Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Major rewrite of Fast Bowling page

I've spend the past couple of days compiling a rewrite of the entry of Fast Bowling, keeping very little of the existing text. Because I was aware the changes could be controversial I've saved the text in User:MattDP/fast bowling and I would appreciate it if project members could take a look and post their comments, especially on the subject of whether it would be useful to replace the current entry with my proposed text.

My aim in doing this is twofold. Firstly to write a complete article which will allow a reader to explore the technique, tactics and approaches to fast bowling from a single point because all these issues are interlinked. Currently information on fast bowling is split between a large number of small articles which doesn't allow this complete picture to be built up. Secondly to make the article of a length and depth which would allow it to be considered as a feature article once it had been edited and added to by people more competent than me :) This latter aim is in accordance with the stated aims of WP:Cricket.

Sam Vimes suggested that we keep the small articles to make it easier to write links and to keep existing links and this seems sensible - I have linked to the small articles as appropriate from my revised text. I would suggest that if my text is adopted that these various articles have a "see also fast bowling" added to them. MattDP 10:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it, particularly the explanatory images. I've been meaning to take photos of various bowling grips for ages -- but I kept on failing to make time for it. Could you send me a copy of the source file -- I'd like to make similar versions for spin and swing bowling. --Ngb 09:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made the update after waiting over 24 hours and having had no negative comments of the subject. MattDP 14:48 August 25, 2005

I agree the smaller articles should be kept, and that they should link back to the new (and impressive) main article. The articles on particular subtopics such as swing bowling can develop the topic in more detail than the sections of the fast bowling page. (And also provide a strong anchor for links to swing bowling rather than a section within another article.) -dmmaus 02:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket writers

So that writers are given due recognition for their considerable achievements on cricket's behalf, I've created category:Cricket historians and writers and category:Cricket commentators and moved everyone from the former "writers and broadcasters" category into one or the other (some like Arlott, Johnners, Richie, CMJ, etc. go into both).

I've also started List of works by cricket historians and writers to summarise the important books.

Fiction If it doesn't exist already, I'd like to start a stub-article on cricket in fiction. Off the top of my head, I can only think of three fiction books that I've read that deal a lot with cricket - but I'm sure there's many more (Wodehouse I remember was an avid fan) and from Google, I can see that there's even a chap called Leslie Frewin who's brought out TWO anthologies on cricket fiction alone! (Anyone have any access to the book?) At any rate, please feel free to help out! -- Peripatetic 00:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

Hi guys. Just to note that there is a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves to replace the current disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly with Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (a US TV personality), on the grounds that 'the cricketeer [sic.] is nowhere near as notable as the controversial talk show host'. I've expressed my opposition to this -- others might like to do so too. --Ngb 19:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the irony, but oh well. I've opposed. Sam Vimes 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This voting now seems to have moved to Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Requested_move & neither of your votes appear there, FYI. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's improve the Bill O'Reilly page by adding the infobox and expanding the sections. This will circumvent claims that he is less notable. I believe his images should be in public domain. How long for Australia copyrights to expire? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Australian Copyright Council copyright in photos lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years - but this law did not come in until 1 Jan 2005, and all photos taken before 1 Jan 1955 are out of copyright anyway (details in this PDF file). Loganberry (Talk) 00:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

...all photos taken before 1 Jan 1955 are out of copyright anyway. Would this mean that Cricinfo photos (for example) and others before 1955 are fairuse? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Should be PD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Could you suggest a suitable tag? Maybe: {{PD-old}} with acknowledgement of source?-- Ian ≡ talk 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

{{PD-Australia}}. I've made a similar tag in commons for expired Indian copyrights. (See this example Image:BEST-first-bus-1926.jpg) Make sure that the link to the .pdf file is present somewhere in the template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Done that, thanks for your help. -- Ian ≡ talk 06:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done the infobox. --Ngb 07:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about this one. We all know Bill O'Reilly is a leg-spin legend, but IMO this proposal is pretty minor compared to the cricket disambig kerfuffle. -dmmaus 02:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just been weighing in on behalf of Tiger and I see that the guy who originally proposed the replacement has withdrawn it. He apologised because he "didn't know the cricketeer (sic) was so notable". Surely that settles it, especially given the massive vote in favour of Tiger. --Jack 12:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I don't this fight is worth the pain. User:Noitall clearly cannot be convinced cricket is a major world sport or that Tiger is of any note. There's no point raising your blood pressure over it. I suggest requesting an admin to make a final decision and clamp the argument shut, whatever way the decision goes. -dmmaus 01:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Actually, there's no need to do anything, with the original move request having been withdrawn. The page won't be moved without a new request being put in, so why bother arguing over it. -dmmaus 08:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Kudos. Newest member of WP Cricket here. You guys are simply incredible. I just read the entire debate over cricketer vs commentator, and the passion and ferocity with which you fought cricket's corner, especially against inbred Americans, makes me feel pretty damn happy to be a cricket fan in this company. Tiger would have been so proud! --Peripatetic 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:WP Cricket Test bios

I've created this template to see how many more bios of Test cricketers we have left to write. The number of Test cricketers by nation is taken directly from our Lists of Test cricketers. The number of bios we have by nation is taken from the categories, eg Category:Australian test cricketers. Some of the articles, particularly the Bangladeshi ones are no more than sub-stubs, but most of them are longer than that. If you update it, please make sure you update for each nation and put the date on it. If you're writing a new bio, try to add an infobox, links to CricketArchive and Cricinfo, and fully categorise it, jguk 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good idea; thanks. I keep wavering on the question of new bios: usually I think that having some sort of article for every Test player is the most important thing, but then when I actually write an article it tends to get longer than I was expecting! Having said that, Infoboxes don't take long to do. I need to remember to put in the CA links, though. Loganberry (Talk) 20:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Poor Sam

I'm sure it's a coincidence and probably shouldn't mention it - but it does seem rather ironic. Sam posts an article on the game where the Aussie Women lost the Ashes for the first time since 1963, within 12 minutes an Aussie woman opposes his RfA claiming it's POV. Ho-hum, jguk 15:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

2005 cricket season controversy

Considering the amount of times we have had to defend our cricket match articles, is it time we put together a sub-page to explain what we are doing here? It would save rehashing tired arguments, and would probably save on animosity as well. It was Sam Vimes's admin nomination (see above) that made me think of this. Is this a good idea? Perhaps someone involved with writing the articles could lend a hand writing it? [[smoddy]] 16:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea. For reference... Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005, Talk:Warwickshire_v_Kent_1_May_2005 Sam Vimes 16:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Before we do, can we agree amongst ourselves what the best way forward is. In many respects I'd like to keep things as they are - with the transcluded articles, but wouldn't object overly strongly if they ended up being substituted. What I wouldn't like to happen is to lose the original match articles, as they are all categorised into Category:2005 English cricket season matches, which provides a useful and interesting index of each match. If the decision is taken to substitute the currently transcluded text, they could all relatively easily be topped and tailed with standardised text to introduce the match and provide relevant links, jguk 17:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Each match in the season is very, very borderline notable. One of the reasons we got them through VfD was to argue the point that they were to be merged in three months' time - and that people agreed that the season in itself was notable, but the matches were not. The index of matches can quite as easily be achieved by a list - in fact, better, since we can make two lists, one sorted by date and one by home team. Sam Vimes 18:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If 24 minute TV episodes are notable enough (and as far as VfD is concerned they are), I'm sure a 4-day cricket match is, jguk 08:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Millions watch the TV show. A county match is lucky to get four-digit figures... Sam Vimes 09:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Who's side are you on, Sam? jguk 09:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Devil's advocate's, for the time being. Sam Vimes 09:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The proposed policy Wikipedia:Importance suggests a threshold for notability: 'there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject'. This is clearly the case for these match reports.

However, notability isn't really the issue we should be talking about -- the real issue is that the way we've written them conflicts with WP:NOT because individually they are essentially news reports. I have a strong amount of sympathy for this position, so I think that come the end of the season we should subst them into the season review articles, copyediting them along the way as necessary, then transwiki the originals to Wikinews.

I'm also very concerned that if we don't subst and delete/transwiki them at the end of the season then we will basically have lied on several VfDs.--Ngb 09:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree there. I don't honestly see the need to transwiki them, though - wikinews isn't much of an archive, is it? One thing that did occur to me, though - why can't the same content appear both on wikinews and wikipedia? Sam Vimes 09:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, because they deal with different kinds of content: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. News reports (like these are, seen individually) are seen as unwanted content on Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopaedia foremost and not a news source. Wikinews, on the other hand, is a news source (a pointless one, I think, along with most of the other superfluous Wikimedia projects, but nevertheless). I see transwiki as the only way of keeping these as individual articles: if they are left here then they will certainly be VfDd again and I imagine many of the Wikipedians who were persuaded to vote keep or abstain before (because of our promises to remove them at the end of the season) will vote to delete. If the season reviews were completed satisfactorily and the individual match reports were VfDd again then I would vote to delete myself. --Ngb 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentence, actually - and personally I won't be too bothered, since I can't see the need to keep it as individual articles. I was just thinking, right now, it would probably be nice to have some kind of article on the England batting effort on Wikinews, and whether it would be allowed to copy content from Wikipedia (properly cited, of course), onto Wikinews. Or whether that's the wrong way around. Sam Vimes 14:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- sorry, I misunderstood the focus of your question. I don't see any problem with that: the article here would be part of building The 2005 Ashes and so on, whereas the article on Wikinews would be standalone. Go for it. --Ngb 15:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't, just a good reference for later. Going to watch a football match now. This game might just involve too much nail-biting for my liking. Sam Vimes 15:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Flickr

Found a new source for cricket images. Has anyone tried http://flickr.com/ ? They have quite a few free cricket images. Here's one of The Oval: http://flickr.com/photos/nedrichards/20671484/ . =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

We need to be just a little bit careful of taking photos from flickr as the source isn't always obvious -- http://flickr.com/photos/sweeney/31690741/, for instance, is listed as being licensed under CC by-sa but is actually pinched from the BBC News site. --Ngb 19:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Frank Worrell Trophy

I'd like to add information on the loss of the Frank Worrell Trophy - as in when nobody could find where the actual physical trophy had gotten to for many years. I recall they had a replica made so they actually had something to award to the teams, and then IIRC Wes Hall found the original trophy stashed in a forgotten corner of a closet at his home. I haven't been able to find documentation about this event. Can anyone help? -dmmaus 01:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any information online. It seems nobody is aware of this fact. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Current players category?

I know that keeping the stats and articles of current players up to date is a big issue here, and I feel that a catagory of current players would make a nice list of all those who may need updating, and it would make the job a little bit easier. Plus it may be interesting for those looking for this sort of thing. Does anyone else agree? Raven4x4x 11:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Agree: There are many international cricketers currently playing yet do not even mention a century they hit or a five-for they got in 2005.DaGizza

I have no problem with that, but we'll have to find a definition of "current player" (or better still "current international player" that makes it as easy to update as possible. Maybe anybody who has played at least one Test, ODI or Twenty20 International since 1 January 2004, with the year to be updated annually each 1 January? jguk 12:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

How about "currently playing well" and "currently playing like cr*p" -- Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I nominate Geraint Jones for the latter category? jguk 13:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not, nominate the entire Indian team instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

What about if we award Geraint the Grobelaar Award for so nearly throwing it all away? jguk 17:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I must admit when he came down the pitch and chipped Warne straight to Kasprowicz at mid-off I did think 'Well done, Geraint, that was the Ashes you just slogged into Kasper's mitts.' Certainly wasn't expecting to see Matty Hoggard knock out a perfect cover drive -- that was when I got confident again! --Ngb 19:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any of your people to go into the latter category, I was thinking of a few of our so-called openers. But perhaps that'd be taking the credit away from your bowlers who were OUTSTANDING. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• In Australia, (and I don't know if it's the same elsewhere) they have a system of selecting (about 25 I think) "contracted players" which form the pool from which Test & ODI players are selected. Perhaps this could be the criteria. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

3 wickets

YYYYYYYYYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!, jguk 19:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe it should have been smaller - but what a series. The top two teams in the world battling away at each other - and all of the last three Tests have been absolute classics. Yours truly has tickets for all five days at the Oval - can hardly wait:) jguk 23:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done. I'm looking forward to the Oval too. :) -- Ian ≡ talk 00:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We'd better see some photos, alright? I know I can hardly talk, having been to six days of cricket this season and not contributed a single picture, but I was thirty rows back... [[smoddy]] 11:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Lordy, what a game. What a series. But if you're going to reclaim the Ashes at the Oval, can you please do it on the morning of day 4? I don't think I can handle another 4am nailbiter followed by having to show up at work 4 hours later on Monday morning... Oh, and I think Geraint owes Hoggard Beer For Life. ;-) -dmmaus 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

See what it is? All the Australians lose their heads, while the Yorkshireman (Hoggard is as English as they get) keeps his. A microcosm for the whole series, methinks. [[smoddy]] 11:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd settle for a completely non-classic game in which England won by an innings and 200 runs! Loganberry (Talk) 15:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Project Page

I want to do up the cricket page so that it looks more attractive for potential recruits. Any objections? I'll model it on the cricket portal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - I was thinking to myself that it needed some remodelling, particularly as the look hasn't really changed since the WikiProject started at the beginning of last December. Don't forget we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/contribute, jguk 14:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it after I finish the Forts around my city. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, we lose you to India again. And yet we still have no article on the Bombay Triangular/Quadrangular/Pentangular :) jguk 15:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I get the hint. Will research later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've started exactly this at User:Dmmaus/temp. I just finished reading A Corner of a Foreign Field and am inspired to write it up, but it will take me 2 or 3 weeks to find the time. If someone else wants to do it, please let me know so we don't duplicate effort. -dmmaus 23:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You're ahead of me - I've got 90 pages to go! jguk 17:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest you'd go ahead. I don't know too much about it, but I'll try and source some images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, will do! As I said, it'll take mew a few weeks, but I'm definitely on it. -dmmaus 10:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I did up the front page. Some sections are not done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Administrators

Should players who have only been selectors be included in Cricket Administrators ? My guess would be no, but wanted to see if anyone has any strong opinions to the contrary. There are one or two of those listed in that pageTintin 01:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket in fiction

A first-pass article is up. My knowledge of the subject is gleaned basically from books read as a cricket-mad teenager, and also plentiful Googling. The gaps are pretty evident from the text. Please feel free to edit and add more, much more! --Peripatetic 02:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice. Note that there is already a page on cricket poetry, although it currently is not much more than a reproduction of a few poems, which in my opinion is not what such an article should consist of. I'd like to see it merged with your new cricket in fiction article and have most of the actual poems removed. -dmmaus 03:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Would a fleeting reference to a cricket ball in the Harry Potter series qualify here? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not.. depends on how fleeting though :-P --Peripatetic 10:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Grawp's knuckles are the size of a cricket ball. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hahah, I dunno man.. maybe that IS scraping the bottom of the trivia barrel :-P --Peripatetic 11:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School Days has a celebrated chapter on cricket. Tintin 05:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I missed that. Will add a line or two about it as soon as I've read a plot summary. --Peripatetic 10:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket in film and television might point to some books that were made into movies/serials. I think Finding Neverland and Road to Avonlea can be included. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

A practical problem

How can I know when new cricket articles are added ? What I do now is occasionally look through the contributions of Ian, Sam, jguk etc. As far I as can find, no 'watches' work and there seems to be no decent option. Tintin 05:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

We could create a category such as Category:Cricket articles created in August 2005, which we'd then delete after a month (ie in October 2005). It would be the easiest one to maintain - particularly if someone had a bot to delete the category when its time had come, jguk 05:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I see the need for it, tho? Sam Vimes 06:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Back in the day, I created List of cricket topics with the idea that anyone who added a new article would add it to that page, so we could just watch that page for new activity. That has fallen by the wayside, though, and we can hardly expect new editors to know about that page, so it's not a good solution. -dmmaus 10:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

National cricket teams

(kicking topic alive again - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive7#National_cricket_teams for the earlier debate). We debated this a couple of weeks ago, all agreed, and then nothing came of it (this seems to happen a lot, btw). Anyone want to be bold and move them? I think an admin has to do it, as I'm sure most people would like to keep the edit histories of the respective pages. Sam Vimes 06:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh geez... I think I was the one who moved them to their current names, thinking the "national" bit was redundant. Sorry! That was ages ago, before I knew any better. -dmmaus 10:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think they're ok where they are - and looking at the discussion above, nothing was really resolved by it one way or another, jguk 17:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA

I've just proposed my name for the post of Bureaucrat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lord's Taverners

These folks are a colourful lot, and I felt that at least there ought to be a stub about them. The Lord's Taverners Sticky Wicket Book was a real delight to read - eccentricity all over the place. If anyone wants to expand on the piece, please fire away.

(Lance Gibbs is still a scandal though!)  :-)

-- Peripatetic 19:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Lance Gibbs is now no longer a scandal. Perhaps we could replace it as "Scandal of the Week" by Clyde Walcott, who currently has precisely one sentence! Loganberry (Talk) 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Scandal of the Week - that would be a fantastic WP:C project! --Peripatetic 10:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Worry no longer, I have expanded Clyde Walcott (and Everton Weekes) to something that is semi-reasonable. The article at least now makes it look like he is worth a mention (which he most definately is). Raven4x4x 04:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Five runs to six

I've heard a commentator (most likely Ian Chappell) say that in the early 20th century, a hit over the fence was worth five runs. When was this changed to six runs? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Early 20th century? According to Cricinfo, two sixes were scored in the second Test. (At my school, 'sixes' were worth four, because the boundary was too small). Stephen Turner 19:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sixes went out of the ground. Fives just went over the boundary. [[smoddy]] 19:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The rule came into force in 1910. Before that, over-the-boundary hits earned 4 in England and 5 i Australia.

Re Stephen's point, they were only o-t-b hits and not sixes. The first 'real' sixer in Tests was hit by Joe Darling at Adelaide 1897/98 [1]. Somebody had discovered some 6s in the England-South Africa series in 1895/6, but don't know whether they are now officially recognised. Tintin 02:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it was the early 20th century, but that piece of commentary by Chapell dates back to somewhere between 1997-1999. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

So you think you know cricket?

Don't know if anyone's seen http://www.soyouthinkyouknowcricket.com ?

If you send me your email I'll invite you to a WikiProject Cricket leaderboard, jguk 21:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Useable cricket photos

Nothing all that special, and no pictures of current players, but a text search for "cricket" at Geograph threw up these results. A useful source of pictures for other articles too, I'd say, since all the photos I loked at (and I think all photos on the site) are released as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which should be fine for Wikipedia since it does not exclude commercial use. Loganberry (Talk) 23:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above: this discussion on the UK Wikipedians' notice board has a message from the site owner confirming that images can be freely used if their licence is compatible. It also seems that although all current images are {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, images uploaded in the future may not always be, so checking each picture before use is advised. Loganberry (Talk) 23:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

List of sporting comebacks

Can anyone think of anything (else) notable to go in here? -- Ian ≡ talk 06:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ya, Ind vs Australia. Same story. India bt Aus after following on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the obvious two (India v. Australia 2001 and Warwickshire v. Hampshire 1922). --Ngb ^?!? 06:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a highly POV list anyway, isn't it? Anyway, 5th Test, The Oval, England v South Africa 2003. SA had made 484 in the first innings, England were 78 for 2 just after tea on day two. Ended up with a nine-wicket win despite their first innings ending at lunch on day four.

And there's also Miandad's last ball six [2]Sam Vimes 06:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure whether that is worth including. Miandad's six is not a unique feat. Lance Klusener has done it once (in both cases the teams needed only four off the last ball; there is also an instance off a six off the last ball to tie the game [3] which should count higher than either Tintin 07:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't know about Zulu. Also the list specifies that "the eventual winners have come back", otherwise I would have mentioned the NatWest final this summer (tie) Sam Vimes 07:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent Australia vs India match in Adelaide should also be considered, Australia made 556 and India were 85/4 after day two. Nobody thought that India could even get 20 wickets in Test match against Australian batsmen in Australia but Agarkar changed that. DaGizza 8:10 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How about Shane Warne after being suspended for banned substances :) -- Ian ≡ talk 08:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added one - Lara's 153 not out in Bridgetown 1999 - and can recommend another good candidate - the 1992 one-off test between SAfrica and WIndies, also in Bridgetown. SAf 122/2 on 4th evening, chasing only 201 - skittled out next morning by Ambrose and Walsh for 148. One of the great comebacks. Throughout the 90s in fact, the West Indies kept getting out of jail in this fashion, so perhaps someone can think of a few more examples? What about that 1-run victory in Australia? Was that a real comeback? -- Peripatetic 12:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

India chase so poorly, so I guess a lot more events can be included. How about the Aus-Pak match in 1999? where Aus almost broke a WR? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooo!

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/217764.html

:(((((

--Ngb ^?!? 06:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not marvellous. Sam Vimes 06:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Signatures needed

I found this page: Wikipedia:Wikipedians by favorite sport#Cricket. I'm the first to list my name. Some more names would be nice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm; a tough one for me between cricket and hillclimbing (which comes under motorsport). Mind you, Sam has two entries, so maybe I'll put both down! Loganberry (Talk) 11:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It does say favourite sport(s) Sam Vimes 12:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Currently, cricket is the most popular sport of Wikipedians. DaGizza 12:28 2 September 2005 (UTC)

66.198.28.[4-7]

A user from four IP addresses — 66.198.28.4, 66.198.28.5, 66.198.28.6 and 66.198.28.7 — has made a whole series of edits to Pakistani cricketers. Strangely, most of them occurred within one minute. The edits are in weak English, and highly POV; nevertheless, they may contain some useful information, although I haven't had time to check the facts.

My inclination is to revert all the articles to the state before these edits, but if someone thinks they can actually beat them into shape, that might be even better. To complicate matters, some of them have had other edits in the mean time: Sam Vimes has already tried to clean up a few of them, and a couple of others have had unrelated edits.

I'll probably revert them all in about eight hours from now unless people disagree, or unless there's a volunteer to make something of them.

Stephen Turner 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked the Yohana one. Its seems to be edited in good faith. I don't know how accurate the data is though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

International cricket in 2005

Jguk created this article (he usually does those things :)) - but I've done most of the writing based on the way it's done in History of Test cricket. With quite a few pictures, I think this one is a good FA candidate, but the trouble is it's 57KB. Anyone have any good comments on how to cut it down, or other comments about the page? Sam Vimes 17:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, this cannot be an FA candidate till 2005 is over. Plus you'd need references formatted correctly. There's no need to cut the size down. You can cut it down by writing a summary, but in this case there's no not much to summarise. I think those smaller tables should be center aligned. There's also too much bold text on the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

First comment - yeah, I understood that (actually, once all the matches in the season is over, surely we can nominate it, as we're splitting it by cricket season and there will be an article on International cricket in 2005-06 as well. The end of the season would be with the end of the Intercontinental Cup in October some time). References - will get onto that one. Bold text - well, that's mainly for summarising the series results, hence more important than the others. I'll think about it tho. Sam Vimes 18:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I've tried to center the tables, but it doesn't seem to work Sam Vimes 21:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nest the table code under the <center and </center tags. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

PS. the post above was my 10,000th =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Catchy Shubby Cricket?

Does anyone know enough to expand the article Catchy Shubby Cricket?

No. I think it's probably more suitable for linking from Forms of cricket than from the main page, which is always in danger of bloat. -dmmaus 04:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)