Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 88

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

John Manners (cricketer)

Hi all. Sadly Lieutenant Commander John Manners, the oldest living first-class cricketer, passed away three days ago aged 105. If anybody who is much better at producing high quality articles than I am fancies expanding him, it might be a worthy tribute of sorts to him to GA status? StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

George Gunn page move

Please see this disucssion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Times Obituary

Hi all. I wonder if anyone with a Times subscription could paste this Obiutary onto my talk page? I'm not a Times guy (much more a Telegraph guy!), so don't want to pay £15 to read one article! Much appreciated if anyone could. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Emailed you. Harrias ^talk 14:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Centurion or SuperSport?

My gut feeling is that the common name that I hear is Centurion rather than SuperSport Park. I've found a couple of old talk snippets that seem to agree (archive) but wondered if anyone had any view on this? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Cricket South Africa call it SuperSport Park, as do the Titans cricket team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought we didn't use sponsor name, so it would be Centurion Park without the sponsor names. Joseph2302 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. We shouldn't use sponsored names where unsponsored names are available, c.f. Rose Bowl (cricket ground) rather than Ageas Bowl. – PeeJay 11:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, didn't realise that was actually a sponsor's name! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RM discussion started here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This was open for >10 days, so I've been bold and moved it, per the discussion consensus. On a serious and sincere note, I hope everyone and their families are doing OK with what's going on in the world. Cricket, and pretty much everything else, takes a backseat for the time being. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Getting a B-Class Rating

Hello, I created the article History of the Pakistan Super League recently. The article is pending for review for a B-Class rating on this project's quality scale. Can someone help me out on how this can be done and how can I improve upon it to get better ratings for this article as well as other articles that I produce in the future? TIA NotJuggerNot (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Ashes

How do people feel about the "short description" that someone has added to The Ashes: "Test cricket series played between Australia and England, the oldest known cricket league"? I'd argue that it isn't a league, as that term is usually understood. Even if it is accepted as being a league, is it really the oldest, given that it isn't qualified by "international"? JH (talk page) 08:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Series would be better than league to be honest. WDM10 (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

My main issue with that description is that it isn't short! Per Wikipedia:Short_description#Content - "The short description should be as brief as possible". Personally, I'd change it to "International cricket series". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say recurring international cricket series, to distinguish it from one off tours. Problem is lots of the "short" descriptions have been copied from the Wikidata descriptions, lots of which aren't short at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to distinguish the countries as it's especially between Australia and England? WDM10 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No, for a short description, Lugnuts is right, "International cricket series" will suffice; I changed it to that earlier. Harrias ^talk 20:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

CfD

Hi all, please see CfD here for renaming the Oxford UCCE and Lougborough University cricketers categories to match their MCCU names. StickyWicket (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles needing images?

The best worst photos topic above got me thinking - is there a list of articles needing photos, particularly high profile ones? I was recently able to find ones for Mike Atherton and Alec Stewart which previously had no pictures at all.----Pontificalibus 09:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Pontificalibus we do have requested photographs of cricket grounds, but not much action on those (though if you happen to live near any, feel free to snap away post-lockdown!), but none for players I don't think. StickyWicket (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people seems like a good place to start. There are over 2,300 pages in that category. Hack (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's useful thanks, a long list but I can scan it for likely targets. Just done Trevor Bailey with a pic found for sale on Amazon.----Pontificalibus 09:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Best worst photo

• 
  Marques Ackerman
• 
  Matt Henry (cricketer)
• 
  Ian Blackwell (I'll replace this later)

Hi. Time for a bit of light-hearted fun while the world is in lockdown. Does anyone else have examples of bad photos used in articles on WP? The picture of Marques Ackerman never fails to make me smile when I view his article!

Note that I really do appreciate those who do spend their time taking and uploading pics, and this is not meant to be in any way a negative. Hehe, negative. Photo... :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a player, but perhaps the worst photo of a ground we have could be Swilgate?! StickyWicket (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My own photo of Matt Henry (cricketer) isn't much better. The bugger just wouldn't turn round and face the crowd. At least it has a bit of his face in I suppose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added one of Ian Blackwell that I've just come across, and will replace this evening. A few of my uploads might not be too much better than some of these though! Harrias ^talk 16:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

My own stellar offerings today:

• 
  Ben Phillips (cricketer)
• 
  David Wainwright (Yorkshire cricketer)
• 
  Priyanka Roy

Rabindra Shahi

Hi, sorry to bother you guys - I came across Rabindra Shahi while de-orphaning, and I wanted to run the name by you guys to see if he meets WP:NCRIC? It looks like he's mainly played at the underage level and I'm not sure if the domestic-level team he apparently captains would meet NCRIC. Thanks in advance for your time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, he does indeed fail WP:NCRIC, the team he plays for doesn't play 'official' matches and underage cricket we deemed non-notable years ago! Feel free to PROD! StickyWicket (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers thanks for the quick response! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

One-day Internationals in Australia in 2006-07

The discussion of the redirect One-day Internationals in Australia in 2006-07 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#May 5 may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

For my own part: I can hardly remember the names of sponsors even while a series is being played, only the season and the participants. Narky Blert (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Morgan Lindsay

Hi. I have just created an article on Morgan Lindsay who played a bit of football and cricket in his younger days, before serving as a soldier and then becoming a racehorse trainer. He was never more than an amateur cricketer, but as my sources say that he played for Glamorgan (then not a First Class county), MCC and I Zingari, it occurs to me that there may be something about him on the CricketArchive website. As I am reluctant to pay just to find out that there is nothing there, can someone take a look and add anything of interest/relevance to the article. Please could someone more knowledgeable also check the cricket-related categories, and add or delete as appropriate. Thanks. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Daemonickangaroo2018: "Played football for the Royal Engineers in the 1878 English FA Cup Final at Kennington Oval on 23.3.1878.He was a forward in a team which lost 1-3 to the Wanderers. Trained the winner in 1923 and 1925 of the Welsh Grand National", "Fought in the Boer War 1899-1901, and lost three of his four sons in the Great War. Lived at Ystrad Mynach where he formed his own club and ground", "Teams: Captain Pearson's XI (Miscellaneous: 1872); Breconshire (Miscellaneous: 1873); Gentlemen of East Glamorgan (Miscellaneous: 1875); Royal Military Academy Woolwich (Miscellaneous: 1876); Royal Engineers (Miscellaneous: 1877-1880); South Wales Cricket Club (Miscellaneous: 1878); School of Military Engineering (Miscellaneous: 1879); WJG Cartwright's XI (Miscellaneous: 1886)". Harrias ^talk 07:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Daemonickangaroo2018: And note that if he did play for Glamorgan, MCC and I Zingari then CricketArchive has not record of it. Looking for him on CA I stumbled on Charles Morgan Lindsay, born Q4 1848, Crickhowell, Breconshire, Wales, who played for Breconshire in 1863 (apparently when only 14!), who I suspect was either Morgan Linsay's elder brother or possibly a cousin. JH (talk page) 08:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have any free time...

You have 45 minutes to name all 228 cricketers dismissed by Jimmy Anderson in Tests. Go! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Playing these bbc quizzes on a phone is hugely frustrating (probably the same on a desktop) as I spend most of the time scrolling up and down the list rather than actually answering the question. Spike 'em (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Goodwood Cricket Club at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School Days inspiration?

Hi all. The other day I created an article for OU cricketer George Hughes, who while researching him I found out he was the inspiration for the character Tom Brown in Tom Brown's School Days, which was written by his brother. Interestingly, I've stumbled across another OU cricketer Augustus Orlebar, who CA claims was the inspiration behind Tom Brown. I find it more plausible that Thomas Hughes would base the character on his brother, than on Augustus? Any thoughts? StickyWicket (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, the climax of the novel is the match between Rugby and the MCC, played at Rugby. If Thomas Hughes took his inspiration for this from a real match played during his time at the school, then the 1841 match was played at Rugby, and Thomas and Orlebar were in the XI. The 1840 match - in which both Hughes brothers played - isn't such a good fit, as it was played at Lord's. OTOH, the 1840 match was the first ever match between the school and the MCC (at least, it's the earliest that CA has a scorecard for), which made it a more significant occasion. The 1842 match, in which Orlebar also played, was also at Lord's. It looks as though George Hughes left Rugby after the 1840 match, Thomas after the 1841 match and Orlebar after the 1842 match. Knowing schoolboys, as Orlebar was in the year below Thomas it seems unlikely that the two would have been close friends, which might reduce the likelihood that he was the model for Tom Brown. JH (talk page) 09:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jhall1: thanks for that analysis. I too thought the age difference between Thomas Hughes and Orlebar made it less likely that he was the basis, plus as you say, when I was at school we rarely mixed with kids outside our year group. Some publications seem to confuse a fight between Tom Brown and Slogger Williams, which was based on an actual fight between Orlebar and Bulkeley Owen Jones, as meaning Brown is based on Orlebar. That's how I see it anyway! StickyWicket (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: I tried to look at the Spectator article that's used as a citation for George Hughes being the model for Tom Brown, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall. Given that it doesn't seem to be universally accepted that George Hughes was the model, it might be better to qualify the current bald assertion along the lines of "According to a 1913 article in the Spectator..." I see that the book's own Wiki article says that Brown was based of George Hughes, but doesn't give a citation for it, so I'm tempted to add a cn tag to it. One other thought that I had: is it possible that Tom Brown is based on Thomas Hughes himself? It would have been rather vainglorious of him, but the two of them do have the same first name. JH (talk page) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A web search turned up a lot of pages saying that George Hughes was the model for Tom Brown. However most of them seemed to have very similar wording, suggesting that they might have been derived from a single source. JH (talk page) 07:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jhall1: thanks for doing some digging. It's interesting that there is a definitive answer for who he was based on, considering the popularity of the book! I still think the likelihood is he was based on his brother, but as you say, there's conflicting stories for his inspiration. I'll amend the wording the article and see what WikiProject Novels might be able to dig up! StickyWicket (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bravos and Lara

I'm a little confused on how Darren and Dwayne Bravo are related to Brian Lara. On Darren Bravo, it says Lara is his "cousin uncle", which as far as I can tell isn't an actual thing. Does someone know the proper relationship between them? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the reference cited in the article, Brian Lara's mother is the sister of Darren Bravo's maternal grandfather. Therefore, Darren Bravo's mother would be first cousins with Lara while Darren Bravo and Brian Lara are first cousins once removed.

Article that was cited: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india-in-west-indies/top-stories/Genes-behind-uncle-Laras-reflection-in-Darren-Bravo/articleshow/4734696.cms?referral=PM

Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A cousin-uncle is a first cousin of a parent. Hack (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Stat dump"

Okay, I'll ask here given that I have absolutely no idea what the answer is. @Reyk: I hope you don't mind me quoting you directly. And please understand this isn't an attack on you, I'm just confused as to why this has become an issue in the recent past when it hasn't been an issue in the last 16 years since I started writing articles.

What the heck does anyone expect from a cricket biography other than what Reyk refers to as a "stat dump"? Flowery language? Shoe size? The word "squiggly" in every sentence?

Every single article I've written in the last heaven knows how many years is exactly the same (woah, I didn't realize the last significant article I'd written was from back in 2011). At this rate I think I'd rather have them all deleted for the sake of censoring facts... Bobo. 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I do get your point Bobo, it's a stats dominated sport. And sometimes we do have nonsense added like adding “he ascribed his longevity to eating plenty of sugar and salt, but also to following routines and keeping fit” to the lead of a GA *rolls eyes*. I personally see no problem with stats when used sparingly, I always summarise the stats of a player because numbers and averages in an infobox to people unfamilar with cricket mean diddly squat. Our inclusion guideline is fair and isn't broke. Infact, going through the OU list has taught me that some of these one FC guys are pretty interesting. StickyWicket (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate my comments elsewhere, articles compiled exclusively from statistics websites (which are indiscriminate in nature) tend to be exactly as described – "a stat dump masquerading as a biography" – and will very often contravene NOTSTATS. While sentences can be constructed from the raw data, it generally does not circumvent the underlying problem. It's also worth noting, that while playing the odd match here and there may be enough for NCRIC, it is a rather poor indicator of whether a subject will meet GNG – I would contest that it is actually highly unlikely that those who have played just one match (or even very few matches) will have received the necessary "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". For me, the guideline (like many others) is plainly overly inclusive but until significant numbers of articles start getting deleted at AfD, I can't imagine there being the drive to change it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how many articles of this nature would have to be deleted before people realized "wait a minute, we're being a bit silly now"... Once again I point you to those articles I've written on Indian cricketers who have played solely in the Ranji Trophy, and ask what else one would expect to see that wouldn't solely consist of "flowery language". Bobo. 16:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've asked eighteen-thousand times how the brightline guidelines can be changed to make them "less inclusive" but still appropriate for the situaiton. Nothing which is in any way workable. Almost makes you think that people are deleting for the sake of selective censorship. Bobo. 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Could be worse. It could be a squiggly stat-dump of a metallic compound. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, please, cheap shot. I'm not saying I understand a single thing about science. In fact, I've been looking more and more recently into the Simple English Wikipedia and seeing how as many articles from "broad" subjects, such as maths and science, can be simplified enough for purpose on Simple English Wikipedia. It's interesting to see what people add, and the fact that they haven't simplified them all for user-friendly purpose for those whose second language is English, those who are young, or for those who may have cognitive processing difficulties. (And I mean that in an entirely respectful way, I know a lot of people who would benefit who have acquired brain injury, for example). One of the areas I've been looking at on the Simple English Wikipedia is in colours, and not all of those are particularly NPOV. Bobo. 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Random Indian cricketer biography stub. It only took me one go to find something that may be considered too flimsy to consist of anything but a "stats dump" - and which, of course, Lugnuts, was not written by your good self.

I just clicked ten times at random and the articles I came upon were:

• Jose Kurushinkal - Created by Lugnuts, no change in article content in six years
• K. R. Karimanickam - Created by Lugnuts, no change in article content in six years
• Prateek Reddy - Created by Lugnuts, made first-class debut in February 2020
• Nizam Yar Khan - Created by Jaywardhan009, a name with whom I am honestly unfamiliar
• Viresh Dhaiber - Created by me, originally created with just initialed name which was clarified eight years later when his first name was added, single first-class appearance, prose not changed since article set up
• Acharath Mackey - Created by me, single first-class appearance, prose not changed since article set up
• Nipan Deka - Created by Lugnuts, single T20 appearance, prose not changed since article set up
• Rao Bhosle - Created by AA, no major alteration in prose, though the article itself is only 18 months old. Cricketer long retired.
• M. H. Maqsood - Created by Lugnuts, no change in article content in four years
• Sameer Rizvi - Created by Lugnuts, made first-class debut in January 2020

Is it just me or are there too few people willing to do the legwork in creating articles and improving content and too many people willing to criticize those people's work? Bobo. 16:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

All too often there are no available sources beyond the basic statistics from Cricinfo, CricketArchive, etc., so it's unsurprising that content has not been improved or expanded. That is a clear indicator that there are too many articles being created for what are essentially non-notable cricketers on the basis of an all-inclusive NCRIC guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, Wjemather, and with all due respect, instead of complaining about article content, rather than suitability for the project, people should actually do something about it. Lots of people are all too keen to say "the notability guidelines are too broad", but not a single one, when questioned, has any idea how they can be changed. Bobo. 17:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pass #2:

• Prakash Jayaramaiah - plays for blind cricket team, created by Cricket karnataka 11, a name I'm unfamiliar with.
• Mihir Das Gupta - created by me, no change in prose content in eleven years
• Inderjit Singh Bindra - last major content contribution by BlackJack in 2017
• Pestonji Kanga - created 13 years ago, mangled by IP address nine years ago, no major content contributions or reversions since
• Umananda Bora - created by me 11 years ago, single first-class appearance, prose not changed since article set up
• Deepak Banker - created by me 11 years ago, single first-class appearance, prose not changed since article set up
• V. M. Gupte - created by Lugnuts six years ago, prose not changed since article set up
• Kalpan Paropkari - created by SpacemanSpiff 11 years ago, a name I'm honestly unfamiliar with. prose not chaneged since article set up
• Manoj Bhagawati - created by me 11.5 years ago, single first-class appearance, prose not changed since article set up

Bobo. 17:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding GNG, when we are talking about Ranji Trophy cricketers I suspect that there will be plenty of mentions of the players in Indian newspapers and magazines. The trouble is that most of these are likely to be in Hindi or other Indian languages, and I'm not sure that our project has any members who can read these languages. Also many of these publications may not have their content available online. Wisden India Almanack is I think in English, and might be a good source, but I don't suppose that any of us has access to any - let alone all - of the annual editions. JH (talk page) 07:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned not a word about GNG to be fair. I just never know what people expect to be present in articles other than facts. If we're bringing flimsy nonsense like GNG into the equation, and insisting we write idiotic flowery text into an article about someone who played a single match 70 years ago, I think we've lost our aim as a project, given that our aim is to create a comprehensive resource on everything in the universe which meets a certain agreed subset of criteria. I'm beginning to think people see me as some kind of arch-inclusionist for wanting to stick by guidelines rather than flout them when it suits just for a laugh. To be honest I'd rather the work I put in - much of which, as I've said, has remained untouched for ten years - was just treated as unacceptable and discarded, than see us be inconsistent for the sake of inconsistency.

Clicking on Random in-cat Indian cricket biography stubs ten times shows precisely what I mean. If you're telling me the difference between those articles I set up and, for example, Sunil Das Gupta, is that there is a heading "References" rather than "External links", and there is a purdy little infobox by the side, then I think you can see where my issue lies. And Lugnuts, please know I resepct you more than you realize

If y'all wanna get rid of any given article you stumble upon based on clicking Special:RandomInCategory/Indian_cricket_biography_stubs, and delete the ones which only contain references to CI and CA, then have at 'em. Bobo. 09:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point (and for clarity, my comments cover all cricketers, not just Ranji Trophy). Guidelines (GNG & NCRIC) deal with "presumed notability" which does not always equate to "notable" – it's also worth noting the consensus was clear in this RfC that NSPORTS (such as NCRIC) guidelines are too permissive. As such, you have done nothing differently than others by following NCRIC when creating these stubs, and I would hope no-one is singling out your work. The problem is, many of these articles simply shouldn't have been created as the subjects are plainly not-notable, and they would be deleted at AfD (if nominated and that process worked properly). Almost all arguments for keeping them rely entirely on NCRIC while paying little (or no) regard to GNG which, as the overarching guideline (not flimsy nonsense), (as a rule of thumb) would require multiple additional sources outside of the usual largely-indiscriminate statistical repositories. Of course, others will disagree with my take and that's fine. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry Wjemather, I'm not frustrated with regard to your comment about clarity, just in general about consistency. Bobo. 10:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the sad things about this project is that we are very Anglo-centric, heck I'm guilty of it too! Our greatest coverage of cricketers comes from the Anglosphere, with the subcontinent very neglected. Which is a shame considering there's over 1.5 billion people there! StickyWicket (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Random pages from cricket stub categories

AFG | AUS | AUS1840 | AUS1850 | AUS1860 | AUS1870 | AUS1880 | AUS1890 | AUS1900 | AUS1910
AUS1920 | AUS1930 | AUS1940 | AUS1950 | AUS1960 | AUS1970 | AUS1980 | AUS1990 | AFG | BAN
BAN1990 | ENG | ENG1840 | ENG1850 | ENG1860 | ENG1870 | ENG1880 | ENG1890 | ENG1900 | ENG1910
ENG1920 | ENG1930 | ENG1940 | ENG1950 | ENG1960 | ENG1970 | ENG1980 | ENG1990 | ENG2000 | IND1930
IND1940 | IND1950 | IND1960 | IND1970 | IND1980 | IND1990 | IRE | NZ1860 | NZ1870 | NZ1880
NZ1890 | NZ1900 | NZ1910 | NZ1920 | NZ1930 | NZ1940 | NZ1950 | NZ1960 | NZ1970 | NZ1980 | NZ1990 | PAK1960
PAK1970 | PAK1980 | PAK1990 | SAF1960 | SAF1970 | SAF1980 | SAF1990 | SL1960 | SL1970
SL1980 | SL1990 | WI | ZIM

If the only differences between the articles I set up and get deleted and the articles in 80 percent of these categories are pretty little infoboxes, the word "References" instead of "External links", and links only to CA or CI, then can y'all see why I have a problem with deletionism? If nothing else, it goes to show how only a very small number of people are willing to help out and a surprising number are willing to criticize that work. If any of you who are willing to criticize would be at all willing to expand any of these articles or at least cite them to sources which make any of you happier about their inclusion... eitherway, I provide those links above to hopefully assist their expansion. *insert Australian Question Intonation here* Bobo. 18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of randomisation is really interesting - thank you. I hit one that I'd edited first time - Percy Northcote. It's a stub, but it has four sources (with one I'll add just now). Sometimes all we'll ever have is a stub. That's OK. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not... Bobo. 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ireland doesn't appear to work, that's on my future to do list to destub as many of those as possible. StickyWicket (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. Sorry. Bobo. 23:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bobo :) StickyWicket (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Consistency

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, can we be consistent please? Instead of picking and choosing random articles which offend us, can we go through individual categories and decide what offends us in one batch please? There are hundreds of articles which fit precisely the same pattern as that Banerjee. Mostly created by me. If people are offended by these articles, then instead of sending them one by one to AfD once every six months, can we clean them all up in one go or decide to systematically destroy the work carried out by others (mostly me) all in one go? The lack of consistency is a grotesque representation on our project which we have been working on. I put in 90 percent of the legwork on the articles people are finding fault with and this is a disgusting indictment on the effort I've put in. Not exactly a coincidence, is it? Bobo. 19:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 20 Bedfordshire cricketers with the same statistics as Dean Dass. Anyone prepared to do the legwork? Or shall we just get the articles deleted for the "benefit" of the project? Bobo. 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Dass had a very, very limited Minor Counties career - three matches only. As I said at the AfD, Minor Counties cricket receives reasonable press coverage in some parts of the world (certainly Norfolk and Suffolk both do - and the press in the Luton area seems to cover local cricket) and it's possible that a player with a long minor counties career would receive substantial regional press coverage at a suitable level. On balance I'm of the opinion that this is unlikely in the case of Dass and a solution was found.

I don't recall if there are other Bedfordshire players in a similar position; there probably area. There are others who played only once in List A matches but who played frequently in the Minor Counties Championship and whom I would tend to suggest that sources are likely to be found about.

In any case, I wouldn't send any to AfD. I'd do a merge prop... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As I say, if the only differences between mine and Lugnuts' articles are an infobox and the word "references", then... that's easily fixable rather than sending them to AfD... Bobo. 10:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's as simple as that. I took 10 random articles from the lists below (from the English 1840 set). None of them were started by either you or Lugnuts as it happens. I was able to add sources to seven of them - turning very short stubs into something that in most cases I would think meet the GNG: all of them use some form of prose source rather than simply use statistics. One further one I tweaked a little and two were, as it happens, quite recent additions that didn't need anything doing to them. Even though some of the chaps involved only played one or two first-class matches, in every case I think we happen to have enough in terms of sourcing to verify them and I'd be prepared to argue in ever case that there's a case for keeping the articles.

Maybe I got lucky with my random choice - it's not always that easy to find anything. I don't know how others might fare if they did the same thing every now and again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten 02blythed was a frequent and keen editor before being hounded out. I'm not sure why Jack was so keen on removing infoboxes... strange. Eitherway, like I say, if there were infoboxes on the articles I created, they wouldn't be being deleted. As for GNG, once again, if we spend our time working on flimsy, non-brightline criteria, there's no incentive to add any articles if all they're going to do is be discarded. And as for my article creations, every single one is exactly the same except for the biographical details. If this makes them unsatisfactory, I would rather they all be seen as unacceptable and discarded. Of the 49 players to play List A matches for Bedfordshire and no other List A team, of whom if I am correct, 20 have made just a single List A appearance, Dean Dass has 154 matches (including his List A match) catalogued on CA, while William Sneath has the most, at 446. Shrug. I have too much time on my hands. And yet not enough. Bobo. 03:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The final statement of WP:CRIN reads: "Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing [the subject] in historical rather than statistical terms." – in other words the statistical repositories of websites such as cricinfo, cricketarchive, etc. are not sufficient (whether they are given as inline citations or external links is irrelevant); other reliable secondary sources must be found in order to confirm notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Or there needs to be a reasonable assumption that it will be possible to establish such sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. There are plenty of cases where that assumption is reasonable to make. And some where it's obviously not. And some in the middle which need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I should note that I consider there to be a number of issues with the way in which CRIN is written. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you all have enough time to go through the articles I've created and delete them on a whim... go crazy. Like I say, every single cricketing biographical article I've written is basically exactly the same. Just sounds like censoring facts for the sake of censoring facts to me. I'm still trying to remember (and this isn't a complaint, I was just intrigued when I found out) I'm certain there are some southern Indian language Wikipedias where someone has purely translated the text I put on the original page and put them on there for them still to remain while the English language version was deleted. Once again, not complaining, I was just intrigued. Bobo. 23:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As for "the way CRIN is written", I ask everyone how it should differ from every other team sport project for the sake of selective deletionism. Anyone who is willing to modify the brightline inclusion criteria Jack put together all those years ago is welcome to do so. Bobo. 23:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The point being that it is clearly not reasonable to assume that such coverage exists when an individual has played a very small number of matches. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not "reasonable" to hack down a project which has been attempting to reach a goal for the last fifteen years only for people to randomly decide what they're offended by. I don't care that people keep pointing me to ALLORNOTHING. The point is a project has to be consistent to allow any kind of argument one way or another.

We're really getting off tack. I wish people had told me back in 2009 to stop doing this so that eleven years later people would just rip your work apart for the lulz. Bobo. 09:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No-one is "offended" or "hacking down" anything – your use of such emotive language is very unhelpful, as is your refusal to accept global guidelines (e.g. GNG) and, more importantly, policy (WP:NOT) that have wide consensus. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I refuse to stop pointing out the presence of the word "or" in WP:N. GNG is just an excuse for selective censorship of knowledge. Bobo. 10:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The number of matches played is interesting and I think that comes under the "it depends" criteria. So, for example, Keith Barlow has plenty of sources about him but only two first XI appearances (I'm happy to enter into a debate about whether he's actually notable fwiw); Thomas Trueman we have virtually nothing about (1 appearance) and doubts about his identity. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To stretch the example further - I'm going with the first two examples I think of - let's say Geoff Hurst was a non-league footballer who nobody cared what he did within his career other than statisticans. Let's say his only claim to brightline notability was his single first-class cricketing appearance. Samuel Beckett, same scenario. Imagine if there were a ridiculously unknown person, whose only brightline claim to fame was his sole first-class cricketing appearance. If his only "keep" criterion was his sole first-class cricketing appearance, but this went unmentioned by those less familiar with the subject, this would be another (brightline) "keep". Bobo. 15:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

CRIN is too long and too complex. Much of it could be binned and there wouldn't be any impact on how it is interpreted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not for the purposes I'm referring to... In a sense that's precisely why I've done what I've done. I'm sorry it's come to this, of course I am, but I will never back down from my belief that whatever I did, I did the right thing for the right reasons. Okay, so I got some international players' notability wrong early in the game, in terms of continental European competitions, but I will ask you please not to put that down to malice, only to misunderstanding. Bobo. 15:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Bobo192, I've argued against you on this topic countless times, and been infuriated by your stance countless times, but let me say one thing: I for one absolutely believe that you acted in good faith with all your article creations, and the work you have done is phenomenal. Please, however these discussions end up, and whether more of the articles get deleted, don't ever think it is anything personal, or any slight on the work you have done. You have created, or at least laid the foundation for, a comprehensive cricketing encyclopedia. That might not quite be what Wikipedia as a whole wants or needs, but it has been great work, and I would guess that even if things shift further away from inclusivity 95% of your work will remain, with the arguments only on the very fringes. TL:DR: you've done good stuff for the right reasons, but it might not be what the Wikipedia community wants. Harrias ^talk 16:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Harrias. Thank you. Like you say, I know we've not always seen eye to eye and I apologize for that. I know you are a good person and I hope you think that about me too. I know I have been frustrated in the way I have conducted myself, but that's just me. Communication is not my game. Words are not my game. To misquote Winnie the Pooh, I'm a Bobo of very little brain. Not little. Focused on the wrong things for the right reasons. And/or vice versa. I want you please to know that my frustration is never towards a person. Any person. My frustration - in life, let alone anywhere else - is the obstacle in front of the ultimate goal, even though that goal may prove to be misplaced. We all stumble sometimes. Me more than anyone else. And without trying to make an excuse, I am going through real-life confusion as well. I need to learn to disassociate the two. That is one reason I am expressing myself with more frustration than usual. Like I say, unwillingness to disassociate the two. Nothing I have ever said on WP has been out of intentional malice. More than anything else, trying to justify things in brightline terms in my own mind and falling short. I cannot provide words for how frustrating that is. Bobo. 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of cricket grounds!

Hi all. That time again where I'm canvassing for photos of cricket grounds on this list. I've taken a picture of Petworth, which was the last one near to me, but the rest are miles away! If anyone lives near these and can take some photos of these grounds and their buildings and facilities, that would be great! StickyWicket (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Article class assessment

Good morning. Am relatively new to wikipedia so not sure about correct procedure, but am wondering what is the way of getting articles assessed for their 'class'? I think these two articles I have 'finished' and are maybe no longer stub and start class, but not sure of what the proper way of going about getting them assessed is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Walsh_(cricketer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pritchard_(cricketer) - Kind regards JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Assessed them both as C class; they both need their lead expanding. After that you can receive further feedback via the Good article process if you so wish. Harrias ^talk 09:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Cricket South Africa's Solidarity Cup

Review the page Vikas265 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Just when you think that nothing more stupid and complicated than The Blundred couldn't be invented, along comes this! StickyWicket (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Well it might not even happen, it's already been postponed. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

For the love of god, don't say the H word! Too late... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI AFD for this article started here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

“WION further describes the format as "a unique set of rules set to enthral the cricket lovers"”... cloud cuckoo land is a place called WION. StickyWicket (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a merger discussion going on at Talk:List of Bengal cricketers that people may be interested in contributing to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, how long do merge conversations go on before closing one way or the other? This conversation has been going on for longer than a week - and with this notification enough people should be able to see it that wish to. The conversation appears to be a considerable "no consensus", as was the AfD. How many no consensuses do we need to be a "consensus" that there is "no consensus"? Following considerable pinging (which I consider fair game, all well and good), there appears to be no change from the original AfD decision. Bobo. 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually a week if the votes are overwhelmingly one way or the other... if it's mixed and unclear like this one, it's usually left open for another week or two, to see if further votes show a clear preference in one direction. Richard3120 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion that is "no consensus" should surely back up the original "no consensus" decision. Bobo. 20:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I only pinged people over the weekend, specifically in order to get a wider range of opinions. It should stay open for at least a week more, perhaps more. A wider range of opinions might, or might not, help to provide some form of tacit consensus going forward. I've certainly been made to think by the discussion and can see that there is a position that is reasonably acceptable in the short term to a range of people - I certainly think there are opinions there which haven't been expressed before and have been impressed by the thoughtfulness of some of the arguments presented. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ruturaj Sinh sisodia eyes please

Very stubby article, created before a pair of socks were blocked. Please examine and either enhance or nominate for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a whole sock farm now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu Any idea whether this young cricketer might genuinely be notable? Mainspace article seems now to have gone. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks to now exist in mainspace at Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia (it went via draftspace, got renamed in draftspace, then accepted at AfC by the looks of it). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302, it did. Even with sources it is still thought to be borderline, so opinions from here are more than welcome Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any player by that name, could be made up. Can anyone else find him? StickyWicket (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate, I did find him under Sinh rather than Sisodia, but haven't the cricket expertise to judge if he is the right guy or notable in cricketing terms. AFC reviewers sometimes release drafts to the main space so that topic experts can enhance them or otherwise dispose of them. If you choose to dispose may I suggest AfD even though it's a trivial stub to nail this one down? Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate, Got it. Sisodia is a caste (and a potential BLP violation). His name is Singh or Sinh (either is correct). The article is now at Ruturaj Singh Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent is he this guy? Becase he's the only one with that name I can find, but his playing details are different. StickyWicket (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate, I would say unlikely. From the article here "Starting from 2016, he represented Karnataka in under-19 and under-23 age categories, he was named in India's squad for the India U23." which makes your find substantially too old Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've AfDed, having removed a load of unsourced information. There is already an article for Rituraj Singh. Spike 'em (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Spike 'em, perfect outcome. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 19:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers all, definitely a figurement of the socks imagination! StickyWicket (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

India vs Pakistan, 5th test - 1987 Bangalore

Is this Test that noteworthy to have a standalone article? Thoughts please! StickyWicket (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

it would need multiple articles mentioning how great it was; at the moment it has 1 ref mentioning it as 1 of 12 memorable Tests, which is not enough for me. Spike 'em (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That article doesn't even mention why it's allegedly one of the greatest Test matches. And that claim seems to be based on 1 source. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There are articles about all of the Test in the 1948 Australian tour of the UK iirc (all at FA standard - but how many of them are truly notable as individual matches? (the Headingly Test, perhaps, but beyond that?)). We also have Third Test, 1932–33 Ashes series (Bodyline), Second Test, 2000–01 Border–Gavaskar Trophy (win after f/o), and Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy (all sorts of good reasons) as well as some one day matches. Tbh it's not a totally unreasonable subject for an article - certainly compared to Bungle in the jungle - but there are plenty of other fairly dramatic matches that might well be just as reasonable (yesterday's match, for example, due to the circumstances around it). It may be that we simply don't have enough articles about Test matches to be able to judge what makes a match really notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't judge notability by comparison with other articles; being dramatic also does not confer notability. Some individual matches may be considered inherently notable due to their status, circumstance or uniqueness (cup finals, etc.), but for what would otherwise be a routine match, we simply have to judge by weight of retrospective coverage in reliable sources – i.e. multiple references discussing it in a historical context. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

People, I also have plan to create stand alone articles for greatest test and one day matches like the tied test played between Indian and Australia (1986), the match between India and West Indies (1988), where Narendra Hirwani claimed 16 wickets in his debut, the Ashes series 2005 between England and Australia, 1991–92 Wills Trophy finals where Aaqub Javed claimed 7 wickets including an hat trick..etc.. Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Marylebone Cricket Club University Matches

The 2020 Marylebone Cricket Club University Matches were cancelled due to COVID-19, so do we really need an article about them? The article doesn't show any evidence of passing WP:GNG (half the source are general sources about cricket being cancelled in UK), but wanted to discuss with the community before nominating for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to merge in to the 2020 English cricket season. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done the merge, per BST's suggestion. Sad to see it go, but small change in the grand scheme of things. Who remebers the good old days of Brexit and the threat of a US/North Korean nuclear armageddon? Good times... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Every cloud, at least we don't have to put up with this abomination. StickyWicket (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IP editor changing template colors

Previously, we saw 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making changes for which that editor eventually was blocked for two years, for changing template colors without an edit summary explaining why & refusing to discuss anywhere when warned. I am now seeing color template changes & no edit summaries for 103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I am going to start reverting & warning. I do not know if it is the same user. Perhaps we would need a Checkuser to make sure. Peaceray (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally they don't Checkuser IP addresses, though looks like they're in the same range (103.60.175./) so very likely to be the same person. If it is the same person, then sounds like WP:BLOCKEVASION. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, proceeding with a message that "I reverted your edit because you left no edit summary explaining & your behavior seems identical the the disruptive editing addressed at User talk:103.60.175.78, so probable WP:BLOCKEVASION. As per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss on the talk page before attempting this edit again." That should about cover it. Peaceray (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably this editor, who has been doing this for YEARS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Some good news 103.60.175.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for 1 year for the same thing. I recommend that you start a sub-page or sandbox and record the most recent ones you spot creeping up. Maybe add a few fequent templates/articles to your watchlist to see when they pop up too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I’ve also placed a partial block from Template space on 103.60.175.0/24 for one year, which may help to curtail this person’s activity. It doesn’t help with article space edits though... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Bengal cricketers

Easier to start a new heading. The discussions at Talk:List of Bengal cricketers, to which nobody has contributed for 13 days, have been open for a month now. Surely this is enough time to mark the discussion as "no consensus" and move on. We've been waiting for a time and a place to declare the discussions finished. Bobo. 21:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Why the rush? It's a discussion desperately in need of opinions outside this project. Closure should ideally also come from outside, noting that the RfCs will get auto-closed after 30-days inactivity. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

30 days. Fair enough. Just seemed like the conversation had... died down. Bobo. 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Alvin Kallicharran

Is there anyone from this WikiProject willing to take a look at Alvin Kallicharran? Someone claiming to be his wife posted at WP:THQ#Hi- I am trying to update my husband's wiki page - the information is incorrect and then basically tried to replace the entire article here. There may indeed be some problems with the current article, but the version that replaced it was completely unsourced, full of puffery and other promotional speak, and written more like a personal profile than an encylopedic article. It might also be a WP:COPYVIO, but I haven't dug to deep into that to check it. Most likely the person trying to make the changes means well, but just doesn't really have a good idea as to how Wikipedia works. I pretty much know nothing about cricket, but perhaps someone who does can help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I see he released an autobiography last year, which can't be used for anything contentious, but could be used for any uncontroversial facts about his marriages / children / where he lives. Spike 'em (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Spike 'em and working on cleaning it up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Barry Jarman

Barry Jarman has died. He was an Australian Test wicket keeper and one of the first ICC Match Referees. I have nominated him for an appearance as a recent death on Wikipedia's Main page. The article needs more sourcing. The discussion is at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Colin Milner Smith (judge)

Hi all. Recently deceased FC cricketer, seems to be an obituary on The Times, but I don't subscribe, so if anyone who does fancies expanding his article, feel free! StickyWicket (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the obit is only a few lines and doesn't add much that wasn't already in the article. Hack (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah no worries, I couldn't even see that much! StickyWicket (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Karachi Kings–Lahore Qalandars rivalry

Is this really that notable? Govvy (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it. Harrias ^talk 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The rivalry is famous, but not so famous to have a stand alone article.Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. Hard to say there's a true rivaly between two teams in a six-team tournament that's only been around for five years or so. For the tournament format, they play each other twice each year. Maybe refs 3, 4 & 5 in the article might be enough, but I wouldn't fancy its chances of surviving an AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The PCB have clearly tried to push it as a rivalry from the outset (almost all the early sources are republished press releases), however it seems obvious that it is based on the cities rather than the cricket teams as there is simply not enough history there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There is now an AfD discussion for this, feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no references present to show these both teams rivalry. As per it Fails WP:NRIVALRY Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wisden Trophy

Hi. If anyone has a spare moment, please could you take a look at the Wisden Trophy article? It has a lovely green circle at the top-right to say it's a Good Article. However, this was from a review done in 2007. Since then the article quality has dropped off faster than Shai Hope's batting ability... Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 FAR

I have nominated West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Harrias ^talk 10:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bored again, so I'll ask

So half of the articles I've ever created are eventually going to be sent to AfD but articles created by Lugnuts are not? I ask you what the difference is between them other than an infobox. If the only difference is an infobox and the word "References", then do it yourselves rather than sending half of the articles I've ever created to AfD. They contain exactly the same information bar for a poxy infobox. Bye then.

@Lugnuts:, I say this with all the best intentions I possibly could.. I'm asking what people see as the differences between the two that my article creations are being challenged on such a large scale. Bobo. 20:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

2018 PSL after expansion

Hi guys I told you all a few days ago about nominating the 2018 Pakistan Super League for a good article and you guys said to add a prose summary of the tournament, now that I have done that what do you think about its chances? CreativeNorth (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

2018 Pakistan Super League

I am thinking of nominating 2018 Pakistan Super League for a good article. I think it passes the immediate failure (will not immediately fail) and it's Well written, Verifiable, Broad in its coverage, Neutral, Stable and has an illustration. What do you guys think? CreativeNorth (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It is predominantly a list of matches, with very little prose about what happened during the tournament, so I'd say it needs some work before it gets anywhere (though I've never taken part in a GA review so may be giving duff information). Spike 'em (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as a minimum, it will need a prose summary of the group stage, and then a bit on each of the knockout matches and final. I haven't looked beyond that at the general quality of what is there. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think, to put it kindly, it needs a LOT of work to get anywhere near a GA standard. Spike and Harrias have covered the issue about more prose. You've got more prose about the opening and closing ceremony, and nothing to sum up the matches. Info on the background to the tournament, including why a sixth team (Multan) was added would be great. And to go with that, reactions and aftermath of the tournament. At a glance I can see at least half-a-dozen unsourced claims too. But if you're up for improving it, every edit would be welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: - thanks for making a start on improving this. I was trying to think last night of a similar article, and then it came to me - the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Take a look at the summary section, a great way to breakdown the match details week by week. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

See below for query CreativeNorth (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

List of cricket records

@Ankurc.17: has been adding a number of records to various "List of [country] [form of cricket] record" pages that are referenced only to statsguru queries. A lot of them seem excessive to me, and unless a RS explicitly lists them, then they would seem to be WP:OR. Many of them are quite generic (e.g most runs / best average at a position), but if we are to allow statsguru queries then I could start making up more and more specific ones (e.g. most runs at number 4 away from home when losing the toss but winning the match - Kevin Pietersen by the way!) On top of this, many of these Lists are Featured and most of the new records added have gone in without any prose, so I would like a centralised discussion of which are appropriate. Spike 'em (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I only saw that different pages have kept different lists. SO decided to utilize the Covdi-19 lockdown and get all the pages to similar level of info. If you have issue with that then I would be more than happy to revert back everything. Ankurc.17 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to revert everything back, but thought it would be good to have a discussion on what is appropriate for all of the lists. Rather than cross-populating any record listed on any of the pages (which are possibly added without discussion), we should choose which ones are appropriate for all. I can see the worth of some of the "most runs at a position", for example, but it needs to be properly sourced. I think that lists of results that are only going to keep growing (like listing every series whitewash, or every 10 wicket victory) are not worthwhile keeping. Spike 'em (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason I switched from HowStat to Cricinfo for the most runs at a position and Average was because it wasn't covering all the teams. Anyways what ever be the consensus I am ok with that. Like i said earlier, I just wanted to keep all the pages in a similar format. Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source that lists the 250 runs / 5 wickets in an ODI series? It seems a strange weighting of runs to wickets to use (50:1, whereas 10:1 or 20:1 would be more usual). I can see Howstat has lists of 250/20 and 200/16 in Test series, but nothing in ODIs Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have pruned the England lists, as they are the ones on my watchlist, and am also removing some confusing rowspans. When there are overlapping rowspans in different columns I find the table difficult to read. Spike 'em (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notable?

Given that it's been cancelled, is the 2020 Royal London One-Day Cup really notable enough for a stand-alone article? Almost all the sources in the article are generic sources about cricket being postponed in the UK, with one or 2 saying it's been cancelled. As such, I don't believe it passes WP:GNG, and I think a redirect to Royal London One-Day Cup (where the 2020 cancellation is already mentioned) would be appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you, some of the sources don't actually mention the page so I think a redirect is in order. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd probably redirect to the 2020 English cricket season and then make sure it's mentioned on there somewhere. It's more obviously relevant to the season in terms of that's where we can discuss reasons etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Merged & redirected to the main article (redirecting to the season article would be a bit of an easter egg) and added an anchor & note to detail cancellation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Royal London One-Day Cup

Looking at the Royal London One-Day Cup article, I have a couple of questions:

1. Why does the winners list include all predecessor cups e.g. ECB 40, Pro40, when the article is about the 50 over competition from 2014 onwards?
2. Should we remove the sponsor name from the article name as we have done with ECB 40, Pro40, Women's Cricket Super League? And if so, what should the article name be? Maybe English cricket One-Day Cup or English One-Day Cup? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

   Probably ECB One-Day Cup? Harrias ^talk 10:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion in 2018 at WT:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 84#English Competition Names - this is referenced on the article talk page. I think I dealt with all the T20 Blast stuff but the other competitions never got dealt with iirc. ECB One-Day Cup seems reasonable and deals with the issues which were raised at the move discussion on the article talk - it then depends on how we deal with all of the other 40 over etc... competitions. The WT link above might help with that re: the Cricketer article. I think I still have a hard copy of that article lurking in a pile behind me if that helps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the 40-over competitions being included. They may not have been exactly the same number of overs, but it's still List A cricket and no one competition ever ran alongside another as far as I can tell. Also, we shouldn't be coming up with our own names for these competitions; whatever name we settle on for the article needs to follow the article title naming conventions, and that means at the very least needing a source for it. "ECB One-Day Cup" doesn't seem to be a name that has ever been in common parlance. – PeeJay 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I know, it's tricky - especially as there are other competitions with the name one-day cup. There's a video from Lord's which does call it just the one-day cup - as do Notts in 2020. Given the complex history of the competition it might make more sense to try to avoid the sponsor name issue if possible - but that means we end up calling it just one-day cup, which is clearly something that's too geographically ambiguous. English one-day cup is clearly wrong (Glamorgan), so if there's a desire to change the name then ECB, as the organising body, is sensible.

But it's tricky and it might mean we have to keep with the sponsor name maybe - the B&H more or less has to stay with the sponsor name as there's really no sensible alternative. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The winners of earlier domestic one-day competitions should probably not be detailed in the RL article as it seems like unnecessary duplication of indirectly relevant information. And we should probably stick with the common name, which seems to quite clearly include the sponsor, unless there is a source for a generic official title. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziauddin

The AfD discussion for Ziauddin is a day overdue from being closed, and by !votes alone suggests a merge. BST, thank you once again for creating the list article. Do what you want with the rest. I'm past caring whether the integrity of our project is destroyed. If it saves going through thousands of AfD discussions, do what you want. Feel free to create List of X articles. Perhaps link them here for the purpose of discussion and listing which "List of X" aritcles exist. Anything to save thousands more AfD discussions like this, which will otherwise take place. Like I say, these list articles should all exist anyway. Better still, create stats boxes to the right of them so they look more like "proper" articles, then you will ignore them and not bother sending them to AfD because you won't notice that they contain exactly the same information, just with a pretty little infobox. Bobo. 09:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Remind me what I said again about making thousands of individual AfD debates..? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manu Bhardwaj...? Bobo. 19:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about deleting first-class cricketers

As nobody else seems to have thought to post this link here, I thought I would.

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Recent_English_FC_cricketers_fail_WP:GNG_/_WP:BIO

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Scorecard template and most runs

Hi. On Template:Two-innings cricket match, for the most runs it states: "Team's top run-scorer in the innings. (Tiebreaker: fewer balls faced)". Does a not out trump the tiebreaker or not? So for example, if two batsmen both top-score with 99 runs, but Smith was 99 not out from 300 deliveries, should he be listed over Jones who was dismissed for 99 from 150 deliveries? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a not out would trump it for me. – PeeJay 16:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd just list both of them, using a break tag. It's not a big deal and, iirc, the template copes with it reasonably well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Spike 'em (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. I often use more than one name, but it's mainly for bowling in T20 matches - two bowlers taking 3 wickets in four overs for the same runs, for example. Maybe this is a question to a problem that will never likely to exist! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Darren Sammy page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gentlemen of Kent

Hi all. The Gentlemen of Kent cricket team currently doesn't have an article. Given 185 people represented it in 49 first-class matches between 1791 and 1880, it might be a good idea to have an article about the team. However, I can't seem to find much about the team in written sources. Does anyone have, or know of any sources, which could be used to create a more substantial article than 'they were a first-class cricket team'? StickyWicket (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers.com has newspaper articles on some of the matches they played. British Newspaper Archive probably does too (you can access BNA via your library and library card, for some libraries). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The lack of obvious sources is the thing that's stopped me from creating an article in the past. I can probably cobble together something that's acceptable enough by using a Kent history and then some more passing mentions in other sources I have available and newspapers dealing with the social side of Canterbury Week will probably give us something else - it probably all links to Band of Brothers and the shady East Kent underbelly of amateur cricket... It'll take a coupe of days to get around to it I imagine.

Have you worked through every player now? And is there a handy category (or sandbox list?) that would be useful to help insert links? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The alternative would be a section on the KCCC page; the two are completely interrelated. If the sourcing is looking really weak this might be a better solution - then if sources come up it can be split off whenever. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Much the same, I almost created the article last year, but didn't as I'm reluctant to create just another 'team X played first-class cricket X amount of times', as they don't really tell anyone anything! I did think the two were interrelated, having created some articles on players that featured for the team who have newspaper obituraies saying they played for Kent (when their only 'Kent' matches were for the Gentlmen of). I've worked through every player and given them an article, or a redirect where appropriate. If you could cobble something together with your sources, that would be fantastic! StickyWicket (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The same is true in newspaper match reports. I think a paragraph on the Kent page - with a list (naturally...) would probably be the better option. With redirects from both Gentlemen of Kent and Gentlemen of Kent cricket team - unless anyone else has better ideas? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is done. I'll work on a list of players at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

John Major's book might have something about them --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Good thought - no online copies that appear to be very searchable though. Does anyone have a copy and the time to have a look through? I was hoping for something in Birley as well, but the index isn't showing anything and I don't remember anything specific. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRIN

This Cricinfo profile suggests that WP:CRIN may not be as tight as could be desired for WP:N purposes. "[H]as appeared as a player [...] in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest [,,,] domestic level." Combined Services (Pakistan) cricket team meets that test. Does CRIN really say that he can have an article?

Cricinfo doesn't describe his bowling style, but I'd hazard a guess that it was 'buffet'. No *, so presumably the No. 10 batsman was unable to protect him.

(One of my favourite Wisden obituaries, and I wouldn't even attempt to justify an article. Some chap was picked for one of the Midlands county teams in the 1930s - but it rained for three days, and he was never selected again.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the same as this guy? Played in the same season, has identical batting and bowling figures. In this instance, his full name is on CA but not on CI. Bobo. 21:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone able to find out how far he advanced in his military career? Maybe something the guys over at WP Military history might be able to help with. If he didn't advance all that highly, then perhaps a redirect to a list (which would need to be created)? StickyWicket (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

When are we going to stop redirecting people just because we've never heard of them? We might just as well have a rule that every non-Test playing player from every country other than England should be redirected, just to save time. The fact that we are trying to destroy our own project is sad. We are talking at cross-purposes with regard to bright-line notability and random notability in other contexts. Although I have always been interested to wonder whether there was a non-English cricketer who didn't progess high enough to reach CRIN but was notable enough in other areas. Bobo. 09:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The list exists: List of Combined Services (Pakistan) cricketers Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRIN is definitely not tight enough by any stretch and currently fails in it's primary purpose, largely disregarding the requirements of WP:N (and to a lesser extent WP:V) – it's why we have hundreds of stubs about non-notable cricketers from all over the world that are nothing more than mirrors of appearance data on Cricinfo/CricketArchive. Notability should be confirmed by significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the statistical repositories of Cricinfo/CricketArchive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If CRIN is not tight enough, suggest alternative brightline criteria we can adopt. CRIN matches every other team sport subject-specific guideline. Too many people come by and say, "here is a problem", without being willing to say, "this is how the problem can be fixed". Bobo. 03:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, didn't even bother looking for that list because the team is so obscure I didn't even think the list would exist! It's not so much because we've never heard of them, I tend to redirect to lists/categories if I can't find much on them (so they're either A. Smith and have no other details or appeared in one FC match and there's no other mention of them). Some single FC appearance cricketers, like Lothian Scott, have interesting lives covered by sources and warrant inclusion, others, which we're unlikely to ever know all that much about, are more appropriate as redirects. That said, the speed at which people want non-English language covered cricketers deleted is annoying, because sources in Punjabi, Hindi ect could exist. Also, by doing that, we keep the deletionists off our backs. It's a compromise. StickyWicket (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

When some of those deletionists belong to our project, we are dealing with Frankenstein's monster, unfortunately. And once again, I like the fact that 16 years of my own work is often being passed off as "non-notable"... etc, etc, over and over again. The requirements of N state: "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"... or. Exclusionism for exclusionism's sake becomes boring and inconsistent. If this were happening on any other WikiProject, the deleting users in question would probably be admonished and, likely, topic-banned. Frankly, I would rather we be consistent and say that every non-English cricketer be deleted, because, consistency. What's the point of a project which does not run to bright-line criteria? We've turned against ourselves and that's disturbing. Bobo. 03:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In any case, there is more to deal with than those with minor first-class data. There are dozens of even Test cricketers with zero references. Fix the more important articles before looking at the ones which have so few views that they do absolutely no harm to the project as long as they conform to brightline criteria. Bobo. 03:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please desist from the ad-hominem remarks. Characterisation of contributors as "deletionists" or "inclusionists" is not at all accurate and wholly unhelpful, only fostering a "them and us" battleground – in short, it is disruptive. It also gives the impression that you are only interested in driving away anyone who may oppose your viewpoint. And this: "I would rather we be consistent and say that every non-English cricketer be deleted, because, consistency" is simply pointy. FWIW, topic-bans (or more) are generally more forthcoming to those who refuse to engage in constructive discussion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Attacks? Against who? I'm just frustrated at the state of the project that I've involved myself in for the last 16 years. And my point remains. There are Test cricketers whose articles are so bare that you'd actually question whether, save for an infobox, they were worthy of an article. Which remain entirely unreferenced after 16 years. Let's fix those before worrying about supposedly "less notable" cricketers. If we were working towards brightline criteria, this wouldn't be a problem. What is the point of being involved in a project which is voluntarily destroying itself? And why is it that when people say, "notability requirements are too loose", they are unwilling to suggest their own? It's been 16 years and nobody has yet bothered to do so in a way that would be universally applicable. Bobo. 10:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

1 – Clearly explained above; frustration is no excuse. 2 – Clearly explained in previous discussions (per WP:N); it's about significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, not infoboxes or refs sections. 3 – What you mean is brightline statistical/appearance criteria; the problem is, that on it's own such criteria are incompatible with WP:N; It's why NCRIC/CRIN fails, and the volume of articles going through AfD in the past few years is a clear indication of that. 4 – Changes have been suggested here countless times, but there seems an overall unwillingness to make NCRIC/CRIN more stringent. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying subject-specific criteria are too loose, then please suggest your own. As a project, we can then decide whether we can adopt these new criteria. If you are saying something is a problem, then you can put forward a way of solving this problem. If you are here to build an encyclopedia rather than destroy it, then surely you can help enhance what we already have. As I've said, there are dozens of threadbare Test cricket articles. Have at 'em. Bobo. 12:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record (and as noted many times, in many discussions), the community is saying that many NSPORT criteria are too permissive; the evidence is clear that NCRIC/CRIN is one of the many. The first step is for this project to acknowledge that NCRIC/CRIN is out of step, and be willing to make changes. Only then can we properly discuss what form those changes take. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That RfC suggests Follow-up discussion should be held to determine...Proposed specific changes for the criteria in each sports-specific subguideline, which is what Bobo is asking you for. It says nothing of the need for any given project to make any acknowledgement, just to have a discussion. I think that the "1 appearance deserves an article" approach is too lax, but I've never been able to think of another that isn't equally as arbitrary so generally steer clear of these discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the hostile response to the very suggestion of change (which has been raised many times since the RfC, both here, AfD and elsewhere), it is my view is that such acknowledgement would be helpful (if not necessary) as a starting point in order to move forward; I didn't mean to imply the RfC required it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there wouldn't be any hostility towards change if you suggested something universally applicable that we could all agree on. Any ideas, wjemather? You are still yet to offer anything in the way of ideas. Bobo. 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

While I'd support the inclusion based on him playing in a F/C match, I tend to stay away from the one match/one name/no dates people. Probably best to focus resources elsewhere than pick the bones over an article that will (probably) never exist in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, the individual in question on Cricinfo: here shares exactly the same statistical details as the individual on Cricket Archive here. If we cite Cricket Archive as the source for his statistical details then that should cover both or at least stop us from having two articles on someone we assume is the same player - unless there is a serious coincidence going on! (Blah blah GNG blah blah). Bobo. 12:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"support the inclusion based on him playing in a F/C match" – this is the crux of the problem with NCRIC/CRIN as highlighted by the OP. Playing in a single match actually makes it rather unlikely that someone will meet GNG, which directly contradicts the opening statement of NSPORTS. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The two notability guidelines directly contradict each other therefore rendering each other worthless. Like Lugnuts says, if you worked on enhancing articles rather than questioning the existence of others, the project might get somewhere. Look at the number of Test cricketers with no citations. Work on those. They are surely much higher priority. Bobo. 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the RfC linked above did come to the conclusion that GNG took precedence over the SNGs and WP:NSPORTS also states that passing any of the SNGs does not mean an article is guaranteed to be kept, and that some content is better placed in Lists than standalone erticles. I know you are keen on having clear rules to determine which articles should exist, but it is not always that simple. We don't all have to have the same views or priorities on what to improve for the project to work. Spike 'em (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That RfC was a complete and utter mess and I'm surprised anyone found any consensus in it. If we cannot work to brightline criteria, what's the point in trying? (And I'm not referring simply to vote count tallies either, that's precisely what makes it such a polarized conversation). It's easy to say, "I don't like it this way". What frustrates me is those who say they don't like it who are unwilling to provide an alternative solution. Bobo. 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Going back to Wjemather's point about Narky's question - "Does CRIN really say that he can have an article?" Yes. But that doesn't mean it must be created. You can always find examples of individuals that do meet the notabilty requirements, but most people would say (strong) delete at an AfD. The one-appearance line is ubiquitous across sportspeople, and IMO it's fine as is. How much time is wasted on an AfD for a cricketer who was active in the past 40 years or so, but no-one bats an eyelid on a stub about a moth species described once in some obscure text in 1782, or a village in Guinea-Bissau with 10 people living there. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe, Lugnuts, that there is anyone out there who truly believes Wikipedia shouldn't be a completely comprehensive resource of information meeting brightline requirements. It's almost as if they are trying to censor information because its existence upsets them. Bobo. 20:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Amending NCRIC/CRIN is not about deletion or censorship – articles on subjects that fail GNG should get deleted/merged/listified/redirected regardless of any subject specific guideline. The problem is the current "one-match" bright-line criteria is proving incompatible with GNG (as sources simply don't exist outside of CI/CA data), with articles passing the criteria regularly being deleted/merged/listified/redirected. And yes, the guideline "doesn't mean it must be created", but while most would agree, some see it quite differently and believe all who pass should have articles, regardless of GNG (or N). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Choosing at random which articles offend us contrary to brightline criteria is censorship. I cannot believe anyone does not think we are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia based on brightline criteria. We revisit the same point. You believe the subject-specific guidelines are "too broad". Submit your own subject-specific guideline. Offer it to the group. If we choose to accept it, that's cool. Saying "this is a problem" without being willing to provide a solution, is a waste of time. Bobo. 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's choosing anything at random. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship is censorship. Articles are chosen at whim because people are offended by their existence. If there was an article written on every first-class player, people would find articles to take to AfD just for the sake of arbitrary time-wasting. Bobo. 11:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't chose anything on a whim. When I find something that, after research, I don't think comes close to meeting a criteria I do something about it - either suggesting a merge, merging boldly on occasion, opening an AfD or PRODing as appropriate. I don't generally go around looking for such articles, but they turn up every now and again, especially if you happen to be working through lists of players as I have. If you want to call that censorship then I don't think it helps your argument, but it's up to you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I tend to agree with the basics of what are being said here - essentially that we should use a bit of common sense. However, it still need rewriting. Points 1 and 4 in the basic criteria kind of need merging together somehow, a list of possible competitions would be helpful (as in NFOOTY, NHOCKEY, NBASKETBALL, NGRIDIRON, NBASE, NRL, NAFL and NRU - so basically every other team sports notability guideline) - this would help to tighten up any criteria from that "top level of domestic cricket" and actually say what we mean in practice ("classified by sources such as CricInfo to be a main first-class, list A or Twenty20 match" or something). And the extended version needs gutting - especially waffle about "substantial sources" and the bit that references 1709 for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and I agree with all the points you make here too. The list of possible competitions is something I'm planning on working on, if that will help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also most of the sports specific criteria that I've seen make it very clear that they are "presumed notable" if they meet the requirements. But that doesn't mean we should just abandon WP:GNG e.g. in cases where we have people who've played 1 game and don't even have first names for. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Presumed" is a nonsense word which adds zero and takes away zero from the guideline. If people are unwilling to work to NPOV criteria, then you have to question why they are working on a project which is trying to collate all knowledge based on a certain subset of criteria. Bobo. 11:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest "are likely to be notable" - as in WP:NBAD. I prefer the way that reads anyway - more straightforward English with less room for lawyering Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "likely" means. Still makes it sound like people will wheedle their way out of working to brightline criteria. Which destroys our aims as a project. Sigh. Bobo. 19:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Yes, and I think there is a pretty wide consensus that that's a suitable way forward in those cases. Given the history, it might actually be worth making that super-clear in a newer version of NCRIC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: a list would be really helpful - I've mentioned in the past that I'm not convinced, for example, that modern University matches are really proper first-class cricket, but I know that's likely to create some argument. I think someone else wrote about competitions such as the Logan Cup being a bit dodgy at some point as well. Those aren't make or break examples for me: it depends on where people decide is the best place to think about drawing lines.

The T20I stuff also worries me a bit - I'm not quite certain whether the current wording rules out every player from places like Monaco who plays in a T20I now. I think it does, but I'm not entirely certain. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the T20I bit needs a tweek too. It does rule out cricketers for Monaco playing in a T20I and is meant to exclude all the associate players from teams who got full T20I status after the ICC changed the rules a year or two ago. Maybe the Pananamian starting XI might think differently on that... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What about a scorecard as criteria because at least that way you got some information (whether they were a opener or a number 11) and that way it rules out some guy who played in 1975 who was mates with the captain CreativeNorth (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What, like this match? I think we need a bit more than that - as interesting an idea as that is - to make the players in it notable per se. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If all we needed to do is add scorecards, then given that most of the people who submit articles for deletion appear to be members of our own project, I think they know how to do that themselves before submitting for deletion. Finding information takes effort. Clicking on a link to send to deletion does not. *shrug* Bobo. 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Clicking on a link to send to deletion does not." I mean, giving that carrying out WP:BEFORE checks is a requirement of the deletion process, the latter actually takes more effort, technically. Harrias ^talk 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I was referring only to the physcal and mental effort it takes to click a button... Bobo. 22:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Scorecards are routine coverage and only prove existence/occurrence; they do nothing to prove notability (per GNG & SPORTBASIC). They also wouldn't rule out someone "who was mates with the captain" as they'd still be on the scorecard regardless. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically there are, of course, plenty of examples of first-class matches where someone got picked because they were mates with (or related to) the captain. And others, for what its worth, where they just happened to be handy when an extra player was needed. Scorecards are, obviously, not enough by themselves. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

List of competitions

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket

Hi all. I've begun work on a list to work with the "...highest international or domestic level..." bit of WP:NCRIC, which I hope will eventually become our version of WP:FOOTY's WP:FPL. I've used the term "official cricket" in-lieu of anything better, and it goes with the terminology used by the ICC. I hope to work on this a bit more in the upcoming days, but feel free to chip in. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Lugnuts would you consider the Shpageeza Cricket League in Afghanistan as notable as I think the national T20 league is Afghanistan Premier League? Anyone else's view is welcome Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as it's their domestic T20 competition, while the APL is a franchise league. Compare the IPL with the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy in India, for example. Both notable T20 leagues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This could use some thoughts on women's cricket. International, within the current limits for T20I makes sense. And then I presume adding fully professional leagues as well? Which would be what? BBL, Super League/100? What beyond that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

bump: Are we working on the assumption that the Rachel Heyhoe Flint Trophy is fully professional? It sort of seems to be as far as I can tell, but coverage of women's cricket is appalling in general so it's hard to tell. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've always worked off GNG for non-international women's players. It seems safest. Harrias ^talk 09:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Alvin Kallicharran

I'm wondering if someone from WP:CRICKET would mind taking a look at the COI edit request made by Alvinkallicharran7 for Alvin Kallicharran on my user talk page at User talk:Marchjuly#Modification Request. I added links to Kallicharran's official website to the infobox and the "External links" section, but I'm not sure how to try and incorporate some of the other changes that were requested. Three of the four links provided in the request appear to be WP:RS but I'm not sure about "saibaba.ws" one. It would be most appreciated if someone more familiar with cricket player bios could take a look at this and help sort it out. Alvinkallicharran7 was trying to pretty much re-write much of the article and this was causing a variety of problems, but at least now they seem to be trying to follow WP:COIADVICE and seek assistance from others; so, it would be great if someone could help them out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added one of the links provided as a ref, another was already on there. I'm not sure quite what else they want done (other than removing his relatives, which I'm not doing as it is sourced content). Spike 'em (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Spike 'em. If queried about this again by this editor again, I will continue to suggest they post their concerns on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Home & Away Data Summary for IPL 2020

In a previous year, Home & Away summary data were updated in the table as Here & Here. Because IPL was conducted in India. But this year IPL will play in UAE. So how to mention Home & Away Summary Data for the Teams. Usefull comments are welcome. Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 15:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Irrespective of the location, IPL still follows the home-away pattern for their round-robin league and hence it still should be followed. This can also be ascertained based on the official schedule released by IPL [1]. SaGa (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Babington Jones

Hi all. Just wondering if Thomas Babington Jones was ever a student at Trinity College, Dublin. An article over at Cricket Europe says a T. B. Jones was the last Trinity graduate to play in The University Match. But I can't seem to find any proof that Jones ever studied in Dublin. StickyWicket (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A cricket ground at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Colour Box

See this Discussion Here. Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 13:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Batch of cricketers individually nominated at AfD

Hi. There's about 20 or so, starting here from yesterday, all by the same editor with the same rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

they don't strike me to be a new editor as they claim. Spike 'em (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I had the same thought. They're an editor from India multi-nominating Pakistan players. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Strikes me that this should go to ANI, with a proposal that all the AfDs are reverted, if you think there's bad faith mass nominating going on. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's far from a "new" editor, but someone trying to WP:GAME the system. Evidence? This user has been around for about three weeks, with most of their work around nominating these type of articles. Knows WP:NCRIC, WP:AFD, and a few other things that a new user simply would not know. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

At first glance, many (if not most) clearly fail basic notability guidelines. Almost all have zero sources beyond bare appearance data. As such, the nominations seem fairly reasonable. The badly sourced (exclusively to cricinfo/cricketarchive stats) one-line stub template that some use for such biographies does invite such questioning – perhaps it's about that model for article creation ceased? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

My thought is that they appear to be bad faith nominations, and as such should probably be closed without prejudice if a respected editor wants to renominate them. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

If there were significant numbers likely to be kept, I'd agree. But having been through most of them, the majority have played only one or two games, and with no substantial sources available, seem extremely unlikely to survive AfD. Better to let them run, preferably without attacking the nominator. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

And for those who are interested, this has gone full circle and has indeed gone to ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a whole bunch of 'editors' visiting this project of late who contribute very little to it. StickyWicket (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA please, however vague and non-specific. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I note that for Taimur Siddiq (the nominated article that I looked at), the daily readership approximates to zero. That's... really low. I would have to question the guidelines if they are supporting articles in which basically zero people are interested. So perhaps the CRIN guideline should be tightened up. (However, there are also reasonable arguments for not doing so.) Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Herostratus: There is already consensus to do just that – see WT:NSPORT#Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO – with the risk that the cricket guideline could be depreciated altogether. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

New Ground, Norwich

I'm trying to find the exact location for the above ground, first laid down in 1827. Initially I thought that the County Ground at Lakenham and the New Ground might be one and the same, but a description from April 1827 about the establishment of the ground says it was established “without Ber Street Gates, and nearly opposite Lakenham Terrace”. Any ideas where this could have been? Unfortunately there don't seem to be any maps of Norwich dating back that far. StickyWicket (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If no one here can answer this AA, give Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities a try. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Lakenham Terrace is marked on the 1886 OS map as being just north of St Mark's Church on City Road, just south of the old Ber Street gates. If the last game played on it was in 1888, then I would suggest it is the same ground: there is only one ground in the Lakenham area marked on the 1886 maps. Harrias ^talk 13:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(Information from OldMapsOnline.) Harrias ^talk 13:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias, this would also suggest they're the same location. A shame what became of it given all that history, especially to that great thatched pavilion there. StickyWicket (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, almost certainly the same ground - the history of Norfolk cricket I have also comes to the same assumption - although it may be essentially the same source. I think there may be a quote from an old Norwich newspaper of some kind as well in there. I was meaning to get around to dealing with that at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Zak Crawley

Can someone who has access to Cricket Archive or a similar resource put a breakdown here of Crawley's season by season stats as a batsman? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You can get team records for a season from Cricinfo using links like this. Amend the year (id) and you can get his county stats for last 3 years that way. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Would that include any representive cricket (ie not for Kent) tha has f-c status? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't played any FC cricket other than for Kent and England iirc. What precisely were you looking for - I have all the recent Kent annuals so have sources for each season he's played for the county. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Or, starting at Kent County Cricket Club in 2017 the Kent numbers can be worked out... Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

But he has played for England. OK, never mind, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

He's also played 2 games for England Lions, 1 last (English) season [2], and one in the winter (use the previous link and amend year again). Or, I finally got round to ESCaping my way to the cricket archive page you need to get:

2017 - 137 runs @ 19.57 in 5 matches

2018 - 797 @ 30.65 in 16

2019 - 974 @ 34.78 in 15 (14 Kent, 1 Lions)

2019-20 (NZ) - 1 @ 1 in 1 Test

2019-20 (SA) - 163 @ 32.60 in 3

2019-20 (Aus) - 28 @ 28 in 1 Lions game

2020 - 417 @ 69.50 in 4 Tests Spike 'em (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. What's the escaping technique?!? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hit the escape key whilst the page is loading, but before the redirect to the subscription splash page happens. It takes a bit of trial and error (if you hit it too soon you just get a blank page), but after a few goes you should be able to stop it at the right point and see the data on the page. If you get a blank page, then refresh and wait a tiny bit longer. If you get the splash screen you'll have to reclick the link. I can only do this on a PC, rather than a phone. (I learnt this from others on here). Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. I wonder how much revenue they're earning from paid subscribers, as opposed to the potential of running adverts, asking for donations or direct marketing to subscribers to a free website. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dweller: an alternative is to use an old version of the Opera browser (I think it needs to be pre-version 12). That doesn't allow the redirection to the advert, so you can view whatever you want... I can look at find the exact version I use if you need it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Asterisks in infoboxes

Please see the following discussion Template talk:Infobox cricketer#Asterisk. Hack (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

See Template:The Cricket Barnstar, added @WikiProject Cricket/Templates. Jerm (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal for former Dutch cricket ground

Please see the merger proposal here. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Squad templates for deletion

Please see this discussion at WP:TFD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Diagram for batsmen's ground

Regarding these edits [3] and [4], please comment on this discussion: Talk:Cricket#Diagram_of_batsmen's_ground. GreekApple123 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Allen Stand at Lord's -> "Q"

Before the Allen Stand received its name, it used to be called the Q Stand. Anyone know why? I don't think there were any A to P Stands. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A complete guess, but all of the individual entrances to the stands (and their associated staircases) at Lord's are lettered (from memory the Compton is AA, BB, CC etc). Perhaps the Allen was previously staircase Q? Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was because it is a 'Members Only' annexe to the pavilion, hence it was conceived as a queuing area where decent chaps watched, drank and waited for proper seats. You could imagine that it was some sort of members' joke that appealed to former combined ops types in committee. But that's just a childhood memory of mine. In some works it's not identified as a stand in its own right, just part of the pavilion, e.g. in the diagrams of the ground given in Geoffrey Moorhouse: Lord's Hodder & Stoughton 1983, even though it is mentioned in photos there Atconsul (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I saw in an old book that it was built on top of the D enclosure, which helps not in the slightest. I think the staircase system is pretty modern, though can't swear to it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Lists of International Centuries

Hi all. Am I correct in thinking our long-term policy for these lists has been for a player to have made a minimum of 25? If so, we should add something to WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a number picked out of thin air and no-one has ever argued with it. However, I would have thought the primary consideration for splitting should be article size, as standalone notability is generally questionable, and there often won't be an issue until many more than 25 (e.g. Desmond Haynes list is bigger than his article & combined there would be no issues). Without solid justification for splitting, standalone lists risk falling foul of NOTSTATS, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I largely concur with Wjemather. The 25 figure was picked because that was a level at which generally the parent article was likely to be big enough to support a standalone list. Ultimately, if a player has a good quality, long article and 23 centuries, it might still be acceptable to have that split. Conversely, a player with 28 centuries but an underdeveloped article should not. Harrias ^talk 11:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It should also be clarified that there is no consensus against biographies containing such lists (i.e. international centuries, 5-wicket hauls, 10-wicket matches), or that such lists should only be in standalone articles. And there should be no minimum threshold for such achievements to be included, either as prose or tabulated (or both). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually this was discussed a while back, and the general feeling, iirc, was that there's a feeling that this is NOTSTATS when a table is included in an article without any context. If there's context and prose to go with it then I have no problem, and would be willing to consider the sort of thing that is acceptable (but please ping; I read here rarely). Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Batsman or Batter

I can't find any discussion about our preferred term. Have I missed much? Most of the articles use 'batsman' and 'he' most of the time. As I thought the women's game was also comfortable with that I saw no reason to move towards the usage of another game, but there is an alternative tendency at large.

I almost dread to bring it up, but people do edit articles to replace 'batsman' with 'batter' and 'he' with 'their' and I instinctively want to revert their attempts. After diverse updates to a page, is is tolerable to have both terms in use together, or is a style ruling needed? Having both does make things less simple.

The Laws have stayed put but the MCC is aware that the wind of change is blowing. I note that after some agitation and experiment we haven't generally ended up changing nouns like 'chairman' in the UK at least.

Sorry to mention it, and I expect I might come to regret it even though I enjoy discussing the germanic neuter influence from middle english on modern usage, and other stories Atconsul (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

100% batsman. And here a reliable source, based on the mother of all reliable sources for cricket: ([5]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Without wanting to offer a definitive answer: there is an increasing movement away from "batsman" towards "batter" in the women's game, and I have tended to reflect this in articles relating specifically to women's cricket. I think it would be preferable to transition all such article specifically about the women's game. For articles specifically about the men's game, "batsman" and "he" are perfectly appropriate. I think for neutral articles relating to rules and the such, "batsman" remains acceptable, but I would move away from "he" towards "their". Harrias ^talk 12:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Batsman is what almost all sources I've seen use, even for women's cricketers. Cricinfo for example always uses batsman. So we should follow what sources do- batter sounds so American as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Direct response to this: Cricinfo does not always use batsman; see this and this from the past few days for example: both use batter. The Guardian also uses batter in a recent match report, and the BBC, and the Telegraph. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Harrias has nailed it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Good responses, many thanks. I will keep going as I have been. Unfortunately sources behind paywalls aren't that reliable for me, but I do have the 2019 Laws and Tom Smith to hand, both confirming what I think the Telegraph has reported: the 2019 Laws use batsman and he/she. I bet they had a few sessions before they settled there, with the grammar nuts baulking at 'their' in favour of the ugly slash. There is no safe place. Atconsul (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The source I gave above says that the Laws have set out for "batsman" even for women. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I mean the Laws use the words "batsmen" and "he/she" everywhere Atconsul (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting compromise, isn't it. Not sure I agree with it philosophically, but I rather detest "batter", except on fish and in Yorkshire Pudding. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And that, I suspect, is another reason why it doesn't taste so good in cricket to the traditional British crowd. But your modern day professional doesn't seem to think the same: from Hussain and Vaughan onwards the term is in common use with them and, for all I know, always has been in some circles. They probably watch another game whilst touring, and aspire to its lifestyle. Clearly the DT does not concur though. Atconsul (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Batter" always makes me think of fish and chips too, and I don't like the sound of the word. But cricket terminology is very illogical. We have "bowler" and not "bowlsman", and "fielder" is more common than "fieldsman". JH (talk page) 15:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Dweller's law applies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For our purposes, the language used in the laws is largely irrelevant against the weight of reliable sources. At present, use of "batsman" still dominates that of "batter" but (as noted by others) the balance is shifting rapidly, especially in the women's game. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and our style guide explicitly goes against the laws in some regards.Spike 'em (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Every women commentator who I've listened to on the radio this summer has used the term batter predominantly. I think this is clearly becoming the preferred term in the women's game - per @Harrias: I would tend to think we should be using batter in women's articles. I'm perfectly happy to use batsman in articles about men - I think that's still the norm, but there is very clearly a move towards batter as the common name in the women's game. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I understand the principle. Another principle is that women are not abnormal men. If you accept that, the only articles that would meet the "articles about men" test are histories and biographies of cricketers whose world was all about men's cricket. Pages about modern matches, and any pages about how the game is played, need to respect whatever is deemed acceptable modern gender-neutral language. Atconsul (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As much as I understand and support the principle, the common usage would suggest we retain batsman wrt male players most of the time I think. Fwiw, I supported a move to player of the match, for example. I'm not convinced that there's a common usage of batter in men's cricket yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Nixon

Hi. Would anyone like to attempt to address the no fewer than six (!) article issues in the big orange template at the top of Paul Nixon's page? A thankless task, so thanks in advance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have been in such a state for over 10 years (though the issues raised somewhat more recently)! Spike 'em (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I might have put the issues there but haven't had time to come back and gut it - which was probably my intention after giving whoever wrote it a chance to address the issues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:@Blue Square Thing::@Spike 'em: I think I've rewrote the page from relatively neutral point of view and removed most of the peacock terms so thats two down, although I've probably missed something so feel free to have a look. However there are still the sources and Manual of style problems so if any of you want to do that. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and work with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

England Test result lists at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lists of redlinked MCC and randomly Europeans cricketers

Hi all. In my relentless pursuit to cover as many English cricketers as possible, I've made some lists of redlinked English (well mostly, there are some Scots, Irish, Welsh and a Maltese) cricketers that have played for MCC and the Europeans, as they're both the largest predominantly English player-based teams that have the most redlinks. I'm off to do further studies soon, so my time will be elsewhere, so if anyone fancies knocking some of these off (there's a few interesting characters in these lists), then please feel free! The lists are here. StickyWicket (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with translation.

Hi. My name is Carlos, I'm from Chile, and I am translating several articles about cricket, a sport that is not widely known in Spanish-speaking countries. It would help me a lot if you assist me understand the following sentence: "Spofforth cut up the wicket with his feet so badly that it became very difficult to play" from the Sydney Riot of 1879 article. Thanks in advance. --Carlos yo (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Que Spofforth hizo tanto daño a la cancha con sus botas cada vez que lanzó la pelota, volvió díficil para los bateadores... dice en la siguiente oración que el otro lanzador lanzaba la pelota en las áreas dañadas. Richard3120 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC) (an English cricket lover living in Colombia)

@Carlos yo: thanks for helping to expand our cricket coverage in Chile and other Spanish-speaking countries :) StickyWicket (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you for your quick reply. --Carlos yo (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the player deserve an article?

Hi all, I found a bunch of articles on this player called Mahinder Pal Singh [6] [7] [8] [9]. But on deeper research he has not played in a game satisfying WP:CRIN. So should we create the article on the basis of the sources and being Pakistan's first Sikh cricketer. By the way if he does warrant an article there's no need for you guys to do it as I'll create it myself. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say there is a fair case for him being notable based on the available sources. Incidentally, CRIN should never be used as justification for article creation; it should only be used as a guide as to whether a search for substantial reliable sources (in order to meet GNG) might prove fruitful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope I wouldn't give him an article, for the same reason we don't have articles on second XI cricketers. Once he makes the step up, then that can be looked at again. StickyWicket (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with wjemather, that he's notable based on what he's achieved and the media coverage that he's had. He seems to meet GNG. JH (talk page) 07:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

So currently it is 2-1 in favour. I might wait to see what a few others say before deciding to create or not. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Kieron Pollard infobox stats

I have started a discussion (Talk:Kieron Pollard#Infobox stats) about whether we should replace Pollard's FC stats with T20 stats in his infobox, please respond there if you have any thoughts on this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2019 Scotland Tri-Nation Series

2019 Scotland Tri-Nation Series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. SocietyBox (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Help?

Can someone from this project please look at Draft:Mark_Fuzes?

Thanks.--2604:2000:E010:1100:29D7:CBBE:DC24:7E18 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

He seems to have played for HK in the Hong Kong Cricket Sixes, which I don't think meets criteria 1 of WP:NCRIC: "Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Joseph2302, this cricketer is not notable and the article should be rejected. StickyWicket (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Cricinfo contradicting itself

I have a question about whether Charlotte Taylor (cricketer) should be listed as an off spinner or medium pace bowler. She seems to bowl off spin, but mostly arm balls. Her Cricinfo profile [10] lists her as Right-arm medium, but an article about her [11] calls her an off-spinner. So which source should be used to determine her bowling style? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of other sources state she bowls spin (one, two, three). So with those and the CI match report, it looks like someon at CI has just been lazy in updating the field on their database for her profile. You could contact them using their own match report as a reference. They're pretty good at updating things like that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Will do, though they still haven't updated the RHF Trophy standings after I messaged them last month. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I messaged them a few years about finding the full name and most of the details on Richard Lee, who is on Cricinfo as RN Lee, they still haven't updated his page! StickyWicket (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ESPNcricinfo have now corrected it :) Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Town Ground, Coalville

I've just tidied up this article a little and I'm wondering if CricketArchive might have its location confused. The ground is addressed here as being at Town Ground, Broom Leys Road, Coalville. However, there is no Town Ground location along Broom Leys Road, with the ground which CA currently claims is the Town Ground and being 'now used only for rugby by the Coalville club' actually lying to the north off Hall Lane along the track bed of an old line to a colliery. Coalville's own wiki article says 'the Coalville Rugby Football Club was founded in 1902 and has a modern clubhouse off Hall Lane, Whitwick, replacing one that had previously stood on Broom Leys Road' (however, the references are dead). This suggests the rugby ground CA claim is the Town Ground is a more recent development. Further along adjoining Broom Leys Road is Greenhill Road and there is a ground named Blackwood, home to Broomleys Cricket Club. Their history page says the club was founded in 1946 and moved to Blackwood in 1947. Leicestershire played one FC at the Town Ground in 1950. Is it possible that Blackwood and the Town Ground are one and the same and that the rugby club used to play at Blackwood, but has since vacated and this (and the address) is where CA might have gotten confused? StickyWicket (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

rfc

Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_23#Template:2018_IPL_match_1. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Aylestone Road

Hi all. Does anyone have any resources that could aid in the expansion of this article on the former Leicestershire headquarters? StickyWicket (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There's still a green space there which is about half the size of the former county cricket ground and is still used for some cricket. I'll try to get round to take some photos next time I'm in Leicester (probably in November). Johnlp (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Johnlp, that would be great thanks, it is lacking photos! For a fairly historical ground, it also seems to be lacking much of a mention in written sources too. StickyWicket (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If anyone has access to www.cricketarchive.com, and the time (maybe in Lockdown II?), Geoffrey Webb's journal may have some material from the 1930s when the Leicestershire finances were at their lowest point. Johnlp (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability of cricket ground

Is there any guideline regarding the notability of cricket grounds? An editor has recently created Los Pinos Polo Club Ground, but contrary to what they have written in the first line, it's not mainly used for cricket (you can probably guess from the ground's name which sport it's mostly used for) – its sole connection to cricket is hosting four games of the South American Women's T20 internationals in 2018. I live in Bogota and cricket isn't exactly a major sport here, and this isn't even the home ground of the Colombian national cricket team. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Going on WP:GNG using only sources in the article, that is clearly not notable as a cricket ground. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows Los Pinos Polo Club might support an article, but that's about a polo club, not a cricket ground. A search for "críquet bogotá" and variations of Los Pinos comes up with nothing at least for me. I'd AfD it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue the ground isn't notable, but the Polo Club in general may well be. On a sidenote, are many Colombians taking up cricket? StickyWicket (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking about AfD, but I just wanted to check whether hosting international T20s qualified it for an article. The ground isn't even in Bogota, it's in Mosquera, a satellite town to the west. I'm not certain about the Polo Club being notable – it's certainly a sport played more than cricket in Colombia, but as everywhere else in the world, very much the reserve of the upper classes. @AssociateAffiliate: not really, sadly... there is a "national team", but it's almost entirely composed of ex-pats, mostly from Australia, South Africa and India. I think the same is true of most of the other South American teams, there are very, very few native players. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The polo club did come up in secondary Spanish sources, but not when you included cricket. However the word "ground" means this is likely a cricket ground and not the organisation. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 I live not far from Cowdray Park Polo Club and it's certainly the preserve of the upper classes and royalty. There's very few teams outside the Commonwealth who field teams that have native players, Nepal and Afghanistan being the exceptions I can think of. And with Colombia not being members of the ICC, they won't recieve any funding to develop the game (even if the funding associate members get is miserly as it is). Though on about South American teams, I believe the Brazil women's team are mostly native Brazilians. StickyWicket (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate: zero chance of any funding happening in the foreseeable future, as there is absolutely no interest in cricket on the country, so they won't waste their money on it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, the article creator seems to have been working to create a lot of articles about cricket grounds, and many of them appear to be of very dubious notability, or that they are even cricket grounds... they just seem to be places that have happened to host a minor cricket match simply because they had the space for it. For instance, Las Caballerizas appears to be a country hotel and restaurant just outside of Mexico City. Even the grounds that have hosted games by major cricketing nations don't appear to have much to say about them except for their existence, such as Willetton Sports Club and North West University Ground. I think a lot of this editor's creations may need investigating. Richard3120 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The quality of their work is certainly questionable. While they may be acting in good faith, they haven't taken much (if any) advice on board that's gone their way, and there's often a LOT of cleanup work required on anything they touch. Numerous articles have been deleted, and as you've pointed out, creations that are simply incorrect, with little or no due diligence carried out. Which only leads me to think that have a WP:CIR issue. Personally, I'd think a ban on creating anything would be a start. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a ban is a bit heavy handed, espcially for a project that has struggled to attract contributors. A gentle reminder of WP:CRIN and showing them examples of articles on grounds, tournaments and players that follow the established formats might be a better route. StickyWicket (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the Willetton Sports Club ground is actually Burrendah Park/Reserve, the home of Willetton District Cricket Club and Canning City SC, among others. Hack (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ideal Clothiers Ground

Any idea where exactly in Wellingborough this was located. It's one of the few English grounds without a geo tag. StickyWicket (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've looked but can't find anything easily. Based on the fact Ideal Clothiers sponsored Whitworths Football Club it may have been at the southern end of Wellingborough, near the football grounds, but that's just pure speculation. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I looked at old maps and couldn't see any other sportsgrounds in the town, besides the one where the football club is and the school. StickyWicket (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1958 OS map has a series of sports grounds to the south of the town opposite the County High School and just north of the football ground. There are pavilions marked on there and the modern sat imagery still shows some sort of sports/cricket ground - although that might not be that helpful given that our article says the ground hasn't been used by the 70s. On the 1900 map these are marked as the Grammar School playing fields, but there are a whole set of fields with clear pitches on he sat imagery running towards what's marked on the later map as a Works to the east.

My other best guess might be a sports ground along Gold Street running NE out of the town centre. The 1958 map has allotment gardens to the north and a playing field to the south of the road - it looks like a school was build on the allotments at some point and the whole area converted to playing fields for that - but there are strips still on the area to the south. This area is marked on the earlier maps as allotments, so was obviously converted at some point between 1900 and the 1950s. Which sort of fits.

The ACS have a lot of copies of their journal online and these might have an article about Northants grounds in - they exist for many other counties. Might be worth a trawl - there is an index for the first 100 issues iirc. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Update using CA

Hi, would someone with access to Cricket Archive be able to update the stats on FL List of Sussex County Cricket Club grounds? It's not been updated for 4 years as CA went behind a paywall- would be much appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've shared The Knowledge with Joseph. Time for a quick escape. Taxi! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Templates for teams that don't exist anymore

Template:Loughborough Lightning (women's cricket) squad lists the "current" Loughborough Lightning (women's cricket) squad, however that team stopped existing in 2019. Is there a normal procedure for what to do with the template? Delete, or change it to reflect it's their last squad. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also {{Lancashire Thunder squad}}. I can't think of any reason why such navboxes would be (or have been) retained. They should probably be removed from all articles and listed for deletion at WP:TfD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TfD started here, feel free to contribute. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Scorecards that make you smile/grimmace

I just happened to come across this one from a women's ODI in 2003. The Japanese innings is particularly noteworthy. To their credit they did hold out for 34 overs. For their 28 runs. See if you can guess how many were extras before you open the card. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing 24 extras. – PeeJay 15:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

From a women's T20I tournament from last year. Mali batting first. And chasing in another match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I still have to pinch myself to believe some of the scorecards in Cricket's Strangest Matches, none more so than the 1922 county championship match where Hampshire scored 15 in their first innings, and conceded a first innings lead of more than 200 to Warwickshire, and then went on to win the match by a comfortable margin. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, Mali aren't much cop are they? In the Japan match it was partly the third change bowler getting both of the openers out - for 3 iirc - that made me smile. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Duplication of articles for English tours to Australia

Hi, while taking a look at the article on the MCC tour of Australia in 1965–66, I've noticed that there is also an article English cricket team in Australia in 1965–66. Similarly there are two articles for all the post-war England tours to Australia to 1974–75, England thereafter dropping the MCC designation from their touring teams. Seems to me that the articles ought to be merged as much as possible and one of each pair then deleted. Looking at other tours it seems that the title "English cricket team in...." is preferred rather than an MCC description. Does anyone have a view on this? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to think so, yes. What's really odd is that the creator of the MCC article was working on the English article immediately before and after creating it.

Even more impressively there's also 1965–66 Ashes series - so we have two articles about the England aspect of the tour, with the MCC one being the other games played by the same team. That was created by the same editor at the same time.

We seem to tend to have separate articles about Ashes series, so I should think we keep that one - merging anything appropriate from the English one - and then I'd suggest we redirect the MCC one to the England one and merge the content across and link to the main Ashes article as appropriate. Maybe. It's all a bit of a mess in my brain, so there may be a better solution that I can't see. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete them all

Past caring. Delete all articles I created. Are we really past the point as a project where we care about article creation? None of you would bat an eyelid if these articles had infoboxes. None of you had any respect for 02blythed and drove him off the project. Note that every single article of 02blythed similarly reads exactly the same but for the existence of an infobox and the word "references" instead of "external links". Are none of you prepared to do that instead? It's easier to click the "send to delete" button, I guess. Deletionism is a disgusting stain on our project. Bobo. 12:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Major competitions"

Does anyone know where we put that list of competitions which allow a cricketer to meet brightline inclusion criteria? Bobo. 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

NCRIC

NCRIC is under discussion (again) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Cricket. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Aylestone Road, again

I've updated the picture at Aylestone Road, as per a previous conversation. I have to say it's pretty difficult to make a shot of a cricket ground interesting on a foggy day in December in Tier Three. But I'll maybe go back in summer. Johnlp (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Johnlp thanks for getting this picture, they've really reduced the playing area there. Can't say I like the look of that outfield either! StickyWicket (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah well, off to the left, and not captured by the photographer, was a tractor doing the last mow of the year. So most of the green is cut grass. But it certainly seems far from flat, and the square is not central. Johnlp (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on NCRIC started

I've started Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on NCRIC, feel free to join the discussion. Fram (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Review

Australian cricket team in the West Indies in 2002–03 Hi, could this article please be rated, as it is currently a stub class, but I believe it doesn't deserve that rating. --Clarky444416 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Clarky444416: Your right, it's not a stub as I have put it at a minimum of a C. HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this article fall under this project?

Hi, I'm working on Guyana article clean up, and Clem Seecharan has got some tags. I added a few ideas to the talk page, but I'm sort of noob and BLPs are quite fussy. This author is basically a cricket historian, so I thought I'd see if this article would suit inclusion of this wikiproject. Author notability notwithstanding, cricket knowledge is a plus :) Cheers, Estheim (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Estheim: Yeah I think it can be suitable for this project here. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @HawkAussie:, I added the project banner (as low-importance). His books might be good RS for dealing with all the Guyanese cricketer stubs, especially from British Guiana days. I took a look on Gbooks, but the sports terms are SWOOSH over my head. Anyway, here's a song for funsies that is more or less on topic. Cheers! Estheim (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Umair Aftab

Season's greetings Cricket project!

This article has recently been created but to my mind, notability is uncertain. The creator states that Aftab's appearances in the Malaysian Premier League (Cricinfo link) satisfy the 'highest domestic level' criterion. I understand from the editor concerned that this is a 50-over OD (domestic) competition but Wikipedia does not appear to have an article under that name. Does this indeed satisfy the guidelines? Many thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No, and hopefully this illustrates why the vague wording in NCRIC needs updating. Spike 'em (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought probably not. Thanks Spike. Eagleash (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aha, it's been AfD'd. Eagleash (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

"Oh boy"

The gentlemen at the Tamil Union Cricket Club are a proud bunch. So the most famous cricketer of the day played a game at their grounds, they hung a portrait of him walking out to bat in the pavilion. Somehow, one of our Wikipedian decided to just contradict them in a good article by stating that the match played at the rival CCC grounds. I'd say, shall we correct it before they find out our skulduggery. I don't want to piss them off as they could be nasty at times. They are the ones who tormented Yuvraj Singh by chanting "boy, boy, waterboy".--Chanaka L (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like an issue with the sources. Both ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive have the ground listed as Colombo Cricket Club Ground in their scorecards. Elsewhere ESPNcricinfo refers to the ground as Colombo Oval.[12][13] There are a heap of reliable sources that say it was Colombo Oval.[14] Someone probably misread or misinterpreted a scorecard. Hack (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bradman did played in the CCC grounds, but that was way back in 1930 tour. Perhaps the journalists mixed up these two occasions in their defense.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Featured List at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

TfD discussion

There's a TfD discussion that may be of interest to this project: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Template:Colombo Kings roster. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Members, please take a look at Template_talk:Infobox_cricket_team#"First_International"_Label. --PratyyaG (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

TfD discussion

Please consider participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

IPL stats pages at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Which new articles

Okay. A challenge for those who are willing and ready to create new articles, and criticize any of those who do so. Name five first-class cricketers from outside England who are still redlinks who still require what could be "substantial" enough to avoid AfD with the project in its current form. Without looking at any outside sources which you would deem unacceptable anyway. Patiently awaiting a response. Bobo. 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:South Weald Cricket Club

Draft:South Weald Cricket Club could do with some help on its way to being an article (or being discarded). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, it doesn't look to me as if the club meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. JH (talk page) 08:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lanka Premier League articles

Hello, I am a member of WP:DYK and several new cricket team articles have been nominated for our section on the main page:

• Jaffna Stallions in 2020
• Dambulla Viiking in 2020
• Colombo Kings in 2020
• Galle Gladiators in 2020
• Kandy Tuskers in 2020

Meanwhile, the team articles (Jaffna Stallions, Dambulla Viiking, Colombo Kings, Galle Gladiators, Kandy Tuskers) are basically stubs. The yearly articles are reprinting all the charts from these articles plus the template at the bottom which lists the team members all over again. One of the editors has explained to me that the charts on the team article will change each year, but then, they're probably planning to reprint them on team articles for the 2021 season. There seems to be too much duplication going on.

I am more familiar with American baseball. We do not have a yearly article for, say, the New York Yankees. There is one team article which gives brief details about their performance over a period of decades, and one article summarizing the whole season each year (e.g. 2020 Major League Baseball season). It has been suggested on our talk page that these new 2020 team articles might be better merged into the parent article, 2020 Lanka Premier League.

Thank you for any guidance you can give here. Courtesy pings to @Empire AS:@Fade258:@DT Truth:@Tahaaleem:@CreativeNorth:@Joseph2302:. Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They all seem to pass the suggested notability standards in WP:NSEASONS, but to meet the requirement that articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players, the summary section should be moved to the top and the lists of players / stats to the bottom. Spike 'em (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Just to let you know, the summary section has now been moved to the top. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave my opinion at the other discussion. The parent articles are stubs, so why do we need season articles when we could improve the parent articles instead, by adding the text there? And the stats dump in those seasons article appears to fail WP:NOTSTATS in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

English cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2019–20

An editor has merged this to English cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2020–21. I believe this should be undone, as the original tour had squads announced and (especially) tour matches which have not been carried forward to the new article. What constitutes a tour and what doesn't may be above my pay grade but surely the two tour games mean that it's not a simple rescheduling? Only the two Tests were rescheduled. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree. They played a tour match, but nothing significant i.e. none of the actual international matches. The squad for a series that didn't happened isn't important to a general reader of the encyclopedia, and the background section of the 2020-21 article explains the postponement, thus negating the need for a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Agree completely with the merge. It's by far the most sensible thing to do in the circumstances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Tendulkar-Fleming Trophy

Is Tendulkar-Fleming Trophy a real thing? I did a quick Google and found nothing about this. Looking for a second opinion before a possible AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it from a Google search including for "India New Zealnad Test series trophy". Have asked the article creator at their talkpage to explain. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to WP:AGF, but when they are citing other wiki pages and continue to edit the article without answering their talkpage, faith fades away. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have tagged it as a hoax, because no sources for it, and user in question has done nothing to alleviate our concerns about it. If it does exist, it'll allegedly start in 2022, so way WP:TOOSOON anyway. And the image added looks like a fake generic trophy image too, which isn't a good sign. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your speedy-tag was removed, so I've sent it to AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You could/should have reinstated the csd tag as it was invalidly removed by the article creator. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

'Colts' Cricket

Hello cricket project. In looking through cricket sources it is apparent that "junior"/developmental cricket teams in Australia at district and state level was referred to as "Colts" cricket. I am wondering if it is felt this is a relatively standard term which is obvious, or if it is something which is worth its own page to explain or something? Just as I feel it would clog up articles to say "X was selected in the Colts team (meaning junior cricket)" or something like that every time. Interested to hear thoughts. JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a common enough term in the UK as well. A section in an article and a redirect would be the most sensible probably. Maybe to the club and school cricket section of the Cricket article perhaps??? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating into club and schools cricket seems like it would make sense, thanks. JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just don't confuse it with Colts Cricket Club! Happy New Year everyone. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenya V South Africa at the 1999 Cricket World Cup

Hi all, a slightly random question but does anyone know why a single game between these two was hosted in the Netherlands? I understand they were co-hosts, but does anyone know why they got to host just one token game? CreativeNorth (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Naming convention for team by year articles?

Hey, saw the listing of several Lanka Premier League pages at DYK e.g. Colombo Kings in 2020. I also see that other pages such as Kolkata Knight Riders in 2020 use this naming convention. Is there a reason these pages are not at titles like 2020 Colombo Kings season to match our coverage of other sports? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No idea. The earliest articles I can find with this naming style date from 2005 - Kent County Cricket Club in 2005, for example, was one created then - I think all the English counties got an article that summer, all named in the same way. There are a set of articles about Derbyshire seasons which go back to 2009-ish as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Lists of Test wicket-keepers

Please consider participating in this discussion if you have time. It will help us build a clear consensus. Störm (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Kolpak cricketers

Hi, first of two points, just flagging that the List of Kolpak cricketers could probably do with an intro update for a post-Brexit age - I'm afraid I don't have time to do it right now (despite creating one new article today - see below!), but someone else might fancy it? It could even make a good FA candidate eventually as it's relatively self-contained. By my count it's missing Dane Vilas, Cameron Delport, Leus du Plooy, Hashim Amla, Farhaan Behardien and Jerome Taylor. I'm also not sure if Marchant de Lange (currently on there) was a Kolpak or if his visa was different. And the year on there is unclear - is it first season or just the date they joined (I think former is more useful). End date might also be handy? Just some thoughts! Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bunbury tournament

Hi, second post - I've just created Bunbury Festival (cricket) so if anyone wants to take a look and see if there's anything I've missed, go ahead! HornetMike (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Cameron Green (Australian cricketer) page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Some cricket lists at AfD

Hi. The following lists are at AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cricketers by number of international five-wicket hauls
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women players who have scored 1,000+ runs in Twenty20 International cricket

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Another TfD discussion

Please consider participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Template:All-rounder's Test triple. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

Cancelled women's tours

Are India women's cricket team in England in 2020 and South Africa women's cricket team in England in 2020 notable, given they never happened? The SA one was just a proposal when the Indian series was cancelled, and nothing came to fruition for either of them. Would the content not be better server in the 2020 English cricket season, as a section on England women's internationals? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More list of centuries at AfD

Please see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Guptill
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Azhar Ali
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

These clearly should have been WP:BUNDLEd. Spike 'em (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lists of T20 Franchise players?

I am wondering if it is felt it would be worth creating pages for lists of players to have represented T20 league sides similar to the First-class state lists, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Queensland_first-class_cricketers Not sure what the precedent would be. A challenge is that there are too many T20 leagues, however I feel the top T20 comps for Test nations would be worthwhile for a page (so Big Bash League, Indian Premier League etc.). Thoughts? JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful, some do already exist. One issue is that it isn't easy to find the source data, now that ESPN has ruined the hierarchical structure of Cricinfo and CricketArchive is subscription only. Only four of the Big Bash teams have lists but most of the IPL teams have lists, including a probably too big and unwieldy total list of all players. The-Pope (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Throwdown specialist

Are these really a thing? I've often reverted additions of such positions to team articles (e.g. here, but on searching for it just now I found articles such as this which claim they really exist. Even if they do, I would consider them a minor part of the coaching team and barely worth a mention anyway. Spike 'em (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Bundled AfD related to Lanka Premier League

Please see this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hubert Preston

By chance I noticed that someone had put up Hubert Preston for deletion, which came as a bit of a shock, and I thought I'd better post a "heads up" here. JH (talk page) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)