Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Cricket Archive

The reaction to CA'a commercial decision is quite amusing. Bearing in mind we have to pay for books, why not blacklist them as well. It's clear that some editors would like to do that to CA. This is the real world and cricket, outside of 20 and a few internationals is a nickle and dime set up.

A reasonable point, to be fair. The guidelines on External links do support a more hard-line approach there, but otherwise I don't see any reason to remove them. The fact that we don't all think that it is a viable business decision is probably beside the point, and mostly fuelled by frustration. (User:PeeJay2K3, please stop removing this, per WP:TPO). Harrias ^talk 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Harrias here. Surely it's in our interests that CA overcomes its financial woes and remains as a valuable resource for us to use. I don't see how removing our links to them helps that process. Johnlp (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the second sentence is an important point. I always try to use books as my sources and I only use CA or CI (and then for essentially statistical information only) if I don't have the relevant Wisden or Playfair; or if it is convenient on one of my lazy days. I don't agree with removing CA links from narrative at all because (a) some readers do have access to CA; (b) you would surely not replace a book source with some crap in CI because you personally don't have that book. As Harrias says, however, CA must be removed from external links sections because of the WP:ELNO ruling on subscription sites, so that's fair enough. I forget which ruling it is but there is one which says you must cite the source in which you found the information so removing CA after the original editor found the data there is probably a breach of that ruling. I don't think any source should be uncited unless it is a dead link or it is definitely providing misinformation. The latter condition doesn't necessarily mean the source is unreliable, I should add, merely that it is wrong on this occasion. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Central Zone (Pakistan)

Hi guys. I happened to come across Category:Central Zone (Pakistan) cricketers during some category cleanup work and noticed that there's no corresponding article for Central Zone (Pakistan). It's a basic principle that there shouldn't be categories without a corresponding article, and I assume you'd want to create it rather than delete the category. They played a couple of first class games against touring sides in the 50s/60s and played one domestic match in an incarnation of the President's Trophy - see Cricketarchive. I don't know what the policy is on these things, but I leave it to you guys to decide... Le Deluge (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps Central Zone cricket team ought to be renamed "Central Zone cricket team (India)" to avoid the potential ambiguity, or at least have a "not to be confused with" thingy added at the start? JH (talk page) 19:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real risk of ambiguity - the Indians have won the Duleep Trophy as often as the Pakistanis have played first-class matches. Hatnotes on the article and related categories will be sufficient.Le Deluge (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Created a stub called Central Zone cricket team (Pakistan) to kick this off. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Short-name cricket templates

I've just discovered the following templates:

• {{Cric FC}}
• {{Cric LA}}
• {{Cric LO}}
• {{Cric ODI}}
• {{Cric T}}
• {{Cric WC}}
• {{Cric T20I}}

These are only used on a handful of articles, and in the body of biographies (example). Unless I've missed something, I don't see any reason for these to exist. Happy to nominate them for deletion, unless someone knows of a good reason why they're needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Can't see any point to them. Delete away. Johnlp (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

They seem pretty useless to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

They could be being used with subst: to simplify the standardisation of links. We have similar shortcuts to AFL teams {{AFL Fre}}. Can't see any reason to delete. The-Pope (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)--

{{Cric FC}} alone is being used on 856 articles. It looks like the sort of thing that gets created to help a bot or template, I'd suggest talking to User:Bozzio to find out why they created them.Le Deluge (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Update - ah, Bozzio has been blocked for socking. OK, less likely to be useful, but I'd still try and figure out what the usage is rather than just blindly nuking it.Le Deluge (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. My question would be why would anyone bother typing the text for {{Cric T}} instead of Test cricket, for example? These seem incredibly esoteric, even by WP's standard. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I can think of two reasons. One would be a simple standardisation thing - it's easier to type {{Cric LO}} than to type [[Limited overs cricket|limited-overs]] and it saves one having to think : Does the article name have a hyphen in it or not? Have we standardised on having a hyphen visible? It's not such a big deal, but if one's dealing with lots of articles (as here), it's a small contribution to standardisation. Which Is A Good Thing. The other reason is if you're trying to get cute with templates or some off-site code. In ye olden days Wikipedia's string-handling abilities were rudimentary to say the least, and if you had a process that was producing strings like "T20" and "ODI" (perhaps stripped out of an archive website's URLs) then this is one way to wikify those strings with a minimum of coding. Not the only way, but a legitimate way - and less necessary now that the string handling has been improved (even if it's still a bit clunky). I'd guess it's probably the first one though. Le Deluge (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Le Deluge is right about the fairly wide usage and it would have left a messy redlink on a thousand pages if we had TfD'd before dealing with the shortcuts individually. Fortunately, about 999 of them were merely being used adjectivally to precede words like "debut", "match" or "status" so they were an easy, though a bit tedious, task for AWB. I've replaced all of them with the appropriate term and they can go to TfD now. Some articles are linked to the shortcut via templates which used it in their titles so they may still show up in "what links here" but it's only a display delay while the server catches up with the template update. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

All at TfD now. Please see TfD Cricket shortcuts nomination if you wish to take part in the deletion discussion. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Need contributions to: List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket

Hi there! I have been working on, what I feel is, a much required page in the Cricket project: List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket. I would like to discuss more about the page with you all. I'm also hoping to receive contributions from others. Cheers! --Coconut1002 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts based on first impression. I think it is potentially WP:TRIVIA and so you need to take careful note of the issue tags placed by Harrias, especially WP:RECENTISM. There have been controversial incidents in cricket since two Wealden shepherd boys invented the game in the days of Longshanks or whenever. For example, if you read Malcolm Knox's book about all the shenanigans in the days of the amateur "gentlemen" of the late 19th century, you'll see what I mean. A century earlier, there was Beauclerk. Going back to the 1730s there was a riot-cum-brawl in a top-class match on Richmond Green because of delaying tactics by another aristocratic personage. I think the title must be improved and I'd suggest it should be along the lines of "List of controversial incidents in cricket". I also think, having quickly scanned the content, that you need to write using an objective tone with much less of the "Merv said this" style, which is overly subjective. I would certainly expect to see the recentism issue being addressed asap as first priority. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Coconut1002, but I'd be amazed if that survived a deletion discussion if I'm honest. Apart from the issues Jack has mentioned, there's also some serious BLP concerns too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts is absolutely right about BLP and it is the main reason why there is a need for solid citations from reliable sources, as per that attention tag. A lot to do and it could well end up in AfD. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at the article in more detail and also having seen "see also" links to it placed on biographical pages, I've referred it to AfD because of the BLP concerns primarily but there are multiple other issues as well. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket to take part in the discussion. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer up for deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The article was a bare single-sentence stub but the man has played in four top-class matches so it was easy to expand it to start-class. I think we have a problem here because of some consensus reached at the "village pump" to effect that NSPORTS is insufficient and only GNG will suffice. NSPORTS hasn't been changed but, even so, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletionist brigade are obviously going to cause problems. I think we should try to involve other sport projects in this issue as it impacts us all. Any thoughts? Jack | ^{talk page} 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal re_GNG/SSC_relationship. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

Please could someone take a look at the page 2021 ICC Champions Trophy? I created it as possible search term and redirected it to the main tournament page. However, another user is adamant that it should be an article. The source they've provided looks very dubious (another wiki?) and I don't think it has any use other than a redirect. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The site linked looks like WP:UGC to me. However, doing a Google search (searching ICC website was fruitless) on "site:icc-cricket.com 2021" I found this which mentions

ICC Champions Trophy 2021 - India

Cricinfo also mentions it being in India [1] but says that it may be scrapped to make way for an ODI league Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. That's what I found, IE nothing concrete, just that it might/could take place. The user in question has now been blocked, so I'm going to restore the status quo. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Another AfD for a first-class player

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Shah. The nomination is by the same person who raised the Abbas Baseer case (see above), using the same argument. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This and the one, above, have both been closed as keep. Thanks Jack for your expansion work on them too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

MCC player lists

Since it was founded in 1787, over 3,000 players have represented MCC in top-class matches. Interestingly, MCC have only played in 15 List A matches (mostly abroad in the 1970s) and never (yet) in a top-class T20 match. I've been putting together lists by period of all the players and these are the results:

• Lists of Marylebone Cricket Club players
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1787–1826)
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1827–1863)
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1864–1894)
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1895–1914)
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1919–1939)
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1946–1977)
• List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1978–)

All players are listed (except for the inevitable one that has slipped through the net – there's always one!) but, apart from 1787–1826, the articles are unfinished. I've noted all MCC tours that each player went on (Colin Cowdrey seems to have done the most) and I've used a † symbol to identify the hundred who played in the List A matches. I still need to complete detail in many cases such as clubs, Test status and, needless to say, linkage. Many players were occasional and played only for MCC so there are still a lot of redlinks and no links; and there are many players whose article titles I need to check before creating a link.

This has been a much bigger undertaking than any of the county lists so it ain't going to be perfect. If anyone could run the rule over the lists and correct any errors or omissions you might see, that would be great. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I have a maybe mischievous query. Where a player's appearances for MCC cross the divisions between articles, should they appear in both, or just the one where they made their first appearance? For example, Norman Yardley played both before and after the Second World War, but appears only in the interwar list (though I think of him as primarily a post-war player). Johnlp (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think just where they made their debut is appropriate. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the crossover can be a problem, and Yardley's a case in point, but I think using the debut year makes most sense because otherwise you would get into subjective territory around when the player was most prominent. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about moving people from one list to another, because that would indeed be subjective. But maybe they should appear in both lists where they straddle a divide. It depends whether we regard this as a single list that's been subdivided, or a linked series of separate lists. Johnlp (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'd prefer it to be a single list (subdivided), so that each player occurs once. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Happy to follow your guidance as you've done all the work on this! But I think each individual sub-list should refer within the introduction to its status as a subdivision, and also mention that cricketers who played for MCC during the years in the list title may be found in a different subdivision of the list if their debuts were not in that specific timespan. Johnlp (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll do that. Thanks, John. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest an alternative approach. The primary reason for these lists existing, I think, is to act as a way of navigating to individual articles (per WP:LISTPURP). Given that a number of players might, if each list did as the title suggests, appear on two or even three of the lists, that purpose doesn't seem to be effective.

It might, instead, be worth considering alphabetical lists. A-G (say) etc... That way, given that the thing I'm most likely to know is a surname and that this is the primary sort key in such a list, I can guarantee where I'm going to find someone - whereas the suggested method doesn't do that. If the purpose is for development purposes then alphabetical lists would also be more effective in many ways I think.

Of course, per WP:LISTPURP again, it may be that the primary purpose is informational. In that case a player will need to appear on all the lists they qualify for - the purpose of the list is, in this case, to provide information about all players who appeared for MCC within that timeframe - not just those who made their debut within that timeframe.

It might be possible to organise it otherwise of course. I notice there are tours mentioned. It would be possible to have a list of MCC tours and then to either link to the relevant tour article where a list of players exists or to have a sublist which all the players who were on the tour.

Lists and their rationale are tricky. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of these lists is. That might help make a sensible decision that will continue to work going forward. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the same as the county club lists except that, because of the scale (MCC has had over 3,000 players while Yorkshire, for example, has had 669), it is sub-divided by period so that each player occurs once and is placed according to his debut season. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All of the county clubs have a single page except for Hampshire. What is the rationale behind having these MCC lists? Is it informational or navigational or something else? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Hampshire is a brilliant job done by our old friend AssociateAffiliate and he also chose a chronological approach. With any list, whether it is a club's players or a batsman's centuries or a venue's Test matches, the purpose is essentially informational but in a summary format, though you are right that the lists do provide navigation as a secondary benefit. Obviously, the particular club, player or venue must meet WP:N. For example, if someone created the very long list of ducks that BlackJack was out for in his undistinguished cricket career, it would be an instant CSD (thank goodness!). Jack | ^{talk page} 12:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park at AfD

Please see this discussion. It's been around for a few weeks and has been relisted twice. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(ICC) Cricket World Cup?

User:MOTORAL1987 recently moved all the Cricket World Cup articles to include "ICC". Were the competitions actually called that? As far as I know, the Cricket World Cup has only ever been called that, without including the "ICC" bit. It's like the Rugby World Cup - it's not the "IRB Rugby World Cup" (well, it certainly isn't any more, since the IRB changed its name, but whatever...) – PeeJay 15:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The ICC website refers to it as ICC Cricket World Cup, but that is not the most important factor here. WP:COMMONNAME applies. 1975 world cup was called the Prudential World Cup, so that is certainly named incorrectly. Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've moved 1975 Cricket World Cup back, it seems this was done in 2011 too. I'll have a look at the others later.Spike 'em (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As a start cricinfo does refer to recent World Cups as ICC Cricket World Cup on their tournament home pages, but will investigate how far back this goes. Spike 'em (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

All of them should probably be moved back, as undiscussed controversial moves. The user can then use requested moves so we can have a proper discussion about it. Personally I think the common name is without ICC. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here and agree with Joseph about reverting to allow an RM. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the name of 2015 WC, and decision was to not use ICC in the title. I'm working through the articles from either end! Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Twenty20 Cup centurions at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Cricket

Our "flagship" article? Its main problem is "too many cooks" and too many of them deal in trivia and don't realise that the article's purpose is to explain a complex sport to a readership unfamiliar with it. One of the article's worst aspects has been the introduction which I have tried in the past to improve: well, temporarily at best. I've just spent some time on it again and it occurred to me that we have a very good root category here which is limited to our 26 "top importance" articles. Why not, I thought, build the intro around these 26 articles by ensuring that all of them get a mention by means of a wikilink? At the same time, the intro must comply with WP:LEAD (it didn't) and it must present a readable, concise summary of the whole article (it didn't).

Can you all please look over the revised intro and see if it now passes muster? Perhaps if we can achieve a consensus here re what the intro should and should not contain, we can use that as a rationale for removing stuff added in future which does not enhance the article. Thanks very much.

Hmmph! And then there is the rest of the article........ (despairs) Jack | ^{talk page} 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

ICC Full and Associate Members Map

How about updating the world map depicting full members and associate members of the ICC in the articles of International Cricket Council, where Ireland and Afghanistan are still colored in light green (indicating associate membership) instead of dark green (indicating full membership) even though they are full members now? Or at least someone tell me whether (& how) I can edit those maps on Wikipedia. Arka 92 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, the user who created that map, has been blocked, so won't be updating that image anytime soon. I don't know anyone who's a member of this project who can fix it for you, but I suggest you ask the same question at the Maps Project. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll do it but it will take a couple of days. I have a PNG version already done but the original is an SVG so it would probably be better to keep that format. It's a piece of cake Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of World XI wicket-keepers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of World XI wicket-keepers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Harrias ^talk 20:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

LISTCRUFT

Articles in this template Template:Wicket-keepers in Test cricket are nothing more than WP:LISTCRUFT. If everyone agrees so we could nominate them for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not nominate them and see what happens? Johnlp (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't see why it's not a notable intersection. There's only one wicket-keeper in the side at any one time. It's quite reasonable to assume someone might want to know who Pakistan's wicket-keeper was in 1964 and we rarely include that information in our articles on series, and ploughing through Categories is clearly not going to be a great option. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC) → Abdul Kadir Jack | ^{talk page} 15:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Someone might alsp wants to know who was leg spinner in 1990s. Doing this will only complex up the things. I think this notable but should be merged. We can have one list rather separate one for ODIs and Tests. We can then also merge the smaller list to their articles e.g. Namibia in this case. Any better proposal will be welcomed. Greenbörg (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the other template Template:Wicket-keepers in ODI cricket. Greenbörg (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not-notable lists. AfD the articles, then TfD the template. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are they not notable? How do you address the issue I raise in the comment before yours? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, User:Dweller, I agree with you. But there seems to be some confusion in some places about the application of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS and an open discussion at a deletion debate might clarify things. Johnlp (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, it may bring in a deletionist crowd and we may lose useful stuff. Why not discuss it here and done with? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

True. Though this place has its fair share of deletionists these days. Johnlp (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any similar lists at projects such as FOOTY or BASEBALL - there is, for example, no List of England international goalkeepers that I can find. That strikes me as a topic that would be similar in substance and notability. The same is true of baseball catchers, hockey goaltenders etc... I would suspect, therefore, that such a list is unlikely to be that helpful - on the grounds that you'd have thought similar lists would have been created across multiple projects. Given that there are lists such as List of Bangladesh Test cricketers it might be more sensible to add a field in the table to indicate which players have been wicket-keepers - notes could then be used where a player might have not played all their matches as a wicket-keeper or where that may have been an emergency 'keeper for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing:Exactly. I bring there because I failed to find similar lists on other projects. I think it will be more sensible to merge smaller lists to the articles as you proposed and merge others into one single article only for wicket-keepers e.g. List of Australian wicket-keepers so this will better. @BlackJack: I brought it there to discuss and resolve it. You could either agree or bring your proposal? Greenbörg (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If you agree that we should have List of Australian wicket-keepers then it follows that we must have List of Australian Test wicket-keepers too because they are more notable than state keepers and there is a precedent in that we have lists of players by state with a higher profile one for the Test players (same for other countries too). Jack | ^{talk page} 15:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Okay, ease up the things we could add word 'international' in the title like List of Australian international wicket-keepers. Greenbörg (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean move List of Australia Test wicket-keepers to List of Australian international wicket-keepers and then add the LOI and T20I keepers to the list? That would be fine, I should think. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. But other should agree too. Greenbörg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This commits you to a List of Hong Kong international wicket-keepers I think. Good luck sourcing that without relying on OR from scorecards. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No need for that list. We have a lot of space on ODI and T20I cricketers list to accommodate them. Greenbörg (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that this establishes notability, in the eyes of the project, for lists of international wicket-keepers. Given the nature of the project, someone will come along and make lists for all the other international nations as well. I agree that there is space on the regular lists for them. That's where I'd put all of the information for all (or nearly all) of the teams. Where there are cases where the role of wicket-keeper can be shown to be particularly notable for a team, for some reason, then I'd think about a standalone list I think. For what it's worth I think I could probably come close to justifying a list of Kent County Cricket Club wicket-keepers - because of the notability of the club in that position (there are numerous sources which would support this). I don't think it's either needed or a good idea though, but I could see that for some international teams there may be a similar notability for the role of wicket-keeper. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Actually we only need some daggers as there are columns for catches and stumps on almost every list. We should bin all of them. Greenbörg (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep all per Dweller and Johnlp above. These lists are not IINFO and they are useful given, as Dweller has already said, the fact that the wicketkeeper is a specialist position. Getting rid of these, the next thing we know someone will want to get rid of all the captaincy lists and then all the player lists. I simply do not understand why some people have a problem with lists: they are not articles per se and they serve useful purposes for the benefit of the readers. I think we are seeing the bad old WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Plenty of other similar projects have lists of captains. I don't see that there would be any threat to those, or to lists of players. It's not a case of there being a problem with all lists, it's which lists are notable and which are not. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What other projects do is irrelevant. Wicket-keepers, being specialists, are notable in cricket and so a list of keepers is notable. It is not the same thing for other fielding positions because few are 100% specialist. As for the other projects, how do you know someone at FOOTY might not see these and think an England goalie list would be a good idea too? The lists are a good idea and, on this occasion as on some others, CRIC thought of it first. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was only observing that if a more active and more thorough project where there is, I think, more overt consideration of notability, such as FOOTY or BASEBALL, hasn't come up with a need for a list of international goalkeepers or whathaveyou then I doubt that there's any need at all for a list of wicket-keepers for each Test nation (or now, it seems, each international nation - don't forget the Associates or the defunct teams). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN, WP:NFOOTY and WP:NBASE are all very similar in their criteria. We insist on first-class players; different terminology, but they do likewise. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There are very different ways in which they handle other notability issues was my point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another AfD which ignores the GNG/NSPORTS consensus

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination). Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting that the nominator has changed his !vote to keep in his AfD intro. Time to request it be closed? Bobo. 02:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park at AfD

Please see this discussion. It's been around for a month and is overly represented by other than WP:CRIC members. Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Cricket archive and Harry Brook

Any good ideas for sourcing this claim in a more sustainable way? I've given up with cricket archive, but one of you might be more willing to persevere with their nonsense. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dweller, CA have scorecards for all four of those 2nd XI matches – two Championship and two limited overs – but not sure if this should go in the article as they were minor matches. What do you think? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Found a source - it'll do, although it only mentions the centuries. The CI source won't work as it only shows the last ten or so, and is quite OR anyway as it's interpreting stats rather than reporting them. Added some other sources as well and filled out a ref from someone else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks chaps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Big Four (cricket)

I've nominated Big Four (cricket) for deletion. See here if you wish to contribute to the deletion discussion. – PeeJay 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Eskinazi

A couple of things:

1. Surely we should move the article to the COMMONNAME Stevie Eskinazi?
2. Anyone seen more recent RS than the tantalising Cricinfo comments about which national side he might opt for? His performances must make him close to an England call, but he's not had any Lions action etc, which makes me wonder if he's quietly declined or been overlooked?

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

His Middlesex profile page refers to him as all of Stephen / Steve / Stevie, and also states

"However, he has decided that he wants to play for England and is eligible to play in this country through his British passport."

Whether this is in anyway truthful, I don't know. He's been playing club cricket in UK since 2013, but this match report from last year states

"This is Eskinazi's fourth year at the club and is three years away from qualifying fully for England. Born in Johannesburg, raised in Western Australia where he turned out for the state's Under-17 and 19 sides, while also spending 10 years in England as a kid (his mother was born here)."

His twitter profile is Stevie, so it looks like that is his preferred name.Spike 'em (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

All the reports I've seen / heard in the past 18 hours refer to him as Stevie, so I think the page move is in order. On the eligibility point, the ECB changed the rules about 5 years ago: I just did a search and found this (which was the top result, many other news sources reported the same thing on same day). I thought it was a 4 year wait, but as the article makes plain, if players move to UK after age of 18, it is now 7 years. Spike 'em (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Crikey. Despite his British passport?! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes: Pietersen, Trott, Ballance & others had a British passport via parents but still had to serve a residence period. A passport means you don't count as an overseas player, but there are additional requirements to play international cricket. Spike 'em (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone's considered testing this in court. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think national sports teams are exempt from employment law when it comes to restrictions based on nationality (otherwise the concept of a national team would have been lost to the European Court of Justice years ago) Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a "sporting exception". More details here. In short though, "The ECJ has since the early 1970s acknowledged that rules

which restrict the nationality of players in national teams are to be considered as “pure sporting” rules and thus do not fall under (then) Articles 39 and 49 EC." Harrias ^talk 16:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC) <-I'm going to do the page move, as I don't think it's controversial, based on these sontributions, the worst we can dig up is a page that's inconsistent. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Knocking-in

I've proposed that Knocking-in be merged to Cricket bat. The discussion about this can be found here. – PeeJay 11:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In looking through this, I found Kookaburra bats and have AfDed here Spike 'em (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: You could also add Kookaburra Beast and Kookaburra Kahuna to that AfD. – PeeJay 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sheffield Shield Champions templates

Has anyone else noticed these being added to articles? For example, look at this template {{New South Wales Squad 1928-29 Sheffield Shield Champions}} and then go to the foot of Don Bradman's article. Thoughts on this? Are they needed for every single season, or are they template clutter? Also ping the user creating them @Dutchy85:. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not required whatsoever. Without wishing to invoke WP:WAX, we don't do that at WP:FOOTY and I've never seen it at WP:RU, so why is cricket different, especially only for a domestic league? – PeeJay 08:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole concept of a "squad" is a bit anachronistic in seasons up until fairly recently. It's probably covered by WP:Overcat as well. Johnlp (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both - confirming what I thought. I'm not familar with football, but I don't ever recall seeing templates like that for individual team champions, outside of major international tournaments. I guess one winning team (for any sport) could have 25 to 30 players, across the lifetime of a season. I've dropped a note on the user's talkpage, incase they've missed the ping. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lugnts... thanks for the heads up... I didn't get my ping, so appreciate the message. I have been doing older shield templates... I took my lead from people who had been doing templates for modern day Shield competition champions and thought it was appropriate people do it for older years as well. I don't want to clutter, truly - maybe we could put it in a Nav Box? The NSW squad from 1928-29 was v unusual in the large number of people who were in it. Would love help with the FB community on this one. Thanks! :) Dutchy85 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself... I say the whole concept of a "squad" in the 1920s (and for many years after that) is wrong. Many (probably most) of the players were amateurs; selection committees (or individual selectors) worked in very opaque ways. The reason NSW had so many players in 1928/29 was that many of their more prominent players were picked for the Test team in the Ashes series that season so they had to bring in other players. But there was no "squad system". And to give them numbers in the template makes it even worse, to my mind. Johnlp (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, John, it is actually WP:OR to give them squad numbers that never existed; and, as you have said, there were no squads until recent times so the creation of a squad template for a 20th century cricket team is itself OR. I would delete all of these things because of template clutter. Is there a TfD yet? Jack | ^{talk page} 21:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Add these templates too: Template:Sydney Thunder 2015–16 BBL Champions, Template:Rajasthan Royals 2008 IPL Champions, Template:Sydney Thunder 2015–16 WBBL Champions, Template:Sydney Sixers 2016–17 WBBL Champions, Template:Sydney Sixers 2011–12 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2016–17 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2014–15 BBL Champions, Template:Perth Scorchers 2013–14 BBL Champions Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can at least argue with these more modern teams that the concept of a squad is fine. But there remains the question of WP:OVERCAT. Johnlp (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If we allow these templates so this will be followed-up by huge number of templates for every domestic tournament. I never seen any template for winning squad of e.g. Premier League. Its not there simply because in 38 matches season players change so you don't need templates. Greenbörg (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there no way we could keep the templates in some form? most of the players referred to have hardly any templates whatsoever - I feel its such a great resource to have people see what players were in Shield winning sides. The Sheffield Shield is one of the leading domestic competitons in the world - surely its worthy of some recognition? As hard to win as the BBL. Is it the word "squad"? When did the concept of squad officially become a thing? Can we use a different word? Not assign numbers It just seems such a shame. Dutchy85 (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If these players don't have a template, it's for a reason. We don't just create templates to fill a void unless it's a necessary void to fill. You may have loads of players without a navbox, but as people have said above, what about the players who have loads? You can't make a special case just for the Sheffield Shield. – PeeJay 10:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now listed these at TfD. I've not yet added the ones for the Western Australia squads - should add them in the next few hours. And I've not added in the BBL squads. I think they should be done on their own. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Carlisle Best

Yes, the one who used to commentate on himself.

Anyone know where I can find source information about his domestic career, time with Western Province and/or family (other than Tino). Cheers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd edits at Vinod Kambli article

Something odd has gone on at Vinod Kambli. I've left a note at Talk:Vinod_Kambli#Copy.2Fpaste.3F because I don't have the time to work out what has happened. Hopefully, someone from this project can pick up on it. Sorry to dump stuff like this. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

History of Test cricket

Astonishingly, we had a redlink at this name. I've just started it. And I notice that our daughter articles stop in 1914.

Main article

Any suggestions for how to make this main article work?

Daughter articles

What boundaries should we have for after 1914?

Maybe WWII, end of amateurs, Packer, millennium? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem associated with that is that the divisions pre-1914 are so short - if you end up going 45-78(ish) that's the equivalent of three pre-1914 articles at a time when more Test cricket was being played. I imagine those early articles need dealing with to consolidate them or this will become unmanageable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Whites in ODI cricket

Inspired by England's current two-toned Test outfit, I was reading the article Cricket whites and noticed the sentence "One-Day Internationals were first played in white clothes but after December 2000, all ODI cricket utilizes coloured clothing." Is this true? Hack (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The first part is true, but I don't know when the last ODI played in whites took place This mentions 2000, but is WP:UGC not WP:RS Spike 'em (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And cricinfo photos from the match show the teams in whites, but does not prove that there was no later ODI played in whites. 15:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Cricinfo suggests that this ODI was the last.[2] Hack (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Walter Hammond

The article about the former England cricket captain has long languished at Wally Hammond, rather than the more formal Walter Hammond which his later amateur status and social pretensions might perhaps support. Now an enterprising Rugby League aficionado has parked a stub article about a somewhat obscure Wakefield Trinity player of 1913 on the Walter Hammond page, and has assiduously gone through all the back-doubles where this more formal name used to link to the cricketer to change them all to "Wally". What do we feel about this (if anything)? There's no doubt that the Rugby League editor has done his work very thoroughly, and it's probably unreasonable to think that the cricketer should be able to command both the Wally and the Walter articles. But I for one have long been uncomfortable with calling him "Wally" anyway. Johnlp (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I only know him as Wally --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hatnotes are in place at both articles, so it is easy to get from one to the other. What woud be your preferred solution, Johnlp? Move the rugby player to Walter Hammond (rugby league) and redirect Walter Hammond to Wally Hammond, or a disambiguation page at Walter Hammond? What is the primary topic for Walter Hammond?

Thought experiment: what would our reaction be, if there was a rugby league player from the 1910s called Donald Bradman?

My preference would be to have moved the cricket Hammond to "Walter Hammond", making "Wally Hammond" a redirect to him, and then the rugby league player would slot in as "Walter Hammond (Rugby League player)" with a hat-note on our Walter to redirect misguided visitors. My suspicion is that the majority of people looking for "Walter Hammond" are likely to be after the cricketer, not the rugby league player. Interestingly, though I know Google results have no validity, there are four times more "hits" for "Walter Hammond" as there are for "Wally Hammond"; by contrast, "Don Bradman" outnumbers "Donald Bradman" by about a 60:40 margin. Johnlp (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The first page of ghits for Walter Hammond cricketer has Wally Hammond as the name of the subject in all but the final case for me just now. As Dweller, I've never referred to him as anything other than Wally. I'd suggest the anon editor's suggestion above is about right - move the RL player and redirect Walter to Wally. Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Moved Walter Hammond to Walter Hammond (rugby league) and redirected Walter Hammond to Wally Hammond. Clear primary topic is the cricketer. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302, thanks for the page move of Walter Hammond (rugby league). Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Help request: Odd wording in Craig McMillan

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_McMillan&diff=780511450&oldid=777817306 shows cumulative edits by one editor that are oddly phrased and incorrectly phrased in at least one place near the top. I don't know how much of it should be reverted or not. The editor is very prolific, so I couldn't research if similar errors were made in other articles. Sorry all I can do is point this out due to real life limitations. Thanks in advance! —Geekdiva (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not all editors have English as a first language, but their contributions are still welcome, of course. Any help you can give in terms of amending articles to read more smoothly would be appreciated, within the limits of your own constraints. Johnlp (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability for Cricketers

I have been engaged in a discussion about notability for cricketers. The case in point is a player whose first name we don't know and whose bonafides are established in only one place: cricketarchive.com. Here is the overarching rule for notability of sports figures: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [From Wikipedia:Notability (sports)]. If a WP article is relying on a single source, that's simply a mirror of another database. It hardly adds value to the reader - except in this case it relieves them from paying to see cricketarchive.com. This is not an attack on cricket specifically. It's a general question about notability. I'm not sure why sports figures should get articles in WP based on their existence in a single database. What do you think? Rhadow (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is quite separate from the issue you were pointing out on the talk page with regard to notability of sports figures. I thought you were questioning the notability, but like others before you, you were simply questioning the word "multiple". We can reference two separate sources in a heartbeat, it's just that I didn't realize this was the issue. Bobo. 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. My manner was slightly terse there, I didn't intend it to be. I was just confused as to what the exact problem was - because you had emphasized "notable" rather than "multiple". I assumed it was the notability - or lack of - which you were questioning, not the number of sources. Bobo. 16:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not knowing the full (first) name does not equate to being non-notable, as long as they meet the relevant sport notability (which this person does). And there's always the chance that more details can be found, and the page moved if/when other names are found. I've seen this happen not just for cricketers, but Olympians too. On a (semi)-related note, there's this article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking for match and/or archive footage

This will be fun. Can anyone help me find either the match details or (better) details and footage of two things:

1. Bill Athey making a hundred for England, might have been an ODI, which included what my memory tells me was a stupendous square drive
2. Graham Gooch having to bowl the last over in an ODI, getting smashed about a bit, and then coming out and hitting a boundary that was so powerful it bounced back off the ad hoardings some distance.

Hope you can help! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, Bill Athey only made three hundreds for England in international matches - one in Tests (123 against Pakistan at Lord's in 1987) and two in ODIs (142* against New Zealand at Old Trafford in 1986, and 111 against Australia at Brisbane in 1987). One of those?

Gooch appears to have bowled the last over in the same match against New Zealand, which apparently went for 26 runs. He and Athey then put on 193 for the first wicket.

New Zealand cricket team in England in 1986 does not help much (also does not mention Botham coming back from suspension in the Third Test to equal the world record for wickets, or Gower being noballed for deliberately throwing the last ball bowled in the Second Test (0-0-4-0), which was the second time that NZ won a Test in England, and so on), but here is Wisden's report.[3] Tracking down Cricinfo's coverage of the 1986 series brings you to a 2009 vintage page![4] I think the website has reinvented itself two or three times since then. Seldom for the better. The new format for live match coverage takes some getting used to, but it is working much better than last week.

Good luck finding video online from an ODI in 1986! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.241 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If anyone in the world has the footage, it would be Rob Moody on you tube or twitter.The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Asia Cup articles

Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Man of the Match awards

The editor mentioned a few threads up has been adding lists of MoM awards (from ODIs only) to rather a lot of articles. I came across this at Curtly Ambrose, and I can't really see the need. It may be worth keeping an eye on. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole standard of articles about current players is generally very low. So many of them have a separate section for each series and list a player's achievements in each game so it is very dull prose along the lines of

"and then he scored 6 and 21 in the second Test and took 1/32 in the third"

with absolutely no context. The aforementioned lists always have a mysterious "S No" column which I've never seen an explanation for. Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Presumably "squad number". Doubtful relevance, I'd say. Footballers, who've had numbers on their shirts for much longer, don't bother with such trivia. Johnlp (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be Sequence Number, as the rows in the lists are generally numbered, and I've replaced "S No" with "#" on some articles I watch. I was considering creating some templates to allow standardisation of the tables, as different players have tables in different formats, but won't bother if the community feels the lists are not worth it. Spike 'em (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As an example Alastair Cook#International Awards and Joe Root#Awards Spike 'em (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

These sections are completely obscure, IMO. Lists of MOTM awards are not needed here. – PeeJay 09:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree - and the use of colour is also completely unacceptable in my view. Absolutely no need for that either. I'd argue very strongly for prose summaries for things like this at best. I also agree that there is a need to take out a lot of the detailed series by series "he scored this and his team won by 34 runs after a century by someone and someone seriess taking five wickets" - these add very little to the bio of the person who is the subject of the article and often far too much detail about the match or series and could easily be culled. Someone was adding this sort of detail to England players a while back on a sporadic basis. I tried to argue against it but got nowhere Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Now image if they got MOTM awards, and a table for every single century they made too. Now that would be crazy. Stat bloat at its best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, apologies, just seen the links above to Cook and Root! Time to get a consensus on keeping or ditching these. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's do some maths. Let's take a theoretical player who has a very long/successful ODI career and therefore plays in 200 ODIs. In this theoretical world they have an even chance of winning MotM in the notional 50% of matches won by their team. One eleventh of 100 is fewer than 10. I don't have a strong opinion that we should keep the tables, but I can't see a strong reason for getting rid of them. For most players, it'd be 4 or 5 awards or fewer. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

In that sort of career would very many of those awards be notable in the context of the career? In a final, sure - but that would go in the prose. If it was a particularly astounding performance (5fer and a century), yes, perhaps - but that would go in the prose as well wouldn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Erm, dunno. In the days when I used to buy/peruse it, I think Playfair used to cite the number of match awards each player had won, if you want RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Playfair's for a specialist audience, Wiki needs to be more general. Such lists are usually lacking any context whatsoever which, for me, is a major problem when we're trying to write a general publication. This isn't the only place where a reliance upon the style of a specialist publication causes massive problems within wiki in my view Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"...but I can't see a strong reason for getting rid of them..." So how would this diff improve the Ambrose article, which is currently at GA standard? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And Paul Collingwood passed WP:FAC with his list of awards in it. He was a bit of an ODI hero, so removing it would, I think, be negative. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Collingwood aside, how does that edit improve the Ambrose article? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. I haven't checked the records but I presume the extreme example is Sachin Tendulkar, who won a staggering 62 of these awards. Some sensible thinking has hived this off into a daughter article, List_of_ODI_awards_for_Sachin_Tendulkar and it's not in his biog. I think that's the way to go if the list on any individual's article gets overbearing. I see no harm in keeping the short lists at Ambrose and Collingwood. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

But how does it improve Ambrose's article? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, seems reasonable. Johnlp (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, the Ambrose list isn't really accurate, aside from the dreadful format. There are no Test records in the article (there is a list here but I'm not sure if that is a RS; it gives 14 awards) and there should be 5 ODI awards (list here). I'm afraid I'm with Lugnuts here, and I really don't see how adding these awards would make the article better. Our friend who added it seems to have just chosen two matches at random and added them; my argument would be (especially as this might be aimed at FAC one day) that we need a high-quality reliable source that says this list is important to his career, and I'm not sure I count Howstat as one of those. I would also add that our friend's reasoning in an edit summary was "MoM are important for an international player to judge his standards in cricket and to suggest his ability to the team". Which I consider to be demonstrably wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What makes Howstat less "reliable" than Cricinfo or CricketArchive? We know they all have their idiosyncrasies and shortcomings. There are lists of "most MoM" awards at Cricinfo - Test and ODI (which also says Ambrose has 14 awards in Tests, but he is not on the ODI list, minimum 10) - but the Test one says "Match awards have only been a regular feature in Tests since the mid-1980s and the list is not complete for earlier matches". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.82 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dweller, you know the football project better than I do. Are MotM awards listed on footballer's pages in the same sort of way? I honestly don't feel that more statistical lists is a helpful direction for cricketer articles to go in, but if there are examples elsewhere in SPORTS then I could, perhaps, be convinced. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a comparison. MotM in football is often a broadcaster, sponsor or even a fan thing and doesn't have the same kudos. There's no special presentation at the end of the match in front of the crowd, it's often not reported on by quality press etc etc. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Odd vandalism

This has to be up there amongst the oddest things I've seen on WP. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The background is that a really bad rapper called Jake Paul released a song that has his friend Nick Crompton singing/rapping the lyric "England is my city". People have been taking the piss out of the song all over the internet.[5] Hack (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thanks for explaining. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

West Indies cricket team

I think this may have happened before, but someone has moved page to Windies cricket team. This seems to go against WP:COMMONNAME and needs discussion rather than WP:BOLD. What is best way to revert this? Spike 'em (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've moved page back and reverted changes whilst we have a proper discussion about this. Spike 'em (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And to get us started:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.

ICC ESPN cricinfo BBC all still refer to "West Indies" as team name Spike 'em (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't even give it the benefit of a "discussion": "Windies" is just wrong. Johnlp (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Cricket West Indies back in May:

Cricket West Indies (CWI) will begin its 91st year today, with a new name and website as part of a comprehensive rebranding programme. From today the West Indies Cricket Board will be renamed Cricket West Indies and formally recognise all representative teams as the WINDIES

Thankfully no-one seems to have noticed (apart from the overzealous page mover earlier today) Spike 'em (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stay as it is for the time being, to see to what extent sources continue to call them the West Indies. I've edited the article lead to try to clarify that the Windies name is both a traditional colloquialism and a new official branding, and added a reference. Jellyman (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no difference between this and the "All Blacks" moniker given to the New Zealand national rugby union team (see, no redirect there). "Windies" is at least a contraction of "West Indies", but to me that makes it even more sensible to leave the article where it was. I do still have a problem with leaving the word "national" out of the titles of both West Indies cricket team and England cricket team, but that's another discussion. – PeeJay 18:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

West Indies are not a nation and so national in that would be problematic I'd say. Representative, perhaps, if you insisted, but I'd say it's better as is. With England of course the Welsh are also involved which, again, means it's not a national side per se. Personally I'd be happier removing national from all of them than I would be adding it to these two Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Channel 5 had WINDIES on their scorecard / graphics in highlights programme yesterday, but still called team "West Indies" in commentary. Spike 'em (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that the page was moved by the same user who a couple of months ago moved all the Cricket World Cup pages. Without discussion. This user is aware that page moves like this need to go through a WP:RM, and continuing to do moves like this is becoming disruptive. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No thanks. And don't add "national" either. It's fine for the names to be inconsistent - the national boards are inconsistent. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Right now from the Cricinfo live commentary - "Nicky Sumpton: "Have I missed a re-branding of the West Indies Cricket Team? I see Sky are referring to them as the Windies rather than the West Indies, whereas here they are 'fully named'" Yes, a 're-branding'. Will remain West Indies on here!" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi. There are a couple of current page move discussions:

• Poonam Raut
• Bellerive Oval

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Some articles are incomplete at the moment

I suggest anyone to complete the full five wicket haul list at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground.It has not been updated for a quite long time as this list has about 50+ fifers.Thank you.Abishe (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Surely that's not an encyclopaedic topic? A list of five-fors according to the ground they were taken at seems utterly ridiculous to me. Delete. – PeeJay 18:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Crazy, eh? Harrias ^talk 20:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The equivalent Headingley one is particularly special. Johnlp (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, especially since the table seems to think it's talking about McLean Park. – PeeJay 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And the source doesn't match the year, but is actually for the 1981 Headingley Test, where Botham & Willis got fifers. Yet neither are listed on this table..... Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I almost started editing it, but feel that would give it some legitimacy I feel it doesn't deserve. Is there a WP:SLICEANDDICE guideline to invoke here? Spike 'em (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see the arguements for not having them, but on the other hand, at least one of them is a Featured List. And the first couple of ones from Australia look like they could easily be FL in the future too. Swings and roundabouts, I guess. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

First instinct: delete. Second instinct: probably doing no harm and not obviously nn and if ppl want to work them up, fine. But the Headingly one (and any others in a similar condition) should be deleted or improved or redirected pronto. That's just misleading. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone good with Statsguru?

The list in Geoffrey_Boycott#Opening_partners is so flawed (as it admits) it's probably worth removing all the stats and leaving a list of names, which is a bit of a shame. Anyone good enough with Statsguru to get round the problem, without hitting OR problems? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I came up with a list of all opening partnerships in games involving Boycott the other day (was comparing him to Cook). I got a list which included partnerships that didn't include him (so innings where he did play, but didn't open), is it OR to just remove those? Spike 'em (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this suitable? It shows all 23 England opening partnerships that happened in Tests that our Geoff played. 16 involve him, so we need to disregard the other 7. He only batted in middle order in 1 game, the rest are times he either retired hurt after opening, or didn't bat in the second innings. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think either of these does it nicely. Ignoring the odd line doesn't feel too much like OR. Not like deducting numbers / recalculating. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ollie Robinson

Is it right to disambiguate the two Ollie Robinsons by their county when we have other means of disambiguating? They won't always play for their respective current teams, and if they ever end up on the same team we'll have to move them anyway, so surely it makes sense to move Ollie Robinson (Sussex cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1993), and Ollie Robinson (Kent cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1998)? – PeeJay 18:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At the moment the teams are the most logical - people are more likely to think "Oh yes, he plays for Sussex." than "Oh yes, he was born in 1993." WP:NCPDAB gives some guidance. Harrias ^talk 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion before about this, and people tended to think that nationalities/teams were better than birth years, as most people would more likely be searching for the birth year. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Joseph2302 you've contradicted yourself, so I'm not sure which argument you're supporting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What I meant is that people are more likely to know their team rather than their DoB. So that's what we should disambiguate with. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And the average reader will probably just put "Ollie Robinson" into the search box, not knowing prehaps the ins and outs of how we title pages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

article length of several English players

There are a number of English player Articles that I believe contain excessive detail of subsection for every international series played and often down to describing every single innings. I edit a variety of sports and the details are generally limited to career highlights and major lowlights. Examples:

• Joe Root
• Alastair Cook
• James Anderson (cricketer)
• Jonny Bairstow

Compare it to Michael Clarke (cricketer) or Virat Kohli. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a dull place if all editors thought the same and all articles were the same? Why not concentrate on the many articles that need improvement, rather than ones that (in your view) have been "improved" too far? Johnlp (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

no, articles that are too long will never make good articles, they're also make them difficult to read and navigate. Too much information makes it worse. Do you think we should describe every single match a football or tennis player plays should be covered? LibStar (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they are excessive - and this is one of the things that makes them very poor articles which need improvement in my view. If a project can't get the key articles that people will be looking at on a regular basis right then it's a joke. I took it up with an editor who added a lot of that detail over the last year or so and was told I was wrong. There needs to be a much more effective summary job done - Adam Gilchrist is an example of an article that made FA status with this diff in 2007 and had much less detail in than these. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Lib - there aren't that many editors who know enough about the subject area here to get involved in working on one of the biographies you've listed. Add to that small group, even fewer will have the time and/or effort to spend in improving them. I agree, the Joe Root article looks bad, my main concern being at least a dozen sections with little, or no references. But any improvements are more than welcomed, even if it's just cutting the dross to leave the cream. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks. At this rate by the time Root's career is over the article would be the longest bio ever. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the rambling lists of scores with no context make for poor articles (and have made a similar point in #Man of the Match awards discussion above). It is on my list of things to do, but I'm a bit rubbish with writing long sections of prose so have never got round to it! Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's some more:

• Jos Buttler
• Ian Bell
• Moeen Ali
• Stuart Broad

LibStar (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am astounded about the excessive detail, the Jonny Bairstow article included mathes where he was 12th man including irrelevant information that he did not actually enter the field during play!! LibStar (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

First day of the forthcoming Ashes - in UTC

Play is due to run on day one of the Ashes from morning to evening on November 23, Australia time.

I presume that straddles two days in UTC. Is it mostly November 24 in UTC?

Trying to come up with something for Main page, and 23 November is worth avoiding if possible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

By November, Brisbane's going to be 11 hours ahead of UTC/GMT. So 11.00am there would be 00.00 UTC, and if play finishes at 18.00 it'd be 07.00 UTC, all on 23 November. So avoidance may be difficult. Johnlp (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Bugger. OK. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Do the Last Man Stands Cricket has international recognition and reputation at present?

I just wanted to clarify that whether Last Man Stands' Cricket is popular across almost every countries or not?I just created a draft page which is not organized according to guidelines but take a look at it.Last Man Stands cricketAnyone can create article regarding this topic as I couldn't find adequate resources.But on the other hand,I am not quite sure about the entire history and popularity of this form of cricket.I just read about this form of cricket in newspapers,other sources in Sri Lanka. Abishe (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Though it's said to have originated in England, I must admit that I've never heard of it. I'm a bit doubtful about the claim "Last Man Stands is the most growing amateur cricket league in the world", even though the source that you cite may say that. JH (talk page) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There's more detail on it here: http://www.thecricketer.com/default.aspx?pageid=1223&topicid=42702&catid=71 Richard3120 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I know quite a few people from my cricket club who play it and have seen it played in Regent's Park, though never taken part myself. I'm sure I've seen discussions on here before that have seen content on LMS deleted, but can't remember where / when / why. The article needs more links to establish notability and not just be an attempt at promotion. 6-a-side cricket is also popular, so maybe create an article about small sided cricket and include LMS as one of the variants, in a similar vein to Five-a-side football. The draft article needs grammar tidied up. Spike 'em (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

People from my work play in a league against other local offices. Seems pretty fun. – PeeJay 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Shivnarine Chanderpaul's name in Hindi/Tamil

I noticed that there were some edit conflicts regarding the issue that whether [6] Chanderpaul is an actual Guyanese origin cricketer or a Tamilan cricketer.One anonymous user has tried to say that Chanderpaul is a Tamilan and he is not from Hindi origin.I just undone the edit of the unregistered User. Abishe (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove both. Chanderpaul comes from a part of the world where they speak English. We should not include either unless someone provides RS saying that he uses it. We don't and wouldn't include Monty Panesar's name in any script other than English, because he's English, albeit of Punjabi/Sikh background. Chanderpaul was born in Guyana so I'd support removing both Tamil and Hindi. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove both per Harrias' addendum to Dweller's law. Harrias ^talk 09:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELREG

Looking through some of the 02blythed entries in the draft list, I notice that CricketArchive is named in some as an external link and that it carries a "subscription required" notice. This breaches WP:ELREG. I suggest that the subscription notice is removed from all articles because it is pointless and doesn't help anyone, especially if, as I am (perhaps reliably) informed they will do, CA terminates subscription next year. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If it was used as a reference, it can be used as an inline citation, particularly where CA has information that CI does not include. Hack (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. We can't just remove the subscription notice and pretend it isn't the case. If CA removes the need for subscriptions, fine, we'll get rid of it. But otherwise, the only way to comply with WP:ELREG is to remove CricketArchive as an external link. As Hack says, it is perfectly acceptable as an inline reference. Harrias ^talk 18:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Bodyline" or "bodyline"

I've always thought of the tactic as Bodyline, with a capital. And indeed, when Bodyline passed FAC and got its shiny star, that's how the article looked. Subsequently, someone has changed all the incidences of the word that don't begin a sentence to a lower case b, and I'd like consensus here on which we should go with. (I'll post at the article talk, too). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked at a couple of sources in the article and they appear mixed between Bodyline and bodyline. My tendency would be towards Bodyline. – PeeJay 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Helpful. Let's get consensus and then go for consistency. Please will you note your view below, so it's really easy peasy to assess consensus? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• B --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Both, depending on context without looking at any references my gut feel would be "Bodyline" for the historical cause celebre, and "bodyline" for the tactic from a cricket POV. So "Douglas Jardine captained England during the Bodyline controversy of 1932/3. The West Indies team of the 1980s often bowled bodyline balls". Bowling methods tend not to take a capital letter, not even a chinaman.Le Deluge (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Both, per Le Deluge The overall controversy would have a captial B, while the tatic would use a lowercase b. Compare the opening line of the second paragraph of the article in question, and it would not be correct to use a captial B in that case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Both: I previously would have said B in all contexts, but having read what Le Deluge has written, realise that this makes much more sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Both A bit late to the party on this one but I agree with the sound reasoning of Le Deluge. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Optimisation of the cricket team template

There is a discussion regarding {{infobox cricket team}} that could use your input. Please join in the conversation here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have left my comments there. I encourage others to do the same. Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Cricket at the Olympics at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Now withdrawn by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure the article could be bulked out with more history on why cricket hasn't been an Olympic sport and the steps it needs to take to become one though. mgSH 19:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you be interested?

Please see this campaign launch. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Draftification of over 500 cricket biographies

Due to some alleged (I haven't looked into this myself) poor work in creating articles from User:02blythed, a large number of articles that user has created or expanded have been taken out of mainspace and into draft space. This includes numerous international Test cricketers. I don't have time to look into this too much myself, but they are all included in Category:Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed. Harrias ^talk 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have hoped that @DrStrauss: would have consulted this project before undertaking this action, but hopefully that user is still planning to consult with us, as advised at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion. Harrias ^talk 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bloody hell. We'll need to roll our sleeves up. Incidentally, I saw a passing comment in the AN discussion about Cricket Archive. I'm not sure what's wrong with using them as a source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Erm, I don't get it. What policy would demand that Draft:Akbar_Ansari, the second article I checked, be draftified? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Fear not, I'm going to consult with you in a mo. DrStrauss talk 12:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't wait. Just found one of a cricketer who played 71 Test matches and the biog includes a string of reliable source references. Draft:Chris Martin (cricketer). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - I think there may need to be some distinction drawn between crappy stubs and ones that have been worked on by someone. Even if they're still stubs they might be acceptable stubs (given that the notability criteria isn't changing anytime soon) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an abuse of AWB! Hack (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this WikiProject wasn't notified of the discussion? What was so very pressing about doing this for articles, many of which are up to 10 years old, before we could weigh in? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Dweller: I'd just written a lengthy message but there was an edit conflict (presumably with you) and I stupidly refreshed and have lost it. I'll draft it out in Word again... DrStrauss talk 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Great. Can't wait, cos the Chris Martin article is 12 years old, has plenty of good citations to demonstrate notability and the first edit was by an IP. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Hi,

Firstly I apologise for accidentally categorising some articles which didn’t fall under the remit of the discussion at WP:AN. There isn’t a “created by” filter in AWB so I made some regex filters which sought out the hallmarks of the articles in question. About 15 ones were categorised but were not moved as I went through each one individually to check. As for Hack’s assertion that this is an abuse of AWB I’d say that it isn’t because I was implementing community consensus from a closed WP:AN discussion, secondly, I didn’t actually move the pages with AWB, I did that manually, and thirdly, none of the actions I have taken have contravened the recent WP:ARBCOM case on AWB, nor violated the WP:AWB/UM.

Secondly, I’d like to put forward an explanation of the original rationale. Many of the articles were WP:BLPs which means that information must have multiple, reliable sources, whether they’re 10 minutes old or 10 years old. While CrickInfo etcetera may have correct statistics on cricketers’ careers, they do not confer notability. WP:ATHLETE offers deference to WP:GNG and a recent WP:RfC (link) solidified the community consensus that WP:GNG supersedes subject-specific notability guidelines (except WP:PROF, about which a reform discussion is currently taking place). While the cricketers are probably notable per WP:ATHLETE and many of them per WP:GNG, we need to remember that Wikipedia isn’t a directory. Many of 02blythed’s articles were mere directory entries and besmirched the good name of this WikiProject.

Finally, please don’t take this a victimisation of WikiProject Cricket, I myself am a cricket fan but I am just implementing both consensus and quality guidelines.

Thanks, DrStrauss talk 12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't anyone notify the WikiProject of the discussion at any stage? It's the most obvious thing to do. There was no emergency here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DrStrauss, you've done a terrible job of this. The first half dozen articles I've checked, all of them have 2 or more sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Dweller: it might be an idea to wait until we've finished here before reverting e.g. this. That doesn't fall into the category you speak of. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Also, I wouldn't say I did a terrible job. I think it went pretty well bar the 15-or-so ones that I self-reverted (and Chis Martin). DrStrauss talk 13:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to mention James Allen, but as you have, it's further proof of you doing a terrible job. There's no BLP imperative there - the bloke's been dead for 60 years. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please save us a lot of time and use the tool to revert yourself on anyone who is dead? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• How about this one? Andy Sandham. One of cricket history's greats. The first man to make a triple hundred in a Test match. The article has 3 reliable sources, was created by Loganberry and the man has been dead for 35 years. Please accept you've made a mess of this and help clear it up. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• @Dweller: sure, on it. Not the BLPs though. DrStrauss talk 13:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• @Dweller: I can get you a list of people whose articles contain "died" or "dead". Unfortunately many of them don't have the living parameter. DrStrauss talk 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are ones containing "died":

1. Draft:Abbas Khan (cricketer)
2. Draft:Tom Abel (cricketer)
3. Draft:William Abel
4. Draft:William Abell (cricketer)
5. Draft:Donald Adams (cricketer)
6. Draft:Geoffrey Adams (cricketer)
7. Draft:Sidney Adams
8. Draft:William Adams (cricketer)
9. Draft:Alfred Adcock
10. Draft:Joseph Adcock
11. Draft:Charles Adderley (cricketer)
12. Draft:Charles Addis
13. Draft:Charles Agar (cricketer)
14. Draft:Thomas Ainscough
15. Draft:Jerry Ainsworth
16. Draft:Ralph Alderson
17. Draft:Ernest Alderwick
18. Draft:Frederick Alexander (cricketer)
19. Draft:John Allan (cricketer)
20. Draft:Charles Allen (cricketer)
21. Draft:Cecil Allenby
22. Draft:Richard Allsop
23. Draft:Frederic Allsopp
24. Draft:Herbert Allsopp
25. Draft:Hampden Alpass
26. Draft:Josceline Amherst
27. Draft:Clifford Andrews
28. Draft:Rupert Anson
29. Draft:Thomas Anson (cricketer)
30. Draft:Alexander Anstruther
31. Draft:George Anthony (cricketer)
32. Draft:Geoffrey Antrobus
33. Draft:John Antrobus (cricketer)
34. Draft:Arthur Appleby
35. Draft:Francis Appleyard
36. Draft:Arthur Archdale
37. Draft:Audley Archdall
38. Draft:Osmond Ardagh
39. Draft:Ashish Bagai
40. Draft:William Copeland
41. Draft:Robert Dick (cricketer)
42. Draft:Stell Haggas
43. Draft:Kuntal Chandra
44. Draft:Bob Lambert (cricketer)
45. Draft:Arthur Seccull
46. Draft:Tamim Bashir

DrStrauss talk 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• It would also be wise to revert the ones that were previously kept at AFD: Draft talk:P. H. Barnes A second AFD or DRV (and not draftification) is the way to challenge pages like this. Thincat (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a step in the right direction. If you pop those articles back into mainspace and remove the category (which should be a hidden one, btw) from them, and maybe trawl the subcats of Category:Deaths by year, that'd be a good start. We can then work through what's left and see which ones (like this) do need work, because none of us would deny that there is a problem: BLPs with 0 or 1 reliable source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thread at WP:AN. The board that states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" Maybe an active admin would have spotted it? Thankfully, the issue of this user's poor-quality work, that was raised before with the project, has now been addressed. But don't worry, they've not been mass-deleted, just moved into draft. So if anyone has the time and/or effort to clean up the mess, then they are welcome to get stuck in. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Dweller: I've got up to #32 in the dead list but have something IRL to attend to. As you say, let's not pretend that the majority of these articles are deficient and need fixing. Particularly the Bangladeshi stubs, those seem exceptionally lacking. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Appreciate that. We'll sort it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• It would be wise to move quickly because in the view of some editors (and admins) some of the pages still in draft space may qualify for immediate WP:G13 deletion ("have not been edited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months"). However, if any are deleted in this way they may be restored by requesting at WP:REFUND. Thincat (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Thincat, no risk of that. The AN thread explicitly stated that they were there to be improved so that would be an issue for February 2018 :P DrStrauss talk 16:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And most of the articles are utter turd, so it's no issue if they were G13'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

+ 1 DrStrauss talk 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Draft:Ian Billcliff was not created by the user in question, so checked all other international cricketers I could spot in the list that have been made a draft (excluding Bangladeshis) ... all of the biographies below were created by someone else;

1. Draft:Ian Billcliff
2. Draft:Umar Bhatti
3. Draft:Chris Foggo
4. Draft:Sunil Dhaniram
5. Draft:Corey Collymore
6. Draft:Austin Codrington
7. Draft:Lionel Cann
8. Draft:Stefan Kelly
9. Draft:Malachi Jones
10. Draft:Kevin Hurdle
11. Draft:Barry Milburn
12. Draft:Claude Henderson
13. Draft:Dean Minors
14. Draft:Asif Mulla
15. Draft:Henry Osinde
16. Draft:Steven Outerbridge
17. Draft:Irving Romaine

Can these please be moved back. I'm sure there are others as well. Jevansen (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

... and a bot has been "commenting out" categories so these need restoring as well. So, I note that some of the articles draftified were not at all as described at the AN discussion and so did not have the blessing of any consensus there. Thincat (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

... and redirects to the draftified pages have been deleted because they were pointing to "deleted" pages. Thincat (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: – now that the bot has commented out the categories in lots of these drafts, do you have a quick way we can find them all, as they are no longer all in the category you created. Could you provide a full and comprehensive list for us please. Harrias ^talk 06:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: link to advanced search. Hack (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, the only non Bangladesh articles that Blyth created had surnames beginning with A. I expect as many as 50 articles not created by him were moved, in addition to deceased cricketers and properly sourced non stubs already discussed. This has not been done well. Jevansen (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

50 seems a bit optimistic. Hack (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've done a few of those above that Jevansen posted, unfortunately, the authors are all inactive and I'm not sure these kind of articles are on any watchlists, so we'll have to look deeper to find the rest. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It really wasn't a difficult task to identify the articles to review in the first place, it was made a lot harder than it should have been. I'm haven't used AWB for some time (only the script version), but my understanding if you can paste article names into the list box, in which case a simple check of this widely used tool would have revealed all of the articles the user has created. At the very least you have a list for crosschecking. Jevansen (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This link will show all mainspace and draftspace article created. Hack (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The move log also is a way of finding the articles draftified and has the advantage of (I think) including any subsequently speedy deleted under WP:G13. People are entitled to disregard draftification/refund when making G13 requests and acting on them although it is not considered best practice.[7] Thincat (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've moved somewhere in the region of 100 of the articles back to mainspace now. I think most of what is left is genuinely problematic stuff, though I've probably missed a couple. To be fair, even a lot of what I moved back is stuff that does need work, but wasn't covered by the AN discussion. We're annoyed at these moves, but we need to be aware that there is a genuine problem here that we need to fix. Harrias ^talk 09:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all this – I saw what you had been doing when I was checking the original move log (see my comment above). I think none of the drafts were speedy deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have consulted the admin who deleted some/most/all of the redirects. See User talk:Malcolmxl5#Deleted redirects. He is trying to help but it seems there may be no systematic way of restoring these. Thincat (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've worked my way through my deletion log for yesterday and have restored about 30 redirects where I found that the target pages had been moved back to mainspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Malcolmxl5 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

About 52 redirects have now been restored or recreated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Another eight redirects have been restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have created a list of redirects that were deleted when articles were moved to draftspace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Deleted cricket article redirects. About half have now been restored or recreated as articles have been moved back to mainspace. The remaining redirects (the red links) can also be restored or recreated as and when the target articles are returned to mainspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking to help

1. Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed and pick an article
2. Check it has at least two reliable sources
3. Move it from Draft space to Article space and uncheck leave redirect behind
4. Remove the 02blythed category

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Added a note to #1. Harrias ^talk 10:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that it wasn't just about sources, per the original AN thread. It was also about article quality. Most of the articles created by this user had no internal wikilinking (teams, cricket terms, etc) and no categories. Any of these issues not addressed will be moved back into draft. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. The consensus was given for BLP compliance/notability reasons, which is nothing to do with quality. If you want to improve the quality of the articles, edit them, don't move them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you'd participated in the discussion at the time, you could have clarified that, but you didn't. So to avoid that, just clean up the article before you move it. Simple. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I can read an AN discussion without having participated in it. I'm very happy for you to take whatever steps you like to avoid "disruption from this user", meaning me. I'm very well known on Wikipedia for being highly disruptive. You'd better click here now before my disruptive behaviour gets out of hand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: as this project was never notified of that discussion, it is not helpful to suggest that our opinions aren't valid as we didn't participate. I do agree that some of the articles need more than just referencing checks, but Dweller's suggestion is a great place to start work. You are absolutely correct that the Bangladeshi cricketers articles in particular, but others too, aren't really even worth the work to save. But there was a lot of collateral damage in the process that is. I think I caught and saved most of it, but there was certainly other stuff in there that needed little more than some referencing upgrades. Harrias ^talk 13:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if an active admin was about who is involved in this project, maybe they could have notified people. But they didn't. I also raised the issue about this users incredibly poor work some months back, but it was pretty much ignored. I should have gone to AN instead like Dr S did so people would listen. I'm glad Dweller has admitted being disruptive - that'll be very handy to note for the future. I'll let you all get back to wiping 02blythed's backside. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well someone needs to clean the shit up, given that all you seem to want to do is point at it and shout. Harrias ^talk 13:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd hardly say that the previous discussion (archive 81 up at the top - search for 02blythed if you need to) was pretty much ignored Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: – I hope you don't mind: I edited your list to refer to a page I created with what is hopefully all the articles in question. Harrias ^talk 15:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Now now people calm down, no need to get hot. Harrias, fair trout by the way :) DrStrauss talk 17:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller:. Thanks for letting me know about Argent (Middlesex cricketer), although it was originally a 02blythed stub (I only renamed it). I've found the relevant match in S&BII so, in case it is true that there are serious objections to CA (which seems to be inferred at ANI), we do now have an undeniably reputable source in that article at least. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting drafts

Why are people deleting redirects from draftspace? WP:RDRAFT is pretty clear that these redirects should be kept. Hack (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

THe ones I deleted weren't actually drafts, they should never have been moved to draft space, therefore deletion seems logical. I think the same holds for many (if not all) that were deleted by Harrias. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Had I known about WP:RDRAFT, then I'd have left them. I didn't. Harrias ^talk 06:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. They are not drafts per se. The purpose of RDRAFT is for new pieces of work that have been reviewed as drafts before upgrade to article space. The blyth items are articles that should have been tagged for improvement but were erroneously (and messily) moved to draft space instead. I believe the drafts should therefore be deleted on redirect. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you, I just think you're creating work for yourself. Hack (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It only takes one extra click to remove the redirect, Hack. You simply uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" option on the move page. Thanks for your help, btw, and I think we would both welcome some more helpers as there are still 263 entries in the list. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have that option – I'm not an admin and I don't have WP:PAGEMOVER permission (a user right which I believe any admin can grant). Hack (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Was that a hint? Harrias ^talk 11:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe... Hack (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Hack. I'm afraid I never remember where these rights-given facilities have come from and take them for granted; they are very useful. The updates you do, leave the draft in the list as a blue-linked redirect and I'll get rid of them in due course. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Another problem on the 02blythed front

See here. I've written to User:DrStrauss for him to resolve.

All the Pakistani players whose names begin with "Aa" have either been moved back to article space or sent to WP:MfD. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed above; that was why I had to create the separate list, as we couldn't rely on the Category. Harrias ^talk 14:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. I wasn't in the original discussion and I've only skimmed it after Dweller alerted me to the problems. Anyway, the category is still out of synch with the list. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of international players still stuck in draft, Draft:Dhiman Ghosh/Dhiman Ghosh (14 ODIs and the Indian Cricket League) and Draft:Shamsur Rahman (cricketer)/Shamsur Rahman (cricketer) (5 Tests, 10 ODIs).

What a mess.

Indeedy, indeedy, indeedy. It's a triple mess. First, we have an editor with dyslexia who, despite being prolific, cannot produce work of the normally required standard. Second, we have the usual clowns at ANI who think that a discussion in which five of them take part and three of them vote produces a "consensus" that is binding upon the whole of WP – oh, and naturally they don't invite WP:CRIC to take part in their discussion in case we display some knowledge of the subject. Third, we have a so-called "draftification" done by someone whose competence must be (and has been) called into question. Not so much a mess as another fine mess. Anyway, thanks for your help. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, one positive result is that some of the problematic content is being tidied up (text copyedited, sources added etc). Kudos to you and Hack and others. Perhaps that would not have happened without the firm shove that was given here, but it does seem rather disproportionate and also hit-and-miss. There is the perennial problem of some people discussing a problem and voting for a solution, but not themselves helping to sort it out. To be fair, the ANI discussion did conclude with the recommendation that WP:CRIC should be asked for input *before* "draftification" (ugly term) went ahead. Pity that was not done, to save time with the various Test players with impeccable sources and little problematic text (Andy Sandham! even Shivnarine Chanderpaul was on the list), the dozens of dead players where there was no BLP issue, etc.

HELP – needed from ALL project members

Yes, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed again. There are now 255 entries left in the list (down from way over 300) and there are only half a dozen of us actually doing anything. So, can we have some more keyboards working on this to get the job done, especially belonging to those who like to complain but leave the work to someone else. Lets say that we double the half dozen to a dozen. 255 divided by 12 is 21 remainder three so I'll do 24. How long would it take you to do 21? Three days? Come on, then. We're a project team so lets see some teamwork.

All you have to do is pick a player and tidy up his article. If you want to reserve certain players, add a comment in the "notes" column. Find him on ESPN and add that reference to the narrative. Most of the drafts have the CA reference in there already as an external link or in the infobox so you don't have to worry about subscriptions. Put that reference in the narrative too and delete the EL section (you can delete the infobox too if you're not happy with it; many of them contain errors). If you choose a draft that doesn't have the CA ref, tell me and I'll get it for you (no, I don't subscribe). If you can't move the draft without leaving a redirect, again tell me and I'll do it. Easy. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I took the plunge and added refs / moved Draft:Waseluddin Ahmed, but I didn't seem to have any options about keeping / removing the redirect.Spike 'em (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Spike. Don't worry about removing redirect if you haven't got pagemover. I can do them. Waseluddin is done. Thanks for your help. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

American Cricketer at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates

I don't know why these templates exist. They don't have pages so they are navigating arbitrary selected numbers. They are:

• 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:Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140
• Template:Bowlers with career strike rate of 50 or less in Test matches

Last one was created by me two years back. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

They're a waste of space. Do you want to take them to WP:TFD? Jack | ^{talk page} 18:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Yes, that was my intention. You may nominate them. Greenbörg (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I created the third one as a companion to Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 and Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50. There was quite a discussion at the time regarding its parameters, and as I recall there was a consensus to create it. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Batting average templates

Following are the two templates which I think don't serve any purpose. They were used for navigation purposes but with the deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages they are reductant now. Continuously updating them after every match is tiresome. Also, they are based on 20 innings criteria which is too inclusive.

• Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40
• Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50

Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Test template: I think this is good/important, but we used to have a consensus (I think) to exclude current players from such things, on the basis that it's too ephemeral and the decline lots of players suffer before they end their career makes including current players invidious and pointless. If we excluded current players, that would deal with your problem of updating. In terms of serving purpose, I'd have it as a nav template on those players' biogs. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• ODI one: seems rather random. Why 40? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If it were 50 and completed careers only, there'd only be three players on it! Harrias ^talk 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not really a good reason for Wikipedia to focus on a random figure. Why 40? Not 35? Not 45? Not 41.14. Do we have RS that say a completed career average of above 40 in ODI is the bee's knees? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but that applies equally to the Test list; why 50? Just because it is a nicer round number? Harrias ^talk 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Google shows lots of RS discussing 50 as a benchmark for all-time quality. Here's just one example, ironically arguing that we should shift and consider 55 the new 50, but in so doing demonstrating that that is exactly how cricket fans perceive the mark: [8] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. We should atleast remove current players.Greenbörg (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We also have this in the Don Bradman FA quality biography (see chart on right), which is the top 10. I've just updated it, to dump Sanga for Voges:

Completed Test career batting averages

Don Bradman (AUS)	99.94
Adam Voges (AUS)	61.87
Graeme Pollock (RSA)	60.97
George Headley (WI)	60.83
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)	60.73
Eddie Paynter (ENG)	59.23
Ken Barrington (ENG)	58.67
Everton Weekes (WI)	58.61
Wally Hammond (ENG)	58.45
Garfield Sobers (WI)	57.78
Source: Cricinfo Qualification: 20 completed innings, career completed.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: But Voges is still active. He hasn't announced his retirement. Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Greenbörg ([9]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Greenbörg (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The ODI batting averages template still has issues. Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd delete the ODI one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 was nominated for deletion and the discussion has been closed as delete. I didn't know this was going on, and I have asked for it to be reopened. In any case, 40 is certainly used as a benchmark average in ODI cricket. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 up for deletion

Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 has been nominated for deletion. Please consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

U19 cricket tour at AfD

Please see this discussion. Note a very similar article was also deleted a few months ago too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Another first-class player at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Our project is under fire

Apparently, WP:CRIC is "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" and has serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues, etc. Please see this ANI discussion. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

However, Reyk said that, so it's the equivalent of four-year old child saying they hate their older sibling. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Jack | ^{talk page} 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that I should pay no further concern to this thread. The fact that only about 13 percent of it actually refers to the complaint at hand proves that people were more interested in talking about other things. Neither of those AfD debates nor the ANI discussion have been updated for the last 24 hours, save for a comment by myself where I've politely asked Reyk to qualify the "at least two" quote. Thank you for standing by me, Jack. Bobo. 15:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting that when the article for S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was tagged for speedy deletion it was already nearly four months old. This seems strange. People appear to have misunderstood the word "speedy" or the application of guidelines... Bobo. 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to support you, Bobo. CRIN may need an odd tweak now and again, like the one I did yesterday, but fundamentally it is fit for purpose and, by insisting upon one top-level appearance, it does the job. Imagine the chaos if this Reyk character had his way and an unspecified number of appearances were required!! As I often say, there's always one – and then there's another one → universal truths. AfD and anything that produces an alleged "consensus" is a travesty. You get these idiots coming along saying that there is a consensus to delete all sports articles because there was a thread at the village pump or whatever and three people took part with a 2–1 "vote" in favour. And, no, that is not a far-fetched analogy. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Taking a break

My being around at the moment is causing more problems than it's solving. I'm taking a break while I still can while our guidelines are being relentlessly mocked. If they want to destroy our project from the outside, let them. Now that we've found out from DRV that our main problem is inadequate sourcing, nothing we can do as a project to change that. So there's nothing I can really work to do to improve what we've already done.

I'll come back. Eventually. With all my health worries over the last few weeks I need a break before I drive myself crazy. I'll be back. But not while our project is under threat. Bobo. 17:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion and so on

The fact that the ANI discussion moved so far away from discussions about my conduct towards the actual implementation of CRIN criteria, and the fact that even the simplest of guidelines can no longer be seen to be adhered to, is proof that there is no need for me to attempt to further the aims and goals of our encyclopedia. It's nothing to do with "boo hoo I lost". I'm not getting involved in a project which people are trying to destroy by arguing about POV nonsense.

There is nothing left to break. Job done. Enough is enough. Catch you all soon. Bobo. 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricketer parameter question

Hi. Please see this discussion on the template's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This led me to the 1970 series article and it was awful. It was written in 2005 and, to be fair, I suppose it shows how far we have come since this those OR/POV times. I'm trying to expand it at present but I'm rather short of sources – I don't have the 1971 Wisden or Playfair. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

List of international cricket tournaments Suggestion

Please see this discussion. Please engage in this discussion and address the issues regarding the article. Thank you Abishe (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mickey Edwards (cricketer)

I've sent this to CSD. Please see the article if you wish to comment. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't eligible for speedy deletion, as the article does make a claim of importance. I doubt a PROD will stick, but you could give it a go. (NB: It's quite possible that he'll make his List A debut in the coming week.) Harrias ^talk 07:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I don't like PROD as a facility so I've placed it in AfD, citing CRIN, though I note that his debut may be imminent and I'll withdraw the nom if he does play. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Another cricket tour lacking notability guidelines is at AfD

The article New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017 contain scoreboards related to the ongoing Australian cricket team in India in 2017-18 series and other international cricket match Scoreboards. So I decided to include the article into AfD. See this discussion. Thank you Abishe (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Point of order. This nomination is controversial and should be withdrawn. See the AfD for details. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't withdraw an AFD nomination once other people support the deletion. The nomination might be controversial, but I still support the deletion, as frankly who cares about A team tours? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It passes WP:CRIN and as there is one person, the author, who does care about the article it should not be deleted. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Duckworth-Lewis pagemove

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A Professional tennis ball domestic cricket tournament is at AfD

Techie Premier League is a Professional cricket tournament which is hosted in Tamil Nadu is a questionable article with citing only one source. Please see this discussion.I think some Tamillians are interested in creating articles like these to gain attention. For example, Tamil Nadu Premier League. I would have nominated it for a speedy deletion but I would like to discuss it with other wikipedians who are very much experienced than me. But if I am wrong in my point of view, I regret for my mistakes. Thanks Abishe (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Cricket Archive links

A cricketing article has been sent to AfD for containing only a link to CA and not a link to CI in spite of meeting WP:CRIN guidelines. Since we've demonstrably proven that WP:GNG is completely inapplicable with regard to cricketing articles on account of its contradictory nature, I suggest we all help in adding links to CI as well as CA in order to stop this happening in the future.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this right now. We've learnt that people are somewhat fond of indiscriminately adding articles which meet WP:CRIN guidelines to WP:AFD and I have no interest in defending our right to keep these articles. Bobo. 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Even more important than citing two sources is making sure the article complies with WP:MOS, WP:CITE, etc. Dinaparna had both of the sources included, as is too often the case, in an External Links section. Sources MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST be put into inline citations. We would get nowhere near as many AfDs if everyone would PLEASE smash External Links out of the ground and down the hill into Swansea. EL is not needed in stub or start articles: inline citations are.

Also very important is the need to include in the first sentence that the person is or was a first-class cricketer, not just a cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

How can we write first-class cricketer if a cricketer becomes popular by playing in tournaments like IPL and not having featured in a single first-class match.srini (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Replace "first-class" with "List A" or "Twenty20" as appropriate. The point is to get across to the reader that you are writing about someone who has played in a top-level match. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Will it be appropriate to move page English women's cricket team in South Africa in 2011 to season 2011–12. srini (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is uncontroversial and follows standard for all other tours) so have moved it. Spike 'em (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks srini (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet another

Yet another article has been sent for deletion because of WP:ONESOURCE. This is becoming intensely, intensely boring and WP:POINTy. I don't have the time or energy to cover every single article on every single first-class cricketer... let's be prepared for this to happen a few thousand more times. *breathes in* Bobo. 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blame the people who created the articles in such a slapdash manner without following guidelines then. The fact that there are so many should perhaps be an indication that too many articles have been created without due care and attention? Spike 'em (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Unfortunately that is true, as I've said above. To be fair, though, many if them are very old articles created many years ago when standards were much lower than now. There was a time when inline citations were impossible to create and when both OR and POV prevailed. Even so, we have always had the rule that notability requires one first-class appearance. Anyway, which article is it this time? Jack | ^{talk page} 21:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack, sorry I didn't respond to this at the time, the article I was referring to was Robert Mason. Interestingly, in the eight years this article has existed, there have been almost zero alterations to the prose content of the article, which surely is proof that there is no problem other than that of POV complaints which have zip to do with the content of the article. Bobo. 22:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me with regard to the edit conflict, Jack. I don't know how many articles there were on WP when you joined, Jack, for me it was around 200K. Back then, we hadn't even added an article on every single Test cricketer, and when you look at the footballers whose articles I started (back then), you can see just how few articles were available on what were, at the time, such niche subjects. Bobo. 22:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines? WP:CRIN guidelines which have explained since the dawn of WP:CRIC that every cricketer with a single first-class/list A appearance is notable? Guidelines which ensure that every single cricketer with a first-class/list A appearance is treated neutrally regardless of whether they have achieved a single appearance or 200 appearances.

Bright-line notability requirements are the one and only way to ensure NPOV. "Due care and attention" is equal to actual correctness? If you are aware of any factually incorrect points in any of these articles, you are perfectly entitled to correct them... Bobo. 21:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time improving articles I don't feel deserve it. There is far more I'd like to improve than hunt around for players who happen to have played 1 game and have a terrible article that no-one is ever going to look atSpike 'em (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are not working to the benefit of the encyclopedia, then you frankly have no right to complain when the encyclopedia does not meet your own, personal, POV requirements. Bobo. 22:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've spent as much time as I can today editing cricketing articles I think need improving so go jump in a lake if you think I'm not being helpful. I am not being told which articles to edit by someone who is taking this far too personally Spike 'em (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Go jump in a lake"? Now that I know the person I am involved in a conversation with is of the maturity that they offer this as a response, I know that I can pretty much disregard any of your opinions. Thank you. Bobo. 22:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You accuse everyone else of WP:IDONTLIKE it, but as soon as someone offers a different view of the conflict between GNG and CRIN, or dare suggest that someone with a single appearance may not be notable you start spouting rubbish like this :

Sports guidelines are almost insultingly easy to follow and ensure that every single cricketer who has made a single major cricketing appearance (which in modern-day terms is painfully easy to define) is equally worthy of an article. To suggest otherwise is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

Why should I pay any attention to what YOU have to say? Spike 'em (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

New version of Laws of Cricket

The new MCC laws come into effect on Sunday, and the ICC version already in use in the Tests that started yesterday. As a start, I've created a draft of the Laws today at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/Laws of Cricket, which I'll move over on Sunday. Any articles that make mention of the Laws (including those linked to from the Laws) will need to be amended, as most of them have been renumbered as below Spike 'em (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Previous Law	New Law	Comment
Law 1 - Players	Law 1 - Players
Law 2 - Substitutes	Law 24 - Substitutes	Split into 2
	Law 25 - Batsman Innings;Runners
Law 3 - Umpires	Law 2 - Umpires
Law 4 - Scorers	Law 3 - Scorers
Law 5 The Ball	Law 4 - the Ball
Law 6 The Bat	Law 5 - The Bat
Law 7 - the Pitch	Law 6 - The Pitch
Law 8 - the wickets	Law 8 - the wickets
Law 9 - the bowling crease etc	Law 7 - The creases
Law 10 - Preparation of pitch	Law 9 - Preparation of pitch
Law 11 - Covering the Pitch	Law 10 - Covering the Pitch
Law 12 - Innings	Law 13 - Innings
Law 13 - Follow on	Law 14 - The follow-on
Law 14 - Declaration and forfeiture	Law 15 - Declaration and forfeiture
Law 15 - Intervals	Law 11 - Intervals
Law 16 - Start of play; cessation of play	Law 12 - Start of play; cessation of play
Law 17 - Practice on the field	Law 26 - Practice on the field
Law 18 - Scoring runs	Law 18 - Scoring runs
Law 19 - Boundaries	Law 19 - Boundaries
Law 20 - Lost ball	Removed	closest is Law 20 - Dead Ball
Law 21 - The result	Law 16 - The result
Law 22 - The over	Law 17 - The over
Law 23 - Dead ball	Law 20 - Dead Ball
Law 24 - No ball	Law 21 - No ball
Law 25 - Wide ball	Law 22 - Wide ball
Law 26 - Bye and Leg bye	Law 23 - Bye and Leg bye
Law 27 - Appeals	Law 31 - Appeals
Law 28 - The wicket is down	Law 29 - The wicket is down
Law 29 - Batsman out of his ground	Law 30 - Batsman out of his ground
Law 30 - Bowled	Law 32 - Bowled
Law 31 - Timed out	Law 40 - The result
Law 32 - Caught	Law 33 - Caught
Law 33 - Handled ball	Removed	Now covered by Law 37 - Obstructing the Field
Law 34 - Hit Ball twice	Law 34 - Hit Ball twice
Law 35 - Hit wicket	Law 35 - Hit wicket
Law 36 - Leg before wicket	Law 36 - Leg before wicket
Law 37 - Obstructing the Field	Law 37 - Obstructing the Field	Now includes handled the ball
Law 38 - Run out	Law 38 - Run out
Law 39 - Stumped	Law 39 - Stumped
Law 40 - The wicket-keeper	Law 27 - The wicket-keeper
Law 41 - The Fielder	Law 28 - The Fielder
Law 42 - Fair and unfair play	Law 41 - Unfair play
	Law 42 - Players' Conduct	New Law

This is great work, Spike. I did a lot of work on the main article earlier this year so, if you need my help with anything, do let me know. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I was about to ping you after I'd checked tha page history, but figured you'd see it here anyway. I've edited a few bits of what is on the existing page and will change that on Sunday and will then try to work through what I can find on the pages referred to. Handled the ball will need to be edited to make it clear it is an ex-law (along with putting extra content into Obstructing the field and hopefully other bits will just need renumbering / change "one of the ten methods of" to "one of the nine methods of". Spike 'em (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. It'll be fine. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! Anyone know the background on why the addition of the unfair play rule for faking a throw-in was introduced? Seems one of the silliest changes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

the team at cricinfo must have read your comment Spike 'em (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see why it's been introduced given the Spirit of Cricket doctrine that they incorporated into the Laws a few years back. Interesting that it's been applied already but, like Lugnuts, I'd have thought it was a rare occurrence really and would not fool batsmen who presumably keep an eye on the ball. Ah, well, as the incident proves, not all batsmen do. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

All-time table of the ICC cricket world cup deletion discussion

Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

page merge of retired out

I've just split out some of the page on Substitute (cricket) to Retired (cricket) to include both Retired Hurt and Retired Out. I now see there is already Retired out, which I'm inclined to redirect (it is almost the same content as was in Substitute), but just worried that I may lose page history or do something else dodgy, so are there any guidelines I need to follow? There was also a redirect from Retired hurt but I've moved that already. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spike. Best thing to do with Retired out is to propose a WP:MERGE. I can do the necessaries if you like. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

SMERGE and redirect boldly unless anyone suggests it's in any way controversial. You lose no page history if you redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. I'm getting bolder by the day! Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series statistics at AfD

Please see this discussion. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

200 Featured Lists for WikiProject Cricket

Hi everyone, I wanted to share that this WikiProject has now reached the milestone of 200 featured lists! It was achieved on 17 September when both List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria and Trans-Tasman Trophy were promoted. A total of 14 lists have achieved FL status in 2017. Congratulations everyone! Let's keep up great work. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers

Please see this discussion at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cr-Aus/doc

Hi everyone. I am a relatively new user and was wondering if anyone can either show me how to create or create themselves a link on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI? Thanks, Aussiespinnersfanpage (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aussiespinnersfanpage, I assume you mean you want to add it to Template:Cr-Aus in the first instance? What you have quoted is the documentation page of the template, rather than the code of the template itself. If you go to the template and click on edit next to "Template:Cr-Aus" you will get the code for the template itself and you can add a TLA for CAXI. You'll probably also need to add country data information and override the addition of "cricket team" (which happens in the main cr template to stop CR|ENG becoming "England national cricket team" instead of "England cricket team"). I'll have a play with it myself, as I can never remember the intricacies of this. Once it is added to the template code, of course the documentation will need to be updated to match, but that but should be easier Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing without a flag is easy, have a look at code in User:Spike 'em/sandbox/cr-aus. If you do want a flag, you'll need to create {{country data Cricket Australia}}, including a flag icon and "| link alias-cricket = Cricket Australia XI" parameter Spike 'em (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking the question here

• If articles like those currently being sent for deletion, for which it is insultingly obvious that they meet WP:CRIN, keep getting deleted willy-nilly simply because people don't like them being on the encyclopedia, then what is the incentive for any single person to continue to make articles which meet WP:CRIN when they know they're probably just going to be deleted on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? We, as WP:CRIC members, are trying to build on cricket coverage. Those who wish to delete are, in a grotesquely selective fashion, and with no sense of logic, attempting to destroy it. Let's choose a place for people to discuss new bright-line inclusion criteria, or drop this entire masquerade, which is an insult to over a decade's worth of hard work on people who are, suspiciously, only just discovering these articles after eight years of their presence on WP. Where were these people eight years ago? Bobo. 15:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that "the rules have changed" or "times change" is nonsense, as Jack, the main author of the rules, will profess - aside from a small amount of tweaking with regard to international matches, the basic definition of what is and isn't an acceptable standard of cricket to abide by, have not changed since these rules were originally written.

What is the point of anyone writing any more cricket biographies when someone is going to come along and say they dislike the way the project is set up? Bobo. 15:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As WP:CRIN states, it is not a set of hard and fast rules, but a set of guidelines that some editors chose to use when deciding on AfDs etc.

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. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion.

Many of the articles are barely read,so just because they have been around for 8 years does not mean that they should be here in another 8.Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not the question I asked, and yet infinitely proves my point. Cheers. Bobo. 16:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

What point is that? That there are many ways of interpreting the conflicting guidelines, and that not everyone does so in the same way as you? Spike 'em (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I will repeat the main crux of the question so you can tackle it appropriately and in a civil manner, without you telling me to go jump in a lake... "What is the point of anyone writing any more cricket biographies when someone is going to come along and say they dislike the way the project is set up?" Bobo. 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I just found this nonsense, which you didn't bother to tag me on

Comment - worth noting that this discussion is being accompanied by significant veiled personal attacks - not all directed towards me, but towards unnamed uninvolved parties - by a certain user on WT:CRIC, which are completely independent of either this article or this AfD debate. I refuse to be provoked by his behaviour, as I have been before out of my own frustration. I have learned from my mistakes. Telling me to "go jump in a lake" is frankly beyond the pale. Spike 'em claims that I am instructing him "which articles to edit" and that I am taking this "far too personally", both of which are outright lies.

Once again these complaints go beyond the sole concern pointed out on this AfD, which has no relation to either WP:GNG or WP:CRIN but WP:ONESOURCE, are therefore irrelevant to this conversation, and unprovoked by myself or @BlackJack:. Bobo. 02:25, 3 October 2017

You are not being civil. You have said before that

I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this right now.

Yet when I say :

I am not going to spend time improving articles I don't feel deserve it. There is far more I'd like to improve than hunt around for players who happen to have played 1 game and have a terrible article that no-one is ever going to look at

apparently I am

not working to the benefit of the encyclopedia,

and

frankly have no right to complain

Spike 'em (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And back to the discussion WP:WHYN says

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

Spike 'em (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Calm down. Learn to indent properly. Learn how to use quotation marks. Then complain. If you had really cared about the discussion you would have contributed there just like you had contributed elsewhere. And since there were no delete !votes in that discussion, it passed with not a single hitch or incident. Happy times. Bobo. 13:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In an attempt to actually be constructive, I notice that the cabal of deletionists have changed from AfDing to PRODing the cricketers: I guess they are trying a different tack in the hope it works. Personally, I am conflicted about what to include here. I am of the belief that one top-level appearance does not make a person notable, but realise that any attempt to create rules will impose an arbitrary level, and the only defensible one is a single appearance. As mentioned elsewhere, I would treat any player with one appearance that we only have cricinfo / cricket archive links in exactly the same manner. People are picking on the easy targets where the underlying data is most sparse (those Sri Lankans where no forenames / DoB are known), but I see these as no different to a similar Indian or British player that we do know the names and DoB of. At least knowing these will make google searches easier. For the record, I've never voted in an AfD where a player meets CRIN, though I have voted to !delete those who do not. I have thought about alternatives, but have yet to come up with anything that does not impose arbitrary levels of notability. I don't, however, think it is reasonable to say it is POV to think that all players are not equally notable. Spike 'em (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see some merit in an approach which says that if we only have CI and CA entries for a person that we should certainly consider whether they are likely to be notable. I might go further and say, perhaps, five or less FC/LA/T20 matches, although I can certainly see an opinion that when you get to that stage in a career that it would be very unlikely that there were no sources somewhere or other. I'd also want to bring in whether there are tonnes of known appearances in the databases for non FC teams - for example, do we know that they played scads of matches in the Lancashire League or for a minor county? If they did, the chances are much greater that there will be sources somewhere. If absolutely all we know is that they made one (or even two, perhaps three...) FC appearance and the only sources we have available are CA and CI then there's an argument that, perhaps, this isn't going to make a really viable standalone article.

The era they played and where they played may factor in to this as well. It's always going to be more difficult to find sources for a Victorian era cricketer than it is for one who made their debut for a FC county in a University match in 2017. But an article on the Victorian can wait - that is an option.

I'm much less inclined to have a hard and fast rule with regard to an absolute number of appearances by the way. They are just guidelines and we do need to use some common sense when we apply them I think - there are times when I've voted to keep articles about players without a FC appearance and other times when I've been convinced that more sources are likely to exist for a marginal candidate and so more time should be given to editors to search for them. At the same time I tend to think we'd be better off focussing on article quality and no worry so much about having a stub for every player who ever pulled on a white sweater.

It's interesting to note that WP:NBASE specifically states that "although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability". I'm not sure how much that's adhered to as a hard and fast rule - my gut feeling is that it's absolutely not. But it is an interesting thing to have in the guideline. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know the relationship between the cricinfo and cricket archive databases, or if they get their info from the same source? If they do just repeat reach other then they should be treated as one source. I know cricket archive is more wide ranging as I appear in there but not on cricinfo! Spike 'em (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The simple answer is, do we know what that source is? Bobo. 20:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice you had to remove your own incivility for fear of making yourself look like... well, heaven knows what. Given your significant stubborn attitude, and unwillingness to defend yourself, it makes me wonder, what are you scared of? Bobo. 20:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought better of it and thought we could actually discuss something, but if you want to bring it up then so be it. Please explain your double standards I mentioned above, without resorting to comments about indentation or use of blockquote and actually answer the question. Spike 'em (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I answered precisely the question. The crux of the question and the answer depends on what the source material is, how well-established the source material is, and whether the two incidents are done independently of each other. Bobo. 22:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the point about your double standards in saying you don't have the time or inclination to edit articles but when I say the same, you tell me I'm not working for the good of the project and have no right to complain. I don't find that very civil. Spike 'em (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. Bobo. 22:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Well if you want me to restate it as a question then here you go: Please explain why you can choose which articles to edit, but when I do so it is not working for the good of the encyclopedia and mean that I have no right to complain about things? Spike 'em (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I literally give up - I am unable to simplify things any further for someone who is simply working as hard as he can to misunderstand every single word out of some pretense of "humour". I know you find immense humour in your arguments, but you are not as funny as you think you are being. Did you even consider for one minute that if you had answered my original question we wouldn't be talking about this? Why am I even engaging with someone who insists I "go jump in a lake"? Bobo. 23:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I suggested you go jump in a lake if you think my efforts are against the good of the encyclopedia. Rather than try to rescue a load of pages that people only ever read to suggest deleting them, I've updated the whole laws section in the last 2 weeks. If this really is contrary to the aims of the project then I'll just leave you to create another 4 different threads all arguing the same point and go jump in a lake myself. Spike 'em (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If you insist. :) It was nice knowing you. Bobo. 00:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2027 ICC Cricket World Cup

This article about the ICC Cricket World Cup to be held in 2027, just about 10 years more is a bit hurry to be created in the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, a user redirected 2027 Cricket World Cup to here due to insufficient sources provided by the page creator. Normally upcoming Cricket World Cup tournaments in around 10 years time, do not have proper sources inorder to prove the clarification of the article as the article was created too early by a novice Wikipedian. Currently, the article is in a risk of deletion as the article was created without proper planning. See articles like 2026 FIFA World Cup which has been created in the late 2012, but contains adequate references to prove the accuracy of the information provided in the article. Abishe (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles related to Domestic cricket leagues in India have been proposed for deletion

Take a look at these two articles and they are lacking in reliable sources.

• 2017–18 Senior women's one day league
• 2017–18 Senior women's T20 league

I have proposed these 2 articles for deletion due to faling to match the relevant notability guidelines. Abishe (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Both prods have been removed. Is there any evidence to suggest they are top-level competitions? At the moment they just WP:EXIST, and the WP:BURDEN is with the article creator to show they are more than just another league/tournament. As they currently stand, they're both strong WP:AFD candidates. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking further into this, the previous edition of the one-day tournament makes claims that it's a "List A" competition, but I can't find anything to support that. As far as I know, there are no women's leagues that have FC/LA status. Even the Women's BBL is listed as "other T20" against the players who compete. Back to the Indian league, looking at some of the profiles from the stats section show no hint of notability for the players who took part (one, two). I'm all for countering gender-bias on WP, but creating these seemingly non-notable tournaments is not the way to go about it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

CRIN uses the term "or in any senior domestic competition or match" which these competitions may meet. I'm not sure how the CA / CI labels of List-A / T-20 are determined, or of they have separate qualifiers for women's cricket. Spike 'em (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The gender imbalance is one that we would probably do well to consider a little more obviously. Internationals are clearly notable - but what below that level? In the UK, the franchise league and the county championship have, I think, got articles, but only the franchise league seems to have season by season articles (although really those are lists of matches played). Are they any higher in status than these leagues? The Championship has at least got some history going for it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If they are official List-A and T20 tournaments then they are just as valid an article as one on the 2017 IPL, given that CRIN states that : "men's and women's cricket having equal importance". However, when I checked the articles earlier, they only had 1 ref which was a list of fixtures. I see that there are Senior women's one day league and Senior women's T20 league articles, nether of which are much better in terms of establishing notability. Also, the pages seem to be a C+P of previous year, with not even an attempt to change tenses.Spike 'em (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ireland 'A' cricket team in Bangladesh 2017

Hi all, I stumbled across Ireland 'A' cricket team in Bangladesh 2017. What are everyone thought on keeping this article? – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a recent AfD for a similar NZ A tour of India, which was kept, though it may have been No Consensus. I would say these 2 articles have the same notability (and I voted to keep) as they are both Full member A tours of another Full Member country and feature 1st class and List A games. There article does need improvement particularly more refs though. Spike 'em (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)||

How about a proper guidelines be made regarding articles on A team tours and tournaments, as recently BCCI has announced to start A team tours even for women's teams.srini (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

These articles are not good to say the least. Look at the total lack of care used to create this monstrosity. More a case of WP:CIR with the editor involved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer at AfD

Sri Lankan cricketer at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh de Zoysa. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it...

• List of Andhra cricketers
• List of Goa cricketers
• List of Gujarat cricketers
• List of Haryana cricketers
• List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers
• List of Jammu and Kashmir cricketers
• List of Jharkhand cricketers
• List of Kerala cricketers
• List of Odisha cricketers
• List of Railways cricketers? (May need fixing)
• List of Saurashtra cricketers
• List of Services cricketers
• List of Tripura cricketers
• List of Vidarbha cricketers

All of these lists are incomplete or haven't been updated. It may be worth checking the other lists to see if they are fully updated too. Bobo. 12:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

---

panics Oh no. I've just provided links to lists of articles of cricketers who have only made one first-class appearance. What a foolish mistake of mine. I have accidentally opened up the door to allowing people to randomly select items for deletion again. (Insert many sarcastrophes). Bobo. 12:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Cranston

I brought up this point on the recent AfD debate too late, and I use Cranston's name simply as an example, so don't take it as just being about him but about anyone. Use his name as a placeholder name if you wish.

If Tom Cranston came along and said, "I feel uncomfortable with my article being on Wikipedia", I find that the exclusionist nature of the members who would say, "This man clearly does not qualify for an article" on whatever grounds, would be in opposition to the natural reaction of "But you have to expect that your article would be on Wikipedia because you are a former first-class cricketer and therefore meet guidelines. Please don't try and claim you don't exist or that we should deny knowledge of you".

There is a part of me which would like opinions from what I'm going to loosely refer to as the "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" sides. Bobo. 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here that isn't being covered in the discussion above. I'm all for a bit of debate (even if it sometimes gets a bit heated), but you seem to create a new version of the same basic points every couple of days. Spike 'em (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Try reading. Bobo. 11:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You've established in the past that you're a bit slow and/or stubborn and/or like to pretend you don't know what people are talking about, so let me take this slightly slower. I set up an article on Tom Cranston. Tom Cranston comes along, contributes to the talk page, and says, "I am the subject of this article and I feel awkward with it being on Wikipedia." A supposedly "exclusionist" Wikipedian states, "But you have made a first-class cricketing appearance, so you have to assume your name will be on Wikipedia somewhere. What are you so frightened of that this information is publicly available." Replace his name with the name of any other cricketer who has made any number of first-class appearances. I believe the same people who say, "We don't want this article on Wikipedia" would say "Shouldn't you expect this information to be on Wikipedia? What are you trying to hide that you want to deny this knowledge?" Bobo. 11:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How about you stick to the point rather than dishing out the personal insults.Spike 'em (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I did. How about you answer the question? Bobo. 11:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you simply admit that you don't know the answer then you could simply exit this discussion here and now..? Bobo. 11:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sticking to the point and not being insulting:"You've established in the past that you're a bit slow and/or stubborn and/or like to pretend you don't know what people are talking about". I think that a the opinions of the subject of a hypothetical wikipedia article has no bearing on whether we should keep it or delete it. Spike 'em (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Subject requests deletion" has been the topic of much debate over the years. You must be new around these here parts. Bobo. 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen a debate on that, so if that makes me a newbie, then so be it. Spike 'em (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. Bye. Bobo. 11:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Any adults with opinions on this matter please? Bobo. 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

FOAD you condescending idiot Spike 'em (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooh someone's learnt some new words... I'm quaking. Bobo. 11:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I answered your question, but you continue with the insults. How long before you create another discussion crying about someone deleting another of your rubbish articles?Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Okay. Let me repeat the question below. I believe that the same people who would say, "This person does not deserve an article because I feel they don't meet my guidelines", would say, "But you should expect yourself to have an article because you meet guidelines." This is nothing to do with me "crying". It's a simple question about a simple logical fallacy. And this is a point which has nothing do with previous debates. It centres around the whole "guideline" confusion of WP:CRIN (and other such guidelines, which state that logically the person would have an article) and any other guideline which might suggest that the individual doesn't qualify. If you'd read what I'd written above, Spike 'em, you would have noticed I pointed out that this question was nothing to do with that specific article and I was using his name as a placeholder name... but I'm just repeating myself. Bobo. 12:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No one has a right to request that an article about them is deleted from Wikipedia. None at all. If they meet the inclusion criteria, there's no reason to delete their article just because they're not happy about it. If they didn't want media coverage, perhaps they should have thought about that becoming professional sportspersons. – PeeJay 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the tricky thing. I believe that even those who call themselves "exclusionists" would be claiming that people have every right to have an article if they, as a subject, meet guidelines. (Edited, sorry PeeJay, I got distracted...) :D Bobo. 12:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean by "exclusionists". Are you talking about people who typically try to limit the number of articles on Wikipedia? – PeeJay 12:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

People who attempt to limit the number of articles on Wikipedia mostly by introducing their own, random guidelines rather than going by guidelines we've worked to for all these years... Bobo. 14:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)