "Coverage and accuracy" criterion: too much of the information is presented only in tabular form for a B-class article, in my opinion. Harrias ^talk 19:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just added another section called Tournament format to the article. Please do have a look. Karyasuman (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles created by User:Srinivasprabhu933

Hi. Just a heads up about the articles this user is creating. They're obviously done in good faith, but the quality of them is pretty poor (example, example, example, example, etc). I've posted on their talkpage about possibly using WP:AFC instead. Each new article follows the same structure - no categories, sometimes just an infobox and no section headers (for references, etc). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cricketers PROD-ed / up for deletion

• Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer)
• Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer)
• Farook (Saurashtra cricketer)
• Manzoor (Delhi cricketer)
• S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

All with single FC appearances. I've already quit WP over this issue - if we are really going to have to move the goalposts, then there looks like we have some serious work doing - and it looks like hundreds of my other WP articles which are within the same criteria will also get deleted.

Something needs to be done. But not by me. I'm out. All of my hard work over these years seems kinda worthless now. Bobo. 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have un-Prodded them and suggested on the Perera article that the nominator comes here. I think we all know that these are in need of improvement if at all possible, but there are elements of baby and bathwater here: if you throw them out, then the whole basis of WP:CRIN, which serves us well because of its very simplicity, is lost. And please, User:Bobo192, don't leave, or ever think that your work is not valued. Johnlp (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Bobo, you have been and remain one of the stars of this project and your work is fully appreciated and admired by everyone here who knows anything about cricket. I hope you will stay but, if not, then you have my respect and my very best wishes for the future. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a rest is all I need. We shall see. Bobo. 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Good man. Try and have a really great Christmas. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly active on here myself these days, but your work is appreciated Bobo. Your lists have proven invaluable. I note below that someone has raised this issue with a closing admin on one of the AfD's, who has admitted they were unaware of WP:CRIN. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

More cricketers for AFD

12 more cricketers are up for AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. K. Jiyas. Fenopy (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's 21 now at that AfD I believe. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's 28 at that AFD. Here's 4 more at another AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sole... Fenopy (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

First class cricketer deleted

I don't think you'll have many arguments made to keep junior level only players, as long as you have checked that none have gone on to play senior major cricket (as per WP:CRIN since the article was written. More concerning, however, was a recent deletion of a Sri Lankan single game first class cricketer S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), especially as the closure rationale included this rejection of CRIN: " Contrary to arguments made here, WP:CRIN is not labeled as a community-adopted guideline and therefore carries no particular weight in this discussion." I have asked the closing admin for clarification. The-Pope (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this deletion and an earlier one of a similarly named Sri Lankan are serious points that should concern us all here. There seems to be a tendency to elevate WP:GNG to the status of an immutable law, in that it applies across the whole of WP, whereas it is, like many of WP's "rules", a guideline. In particular, I tried to argue at the deletion discussion for this cricketer that one of the aims of an encyclopedia is to be comprehensive: indeed, this word is used in the WP's own core definition of "Encyclopedia". The inclusion of under-developed articles such the ones deleted can be justified if we see comprehensive coverage of notable cricket as a project aim, even where such articles might individually struggle under GNG. Unfortunately I haven't been around for the past 48 hours to counter the argument put forward by the nominator which seemed to deny that being comprehensive was a reasonable ambition for an encyclopedia: I find that a very strange argument. And the closing admin has jumped in very soon afterwards.

I think we should be in no doubt that this kind of piecemeal dismantling of articles on cricketers is a threat to a lot of the work that has gone on under this project over many years. Obscure Sri Lankan cricketers may be first, but there is potential here to extend a cull into other areas: some of the 18th century cricketers we cover, for instance, have very scant personal details and that's true too of some 19th and early 20th century players. (I suspect it would also apply to many early football players' articles too.) WP:CRIN serves us well in terms of aspiring to comprehensive coverage and in that it gives us a clear line as to what is and what isn't notable (in our WP:CRIC terms), but it's pretty much worthless if it can be overridden on an individual basis by reference to WP:GNG.

Do we need to revisit WP:CRIN? Do we need to take issue with WP:GNG? Do we need to try to assert the validity of comprehensiveness as a project aim (and if so, where and how do we do that)? I asked the nominator of S. Perera and the other articles under threat to come here to discuss, but so far they have not done so. What do others think? Johnlp (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Be very careful taking "issue" with the GNG. If you want "comprehensiveness" then why shouldn't my local club cricketers have entries? Or my local newspaper shop? The GNG is there for good reason. It needs to be there as a test for WP:CRIN, which is also only guidance, just as for, say, WP:FOOTY.

You might have more success if you were able to point at a bias towards inclusion of Anglophone country people. The non-inclusion of content beyond the Anglophone and European countries is a known cause for concern across the project and if there was a feeling that players from outside this sphere were being excluded whereas ones within it were included as some kind of "right" then you may have a stronger argument. Personally I'd rather like to see any attempt to source, beyond passing mention in statistics, anything, but I can understand why, without access to half decent archive written sources, that might be a problem. Easier for county cricketers of course, and much easier for modern ones. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just taken part in the DRV linked below. As I said there, I have changed my view based upon reading WP:N again, and noting that it requires that article meet WP:GNG or a topic specific notability guide, in this case the WP:NCRIC section of WP:NSPORTS. Harrias ^talk 12:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The point of almost every subject specific guideline is because most of us are relatively lazy and google and other internet archives don't offer 100% coverage. So, instead of trying to find or weigh up whether or not the Colombo Times or the Harare Herald have significant coverage of a player, we just accept that if they are mentioned in CricInfo or CricketArchive as having played, then that's enough. And yes, there are 3 mains areas of concern, where GNG is unlikely to be easily met - very old cricketers (pre 1900s), first-class only players from Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and even the West Indies, India and Pakistan from the pre-google era, and Associates/Affiliates from most eras. I agree with Johnlp, that completeness and comprehensiveness are good goals to have. But to a point, and currently, that point is first class/list A/domestic T20. And I'm happy with that point. Your local club cricketer, and the U19 players above, are not at that point, so they don't belong here. The-Pope (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no doubt it's a helpful shortcut method - lots of similar ones exist. It's interesting to look at the parent notability at Wikipedia:SPORTCRIT as well though. To my mind this retains the emphasis on sourcing that the sport specific guidelines tend to ignore in place of simple inclusion standard. I guess I just get frustrated at seeing so many stubs that I honestly can't see ever being improved. But, you know, whatever; it's not that big a deal if there's a two line article that essentially says "Such and such once played this sport at the highest possible level". Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Re one of the concerns rightly mentioned above, I'd like to point out that the sources used for players and teams of the pre-Wisden era, especially the 18th century, are substantial book-based references of which several exist and do largely complement each other. CricketArchive is a waste of space in this era and should not be used at all, so the understandable concerns raised about its reliability and usefulness do not apply to the early English teams and players.

Is everyone aware that S. Perera has an ESPN entry too which could be cited at [3].? Jack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I always considered adding a Cricinfo link alongside a Cricket Archive link just in case WP:ONESOURCE or whatever it is called, were to come up. Should we, as a rule, be citing *both* in External links just in case? I would point out however that WP:ONESOURCE is purely an essay and not binding in any way whatsoever. Bobo. 16:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should because that character who insists on GNG being met is also saying there should be multiple reliable sources. The problem we have is finding the necessary books so we have to rely on CI and CA to verify that the player did exist and did play in at least one major match. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCRIC

From all the cotroversy that has arisen over the Perera case, we need to look at learning points so that we can better defend major cricketers and teams in future.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states in bold: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below".

The "sport specific criteria" for cricket is in WP:NCRIC which references WP:CRIN "for further information" and states in bold that a cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she:

1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire
2. has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire
3. has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above since 2007 as a player or umpire

Major cricket matches include those which are officially first-class: i.e., a double innings game scheduled to take place over a period of three to five days between two teams of a recognised high standard. Any player who takes part in such a game is therefore a major player who meets the sport specific criteria for notability.

Evidently, those involved in the AfD process for Perera only made reference to WP:CRIN and the closing admin saw this is a project-based guideline only because it is not the sport specific criteria (WP:NCRIC) stated in WP:Notability. Strictly speaking, he is correct but it is all very pedantic as, in fact, the content of WP:NCRIC has been copied verbatim from the opening paragraph of WP:CRIN.

The lesson to be learned by WP:CRIC is to always cite WP:NCRIC at the outset and then to use WP:CRIN for further information. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, for those unfamiliar with the closing admin, plenty of examples / diffs could be provided that a highly legalistic approach is not unusual for him. EdChem (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, perhaps his role as a closing admin should be challenged?

There is more to be considered. We get GNG buzzing in our ears every time we are involved in one of these AfD things but it should be remembered that GNG itself only presumes notability depending on reliable sources being cited. The same applies to SPORTCRIT which has been raised above and which in any case is only a section within Wikipedia:Notability (sports), just like NCRIC. What is important is that GNG and the sports specific criteria (SSC) are equal alternatives. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". It is GNG OR SSC. Therefore, if the subject meets the SSC it does not also need to meet the GNG. It is one or the other; both would be better, yes, but not necessary. As the primary SSC for cricket is playing in a major match, then all these guys in AfD recently (apart from the u-19 ones) are "presumed" to be notable. So lets all use this ammunition in future. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to clarify in our guidelines that Cricinfo and CricketArchive are both deemed to be reliable for sourcing on the subject of notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea and I've just included it in CRIN. I have reservations about much of CricketArchive but not as regards 20th or 21st century cricket and my reservations are easily resolved by reference to substantial book sources anyway. I assume it doesn't matter that these two are actually tertiary and not secondary sources? Wisden, Playfair, Scores & Biographies, etc. are all secondary sources and CA/CI largely draw on them as their own sources. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've just been reading NCRIC again and I think one of its problems is it brevity. I notice that our friends at WP:FOOTY have appended some notes to their criteria so I've followed their lead and and added the following:

Note: understanding of what constitutes a major cricket match is central to these criteria and qualification of a given match is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. Youth players (e.g., members of under-19 teams) are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. The criteria have been taken from WP:CRIN which should be consulted for details.

Can you all please review the entry and let me know if you think I should change or add anything? Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems that a number of editors have missed the comments in the notability guideline under the heading "General": "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." However, it then goes on to say that "the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding". This is rather confusing, since those pages don't suggest that they are "binding" - they are, of course, guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• To me, the point of having these subject specific guidelines is to allow full, comprehensive and complete coverage of sets of people, based on the assumption that there is significant coverage of them somewhere (not everything is on google), but there is already a reliable source proving that they exist and meet the subject specific minimum requirement. The people who favour GNG over specific guidelines say, that's nice, but find the significant coverage first (and notability isn't inherited). Whilst this case has some procedural issues that extra notes and clarifications might address, that basic difference of opinion remains and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The-Pope (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And I think I've changed my mind on this over the last few years. With the first of these AfDs, in any case, I only became convinced of deletion towards the end of the discussion. I think I came to it with a fairly open mind, and I allowed myself to be persuaded. Anyway, with this particular pair of articles, the "reliable source proving that they exist" is the somewhat dubious bit, as it is quite plausible that they are the same person. StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is the same person, he played for two major teams so he has doubled his notability. I would guess they are different people because Perera is a very common name but, as I say, that's a guess. The point is that both of them (or he) satisfies the sport specific criteria (SSC) of NCRIC and so he is presumed to be notable. GNG is therefore superfluous as the policy/guide clearly says he must satisfy GNG OR SSC, not both. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear about something, it is WP:ATHLETE which states (in bold): The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. Note the word or. Anyone who satisfies the SSC is presumed to be notable and GNG is irrelevant. As Bobo suggested in the thread above, we should cite both CA and CI in all biographical stubs where we do not have a Wisden or other book-based citation to hand. Remember also that CA and CI do not always agree so, when they are in accord, it strengthens the verification. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

U19 cricketers and tournaments

Following on from the recent wave of AfDs for Under-19 cricketers, which resulted (or will result) in delete per WP:NCRIC, what is the notability of U19 tournaments? Would they be notable too? I can see why the U19 World Cup would be notable, but what about these examples: one, two, three. The first one is already tagged with notability concerns. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My view is that this is a case where WP:GNG is the defining criterion: it may be possible to demonstrate that they reach some form of notability through the newspaper and internet coverage they achieve in the places where they are held, without being notable in cricketing terms. Johnlp (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense - thanks John. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Some more U19 cricketers to be deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nosaina Pokana... Fenopy (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a point to add (where I may be wrong). Each country has a 3 national team: men's team (eg. India), women's team (eg. India and an under 19 team (eg. India). WP:CRIN says that ″has appeared in at least one cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire, played at the highest international and domestic level (for convenience referred to as a major cricket match)″, whereas while defining major cricket it only talks about men's team. I believe that corresponding criteria applies to other two teams (women's and U-19) as well. So it makes cricketers playing in U-19 tournament notable. srini (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Under-19 matches aren't played at first-class, List A or Twenty20 status level, so the project has decided these matches don't meet our notability criteria. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

first-class, list A and Twenty20 are statistical terms only for men's cricket. So while defining major cricket we must also include women's first-class, women's list A, women's Twenty20, U-19 first-class, U-19 list A and U-19 Twenty20.srini (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"U-19 first-class, U-19 list A and U-19 Twenty20" - there's no such thing as these. Matches are classified under "other". Under-19 cricket isn't major cricket. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

you can see here that matches played by Afghanistan U-19 against India and Bangladesh are listed as U-19 list A. There isn't a specific example for U-19 first-class because non Full members haven't played such match but you will find here and here that all youth tests are also listed as Youth first-class. And AssociateAffiliate you're right there is no U-19 Twenty20. srini (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But they're not the same thing. These matches don't contribute toward a players statistics because they are not official matches of status. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Srini, can I just point out that CRIN and the definition of major cricket both extend to women's cricket. When we talk about a Test match it means a Test in both spheres. I entirely agree with Leggy AA about under-19: not major cricket. Jack | ^{talk page}

I'm sorry, I don't understand when you say "not official matches of status", but what I know is that only A teams play unofficial matches, all matches played by rest three (men, women and U-19) teams have official status. I would also like to know why is U-19 cricket not major cricket, (might be because minors play the game) srini (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I am misleading the conversation (my poor English). I don't want to prove that u19 cricket is major cricket. I just want to establish grounds for notablity of U19 cricket. srini (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The above comment Jack makes about women's cricket is a good point and I've updated the Major cricket article to reflect this, as this links in from WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Srini, at the risk of repeating what others have already said: U19 cricket (Tests, other long or short games) is not regarded as "major cricket" by the worldwide cricket authorities and is therefore not regarded as notable by the Cricket Project here. If you wish to assert notability for a particular tournament, match, team or player, you will have to do so under the WP:GNG general notability guidelines, probably by citing substantial independent coverage in, say, newspapers that can be referenced. Johnlp (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

New article re first-class cricketer that complies with WP:NCRIC is up for AfD. Please go to deletion discussion page if you wish to join the discussion. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sinhalese editors

Do we know of any active Sinhalese editors, who could help with sourcing the Perera article, especially from sources that are not in English? --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Any Sinhalese editors reading this, please see this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#S._Perera_.28Old_Cambrians_cricketer.29 We've got two sources for this S Perera, CricketArchive and Cricinfo. I'm guessing we can find more sources in Sri Lankan media, possibly in English, more likely not. Can you help find anything? Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm nervous about the way this DRV is going. If it doesn't go our way it can mess up everything our guidelines stand for. For a long time. Bobo. 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Our" way? I catch a faint whiff of the odour of battle there... StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive me, @StAnselm:, I didn't mean it that way at all. I misphrased. What I meant to say is that this whole thing has given us honest questions to answer about our inclusion criteria, our source material, as well as those who (rightly) say that you can't believe everything you read on the Internet. Bobo. 01:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, OK. And I know it's particularly tough on you with so much that you've written in danger. (I have one myself, though: Henry Bishop (cricketer).) StAnselm (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Gihan Jayaweera, obviously. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bobo192: You may be heartened to see that the other four AfDs have been spared by an admin who has closed them as "Snow Keep". Johnlp (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnlp: That is excellent news, thank you. I hope that spells good news for our DRV. Bobo. 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone to join me for this problem. But, first of all I must say I don not know about a player with the name S. Perera. I think the name should be more easy to understand, due to there are many S. Perera in Sri Lanka and away from the country. So I can help if I certain about what is the first name initiated with letter "S". Thank You.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know any Sri Lankan cricket people personally but I do have a contact from ACS days who has lived and worked in Sri Lanka. I'm getting in touch with him by e-mail to see if he can somehow assist. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

H'mmm! I got an "out of office" automated reply that he is on holiday until Saturday. Watch this space. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Update on this and things are looking promising. My ACS friend is still on holiday but has got my mail and sent a reply. He has collected data about Sri Lankan cricket since he was based there many years ago. His files and sources are all at home but he says he is "almost certain" that there were TWO players called S. Perera, not one as the AfD "experts" are insisting. As you would expect, they are wrong and Bobo was right all along. My friend believes one of Pereras has a second initial and he's sure he has the full name of the Old Cambrians player, but needs to verify. He adds that, even if his data on these two players is insufficient, he has contacts in SL who could probably get more information. So, fingers crossed. I'm hoping he might send me a full reply in a few days as it will be late when he arrives home tomorrow (he's on holiday in Scotland and lives in the south of England). Jack | ^{talk page} 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlackJack: I hope this makes sense, but all it would take for somewhere like CA or CI to improve its data is for the guy who knew the guy to be able to find a decent source to be able to verify that a certain person existed.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean. Take a big name in cricket, let's say for sake of argument... Sachin Tendulkar. Let's say Sachin Tendulkar appeared in a game alongside someone credited as... M Smith.

All it would take is for a trusty source who knew the guy who knew the guy, to be able to verify the existence of the guy. And as long as that guy had the evidence and/or the provenance in some manner, this is all it would need to enhance several of the pages on CA and CI beyond a simple initial and surname. Bobo. 21:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think English sources including even Wisden have not been very diligent in terms of gathering data about 20th century Sri Lankan cricket. The situation mirrors that in England itself before the 20th century. I'm sure the information is there in Sri Lanka and all we need is access to it. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Dates for Test Matches

Hi. I'm pretty sure we record the dates of a Test match as being the full five days on all articles, even if the match ended in 3 or 4 days. User:Sidhant99 is adamant that they should be recorded as the days the match actually took place, and not the scheduled duration. See the recent edits on New Zealand cricket team in England in 2013, for example. Is this correct? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Cricinfo seem to list them according to the days that were actually played, e.g. this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got last year's Wisden at home - I'll have a look tonight. Meanwhie, my arch-enemy, Cricket Archive lists the example match Rambles linked to as being a - five-day match. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Going the other way, I'm assuming that for the timeless Tests we list the full 7-10 days - so actual, not scheduled? For rest day tests we'd list the 6 days? For old rain day ODIs, do we list both days? Based on that I'd lean towards actual days, not scheduled days. Looking at the template, there's plenty of room on the left hand side of the box, any chance of having both? Actual on top line, scheduled in smaller font below? The-Pope (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that not every page has not followed the same template, e.g. this one. I think the length of the Test match should only be specified in non-five day fixtures. Sidhant99 16:20, 17 November (UTC)

According to SWASTIK 25, the Test match dates should be recorded as the actual days of play. Please see the edits on International cricket in 2002–03. Sidhant99 (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As most of the references given in the cricket-related articles, especially the scorecards of all the cricket matches, are from ESPNcricinfo, I think we should follow the same pattern. Even ICC follows the same pattern. If all the Test matches were listed for five days, then there was no need for recording the Longest matches (by days) & Shortest matches (by days) separately. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

BBL attendance figures

It's nearly Christmas, so we know what that means! Yes, the editors from India come out and start to add attendance figures to BBL articles! Yey! The main offenders are User:Itz arka and User:Karyasuman. They're sure as hell are going to add them, despite there being several previous discussions resulting in no consensus to do so! But that doesn't matter! As long as they think it's OK to do so! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I do think that things remain fine as long as User:Lugnuts thinks its fine not to add them. As soon as someone else finds it a good enough information to be added with reliable sources, you start to have a problem? I mean no one else presses for an info not to be added. I don't understand, did I reduce the quality of the article? Did the article get tarnished, reduced in practicality. Did it have a negative influence on the project, what is the problem? You don't want to add attendance figures just because you don't want to? Is that what you want to say? Karyasuman (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Lugnuts thinks himself to be the Zuckerberg of Wikipedia! Who the hell are you mister to call us offenders? Look at your childish behaviour over little things on Wikipedia (and you claim to be a senior Wiki user! LOL). The previous consensus was about adding the attendances in World Cup 2015. It was not about BBL. In BBL, Cricket Australia traditionally emphasizes on attendance figures for last 5 years (in fact also they used to do it during the previous KFC Big Bash versions during pre-BBL era)! And BBL attendances are added in Wikipedia since then. So if you are mature enough not to pretend to mix a different attendance consensus with this one, then you will stop to do it. And why did you say "editors from India"? What does India have to do with some user adding attendances in BBL articles? This eventually and indirectly points towards indirect racism and you will yourself get into trouble according to Wikipedia norms. So choose your words wisely and stop being smart by mixing World Cup debate with BBL debate (cause you are not)! Arka 92 17:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well buddy, both of your user pages state you are from India. And most of the trolling/disruption on cricket articles comes from IPs located in India. Not that I'm accusing you of the latter. Oh no. I've never claimed to be a "senior Wiki user" either. I see you've done fuck all around here since the summer and now you've crawled out, just ready for the new BBL. Carry on with your tag-team friend and have fun. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Karyasuman, in fact you are right. He doesn't want to add it only because he doesn't want to! And it's not the first time he is making an issue out of little things on Wikipedia. After all it's Wikipedia, not Facebook! Arka 92 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been one of the major contributors to Big Bash League project ever since the start of the league. I have worked tirelessly for it ever since, compiling and updating major and minor issues. A lot of people contributed to the data (including attendance figures) compiled since last 5 years. And then, after 5 years, someone comes and deletes all of this compiled data saying a consensus has not been reached? After 5 years? Ever since the start, we have always had attendance figures for every match. It was a major stat in BBL, whether you like it or not. Moreover, If someone is an Indian, it doesn't mean he can't travel to Australia to watch Big Bash League (every season). He can be aware about the ground facts too. Karyasuman (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Itz arka, thank you for understanding my point. I hardly knew anything about you, but somehow, a person is trying to classify us in a category. Karyasuman (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Karyasuman, if we report the use of F-word, I think then he will get the realization of real trolling! LOL. Long live the logic of Lugnuts! Connecting attendance issue to the native country of the users! Hahaha.. And then using F-words! Btw, I have also been a major contributor towards BBL articles like you. Thank you! Arka 92 03:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Read major contributor as major trolling. Oh well. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Go to your mom and use F-words in front of her. She will be really proud and trolled as well! ;) Coz before making stupid racist judgments go back and see my contributions in the Big Bash articles for the last three years! Arka 92 11:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's this racist bullshit coming from? Obviously clutching at straws here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I won't make any personal comments on Lugnuts. The way he is delivering hate speeches against us (literally abusing) says a lot about him. I'm here to work, I will keep working for its sake. I hope it does not get affected by his demeaning attitude towards us, and Indians in general. Karyasuman (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate by year of birth or nationality?

I've started a requested move at Talk:Paul Jackson (cricketer, born 1959) and would like the participation of project members. Perhaps if things go well we could even hash out some standard practices for disambiguating cricket biographies and codify them somewhere. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We've tended in recent times to go for the year of birth as a general rule that can be applied worldwide. The difficulty with nationality is that for lots of common Anglophone names, you would still need a second kind of separator: look at the plethora of English David Smiths or John Browns or Paul Taylors etc etc. There are similar problems with common Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi names too. You also, these days, get the problem that nationality isn't very firmly fixed with cricketers born in one place turning up in national teams elsewhere. The key to it is to create a Paul Jackson (cricketer) disambiguation page for every case of duplicated names that will then steer people to the player they want. Johnlp (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I urge editors not to try to create a special practise for cricketers unless there is specific evidence that cricket raises issues not found in other areas of human activity, and that the perceived merits of the proposed solution outweigh the disadvantages. Aside from the general risk of instruction creep, differential practises make it harder for editors to maintain wikipedia.

The general guidance at WP:NCPDAB is "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it) although this may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and tag".

The cited example of the two Paul Jacksons illustrates this issue very well.

Firstly, these cricketers were born only 2 years apart. Their careers were largely contemporaneous, so unless a reader already knew the detailed biography of both players, the year of birth does not help the reader to identify the article sought.

Secondly, Paul Jackson (cricketer, born 1961) appears to have played exclusively within Australia. The word "Australian" identifies him very well.

OTOH, the Irish cricketer Paul Jackson (cricketer, born 1959) played for Ireland in no less than 87 matches, and likely to be better known for his international matches than for his other teams (listed at cricket archive as Irish Schools and Ulster Town) -- which in any case are also both identifiably Irish.

There may of course be some special cases where nationality does cause greater ambiguity, and those exceptions are already catered for by WP:NCDAB. But this chosen test case illustrates exceptionally well why nationality is in general a better disambiguator than year of birth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course that works very well for the Paul Jacksons. But perhaps you could come up with a solution for the vast numbers of cricketers called David Smith? It's much better to have one system that works for all, rather than a mix of different systems, and the birth year works, even for the Smiths. Johnlp (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What would be wrong with a standard practice of: 1) disambiguate by nationality if possible; 2) if that is still ambiguous, use birth year. Pretty straightforward and works for a number of other projects. Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnlp: my point is that in many cases, the birth year system doesn't work. As I explained in some detail above, in the case of the Paul Jacksons it is utterly useless in its primary requirement of helping the reader identify which of two article titles they are looking for.

There will of course be some extreme cases for which occupation or occupation+nationality doesn't remove ambiguity. The guideline at WP:NCPDAB already recognises that occupation+birthyear may be used in those extreme situations. How exactly do you think that our readers would be helped if degrade the rest of the articles into the uninformative dabs currently in use for the two Paul Jacksons? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of the oppose votes came from people who don't edit cricket articles, including BHG who has a long reputation of basically bullying her way in discussions until she gets her way. Awesome. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, Lugnuts, we're supposed to make decisions by reasoned discussion. That involves both making reasoned arguments for various options, and critiquing others ... and accepting that some arguments stand up to scrutiny while others don't.

In this instance, there was no plausible case either that the occupation+year dabs helped readers identify articles, or that any specific feature of cricket made it better to dab those two articles by occupation+year. If politely countering a poor argument is to be smeared as "bullying", then we might as well give up on the whole consensus-through-reasoned-discussion thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll dumb it down a bit, seeing as you're having trouble with this. You say it's "utterly useless..." in locating the article. So, you being the non-cricket reader, say you were looking for the Paul Jackson article. You'd type "Paul Jackson" into the search box (or if you're being smart "Paul Jackson (cricketer)". And guess what? You'll go to the dab page and locate the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts is right: but the Paul Jacksons are a bad example to make a test case out of. I'd much rather you (BrownHairedGirl) came up with a sensible solution that would work universally and that would handle the Imran Khan and the David Smith examples, where most of the cricketers are of the same nationality. In addition, in these days when nationality is, to say the least, wobbly, and we have South Africans, Irish, Australians and other people playing for England, the date of birth is a firm and fixed identifier that won't change when they transfer their allegiances across the globe. Johnlp (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Long reply from BHG

Hmm. It seems to me that there are some fundamental misunderstandings her of en.wp policy on articles. So I'll go back to first principles a bit.

First off, Lugnuts misunderstands what the article title is for. The policy per WP:AT's 1st para is that "An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles".

In other words, the title's primary function is not simply to be a unique identifier in an annotated list. If it was, then article title could just be a number or an alphanumeric code, because it would all be explained on the dab page. Instead, the policy is that the title itself has to convey meaning -- the aim is that should not be be necessary to go to the dab page to find that meaning.

Consider Lugnuts (talk · contribs)'s suggestion of that reader typing at the search box. They type in "Paul Jackson", and the autocomplete gives them a drop down list. Thanks to the consensus to revert Lugnut's WP:BOLD moves and restore the previous stable titles, the drop down box includes the helpful titles "Irish cricketer" and "Australian cricketer". No need to go to a dab page -- the article title tells the reader enough to identify the pages. Why on earth would anyone want to deprive readers of that clarity?

And here's some more not-joined-up-thinking. I reverted Lugnuts's bold move of John Smith (Derbyshire cricketer) to the year-of-birth format (he played only for Derbyshire, and so far there's no sign of another John Smith who played for Derbyshire). Here's what the dab page looked like after Lugnuts's move: John Smith#Cricket. Note that there are 7 articles listed, identified only by year of birth and "English cricketer". The effect of Lugnuts's edit was to remove the info about which teams the man played for. I added team info for several, but so much for Lugnuts's assertion that the reader can "go to the dab page and locate the article". Not when Lugnuts has removed the identifying info, they can't :(

For most articles, no dab is needed. Even cricketers. I checked the first 1000 entries in Category:English cricketers: 65% have no parenthetical dab, 25% are dabbed with "cricketer", and only 10% have a more verbose dab.

Where a disambiguator is needed, policy is clear: WP:PARENDIS says "use only as much additional detail as necessary". WP:NCPDAB is clear about this: use a single noun where possible, keeping it as simple as possible. If that's not enough, then the NCPDAB again has the answer: "the disambiguator can be expanded with a second qualifier". "Australian cricketer" is an example of that.

Policy at WP:NCPDAB is that year-of-birth should be used only if "the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner by such more specific qualifiers".

That principle works for all other fields of human endeavour. Why not for cricketers?

Several editors cited the example of the John Smiths as requiring year-of-birth dabs, but this deserves scrutiny. Some of the 11 John Smiths played for multiple teams, or played for a single team which also had another John Smith. But at least 4 of the 11 are unique:

• John Smith (Derbyshire cricketer) (1841–98), English cricketer, played only for Derbyshire
• John Smith (cricketer, born 1843) (1843–73), English cricketer, played for Cambridgeshire 1863–72 should be renamed
• John Smith (cricketer, born 1936) (born 1936), Australian cricketer should be renamed
• John Smith (New Zealand cricketer) (born 1960), New Zealand cricketer also known as Campbell Smith

Johnlp (talk · contribs) asks why don't I devise "a sensible solution that would work universally". The answer is I don't need to, 'cos we already have a universal solution in long-standing en.wp policy, which is to add detail as required:

1. Use commonname
2. If commonname is ambiguous with a non-cricket topic, dab with "(cricketer)"
3. If "commonname (cricketer)" is ambiguous with another cricketer topic, dab with "(fooian cricketer)" if possible
4. If "commonname (fooian cricketer)" is still ambiguous, then use "(cricketer, born YYYY)"

Sure, I see that cricket has some special features: players appearing for multiple teams, players joining teams outside their home country so that nationality becomes ambiguous. Fine: when that happens, use "(cricketer, born YYYY)" as with the South African born Irish cricketer John Anderson (cricketer, born 1982).

This approach works for all other fields of human endeavour. Why not continue to use it for cricket? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think BrownHairedGirl talks a lot of sense. Both with this issue, and the S. Perera deletion discussion, this WikiProject seems to be trying to act as a solitary arbitrator for all cricket information on Wikipedia, setting our own rules and policies. The fact is that WikiProjects are collaborations of users with similar interests working within Wikipedia's guidelines. We need to pay attention to those guidelines. Sometimes, often in fact, the two tally. But in some instances, they don't, and while there are avenues of discussion that can be taken, the bottom line is that this WikiProject has to adhere to the guidelines set by the greater Wikipedia community. Especially in this instance, when they simply make more sense. Harrias ^talk 22:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Harrias. I do acknowledge that some features of cricket mean that year-of-birth-dabs may be needed more often than in other fields. My point is simply that its still a small minority of cases, and greatest harmony all round is achieved by doing it only when needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fucking pointy page moves now from this terrible editor - once again getting her way. What a fucking joke. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: please drop the personal attacks and the swearing. There is nothing pointy about reverting a small proportion of a long list of WP:BOLD page moves, when the reverted moves appear to breach the naming guideline at WP:NCPDAB, and where a recent WP:RM discussion has upheld my view of those guidelines.

You are quite entitled to disagree with my assessment of those moves. But please use the consensus-forming process at WP:RM to find a consensus, rather than accusing me of being pointy.

It would also be helpful if you substantively engaged with the discussion here. The aim is to try to reach consensus, and that requires discussion. You use me of "bullying" and "getting my own way", which seems rather back-to-front. I am not the one doing lots of unilateral moves and denouncing the outcome of RM discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And now you're stalking my edits to go through and move pages without going to WP:RM, despite the fact you've listed several there in the last 24 hours. How do you defend these actions? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, you are an experienced enough editor on en.wp to know that checking a small subset of an editor's vast contributions, and fix a problem in a small proportion of those is not stalking. Please read WP:HOUND, and please do try to WP:AGF.

You are also experienced enough to know the WP:BRD cycle. As with any other editor, you are free to revert any moves which you feel breach WP:AT/WP:NCPDAB, and/or to open a WP:RM. If you prefer, lemme know which moves you object to, and I will self-revert all those you list, and take them to WP:RM myself.

I am starting to find your stance here rather odd. You repeatedly accuse of me of bad faith. You make WP:BOLD moves and condemn me for making such moves or for reverting to the status quo ante. You denounce the outcome of a consensus-forming WP:RM discussion. In this discussion here, you have now posted two rounds of personal attack on me rather than making a substantive contribution to the discussion.

Please can you try to engage with the consensus-forming processes rather than just denouncing those who disagree with you? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the full explanation, BrownHaired Girl. Your reasoning makes sense and I don't think the cricket project should stand out against the prevailing wisdom although, as you say, it may be that, because of nationality issues and players who appear for multiple teams, we end up by using more of the birthdate disambiguation than happens elsewhere. Johnlp (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnlp.

I should note that after reviewing several hundred of the page moves by Lugnuts, I can see that many of the moves to birthdate disambiguation were well-justified. Lugnuts has clearly done a lot of good work disambiguating cricket articles. My concern is solely that Lugnuts has also applied birthdate disambiguation in some cases where it was not needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hats off to BHG. Try pulling that shit with the football biographies on here and see how far you get. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE

Good morning. Please refer to this proposal. It is clear that the problem we have with Perera and similar cases is that the guidelines are causing confusion and, as things stand, we have no firm basis for a discussion. I daresay most of these guidelines need to be reviewed and revised but there is a clear contradiction in the opening paragraph of WP:ATHLETE which I am seeking to address.

I do not see any problems with WP:NCRIC which is one of the SSC within WP:ATHLETE and we should continue to argue that a player must have made at least one major match appearance. Neither do I see any current problems with WP:CRIN from which NCRIC is derived. The problem we have, as with Perera, is that the SSC is only one part of the evidence needed to satisfy the overriding GNG. Much as we may wish to alter GNG, realistically it won't happen and so we have to work with it. We can't work with it at all, though, if WP:ATHLETE is saying two different things, hence my proposal to make it consistent. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add this here as well, but the FAQ at the top of that page is important reading in all of this I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sort criteria

Say there were two cricket players.

• David Smith - born David Kevin Smith on November 30, 1986 in London, plays for Sussex
• David Smith - born David Alexander Smith on October 30, 1987 in Pietermaritzburg, plays for Cape Cobras

We have four potential titles of article:

• David Kevin Smith, David Smith (cricketer, born 1986), David Smith (English cricketer), David Smith (Sussex cricketer)
• David Alexander Smith, David Smith (cricketer, born 1987), David Smith (South African cricketer), David Smith (Cape Cobras cricketer)

What is the order of precedence? Bobo. 17:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In that example, I would go for David Smith (Sussex cricketer) and David Smith (Cape Cobras cricketer) but I believe this would not comply with the agreed guideline on disambiguation. I think with a name as common as that we would help the reader best by going down to team level. The birth year doesn't help at all and if the South African has played in England but is not generally known to be a South African, the nationality may also fail the reader. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Suresh Perera

The third source has delivered the goods and we now know the player's first name, date of birth and bowling action; but not if he was RHB or LHB! The big surprise is that he is the same man who played for Kurunegala so we had two articles for one player, while CA and CI (not for the first time) have dual entries as a result of their over-reliance on scorecard data. It is possible that my contact will get further verification from Sri Lanka in the next few days as he knows someone there with easy access to a newspaper archive.

I think this shows that any biostub we create based on CA and/or CI has the potential to be expanded and so it is wrong of these over-zealous AfD types to deny us time to find additional information. I have no objection to them sticking refimprove tags on an article (I do that myself) but going straight to PROD or speedy or AfD is just not on. It is disrespectful, for one thing, to a mature project like ourselves.

Anyway, the AfD is still there so please add or amend your entries in the light of the additional info. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job. I'm probably going to change my vote to "keep". I was wondering if more details could be found for other Sri Lankan players such as:

T. Silva, K. Mendis, S. Tharanga, B. David, C. Siriwardene (Sri Lankan cricketer), A. Weerasinghe, C. Thusara, D. Perera, Ajantha (cricketer), D. de Silva, P. de Silva. I'm sure there are many more such articles, and it would be great if we could find information about these players. Fenopy (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Bashing a Cricinfo source on each of these would be useful in case the WP:ONESOURCE argument comes up. I'm just far too used to only putting one link on each biographical article. Bobo. 17:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Update. The article has been amended to include citations based on the newspaper information I have been given by my contact in the ACS. I have informed the AfD that this has been done but I am taking no further part in the AfD. Apparently, by following up Dweller's excellent idea to try and get some information from Sri Lanka, I am pre-fabricating information and my contacts including the ACS are unreliable. That is the sort of mindset which inhabits the AfD (and CfD, of course) domain. Frankly, I am disgusted. I'm taking some time out now to reconsider my position on this site. Best wishes to you all for Christmas and 2016. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:StAnselm has had something of an attitude from the outset of the AfD, for a pious man you would think he would know better. He's annoyed me too, on one occasion in particular where some of his actions have seemed not entirely in good faith. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Tee-To-Tum

Hi. I've just quickly split off the new cricket-related stub Tee-To-Tum from bits of text in the unrelated Teetotum. It's not much, but I thought you'd like to know it's there. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Request Article Assessment

Hi... The article on the tour of the West Indian cricket team in India in 1983–84 is being assessed for DYK project. It is currently ranked as 'stub' class and I don't know enough about the Wikiproject's classification approach to know which class is appropriate, so I invited and experienced WikiCricketer to have a look and make an assessment. Many Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Retirement

Hi all. I'm traveling around Australia and South America for the next year, so will be retiring from editing, besides which I haven't been that active of late anyway. Good luck with the project, and if anyone feels like cracking on with my obscure cricketers lists, they're here, here, and here. Have a good 2016! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PinchHittingLeggy Have a great time travelling! We'll try and keep the encyclopaedia in one piece while you're gone! Harrias ^talk 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Have fun! JH (talk page) 21:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy your travels! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. 86.149.242.121 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Big Bash League derbies

Two years ago, there was an argument on whether the Melbourne derby and Sydney derby articles should exist on Wiki or not. The result was a delete. The one year later from then, this article was recreated and voted in favour of it's existence Sydney Derby (BBL). But Sydney derby is statistically much less competitive and popular than the Melbourne derby. But the Sydney derby article exists on Wiki while the Melbourne derby doesn't. So can I create an article on the Melbourne derby given the fact that the Sydney derby exists already. Or will it be deleted? Should I or should I not? Arka 92 11:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "voted in favour of it's existence". I don't see any discussion about the new article. StAnselm (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Then delete the article. What's so big deal??? Arka 92 13:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're not sure, use Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Harrias ^talk 14:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

These are now at AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lots more stats lists

Found a lot of new articles which are just attempts at complete lists of results- most have been created by @Gihan Jayaweera:. Per WP:LISTCRUFT, I believe they should all be deleted, but want to see what others think. The articles are:

• List of One Day International cricket matches
• List of Test cricket matches
• Test cricket matches results (1877–1914)
• Test cricket matches results (1920–39)
• Test cricket matches results (1946–54)
• Twenty20 International matches results (2010–14)
• Twenty20 International matches results (2015–19)
• One Day International matches results (1970–79)
• One Day International matches results (1980–84)
• One Day International matches results (1985–89)
• One Day International matches results (1990–94)
• One Day International matches results (1995–99)
• One Day International matches results (2000–04)
• One Day International matches results (2005–09)
• Template:T20I cricket matches by year
• Template:ODI cricket matches by year
• Template:Test cricket matches by year

I quite like the idea of having a history by year (or decade) for each of the top level formats of the game. Early days with these and I see them as being no different to articles such as 1890 English cricket season, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Almost impossible to use and maintain. I honestly can't see them adding anything - there's a massive difference between these and specific season articles in that the season is a defined object whereas these articles try to create a five year cycle with no apparent meaning - an Australian season would be cut in two by the divisions for example. I would delete all of them - but then I dislike the over reliance on statistics anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Major cricket/cricket notability changes

Just a heads up that with the ongoing AfD for Mr. Perera, some editors are keen to change WP:NSPORTS with regards to "major cricket". See this and this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And this. Sigh. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article still "S Perera" and not "Suresh Perera" ? Tintin 12:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Pandove

I recently created and expanded an article about the youngest first-class centurion (was surprised there wasn't an article about him) at Dhruv Pandove. But there seems to be some disagreement about the spelling of his name on different sources. His Cricinfo profile calls him Dhruva Pandove, while his CricketArchive profile calls him Dhruve Pandove. On almost every other site he is known as Dhruv Pandove. What should be the spelling on Wikipedia? - Dee03 13:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. Seeings as most sources list him as Dhruv, go with that (for now) and redirect the other spellings. There's even differences between the sources from The Hindu and The Tribune! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This kind of thing can crop up, partly because of inconsistent transliteration, or poor local reporting. Either way, WP:COMMONNAME is the way to go. If he's usually called Dhruv, we should go with that, and best practice would be to include the other spellings in the lead. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added the redirects. Wisden's obituary also calls him Dhruv. So let's go with that. Dee03 14:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just be careful with the sources. The article now says that Pandove is the youngest first class centurion. As per the ACS site, he is the fifth youngest. Three of these are Pakistani and one a Bangladeshi, so you can't be very sure but one is as recent as 2006/7 (http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/116/116306.html ). The main source of this article says that "He became the youngest player to score a century in first class cricket (136 against Jammu and Kashmir at Udhampur) and in the bargain broke Sachin Tendulkar’s record." which is complete nonsense - Tendulkar scored his first fc hundred two months after Pandove scored his, Pandove wasn't the youngest, he scored 137 not 136, and at Srinagar which is 200 km from Udhampur .

".... having broken various first-class records" - as far as I can see, he has broken or held no first class records and only one Indian record (youngest centurion). Tintin 12:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Tintin That's interesting, but the article said he became the youngest to score a first-class century (which has now been changed by another editor), not that he still holds the record. There was also a BBC source stating Pandove became the youngest first-class centurion. Anyway, who are the three Pakistanis? If it's possible can you post the scorecards of those three matches? And the youngest to 1000 Ranji runs, did Pandove hold this record at that time? Dee03 15:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad Akram, Rizwan Sattar and Ahmed Mustafa in http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/29/29791.html, http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/46/46623.html and http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/22/22704.html are the other three, all of which preceded Pandove. There are always doubts about the actual age of very young Pakistani cricketers but this is what the records say. It is nearly certain that Pandove was & is the youngest to reach 1000 in Ranji because Tendulkar got there at 18 years and four days (see the notes under http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/54/54130.html). Pandove's father too scored a Ranji hundred when he was 16 (http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/25/25291.html ). Btw, please don't take any of this as personal criticism. Unreliable sources are something that all cricket editors have to work with. Tintin 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the scorecards. I had actually come across a CricketCountry source that said Pandove is the fifth-youngest, but it is an unreliable source (blacklisted by Wikipedia). That's why I gave weightage to the BBC source. No, I did not take it personally. The facts must be accurate, that's all. Dee03 16:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have commented at the Pandove DYK nomination page on proposed hooks for this article. If Pandove still holds the record for youngest to 1000 in the Indian domestic competition and we can find a record to confirm that, I can propose another tweak. Is there a reliable list of youngest to 1000 for this competition? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked for sources to see if he still holds the record but couldn't find any. I thought Ankit Bawne, who made his debut at 15, might have broken the record, but he got there at 18 years 11 months ([4]). Ambati Rayudu got there at 18 years 5 months ([5]). Sunny Singh (cricketer) got there at 18 years 3 months ([6]). The record might have been broken in these 24 years, but I can't think of anyone else right now. Pinging @Tintin1107: who is likely to have sources/answers. Dee03 13:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if there is any method other than manual checking. http://stats.acscricket.com/Records/First_Class/Overall/Players/Youngest_Players_on_Debut.html has the list of all debutants under 17 (free registration required). Couldn't find any 17 year olds from checking a random set of players (Raina at 18-1 month being the best among the rest). If there is a player who scored 1000 before 18, his name must be present in this page because nobody has scored 1000 runs in their first Ranji season (the best is 995 by Jiwanjot Singh). Tintin 15:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that no one scored 1000 in the first season does not imply that their name must be present in that page, but it is very unlikely. Tintin 15:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

New article added, M. P. Pandove - good work Dee03 - but there is uncertainty over his first name. Assistance is requested. EdChem (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt Hobden

I'm looking to take Matt Hobden to DYK, which needs the article expanded to 3540 characters (5x the size that it was before. I'm about 1000 characters short and am now rather busy, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Very sad news about his death. I imagine that in the next day or two the cause of death will be released (most likely to be a road accident, I imagine). That alone will probably provide the greater part of an extra 1,000 characters. JH (talk page) 18:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Found some more info, and some others have added things too. Now at DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

New cricket lists

Hello.

Since I normally don't work with cricket I ask you if List of Big Bash League centuries and List of Big Bash League records and statistics is notable for its own article. It is pretty poor creations from SWASTIK 25 and obviously copied from places ("use dmy dates" is set in 2013 as an example) and he even had the gut to rate the first article as a featured list. I would appreciate help from someone with better cricket knowledge than me. Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Same goes for List of Zimbabwe One Day International cricket records Qed237 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Qed237: Please put a valid reason for your ask. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 15:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? I gave a valid reason. Since I dont know enough about cricket I wanted to ask the cricket project if the articles are notable. Nothing wrong in that, so do not remove this section again. Qed237 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I simply wanted to know that despite your lack of knowledge about cricket, what's the reason for your evaluation of the articles created by me as "pretty poor creations"? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 17:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That is easy, first you say they are featured lists, then dmy dates before article was created (obviously copied from som other article), after that you base the entire article on only one source (ESPN) instead of support from several different places, and so on. Qed237 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not as easy as you think. So, better not comment upon it. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 06:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: thanks for your enquiry. All three of the topics you have queried involve major cricket teams and tournaments so they are notable per WP:CRIN. I agree, however, that other sources besides ESPNcricinfo should be used and I would suggest, Swastik, CricketArchive as well if printed sources are not to hand. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly Jack. But I think ESPN Cricinfo provides more authentic datas & informations. Thanks. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 06:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I won't disagree with you about that. Also, please note you cannot add a "featured list" or "featured article" tag unless the article has been passed by a formal FL or FA review. If you don't understand the review processes, best to ask an admin like Dweller or Harrias, who are involved in them, for advice. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for informing. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 09:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a handy link: WP:WIAFL. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 19, 2016

I'll get to work on this one today. Posting here because the FAC nominator is long gone. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a squint. YellowMonkey's prolific quality article writing is sorely missed. --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia withdraw from U19 World Cup

Not sure how to handle the scheduled fixtures, now that Australia have withdrawn from the 2016 Under-19 Cricket World Cup. Maybe the anon IP approach of burning it with fire is one way to go about it... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

AEJ Collins' record has been smashed

([7]) Test Match Special say he reached 1009*. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the article's numbers are completely different to those of the scorecard. StAnselm (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmm..scorecard shown so far is suspiciously incomplete (and minimal) too…no wickets in bowler's columns…we (cricket stats & history buffs) should ask for the complete scorecard to be available. Be interesting to see the sequence of scoring strokes. The ball-by-ball bowling figures would read like a tennis score ! RossRSmith (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cricinfo have a scorecard with their standard amount of detail here. JH (talk page) 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've noticed some details published in news story about play on the first day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3384792/Pranav-Dhanawade-hits-incredible-652-not-set-world-record-highest-score.html

Somewhere along the line stats details must be wrong - if he was 652 n.o. at stumps off 199 balls including 30 x 6 and 78 x 4, (and his final total of 1009 n.o. off 327 balls includes 59 x 6 and 129 x 4), then his extra 357 runs off 128 balls on second day is not enough to cover the extra 29 x 6 and 51 x 4 boundary strokes recorded, as they add up to 378. RossRSmith (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Info box in pages of international umpires

I wanted the info boxes to be displayed as Tests umpired 84 Tests (2000-2015) as it looks a bit better in the pages so can that format be accepted?? It will be good to know everyone's opinion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket246 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Taken care of at User talk:Cricket246. - DVdm (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir thanks.... Its done... Thanks for the guidance... Cricket246 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For info, the conversation in on Billy's page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Test matches navbox

Gihan Jayaweera has recently created the template Template:Test cricket matches by year and the accompanying articles listed within. The lists are complete up until about 1963, so there is still quite a lot of work to do. But before that work is done, I want to raise the question about whether such long lists are required. To me they seem a random grouping of information that do not provide a great deal of benefit to the reader. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have found that similar templates have been made for Template:T20I cricket matches by year and Template:ODI cricket matches by year. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This was raised a few sections above. I have a feeling they could end up at AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your thoughts. But, I must say that this is a encyclopedia, and not a concise dictionary or a website about one particular thing. This whole Wikipedia is all about the encyclopedia and everything brings to one click hand. So, I know every cricket lover may not refer all the Test, ODI and T20I matches played so far. But, this may very useful to anyone in the future, lets say after 50 to 60 years. All of us will die and anyone who has the curiosity about the whole matches until that period, will help these articles. If these articles are not necesary, then the tables of each international season is also not very useful, because it deals with the matches held so far in each season. I don't think that everyone also provide a great deal of benefit to the readers. Cheers. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one like them. I know the next person along could disagree, but that's how it goes. I think these are useful for the average reader to look at when browsing through the pages of results. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Squad sections

Hello. I've been meaning to address some issues with regard to the cricket squads on international team pages. Back when Wikipedia was expanding rapidly, I did a bit of work (along with others) on standardising them. We went with inclusion criteria of having played in the last year - so players who've been rested for a series and so forth could still be listed as a member of a squad in that format - and then listing the forms they'd played in that year.

However, we seem to have slipped away a bit in places. Pakistan's inclusion criteria is probably the normal one but poorly phrased. Zimbabwe has no listed inclusion criteria (although they may still be running the conventional one). NZ claims to go back to the start of 2014. Australia has had the inclusion criteria removed and seems to be attempting to display the most recent squad plus some rested players, but is a bit all over the place. Both NZ and Aus have player names in bold for players with contracts and italics if they've been selected in the most recent squad.

Now, the year thing isn't perfect. By the end of a year of non-selection, a player's presence on the list can seem pretty antiquated. But if you cut to six months, say, you can end up with situations where teams have barely played, while 9 months would be fairly arbitrary. I also understand the compulsion to list a latest squad - including uncapped players. Who is in a touring party/set to play is of interest to the users.

Some options...

• We cut down the inclusion criteria in some way. Either in terms of months, or using some sort of latest squad qualification (note that the latter would require a lot more adding/removing, and could see established performers removed if they've been rested).
• We list called-up players who don't make the months/year criteria. We could either do this by listing them in the text above the table or placing them in the table with something in a notes column. Alternatively, we could have a "for the latest squad please see latest tour article."
• To remove ambiguity, for the players who make the year cut-off (or alternative) we could list the forms they've played in regardless of whether that's within the last year. We could then bold/colour those that had played within the year (or alternative!). If you wanted to go further, you could split each form into a column (and make it sortable), and if you wanted to go really far you could have appearance stats instead of "Yes" the capped equivalent.

Onto some other issues...

• Sortable tables. I think users would like to be able to sort squad lists - particularly by age/domestic team, but also simply by name. The issue here is we include column-spanning headers - "Opening batsmen" etc. Could we switch this to a primary role column and continue to order players by that criteria? And how many batting sections should you have? Opening and middle order? Top order and middle order?
• Captaincy. If we keep the column-spanning headers, we might want to look at captaincy. Some teams have their captains at the top of their table, in a separate section with a captain header. Issue is, sometimes teams can have three different captains and vice-captains are also sometimes listed. I think it makes the table look quite bitty, and also separates the captain from the role section. Would writing "Test captain" etc. in the notes column be a better style?
• All-rounders. There's loads listed, way more than there should be. Lots of bowlers who bat a bit are included. Can we come up with some criteria? I think you need to be batting seven up regularly in Tests, or six up in ODIs/T20s to be considered an all-rounder, and you should be bowling a fair number of your team's overs. But that's a bit vague...
• Centreing the table. The majority of tables are centred within the page, but not all of them. Should they be?
• Column ordering. Should we standardise, where possible?
• Contracts. The majority of teams have a contract details column, although a couple of tables bold players who hold them. I definitely prefer the former style. Some pages list any contracted players who don't make the criteria in the text above the squad table. Should this be standard? And if so, should it be above the table or below it?
• Retired players. Some pages list in the text above the table where a player has played in the last year, but since retired. Should this be standard? And if they've only retired from one format? Perhaps a footnote?

You could end up with something like this (abridged and stats not accurate!)...

This lists all the players who have played for Australia in the past year and the forms in which they have played. Uncapped players for the tour of x are also included. Mitchell Johnson has also played Test cricket for Australia in this period but has since retired. Shane Warne also holds a Cricket Australia contract but has not played in the last year.

Name	Age	Batting style	Bowling style	State	Tests	ODIs	T20Is	S/N	C	Primary role	Notes
David Warner	38	Left-handed	Right-arm medium/leg spin	New South Wales	45	84	2	31	Y	Opening batsman	Test & ODI Vice-Captain
Kane Richardson	33	Right-handed	Right-arm fast medium	South Australia		3		47		Pace bowler	Called up for NZ T20s
Scott Boland	35	Right-handed	Right-arm fast medium	Victoria						Pace bowler	Called up for NZ ODIs

Don't think that's ideal, but shows a lot of possible changes in one table. Anyway, all thoughts appreciated. HornetMike (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

BBL player rankings

Please head to 2015–16 Big Bash League season talk page to reach a consensus on adding player rankings section to this page. Your involvement would be highly appreciated. I also want to include the fact that these ratings and rankings are official. I do think that this small section is a wonderful addition to the small page. Thanking you. Karyasuman (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)