Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Cricket Computer Games

Should WikiProject Cricket take a stronger approach on improving the standard of cricket computer and internet-based games, such as Cricket 2005, Cricket 2004, Stick Cricket and Cricket Manager? DaGizza 12:13 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if F-1 considers games to be near its core topic, I don't see why we should leave it out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I created a Category:Cricket computer games to at least keep them all together. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

An overview article would be nice; I did think about starting one a few weeks ago, but gave up when I couldn't find a good layout for it. Loganberry (Talk) 12:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Harris, 4th Baron Harris

Can someone check whether his first name should be George ? The Corner of a Foreign Foreign Field, which is included as a reference, mentions his name as George Robert Canning. The CI/Wisden article has him as George Harris. I guess it should be not be Robert either way.

What does the Derek Birley book say ? Tintin 06:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This and this (Governors of Bombay) also refer to him as George. Jguk created the article so I presume he knows something. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I always wanted to know the old governors of Bombay. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Do I sense a list or 2 coming? -- Ian ≡ talk 09:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:D Maybe not so soon, but you've read my mind, currently working on High Courts of India. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Welsh cricket team

I've just written this... but am not at all sure about which catgories to use. I've gone for Category:National cricket teams on the grounds that they appeared in the 1979 ICC Trophy, have often played Scotland and Ireland, and also took part in those matches against England more recently. However, they're not ICC members, even affiliates, since the ECB covers Welsh professional cricket and so aren't a national cricket team at the highest possible level of Welsh cricket. They've also been a first-class team (1923-30) and are also now a minor county. Help! Loganberry (Talk) 11:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm stumped. However, I think national cricket teams is ok for now. Sam Vimes 22:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that a Northern Ireland team participated in the 1998 Commonwealth Games! However, as far as I can see that was just the regular Irish side under a flag of convenience, so I've simply stuck a section into the Irish cricket team article. Commonwealth Games cricket does cause some complication, though, since the various Caribbean islands competed separately, meaning that for that tournament at least, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, and Jamaica were national cricket teams in the full sense. Loganberry (Talk) 15:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Australian Test Cricket Umpires - voting for deletion

I have compiled a list of Australian Test umpires, and am gradually writing articles on each one (often there's not much info around so they are just stubs waiting for expansion). One of these articles has been flagged for deletion on the grounds that the worthy gentleman was of little significance if all he did was umpire a single Test. What do you think? You can express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Payne (umpire). If this umpire gets voted out, then there are others in the same boat who should be treated the same. And what about Test players who only played one Test? MulgaBill 21:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Test players who only played one Test usually played plenty of first-class games, so there's plenty to write about them. I think we should have some kind of notability standard, though (a bit like WP:MUSIC has) - not too rigid, obviously, or people like Julius Caesar (cricketer) would be deleted. I do think that some umpires are notable - i.e. Asoka de Silva (who unfortunately doesn't have an article yet) or Billy Bowden, but at the same time, if they officiated in ten Tests, were hardly referred to as doing any blunders, and generally just did their job without anything special happening that we can reference, I don't think they're notable enough for an encyclopedia. Sam Vimes 21:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Haakon, have you seen Joseph McMaster? jguk 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Sam's being rather too harsh, and myself would hold that anyone who either played in or umpired a Test match (even just the one) is easily notable enough. Besides, take a look at the match reports, "[county] in 2005" pages etc from this season: every player is linked. The only reason to do that is if we consider every first-class player to be notable; otherwise we're going to have scores of redlinks in perpetuity, which looks awful.

For what it's worth, here are the (fairly inclusionist) guidelines I go by (sometimes). A person is notable who:

• has at least one Test or ODI appearance, as player or umpire.
• has appeared in at least one ICC Trophy final.
• holds any notable first-class or List A record or notable first.
• has more than 100 senior appearances (ie f-c and List A combined).
• or is anyone else I feel ought to be included (generally Worcs players...)

Looking at WP:MUSIC, the criteria there are actually pretty liberal, especially the first one - a top-100 record in any significant market is sufficient. If a singer who reached number 97 in Italy in 1974 with a song no-one in the English-speaking world has ever heard of is good enough, then so are an awful lot of cricketers and umpires.

I'd be interested to know what those writing, say, baseball articles use as a benchmark for inclusion; Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players (which appear to be about to merge) don't seem to have any set standards. Loganberry (Talk) 23:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I like Loganberry's notability criteria. Hows about posting these somewhere in the project page (as WP:MUSIC has done) to avert any future VFD's? I would prefer it to be even more inclusionist though ie. 100 -> 20 -- Ian ≡ talk 01:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I would like the criteria to be liberal enough to include any first class player. It is we who are writing the articles and we won't bother writing about someone who has played only a match or two unless there is a reason. It can be left to the judgement of the writer. We already have pages about obscure first class cricketers like [1] and [2] who have played only three matches between them anyway. Tintin 01:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for being more inclusionist here; I use the guidelines I mentioned for deciding who I'm likely to write an article for. I certainly wouldn't have any complaints about more players being included; this goes back to the point I made about the 2005 match reports - if all f-c players are considered notable, and thus may at least in theory have an article in due course, then it's not so bad leaving all those redlinks in. Loganberry (Talk) 02:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

How about players from non-cricketing countries? I'd never consider writing an article on Mohammad Zeeshan Ali (Norwegian captain), for example, but players who have appeared in the ICC Trophy are probably notable enough. Or Under-19 players, for that matter... Sam Vimes 07:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I might draw the line at junior players, unless they'd done something extraordinary (eg A. E. J. Collins). As for Mr Mohammad, he can come in when Norway qualify for ODI status! Mind you, there are plenty of Afghan cricketers with (albeit rudimentary) Cricinfo pages... Loganberry (Talk) 11:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should we delete anything? If we have verifiable information on a cricketer, why should we be forced to delete that article? I'd even go as far saying we should have redirects to the relevant lists for all the cricketers for whom we don't have verifiable information on. 81.86.13.173 13:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (sorry, that's me [[smoddy]] 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

• But as Ian suggested, defining a criteria and putting it on the project page would help to suppress these sort of delete requests. These are becoming a major nuisance. Tintin 13:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. But I would want it noted that these are criteria for inclusion, not deletion. I guess the criteria noted below are perfectly wide-ranging enough. But I will vote keep on any AfD where the sole reason for deletion is not-notable. If it's because there is no verifiable information, then delete away. These criteria will not change how I vote. [[smoddy]] 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest:

• has appeared in at least one Test, ODI or ICC Trophy final, as player, umpire, coach or administrator
• has appeared in at least one first-class andor List A match as a player

and verifiability goes without saying. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I assume that's intended to be "one first-class or List A match", given the lack of List A games in former times! But that'd be all right by me, so long as we retained a small amount of flexibility. For example, I don't believe (longtime Worcs CCC Secretary) Mike Vockins ever played or umpired in first-class cricket, but from a Worcs CCC point of view I think I'd consider him notable. Loganberry (Talk) 15:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes to the or question. I'd look at this criteria as a guide only. If a VFD was ever made for someone outside the criteria, I'm sure it would be argued on it's merits. -- Ian ≡ talk 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, this topic really got some people's juices flowing! Thanks to all those who supported retaining the worthy John Payne - he must be chuckling in his grave at the interest his 5 days of fame stirred up (and most people only get 5 minutes!) I support the principle of defined criteria for inclusion. The trouble is, I suspect, we would all have slightly different criteria in mind. I would certainly want to see every Test player or umpire, and wouldn't object to every ODI player or umpire (though personally I consider ODIs as a travesty of the game). Coaches and administrators are a bit different as they don't "appear" in a match - but I'm sure some suitable criteria can be found to include worthy ones. Some first-class players/umpires who never appeared in a Test match would be worthy of inclusion - Sam Trimble and Jamie Siddons come to mind as Australian players who were close to Test selection but got no cigar. But surely not all first-class players - there must be ten thousand! How does one form a Committee on Wkipedia? MulgaBill 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• It does not mean that we are going to write about all the 57,000 (or whatever) first class cricketers (we will be lucky if we have the pages for all the Test cricketers up by the end of 2006), but only that any fc cricketer is eligible to have a page. So that, if someone decides to create articles for all players from his state/county, they won't be able to start VfDs on the lesser ones. Tintin 00:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I go back to the point I've made before about the articles dealing with the 2005 season. If those writing such articles are going to continue linking to every player named therein, then I think we have to say that every f-c player is eligible. And on a similar note, while it's unlikely that someone who played ten times in 1905 is going to get an article, it's considerably more likely that a current player with ten appearances is. After all, I've written one on Stuart Wedge, who currently has one f-c appearance (and looking at his second XI bowling figures, may have been lucky to get that!), but since he's linked to in two places (Worcs CCC and Worcs in 2005) I think it's reasonable to give him an article. Loganberry (Talk) 12:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well...I just started making redlinks to players because jguk did it before me. I can see the argument for the players being non-notable, however, and they can maybe be removed Sam Vimes 13:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've been bold and added a new section on the project page. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Re the line It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about person's importance on a talk page or VfD page

What do we do about people like commentators, statisticians and writers ? People from Indian subcontinent who did their work before 1990 will have very little internet presence. If someone chooses to put them up for VfD, there will be no chance of saving them. Tintin 11:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the article needs to sell itself on notability. If not in the criteria listed then some way else. The statement is only a guide and we can still vote in a VfD as before. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

5th Test

McGrath's back and I'm feeling good!

Betting odds FYI:

• Centrebet (AUS)
  • Eng 4.20
  • Draw 2.35
  • Aust 2.40
• Ladbrokes (UK)
  • Eng 3.40
  • Draw 2.37
  • Aust 2.50

-- Ian ≡ talk 03:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Audio & Video & Media Images

I'd recorded Ravi Shastri commentating during the recent IND-NZL finals. I've uploaded the file under GFDL, but does the TV company have any copyrights over his voice? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

IANAL and so on, but I think these may be dodgy at best. We can't upload video of TV coverage as GFDL, so why should audio be any different? I strongly suspect that if you uploaded some of Richie Benaud's coverage from his last Ashes Test, unless you could claim fair use (not at all easy) Channel 4 would have something to say about it. Loganberry (Talk) 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll retag as Fair Use. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note, Ball of the Century has attracted two comments asking for a video. I have a video, but as I said on Talk:Ball of the Century, it's copyrighted by the TV company who shot it. But is there any chance we can claim fair use on it, or is that simply beyond reason? -dmmaus 01:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe it qualifies as Fair Use simply because <insert>no<insert> free versions available are as good as non-existent. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy defines such a use. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. There's no mention of video there. I think video needs to go on Wikimedia Commons, but Commons:Licensing specifically forbids fair use media. -dmmaus 09:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Commons is for the free stuff. I believe fair use covers all media topics. This page may be useful to justify fair use: Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. You'd also have to remember that the best shot (from behind the bowler) is always taken by TV cameras. Other angles (even if available) would be pointless (except for rare side view shots). =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think we need to clarify exactly what Fair Use implies for cricket images. I notice someone has posted a Getty Images copyrighted photo on Underarm delivery, claiming it to be Fair Use. If this is truly Fair Use, we can embellish the cricket articles with all sorts of media images - which has not been done up to now. I had thought that images from media agencies like Getty were strictly verboten for Wikipedia. If they are verboten, we should remove the image on Underarm delivery. -dmmaus 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that image will have to go. It has no business being in that article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now removed the image, with a link to this discussion in the edit summary. For what it's worth, I think we should avoid Fair Use stuff entirely, even though the lack of free images can highly frustrating at times, since I wouldn't be surprised at some point if Wikipedia followed the Commons and made "free licences only" policy; we don't want to be caught relying on Fair Use images and then have to remove them all. Loganberry (Talk) 00:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes + bold

Those team infoboxes look dirty with bold text and center alignment. Should I change it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template creation

I have created Template:West Indian batsmen with a test batting average over 50 as a template, I don't know if I've put a link to the template on every page. Please check--Knucmo2 22:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

From BJAODN:

Sports section: (d)
Cricket in India has a concept of non-playing captain, where the captain, even though he is a part of the team, doesn't perform.

Reverse Swing

Should this have its own article? There's a lot of science emerging about it now.

By the way, only just discovered this Project........ NICE work! --PopUpPirate 23:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pirate, nearest we've got is Swing_bowling#Reverse_swing. I sort of think that unless someone had a lot more to add, it would be better to keep it in the one article. BTW, why not join up and grab cap# 36! -- Ian ≡ talk 04:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Done :D --PopUpPirate 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Chucking/Throwing controversy

I was trying to find something on this, since it's affected quite a few bowlers recently, and also as I understand there's been a couple of rule changes as well. I'm a bit lost with this whole controversy. If someone were to put up a short article on what Chucking exactly is (with the whole elbow-straightening thing explained and the 10 degrees/15 degrees thingy), that would be a big help! A couple of explanatory diagrams wouldn't go amiss either.

On the topic of diagrams, I believe that they would be particularly helpful on the bowling pages, especially the pages that explain each type of delivery. --Peripatetic 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There was something on this stuff on the Talk:Cricket page archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Template images

Image wrongly named - ignore me on that one! Anyway, something I've been toying with today, would be nice to have a demonstration of the different types of balls such as offspin, outswinger etc, shown on each article. And maybe a demonstration for strokes too.

Good idea or not? Can anyone do a better job than me? (probably!) --PopUpPirate 22:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

excellent idea.. that's just the kind of thing I was writing abt.. the diagram could probably have a "neater" appearance, but yeah the idea is spot-on. -- Peripatetic 23:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ta for comments - I agree the image could be of a better quality, perhaps something simpler would be better, unless we have any resident photoshop whizzes? --PopUpPirate 23:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ngb/random/legspin.png ? --Ngb ^?!? 06:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Nick (Ngb), that's great! Two points: that's a leg-break; leg-spin is not exactly correct. 2) Can you also create an SVG rendering of that? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ngb/random/legbreak.png vs http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ngb/random/offbreak.png -- better? I'm using Xara X to make them, which sadly doesn't have SVG export. --Ngb ^?!? 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Great stuff - I'd ditch the bowler for sake of image quality but the path the ball takes is superb. To show swing on a ball, it may be necessary to have a shadow line? --PopUpPirate 22:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminology again

Do we have any "official" WikiProject standards on this? I don't think we can manage to have all articles using exactly the same terminology since usage differs across the world - eg extras in Britain but sundries in Australia; a score of 200 for 5 in England but 5 for 200 in Australia. What follows is what I now do; comments are more than welcome.

Dates: linked normally for calendar years - 2004 - but linked to the appropriate season for, er, seasons - 2003. This leads to a lot of redlinks, but with any luck those articles will be written in time now that we're getting more and more members.

Overseas seasons: 2002-03 Australian cricket season, to appear in articles as 2002-03. Using a hyphen rather than a slash eliminates any possible subpage-related problems, and is also in line with Wisden style. It does mean a bit more care is needed in some cases: for example, Flintoff this winter will (one hopes!) take part in both 2005-06 (Australian season - the Super Series) and 2005-06 (Pakistan - the normal Tests and ODIs).

Statistics: Slashes for scores (200/5 or 5/200, depending on country) and hyphens for bowling figures (4-51). Doing this also helps with Australian articles where "5 for 78" might be either a poor team score or a good bowling performance. I have occasionally seen "78 for 5" used by Australians to mean a bowler taking five wickets for 78 runs, but only very rarely so I assume it's not at all common.

These are just examples of how I write things at the moment; if there's a consensus for changing to a specific standard different from the above then I'll go along with it, though I think in most cases the best solution would be to set up redirects so that, for example, all the common permutations of a date (eg 2002-2003, 2002-03, 2002-3, 2002/2003, 2002/03 and 2002/3, all plus "Australian cricket season") end up at the same article anyway. Loganberry (Talk) 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious red links would be good, such as : In the 2003 season - there's enough "year" links over wikipedia so as long as the link description is something else it should be fine.

• • Thanks, masked mystery editor! (aka PopUpPirate) My only concern is that doing that can make the text flow less smoothly, especially with overseas seasons - "He had an excellent tour of India in 2002-03" is nicer-looking than "He had an excellent tour of India in the 2002-03 winter" or the like. But I accept the point about possible confusion; we already have this with county links being sometimes to the area (eg place of birth) and sometimes to the club (eg teams played for).

• One thing I would try to do (if I manage it) is to write the article with the cricketing terminology used in the home country. So the 2006-07 Ashes would then read like "England racked up one for 141 in the morning session, boosted by 19 sundries from Tait and Lee" ;) As for seasons, I've started to adopt that way of writing, so I agree with that. Sam Vimes 06:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with that, and if I write bios of Australian players then I'll try to remember to use Australian terminology; that fits in well with the Wikipedia standard of writing US-related articles in US English etc. I'll probably make mistakes - I keep forgetting that Australia treats teams as singular ("England has won the Ashes") - but I'm sure Aussie editors will be able to correct any of those errors I make. Though I must admit that if England make a score like that on the first morning in 15 months' time, I shan't be worrying too much about which way around the scorecard goes! Loganberry (Talk) 10:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that Australia treats teams as singular ("England has won the Ashes") -- That's news to me! This Aussie would always say "England have won the Ashes". (Well, hopefully not for another 18 years...) -dmmaus 10:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's newspaper-speak, because I see it a lot there. For example, from The Age: Australia has held onto its world No.1 ICC Test ranking...; from the Melbourne Herald Sun: Australia has been world-beaters for so long...; and from the Brisbane Courier-Mail: Australia has won about 30 more Tests than England. (That was me. Loganberry (Talk) 21:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC))

For statistics, I tend to say "x runs for y wickets" or vice versa: that makes it abundantly clear which is which ("6/7"? "7-6"? ) and allows links to run (cricket) and wicket (cricket). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Recently updated articles cycling

I've started adding dates to the Recently Updated Articles on WikiProject Cricket so we know when to remove old ones. I suggest after a month, until such time as articles are created with such rapidity that the list grows too long and we need to shorten it. -dmmaus 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Series nomenclature and categorisation

There have been quite a few thoughts that the format "[Team A] in [Country B] in [Season]" is a bit ambiguous, the argument being that "there's gonna be a lot of Australians in England in 2005" (for example). Anyone have big objections if I started moving them to the slightly less objectionable "[Team A] cricket team in [Country B] in [Season]"? Yes, I know cricinfo and cricketarchive and Wisden use the first format, but they're specialised cricket pages, while we're a general interest encyclopedia.

While we're at it - Category:International cricket competitions could very well explode this year (if I continue to write articles at the rate I have been doing so far, anyway). Maybe it would be a good idea to create subcategories by international season, or alternatively by decade? Sam Vimes 06:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so people can see the background, there is some discussion in The 2005 Ashes (stimulated by discussion of whether The 2005 Ashes is in the right place). There is also the issue of wonen's teams, which seem sadly neglected... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic

Is it just me or has wikipedia been getting slower and slower over the last month or so? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, painfully so sometimes: I find it is much faster logged out, but it is a pain to have to wait to to log back in to get my edits attributed properly. I like to open lots of pages at once and flick between then (from my watchlist, I open the history for a dozen or more interesting edits and then do diffs back to something relevant, like my last edit) for the past few weeks my connection has been timing out! This is real pain where an edit times out, since often the text from the edit is lost. I have taken to editing in an external editors and cutting and pasting the final version so I have a backup if the connection falls over. There has been comment in at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Extreme server slowness - general server load, to be fixed by new servers; crash of one of the main database servers on 11 September (9/11...) (I have been having problems further back than this though). The new Korean servers may help... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

East and Central Africa

What is/was the status of East and Central Africa? Cricket Archive indicates ([3], [4]) that East Africa was an Associate Member of the ICC from 1966 until 1989, at which point it was replaced by East and Central Africa. The latter played in the ICC Trophy for some time, but do not appear on the ICC's official list now [5] so presumably the team no longer exists. Uganda, for example, became an Associate Member in 1998, but since E&CA played in the 2001 ICC Trophy it cannot have been a straight replacement. It all sounds pretty convoluted; has anyone got information on what actually happened? Loganberry (Talk) 23:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Field dimensions

I need the dimensions of the following for an average cricket ground: (yards OR metres will do)

• Vertical diameter =
• horizontal diameter =
• Width of central rectangular strip
• Length of strip.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Try http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch,33,AR.html http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/appendix-b,75,AR.html Nothing there about averages for the main outfield though. --PopUpPirate 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh try this http://www.dangermouse.net/cricket/field.html --PopUpPirate 15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wish I could find a horiz diameter. I guess a ratio of 200:150 (dia) should be satisfactory? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Old Australian Pictures

While browsing the Australia talk page, I came across this tag for old Australian pictures:

{{PD-Australia}}

The words 'Copyright has also expired on photographs taken prior to January 1, 1955' sound promising to me. Does that mean that we would be able to take any photo of say Bill O'Reilly (provided it was taken in Australia) and put it up on the article under this tag, or are there any other copyright issues?

Yes, you are correct, it is in Public domain. But cite the year and source when uploading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the photos I can find are off cricinfo, and they don't give an exact year or much other information usually. Of course it's safe to assume a photo of Victor Trumper was taken before 1955, but the only source info for most of the ones I've looked at is "Reproduced with permission from The Cricketer International". Would this affect the copyright in any way? Raven4x4x 10:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, they can't claim the image to be copyrighted if it was published before 1955 as per Aus copyright law. There's a Aus govt. pdf file linked in the above template. If you do come across a photo that was taken before 1955, upload the image to commons: instead of here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get on to that when I have the chance. One final question, why must I upload them to commons rather than here? It's no problem, I'm just curious to know. Raven4x4x 00:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Images in commons can be shared across all wikis. en, de, fr wikiquote etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Just like Infobox Pope!" -- anon.

I've made an attempt at an improved infobox, but my description is so long i put it in a subpage: /infobox. Discuss either here or there, probably best there.

Thanks AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

(Following comments copied from /infobox for convenience.)

Looks nice, though I think that given the constantly increasing number of bio articles (he said, optimistically!) we should really set this in stone soon, and not change again after this (if it happens) without a really good reason. Changing 250 players is just about reasonable; changing thousands would be unbearable.

One thing that does come to mind immediately, though, is that as far as I can see there's no provision for players who play ODIs but not Tests, something that's already quite common (WC players from Canada, pre-Test Zimbabwe etc) and is likely to become more and more so now that the "second-tier six" are to have full ODI status. There could well be several hundred players in this category before too long, and it looks ugly to have a whole column of "N/A"s so often.

I also think that bowling stats should be overs throughout a player's boxes, or balls throughout, but not both as Sobers has in his "show all" example; if that's just to illustrate how things work then by all means ignore this point. Loganberry (Talk) 23:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What about a bowler's strike rate? I've often thought that was an important statistic (I'd prefer a wicket-taking bowler to one who simply doesn't concede runs), but none of our articles seem to include it. Raven4x4x 01:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Loganberry Firstly, I agree with you about the players with ODIs but no Tests. I hadn't thought of that situation, maybe one way to allow for it is to let the person choose two (or four) categories (eg Tests & ODIs or ODIs & first-class),

It would be particularly useful to allow ODIs & first-class, since "second-tier" players are very likely to have this (ODIs and the f-c [[ICC Intercontinental Cup). It wouldn't be the end of the world to leave out the List A section in these cases, since as non-Test players the f-c column would record their stats in the most prestigious form of the long game they played, but as ODI players the List A column wouldn't do the same for one-day cricket. Loganberry (Talk) 01:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

and these could be used for the column headings - this would be pretty easy to do, and could be called (say) Flexible Infobox Cricketer, and be used instead of this one. This solution would also allow it to be used in place of Template:Infobox Historic Cricketer, say if you want to show Tests and First-class only. Secondly, I definitely agree about the balls/overs thing. The reason the example is like that is because I simply put the two existing infoboxes together, and for whatever reason, one used balls and the other overs. I prefer overs, but it's obviously time-consuming if not impossible to find the number of overs for an older cricketer (esp those who bowled where the standard over was changing). Again, it would be pretty simple to allow the person who enters the information to select whether they want Balls or Overs to be displyed, depending on what information is available to them, and I think it should be kept constant throughout a player's infobox. Finally, since this infobox is merely extra features added to the current one, it may not be necessary to have it replace those used already on pages. I believe Ngb originally started work on this due to the messy nature of the boxes on the Garfield Sobers page, and maybe this box could just be used on new articles and longer ones where the author thinks it appropriate to include First-class and List A stats. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to have four possible columns, and allow the author to turn on and off any of them? Stephen Turner 10:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't think of a way using Wikipedia that wouldn't require a ridiculous amount of variables (ie number of rows x number of columns), but I'll see if I can't come up with something. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Raven When the infobox was originally created/suggested, it contained practically every stat available on cricinfo. This of course made it ridiculously long and useless on all but the most extensive articles. It was whittled down until what you see now remains, so obviously it was thought unnecessary for strike rate to appear. However, i also think it's an interesting stat, and like I said with point 4 above, maybe 5WI and 10WM could be moved into one row to create space for this extra one. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the current stats are about right. One possible problem with them is that you want to know different stats for Tests and ODIs — for example, in ODIs a batsman's strike rate (why, oh why, is it runs per 100 balls, not runs per six balls which we can relate to the team's run rate???) is much more important than in Tests. But the layout in columns doesn't allow different stats for different types of match, and I don't see a way round this without adding too many rows. Stephen Turner 10:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

indipper / outdipper

Why do we have these pages? Inswinger and outswinger are far better articles, and as far as I'm aware are much more commonly used names anyway. (They certainly are in England.) Comparison between cricket and baseball and a few other articles link to the "dipper" pages, but is there any reason why they shouldn't point to the "swinger" ones? Loganberry (Talk) 23:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• A ball which curves 'after pitching is known as an x-swinger
• A ball which curves 'before pitching is known as an x-dipper

Usually, dippers end up mostly as yorkers, hence the term inswinging yorker. It boils down to common usage vs. correct usage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Haven't we had this conversation somewhere else recently? For me, "dip" would mean topspin causing the ball to pitch earlier than it flight from the hand would indicate (that is, unexpected movement in a vertical direction) (typically something that a leg spinner like Shane Warne could do), whereas swing would be lateral movement, whether before or after pitching. I'm not convinced about "in" and "out" dipping - can anyone cite source for those usages? -- ALoan (Talk) 07:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I heard of this term in a cricket book way back in 1998. I can't recall the name of this book, but it had the terms indipper, outdipper and the fielding position long stop. That would be the most credible souce I've come across. The term has been used by Wasim Akram, Sunil Gavaskar and I heard it recently being used in commentery too (Ashes/India-Zim matches...I'm not too sure which one). [6] [7] [8] =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Long stop certainly; I seem to remember one being used not so very long ago (in a Twenty20 match, perhaps?) when a batsman deliberately hit a couple of balls back over the wicket-keepers head. The "dipper" words, though, may or may not be technically correct, but certainly aren't widespread. A Google for indipper cricket gives a mere 60 hits, whereas inswinger cricket gets 19,800. Likewise, outdipper cricket gets 151 hits, while outswinger cricket returns 16,600. Granted the Google Test is far from foolproof, but those are huge disparities. India seems to be about the only place where the "dipper" words are used at all, and even then much more rarely than the "swinger" ones. Loganberry (Talk) 22:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think its origin is subcontinental. I do recall the author and publisher were both British, and published in the 1980s. Those terms were in the book's glossary.

Those few numbers would be perhaps because of the non utility value of a dipper. Since it curves before pitching, a fullish delivery would lead to a full toss, easy to put away. And usually dippers do not swing after pitching, so a shortish delivery would be pointless. That leaves the yorker as the only dipper delivery of some value. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD

Yet again someone is out to delete the work of the project...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamorgan v Northamptonshire 4 September 2005. And only a week before the season ends, too. Sam Vimes 07:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: There's two of them: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northamptonshire_v_Somerset_29_June_2005 Sam Vimes 07:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming seriously frustrating. [[Sam Korn]] 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Creating the centralized discussion was a good idea, so we can get some sort of final consensus. I've placed my opinion on the discussion page, so I won't repeat it here. Raven4x4x 08:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Although voting on the AfD pages too is probably still a good idea. Stephen Turner 10:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A shame about the wording "non-championship sporting event results" though - by this definition, the [County] Championship is not a championship! =;) Loganberry (Talk) 13:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)