Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 90

Archive 85

←

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Archive 95

MOS:YEARRANGE

I left a message at Talk:2019–21 ICC World Test Championship. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Virat Kohli's cap number

Please see this discussion. Is it 268 or 269? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately Cricinfo cap numbers (i.e. the order in which a player appeared for a given team in a given format) are not always "correct". Certainly for smaller nations, CI use a logical alphabetical order (although sometimes inconsistently with instances of some players ordered by surname and others by full name, usually Muslim players). Some associate nations use their own numbers that cross all formats, and from before their matches were ICC recognised. For England, CI does not include Alan Jones as cap 696 (he played a Test in 1970 which later lost its status; England later officially gave him cap number 696, but CI gives this to Dan Lawrence). We explained that discrepancy with a reference from UK newspapers). In the case of Kohli, I can't see why CI logic isn't right (alphabetically speaking)... I guess India didn't follow the usual pattern on this occassion. Problem is that we can't go against the source without some kind of report to refer to. Bs1jac (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Have asked Cricinfo if they can fix their list as it does appear to be a simple case of two players debuting on the same day and not given the numbers actually worn on the shirts Bs1jac (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Alfred Shaw

The Alfred Shaw article has serious referencing issues. Virtually the whole of the body of the article is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wisden obituary; Notts profile - probably a good starting point. The bulk of the prose is from a long time ago and needs work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Pink Day ODI

As you may or may not know, South Africa host a pink day ODI once a year. Looking at the wiki there doesn’t seem to be an article about it. With sources here [1], here [2] and here [3]. Does the subject deserve its own article. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not start with a section on the team page and see what you can get - to be honest, this doesn't seem overly notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there articles on Jane McGrath Day of Ruth Strauss Day? If there are then maybe, if not then maybe something on the team page as BST says. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies @Blue Square Thing: @Rugbyfan22: so no then. Anyways, I hope we can all agree this and both the events that rugby fan mention are all great initiatives. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

100%, but it can be covered in specific team articles or articles for the specific people as it seems in Jane McGrath and Andrew Strauss. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Strauss Day is mentioned at Andrew Strauss#Life and career, and don't see that it needs separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Saudi cricket articles

I've posed a question at Teahouse, see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Saudi_cricket, and it was suggested to loop this project into the discussion. Any views? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I replied there, but will post here too. It was a copy-and-paste move which I've reverted, and I have started a move discussion about the name Talk:Saudi Cricket Centre#Requested move 6 April 2021. Please feel free to contribute. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

So once all this notability stuff has blown over, I was thinking of ways to increase participation and engagement in the project and I was thinking about a newsletter of some description. Who thinks it is a good idea? And what would people like to see in it? StickyWicket (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a nice idea if you think it would help increase participation/gain enough readership to be worthwhile. How about with the way it's going cricket AfD of the month haha. No in all seriousness maybe an article each month on a cricketer who died/was involved in combat, or women's cricket article of the month to try and improve contributions to women's cricket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll brainstorm some ideas over the coming months and put them here. I'm awful at art, so if anyone is good at drawing and graphics would like to design a logo that would be awesome! I'm also thinking about launching us on Twitter, Facebook and the cricket subreddit. StickyWicket (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Women's cricket would be nice. As might associate cricket. Grounds perhaps? Debuts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of cricket articles at GA and in DYK. There must be some at FA too. You could highlight one of these each time. Also, how about a history piece like the origin of Test cricket or the bodyline series? Perhaps a piece about grassroots cricket in a given country, which could expand on the associate member suggestion above. Plenty of photos too where possible. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Loving these ideas! On photos, perhaps a monthly photo competition – might encourage people to get out there and catch some great cricket shots! And perhaps a feature where someone contributes a report from a cricket match that they've attended (could be from major matches to local club cricket)? StickyWicket (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We could start our own franchise cricket league in Dubai, that usually works. Jokes aside I think more on women’s cricket and emerging cricket. Maybe we could introduce a series of the month where we all try and get that series to good article status. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Great idea CreativeNorth. Maybe expand that into a contest too? StickyWicket (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this might be an idea, but maybe we could try and go into the cricket subreddit to maybe get some help but I don't know how that will go down? HawkAussie (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth a try, it has 263,000 members. I'll set up an account tonight and if project members of good standing are interested in helping to run it, I can send them the login details? StickyWicket (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi. There are a couple of pages moves you might be interested in:

• Talk:Cam_Hawkins#Requested_move_2_April_2021
• Talk:Steven_Finn_(cricketer)#Requested_move_7_April_2021

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible page move/name confusion

Hi all, if anyone could help out on Talk:Helen Allan that would be great. Thanks, Mpk662 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Some redirection possibilities

Rather than take these to AfD, I'm suggesting redirects for the following English cricketers about whom we known nothing very much at all:

• J. V. Haden - Surrey 1882
• W. Wood (Surrey cricketer) - Surrey 1883
• W. H. Hill (Worcestershire cricketer) - Worcs 1900
• P. J. Morris (Worcestershire cricketer) - Worcs 1914

I wondered if anyone would be able to find anything at all on these chaps as I know that can happen at times. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If a WP:BEFORE search hasn't brought anything up, then I think it's fine. There might be some newspaper coverage though but I don't have access to the archives. Both list pages for Surrey and Worcs are just names at this stage so perhaps a hatnote stating they played 1/however many games and that we don't know much else about them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes for the handful of players needing them are best on this type of functional list imo. If these were lists of stats I wouldn't think about editing them - I find long stats lists almost totally unwieldy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually wouldn't redirect JV Haden at this stage, 7 games in a season is quite a lot for the time, you'd think there'd be something out there for that many games. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

On the lists, I think the more statistical lists are the preferred way of going. Simple lists with just names and nothing else don't really offer the reader much, especially if it comes from a redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends. Where almost every player on the list has their own article, then I think a list of names and dates is a much more preferable route to take - we know that we can click the link to get to the article. Where there are many players without articles, for whatever reason, I think there's more of a case to use either a pen portrait table (as the Bedfordshire list is) or possibly stats - but I find the tables of stats impenetrable and more or less impossible to use. And they're essentially a massive NOTSTATS bomb waiting to happen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that for players in a list who don't have their own article all you need is a reference to their ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive entry. JH (talk page) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing about either Haden or Wood in David Lemmon's pretty comprehensive history of Surrey. If someone happens to have Wisden for the relevant years, I suppose there might be something there. And later editions might have their obituaries. But if we don't know when they died, searching for them would be pretty time-consuming. JH (talk page) 15:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - Haden was the one I was most concerned about redirecting without anyone taking a look. I'll check The Times at some point, but they rarely have much detail about individuals. I was hoping someone would have book on one or both of the counties. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Three more:

• J. James (Northamptonshire cricketer) - 1906
• A. Clarke (Leicestershire cricketer) - 1902
• J. Hodgkinson (cricketer, 1882) - Derbyshire 1882

Same story pretty much. I'm really not finding anything on these blokes - seem to be professionals in the main (Haden certainly was) which, in the era they played in, doesn't help when it comes to finding stuff.

Not seeing anything in internet searches for those three, may be offline stuff but will be difficult to find not knowing any other details. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Whilst looking I noted that List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club players and List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club players need updating - neither seems to have anything post 2019. The Northants one has appearances added as well, which strike me as very likely to be hideously out of date for modern chaps (where they've been included). If anyone has time and or knowledge it would help - I've tagged both and will get around to them where possible, but if we can't keep basic lists up to date I would worry about anything more statistical. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Surrey and Derbyshire to that list of lists that need updating. There's chance there may be 17 counties that need updating... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Hampshire ones are up to date I know that much. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I usually update all the county lists that need it whenever the postman delivers the new Playfair annual. Which Royal Mail tells me will be today. Have done this for some years. So no need to fuss. Johnlp (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnlp: Thank you - much appreciated. I've just tagged them all (sorry - just revert it when you get to it). Kent is up to date and Somerset and Middlesex seem to be. The Hants base list hasn't been updated since 2017, but there are individual lists for FC, LA and T20, all of which do seem to be updated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Hampshire one can probably be deleted, not sure there's a need for it with the FC, LA and T20 lists, it's not linked to the Hampshire wikipage either otherwise I would have updated it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's linked from the "Lists of..." navbox, which is where I jumped in on it. I think it's helpful to have - acts as a useful cross reference. It shouldn't be too hard to work back from the detailed lists? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I BOLDly redirected this, but if you think this is wrong I'll undo it and update this list myself. Just seems a bit overkill to have two separate lists especially when everything on this list is detailed in all the other lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Creation of task forces

Hi all. I'm working on restructuring certain parts of the project to match some of the more successful projects, such as the Military History Project. I noticed they have a lot of task forces for their topics, and it seems to work well in gathering link-minded users together to create and improve articles in a particular area. I've brainstormed a few task forces that people might like to create below:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Afghanistan cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Australia cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Associate cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket equipment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket grounds
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket history
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket umpires
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/England cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/India cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/IPL task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Ireland cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Laws of Cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Lists task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/New Zealand cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Pakistan cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/South Africa cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Sri Lanka cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/West Indies cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Zimbabwe cricket task force

The following task-forces already exist:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Bangladesh cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Scotland cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Somerset cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Women's cricket task force

Feel free to add to this list and let me know if there's any task forces that already exist that I might have missed. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a task force for every country? I don't think we need one for Argentina, as there won't be enough article creation for it. Also, should they be "Afghan cricket task force" or "Afghnaistan cricket task force"- the currently existing ones use country name not the adjective. Also, IPL taskforce seems redundant as they have a separate WikiProject. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the Argentina point, with new potential guidelines no Argentine players will be notable (as far as I can work out) so not sure that, the Kenyan, Hong Kong, Canadian or Bermudan ones really warrant a task force. If the IPL has a separate WikiProject I don't see a need for that one either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to trim them down to ones where we there will be sufficient things to do. Perhaps keep them to the 12 Full Members, then have an Associates one for the rest? I didn't realise there was an IPL wikiproject! Didn't think separate Wikiprojects covering the same general topic were allowed. Take WWII, that's a task force of the history project. StickyWicket (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Premier League yep, doesn't look very active though. Having one for associate members is a good idea, Argentina can be included in that. I agree with Joseph2302 that we should probably use full names instead of the adjectives as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed them to the full names and will update the open task list I'm working on to reflect the full names instead of the adjective. I wonder if the IPL wikiproject should be merged into us and become a task force of this project, seeing as it isn't all that active and has a fairly small worklist? StickyWicket (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There also appears to be WikiProjects for another of other franchise tournaments. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan Super League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lanka Premier League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League. They look to have smaller numbers of members than the IPL one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think they should be brought under the umbrella of this project and turned into task forces? StickyWicket (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've no idea on how the process about that would go about, whether it is something thats allowed and how much opposition from Project members of the 4 franchise tournaments we'll get, but for me they're the equivalent of any other task force, it's not a separate sport. The Premier League (football) doesn't have it's own WikiProject, although the NFL does have a separate one from American Football. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll drop them a message on their talk pages. They don't have many members or seem overly active, so shouldn't be too much opposition I hope! StickyWicket (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that all the IPL, BPL, LPL, PSL projects should just become task forces of WikiProject Cricket. That way we could better standardise their articles with other cricket articles (because historical the IPL articles have been a law unto themselves sometimes). The BPL project has 12 members not blocked or listed as inactive, PSL has 8 members that look active on Wiki, LPL has 12 members. But there's not many articles in the scopes of those projects, so would be better to merge them into the main cricket project in my opinion. we don't generally have separate WikiProjects for single events (apart from the Olympics, and gridiron football, because lots of the leagues are different variants of the sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need any task forces, to be honest. If enough editors come together in support of one of those topics, I guess that's fair enough, but creating task forces for the sake of having task forces is a fool's errand, IMO. – PeeJay 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

They're there should members wish to have them, I've no objection to autonomous parts of the project channeling their efforts into a specific area. In the coming weeks I'll be launching accounts on Facebook, Twitter and reddit (the reddit account has already been created, if long-term project members want the login info drop me a message) in an effort to get more members. I'm going to message the T20 projects today RE merger. StickyWicket (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

By all means create social media accounts if you wish, but task forces should not be created before it has been established that there is either a desire or a need for them. What exactly would the creation of these task forces help us to do that the overall WikiProject falls short with right now? I worry that if we make the focus of the project too granular, we lose sight of the overall goal, which is to cover cricket as a whole as well as we can. – PeeJay 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup article

Just to let the project know, there's been a note left at Talk:Cricket World Cup#FA concerns about whether the article is still FA standard or not. Would be good to get some cricket eyes on the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket AfDs

Hi guys, we've got 10 new AfDs which just appear to be an attack on Lugnuts' articles. The one with the fewest games has played 25 games for example. Please can people take a look at them when they have time. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. One of them has 63 FC/LA appearances. Not one or two, but 63. The person is either being disruptive or hasn't much of a clue (i.e. stepping back and thinking 'will players with that many appearances likely have coverage', or coming here to ask for help finding sources. Mind boggling. StickyWicket (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I've removed the Ranji Trophy as notable from my proposed list due to yesterdays AfD on recent Indian Ranji Trophy players and not being able to find coverage on some of them, but for the number of games that have been played in these examples there will be coverage, likely offline or in Hindi sources. I imagine if my proposal goes through we'll have to have someway of protecting articles created before the guidance change, otherwise we'll have articles up for deletion like this all the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The attack on Lugnuts is weird as well given the cricket related ANI closed with the consensus that he was editing within the current guidelines, which have yet to change, so there is nothing wrong with any of the articles at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very odd. Has to be disruptive because the sheer number of matches these people played is far in excess of what's required. StickyWicket (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have commented on their talkpage. These seem like bad faith nominations, especially when coupled with loads of deletions of Turkish places (also created by Lugnuts). Seems like a deletionist who's been reading ANI too much. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. Believe it or not, I DO see the point made when it's a one-match wonder, but when someone's played 40, 50 or 60+ matches.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no point to "see". If a player has played one first-class match, he becomes a first-class cricketer and is so by definition notable. FieldOfWheat (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also commented on that nominator's talk page because the AFDs being raised are ridiculous. The latest is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye for which absolutely no source search was done. But plenty of sources are now emerging at the AFD. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Booklist

Hi all. Per a suggestion by Störm above regarding a booklist in a similar style to the football project booklist, I wonder if people would be willing to send me a list of the cricket books they own on my talk page just with the title, author(s), publisher, date, and ISBN. I can do the rest in cataloguing them; could you also indicate if it is okay for me to list your username under the entry to allow people to contact you for extracts from any books you list? Looking forward to any submissions! StickyWicket (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work. It will certainly help people here. I'll try to add what I can. Thanks again. Störm (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket sources

Hi. I've started this page where I'll list all the reliable sources (which I know) relevant to cricket. This will help anyone who wants to expand cricket articles, but does not know where to find information. It will also help us in WP:BEFORE of AfDs and will decrease our excessive dependence on cricket databases. I've limited knowledge of offline cricket sources (anyone who has knowledge may expand it, please). Thanks. Störm (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm working alot behind the scenes redesigning certain elements of the project to hopefully have them all done by the summer, would be great to incorporate this into it as a virtual cricket library. StickyWicket (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: I think Wikisource has a few cricket books on there. StickyWicket (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks AssociateAffiliate. There is a lot of free public access stuff (related to cricket) is available at Internet Archive (sifting will help many here). Störm (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Check Wikisource cricket content here. Störm (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I came across a link to Bibliography of cricket the other day in one of the history articles. It lacks a lot of publication details but you could get those from Amazon in the main. It does seem to be what you're looking for. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It is helpful, but I want to add all the online links to websites (any language) where cricket-related content is available (plus offline sources which are mostly covered in 'Bibliography of cricket'). Störm (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the danger is that such a list could become unwieldy, as the number of reasonably authoritative and wide-ranging sources - especially books - would probably run into the hundreds. A couple of suggestions for books: Barclay's World of Cricket, which is probably still after some 30 or 40 years the most comprehensive encyclopaedia on the game; and Altham and Swanton's A History of Cricket, though its final edition was back in 1968. A search on Wikipedia will turn up multiple articles that use them as references and where you can find full publication details (both books ran to several editions). JH (talk page) 09:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been involved in publishing for a very long time and it is generally agreed that there are more books about cricket than any other sport. Football is way behind. You might be surprised to know that the second most published sport is chess (or at least it used to be). No Great Shaker (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Very surprised. As with curling, darts and dogging, chess isn't a sport. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You try telling them folks up Portsdown Hill that dogging isn't a sport when the police vans arrive en-masse to nick them all :DDD StickyWicket (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be more surprised if you told me that there were dozens of published books about it... Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I think dogging is definitely a sport, ha! All that physical exertion. Mind you, there's physical exertion in chess too – hitting the top of the clock and then going for a stroll and a chat while your opponent sits and thinks. I can never decide if snooker is a sport or not, but I'd say it's right on the threshold if physical activity is necessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• For cricket books, something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist will be helpful. Störm (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Störm the booklist at the football project is much nicer and more compact than the one I've been starting on here! StickyWicket (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No issue. The start is always the hardest. I hope things will get better for good. Störm (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Pages that need to be created

As a break from the endless deleting of them. Names not necessarily what they should be:

• Pakistan in Bangladesh ODI Match 1998/99
• NatWest International (Australia, Pakistan in England) 2004
• ICC Tri-Series (in West Indies) (Bermuda, Canada, Zimbabwe in West Indies) 2006
• England in Ireland ODI Match 2006
• Sri Lanka in Netherlands ODI Series 2006
• Kenya in Canada ODI Series 2006
• European Championship Division One (Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland in Scotland) 2006
• Bangladesh in Kenya ODI Series 2006
• Bermuda in Canada ODI Series 2006
• ICC World Cricket League Americas Region Division One (in Canada) 2006

FieldOfWheat (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FieldOfWheat, potential of a GA for the Ireland v England match as it was the first international between the two. StickyWicket (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need separate articles for "series" that are one match? Australia vs Pakistan 2004 [4] seems like it was effectively just a warm up match for the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy, I wouldn't think it's worthy of a "series" article about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Similar articles on "tours" that have effectively been warm-up matches for a tournament have been deleted/redirected relatively recently (e.g. this, that). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani cricket team in Ireland in 2018 is a good example that even one-match series, particularly historically notable ones, can be good articles. StickyWicket (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That was Ireland's first ever Test match, which is why it got so much coverage. I doubt there's much coverage of the warm up match I mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dutch cricket team in South Africa in 2021-22

I can't understand why this article was moved to draft by Lugnuts. He explained the reason as nothing has been confirmed. But nothing has also been confirmed about this tour - Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2021-22. But there is already an article about that. Besides, the article which I created was also curated and was found no problem earlier.If the tour was scheduled to take place in next year or later then, it would be WP:TOOSOON. But, September is not too far, only 5 months away. I wanted help by leaving a message on the page mover's talk page. But he neglected my request by deleting my message and saying at edit summary that he took four attempts but couldn't make me right. I just wonder, What's this. Is Wikipedia a place for biting the newcomers. Please anybody help me about this. A.A Prinon (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well here's another one of your creations. When prod'd you moved into in draftspace. Your edits are poor] to say the least. And for someone who's only been a here a couple of months with this account, you do seem to know alot of wiki-lingo.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Why are you finding my mistakes and posting here. To err is human. Making mistakes in editing aren't crimes. As you said, the article 'Anasim Khan' was proposed for deletion and I moved that to draft. This is because the article was not completed creating yet. And so, notifying the user who proposed it for deletion, I moved it to draft so that I can complete creating that one. And another edit which you said about Mohammad Naim. I didn't know earlier that if any batsman hasn't never bowled a delivery, then the deliveries need to be hidden. But when I came to know that deliveries need to be hidden, I edited the article and hide the deliveries. Every editor needs some time to learn the pros and cons of Wikipedia. And I am also trying to learn. You were also once new and then became experienced and proficient in editing. But, I don't understand, why you try to bite me. And you have no right to comment about others' editing quality. My edit may be poor, but I am trying to improve them. It seems that since birth, you were a Wikipedian. A.A Prinon (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Does seem reasonable to move to Draftspace for now. South Africa v South Africa (yep that was intentional) isn't on Cricket Archive yet, so seems the fixtures are tbc. C'mon guys, let's try and have good vibes :)V StickyWicket (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Then why this article - Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2021-22 isn't moved to draft. Because nothing has also been confirmed about this yet. No fixtures are given and when it was created, it was 9 months away. So, why my article can be draftified and that one not. A.A Prinon (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A.A Prinon I've moved that to the draftspace too as nothing on CA regarding fixtures. StickyWicket (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate, Thanks. I have now understood. I won't move them to articlespace until both the tours are finally confirmed. Now, let them be in draftspace. A.A Prinon (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured List at AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If they can AfD this from physical existance, I'll back every AfD going :D StickyWicket (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Contests

Afternoon all. Thought I'd let you all know about the contest page which I've created. Inspired by the WP:MILHIST contest page, the cricket cricket contest page is desgined to motivate increased participation and quality in cricket articles by offering a form of friendly competition for project members making improvements to them.

What are the contests?

There are four contests at present. These are:

• The general article expansion contest, which is a rolling competition designed to motivate people to expand articles ideally beyond B-class standard and aim for as many GA and FA-class standard articles as possible.

• The new article contest which, is a rolling competition designed to motivate people to create quality new cricket-related articles up to B-class standard. Some suggestions for new articles can be found here.

• The photo contest, which is a monthly competition where project members are invited to submit cricket-related photographs. These will be judged by project members and the winning entry will feature in the newsletter, The Leg Stump. A fun way to get out and about with your camera and submit quality cricket photos!

• The cricket quiz. Still (I believe) the largest cricket quiz in the world, it's been somewhat quiet since 2019. Today I submitted a new question to get the ball rolling.

Prizes

In setting up these contests I've also designed various prizes for participants. These can be viewed here.

Contest coordinators

I'm looking for 3 or 4 people to volunteer to help coordinate the contests alongside me (this will help cover if people are busy in RL). This will entail:

• Verifying entries and runs/points awarded to editors for the expansion and new article contests.
• Initiating and managing the voting for the photo competition.
• Awarding prizes to participants.
• General housekeeping, like updating the contest archive logs or resetting the monthly contest tallies, and publishing winners in The Leg Stump.

If you'd like to volunteer, please add your name here.

I look forward to seeing how this does in expanding our coverage. Have fun! StickyWicket (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

New talk header

Hi all. I've been busy over the last week or so trying to improve the layout of the project and make it sleaker and more up-to-date (much like WP:MILHIST). I've created a talkpage header, which will things like FA candidates, GA candidates, peer reviews ect, as I've noticed these requests can get lost in the mountain of info on the main page and go unanswered. So I'm hoping here they'll be more visible. You'll note the redlinked newsletter, that will hopefully become a bluelink next month. I'll see if anyone is willing to contribute to it in the coming weeks. You'll also note the new categories, as yet unpopulated. These are designed to help us with a range of article issues, though the main motivation is having an easy way to locate articles which need additional sources and might otherwise fall victim to AfD.

It's still very much a work in progress (including pages that link from the header) and the main page is still in my sandbox, but I hope to get it all finished in the next few weeks. Anyway, hope you like it :) StickyWicket (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: I like the layout of the project but I do have just a couple of issues.

1. Having a Portal section is ok but the problem here is the fact that the portal doesn't really get used and with the fact that I think their was a discussion about even having Portals now being a factor in the past, it might disappear fully.
2. Why do we have Main Page and then discussion next to it when it's already linked in the infobox. Wouldn't it better to just have the main page only which is basically the same as it's currently be at the moment. So something like what WP:TENNIS has in terms of the potential boxes.
3. If you want to have similar to WP:MILHIST, then get rid of the space on the right hand side might be something to look at.

Other than that it looks good and seems to be more professional as well. HawkAussie (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

HawkAussie. Thanks for the feedback :) Yes I did look at the portal section and the last page edits were in Feb 2020, so that hasn't been updated in a while, and pageviews average out around 30-35 per day. So I wouldn't be overly sad to see it go. I do think the dicussion box stand out more than the talk box at the top of the page, makes it more direct and navigable. I am pondering whether to have a deletion tab up there too, I've tried to incorporate articles for deltion here, but can't seem to get the bot to update the announcements box (then again wikicoding isn't my strong point!). About that space on the right hand side, I've got as far as I can tell the correct wikicode for it do go across the whole page, but it doesn't want to play. Any ideas? StickyWicket (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice work on the revamp! Looks really good and thanks for putting in the time/effort to do it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• AssociateAffiliate Does look much tidier now, however can we get the list of deletion discussions/page moves/redirects for discussion sections back on the main page. Struggling to navigate to find AfDs that have closed and might be in need of redirects being created or new page move discussions up. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Will do Rugbyfan22. Might not be today, but will work on it. It's nearly all done, a few other things have a few teething issues, like getting recent deaths to appear here, but 90% there I think. StickyWicket (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22 are how the notability guidelines coming along? I've got a section on the main page awaiting them! StickyWicket (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really been any progress since the last comments. There seems to be support on the project but not the wider community who think it to be too inclusive still but haven't come up with other suggestions or views on the competitions they believe to be non-notable that are still listed. I believe Blue Square Thing is working on some alternative proposals, certainly around WP:CRIN if they don't pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We can certainly update and improve CRIN and OFFCRIC without wider community input because they're only essays and not guidance as far as I'm aware, and it may be worth doing that to make it more clear and obvious what we deem notable and not notable as it will be easier to vote 'redirect fails NCRIC' on a two appearance cricket board player than having to debate him passing NCRIC as well as GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: there is some work I did at User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox2 on NCRIC - a possibly streamlined version of your proposal and then an "all else fails" version - which basically says that there isn't a guideline so we use WP:SPORTSPERSON and then that we don't define what "a major amateur or professional competition" actually is. In case it is depreciated. I sort of started working on some thoughts for CRIN but didn't get very far - stuff, work etc... I might get back on this at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPORTSPERSON is interesting as it's basically a much more inclusive idea than I've suggested, but there are already guidelines for it in place. I still think we can work on a list and re-writing CRIN though that will gain support on the project. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. My concern was that it seems difficult to get anything through NSPORTS. It's almost a fall-back option in case nothing can be agreed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Once they're all agreed I'll add them to the main page. Still think it's something we should be more concerned about in-house. I don't think those outside the project will ever agree to the guidelines and as they won't hang around to contribute in the future, we shouldn't worry too much about their 'opposition'. StickyWicket (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert Woodman

Hi guys, just seen that an article at Robert Woodman (cricketer) has been created, when an original article on the player already exists at Robert Woodman. Would somebody be able to look at this, and perhaps the user who seems to be making some questionable edits. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The creator is a sock of banned editor Vallabharebel Spike 'em (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Spike, I've A10d the above article and also done the same on Craig Lewis (Irish cricketer) which is the same as above. Looks like all his U19 player creations have been PRODed also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both for help with this. Thought was another WP:CIR editor judging from their page creations, nonsense edits and article hijacks. Their only saving grace is replying to their talkpage ceasing to create the U19 pages. I see Spike has done the hard-yards at WP:SPI - thank you again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this user using copyrighted images too? Surely they're aware of copyrighted images!!! StickyWicket (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. The user has now removed the prods from all the articles. Now at AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrittunjoy Chowdhury
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emannuel Bawa (bundled AfD)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just posted this at WP:ANI about this user. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another mystery!

I know we all love a mystery identity challenge! I've come across G. A. Dawson who played for Gentlemen of the South in 1860 and MCC in 1871; CA reckons he studied at Wadham College and was a master at Christ College, Brecon. I've no idea how they reached that conclusion without a full name - Alumni Oxon. has one Dawson who attended Wadham College, George Henry, in the late 1860s, so even with a middle initial error, it can't be him. Been round the houses with the BNA too. Whoever is up for a challenge, here you go! StickyWicket (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The dates don't quite rule out their being the same person, though admittedly it's unlikely. He could conceivably have played for Gentlemen of the South in his late teens and then not gone up to Oxford until his mid-to-late twenties for some reason. JH (talk page) 15:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

CA also has him playing for Chatham Garrison in 1870 and Civil Service in 1880 - I suspect there's at least two different people possibly getting confused. One of them played most frequently for Breconshire - all the matches in 1868. That's probably the best place to start. Whether the two FC apps were the same chap or not is anyone's guess - although as he seems to have batted at 10 and not bowled, it's almost like he's a handy chap to call in when you need to fill out a team. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The contemporary newspaper reports have a "C. (or C. C.) Dawson/Dowson" playing for GotS in 1860; not seeing anything with "G. A. Dawson" in that match. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I did note a few instances of a G. Dawson playing for Breconshire on BNA, but nothing linking the name to a master at Christ College, or a student at Wadham. I'd bet good money they're two completely different people. Not sure what trail CA were following with his profile! StickyWicket (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring assistance

I seen to have become involved in a revert war (with the same editor) on both Chris Woakes and Babar Azam. Could someone else have a look as I think I'm already over the 3RR limit! Spike 'em (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Obituary help

Hi all. I wonder if anyone can find an obituary for Hugh Robert Edward Harrison, died 19 May 1912 in Folkstone, three days after his 37th birthday. Seems he was in financial hardship in his latter years and had been divorced by his wife three years earlier for "desertion and misconduct" – given his young age and not the best last years of his life, I'm wondering if there was more to his death. If anyone could find an obituary that would be great as I can't seem to find one. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

His death is mentioned in the 17 May 1912 edition of The Times. There's no detail on the manner of death - it mentions that his funeral will occur the following day. Hack (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hack. Seems he remarried in 1909, only for his new wife to die in a fall from a balcony in 1911. The guy really didn't have all that much luck. StickyWicket (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Surprisingly, he doesn't seem to have a Wisden obit, which does make one wonder if he perhaps might have committed suicide. I imagine whatever the local newspaper is/was for Folkestone might be the best place to look. JH (talk page) 08:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Very surprising for an Old Etonian. There wasn't any mention of him by Firth in Cricket Suicides and I can't seem to find anything in any local papers. StickyWicket (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

this article from 1914 might shed some light, if anyone with BNA access could take a look that would be great :) StickyWicket (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There's just a bit about the death of Lord Annesley (Francis Annesley, 6th Earl Annesley, I presume), who married Evelyn Miller (Harrison's ex) in 1909. Nothing about Harrison other than this previous marriage and being the "son of Major Robert Harrison, of Caerhowel, Montgomery". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the announcement in The Times, and records of his funeral/burial, the date of death in our article is certainly wrong since he was buried on 18 May 1912. This (having pieced together some snippets, pp. 237–238) has him dying on a Wednesday, which would be 15 May and ties in with the Court Circular from 16 May. No explanation of his death though, but does mention his estates being sold off, presumably to pay off his debts (but no mention of those either). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. He was literally early to his own funeral going by the CA date! I'll amend the date per the Bye gones source. I think his debt was a gambling debt, from what I could piece together from snippets too. Seems the circumstances surrounding his death will remain a mystery. Thanks again for taking a look. StickyWicket (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the manner of death, the 1912 obituaries in Wisden mention a relatively minor cricketer who shot himself. Maybe there were other reasons. Hack (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

British Universities cricketers

Hi guys, have started to fill in the missing lists of English sides. Created the list for Combined Universities yesterday as was going to start on the British Universities list, but the link on CricketArchive isn't working. Does anyone have a definitive list of players who played for the side, or list of fixtures they played so I can create a list from that. Note this is only for players who played for them as British Universities (i.e. from 1996 onwards). Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's annoying, I used the A–Z on the British Universities CA page when I did all the redlinks, so not sure why they've taken the team page down. When I did them I grouped them together with the Combined Universities team, so not sure on separate numbers for BU and I think a few have been AfD'ed of late. Only way round it would be to check each scorecard for names missing from the team category. StickyWicket (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like ESPN's fixture list does go back that far, but I think I'm just going to have to copy across. I imagine the CA link is just broken and not something they've taken down. I think separate lists are better as players are listed as playing for 'British Universities' or 'Combined Universities' on CA. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The CA link for players does seem to break on the odd occasion. I recall it not working for a day or two when I did a list (might have been for Wellington?), but it did eventually come back to life. Try again at the weekend. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Lugnuts, will give it the weekend and perhaps work on another list in the meantime if I have time. I wasn't planning to do any of the 19th century lists as I think i'd struggle to find all the correct names (i.e. Sir Henry so and so, 4th Battalion) and whether or not they planned in significant matches, but I'll do the missing minor county and cricket board lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of categories

Thanks to "admirably systematic" deletion of articles in given categories, I'm now receiving speedy deletion notices for article categiories. Be proud y'all. This is what you've done to the project. Bobo. 15:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bobo192 contested, I've added some articles to it. StickyWicket (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Viewing this talk page on mobile

Since the switch to the new format, I have problems viewing this page on mobile device, in that I get no table of contents, so have to scroll through the whole page to find the discussion I am interested in. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Frustrating. I couldn't see any code in the previous version which made the page mobile compatible. This page says templates rarely show on the mobile version, so I'd guess it's an area of development that's been neglected a little? There is an app I can see on the Play Store, I wonder if that would work any better? StickyWicket (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Same issue on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket (no table of contents?). Please rectify. Störm (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Neilsen sisters

Somehow the articles for Inger Nielsen and Susanne Neilsen, sisters who played for Denmark, have ended up with different spellings of their last name (and are inconsistent within the articles and even on the DEFAULTSORT). Looks like both pages have actually been moved in the past, in opposite directions: Susanne from Nielsen to Neilsen and Inger from Neilsen to Nielsen. Cricinfo and CricketArchive go with Neilsen for both Inger, Susanne; Inger, Susanne. Just wanted to see if anyone could get to the bottom of this one! Mpk662 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The archive.org captures for the cricinfo pages used on both the Inger and Susanne articles always use Neilsen (from before both articles were created, and remained stable whilst the corresponding page moves were made). Nielsen (surname) claims the name is the most common surname in Denmark, so it is quite possible that the page movers have assumed there was a mis-spelling, but some local coverage may be more useful in telling us whether CI is wrong or not. At present, given the sources in article use Neilsen, I'd be inclined to follow them as per WP:V. Spike 'em (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

One other (unlikely) possibility: that one sister married a man who had almost the same surname but with those two vowels reversed. But a simple spelling mistake somewhere seems a lot more probable. JH (talk page) 17:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I moved Susanne Neilsen in 2016 because that's what all the sources list her name as. My thought would be both people should be Neilson unless multiple sources say that Nielson is correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right their names are Nielsen, as is Vibeke Neilsen, I did try to get it fixed a couple of years ago, but it was beyond my ability. Unfortunately the link to the book that mentions Inger and Susanne has broken now. But I just found all three listed with the correct spelling, on Cricket Europe for the 1999 European Women's Championship. Moedk (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for your inputs, as there are conflicting sources it seems unlikely that we'll get a definitive answer but I think the best thing to do would be at least to pick a spelling and make it all consistent i.e. the two articles don't conflict with each other in title and don't conflict internally (with redirects at the other spelling). Mpk662 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The definitive answer is that they were all three named Nielsen when they played for Denmark. Moedk (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RM discussion started here. I agree they should be consistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Victor Trumper

I just reverted a major edit to Victor Trumper by someone who clearly believes that unreferenced hero worship is acceptable. He's promptly re-reverted it. Any ideas on the best way to proceed from here? JH (talk page) 08:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted again, but he re-reverted me. Has been taken to his talk page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added an edit warring warning to his talk page, so lets see what happens. I cant check all of the figures being claimed, but the one about passing 67 (or equivalent!!!) on 20 occasions when opening is straight out false VT opening (unless 7 is the equivalent of 67!) Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ren185: has left a message on my talk page, though I've asked them to discuss either here or at Talk:Victor Trumper. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The main body of the article could do with some major editing, it currently consists of mainly a list of scores and end of series / season averages with very little context or explanation. If Ren185 would like to add some less effusive explanation in this part, then it would be a good addition to the article. Spike 'em (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of the subheadings for each season and finding some overarching themes would be a good idea. Wally Hammond is a featured article that might be used as the basis for a structure for articles such as this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this older version is far better than the current one, so could perhaps revert back to that as a starting point? Spike 'em (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: - I've rather boldly rolled the cricket section back to there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks a lot better now. A lot of the content is unsourced and features plenty of quotes saying how good VT was, hopefully these should be easy to be sourced somewhere? Spike 'em (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Spike'em, this is a waste of my time.

Better you remain in ignorance. Since you 'can't check all of the figures being claimed', perhaps you should do some research before you 'oversee' the work of a published biographer?

The additions you are making may well be accurate, but if you don't provide a source then we have no way of easily knowing if the information you've provided is accurate. If you are a biographer you should probably know this, and the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide the sources for the information you're providing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Also remember to sign your comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to provide a source for the figures you state, them I will review them. The one that I can check (when you refer to him opening):On 35 occasions, Trumper started the match for Australia and in 20 of these he made at least 67 runs (or the equivalent on a damaged wicket) seems to be completely false. According to cricinfo, he opened 52 times in 32 different matches, and made it to 67 or more 6 times (5 out of 30 in 1st innings and once in 22 innings in second). What on earth do you mean by 67 runs (or the equivalent on a damaged wicket)? I've never heard of a metric that scales scores based on wicket damage, and 67 is a completely random measure of success. As mentioned above, the article is in need of improvement, so if you are able to add to the main body in a way that is worded in a neutral point of view and verified then please do so. Spike 'em (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I found this, which I assume is you and it adds some details to some of the figures you've used. Whilst it does show some of Trumper's undoubted abilities, I think that a lot of the analysis is somewhat arbitrary in the boundaries it uses and how it compares scores on "difficult" wickets to those on "normal" ones. It also seems to mix both Test and first class games for Australia. I would be wary of using these figures in such a way unless you can show that it is an accepted way of doing so, and not just your preferred method. Spike 'em (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ren185: it's not a waste of time, but you need to take as much care with the Wikipedia page as you did with the book. As I've suggested above, look at Wally Hammond. I've no idea if Sarastro1, who essentially wrote the article, is an author or not, but they did a fine job of structuring the article to tell the story. That's what is needed for Trumper. He's important. Many people have written about him. Don't just give us a bunch of statistics that any gnome could dig out from CricketArchive. Tell us why he's important. Maybe start with a style and technique section. But please don't dismiss it as a waste of time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue square thing: I appreciate your constructive feedback. It's a shame others have taken a more belligerent approach. Truth is, I'm not sure how to reference work using Wikipedia so I just avoided this important step - a mistake. When I am sufficiently motivated, I will make another attempt at a pen portrait using the Wally Hammond example you cited as a template (thank you). I am only interested in adjusting this 'portrait' as the chronology that follows is accurate and sufficient (imo). Many of the claims made of Trumper by peers like Noble and Hill lack statistical underpinning. It seems pointless to cite their assertions without providing the statistics to back these up. For example, the oft repeat claim that he was a wonder on sticky wickets (as the current bio contends, without any evidence). Ditto his performances when staging a counter-attack. It's okay to cite authorities and provide overarching themes but weight of numbers is just as important. --Ren185 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ren185 you might find this helpful at The Nets. StickyWicket (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ren185: alternatively just stick something sensible inside <ref>Stuff here</ref> and someone can come along and fix it up - that can be easier (so, Jones "The title of the book", p.23 or something). It's possible that we might need to consider the sort of thing you're looking to achieve here once we see what you mean. You can always use your Sandbox (link at the top of your screen next to Talk) if that helps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ren185: Please note, any statistical analysis must be done by a cited independent reliable source; i.e. it mustn't be your own non-peer reviewed work. See WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR for further on these policies. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And also see WP:SELFCITE. It may be possible for us to use your work as a citation, but it is best to discuss it first so other editors can help decide if it meets the requirements mentioned. I don't think that any direct statistical analysis should appear in the lead as you did yesterday, but it could possibly be added later and mention made of this in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made another attempt at a portrait of which the first draft (below) is nearly complete. Citations have been provided, including those from my publication, The GENIUS. My book has been reviewed by David Frith (The Cricketer), Ken Piesse, who was my editor, (Pavillion and Universal Summer), Geoff Armstrong (Stoke Hill Press), Richard Lawrence (Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians), Matrin Chandler (Cricket web), Ron Reed (retired journalist), Spiro Xavos (retired journalist) and Jeff Centenara (Inside Sport).

David Frith's review can be found here: https://www.wheelers.co.nz/books/9780646995014-genius-victor-trumper-the-the-story-of-the-most-talented-batsman-in-history/?publisher=Renato+Carini

Armstrong's review can be read here: https://www.stokehillpress.com/blog/the-best-australian-sports-books-of-2019 (scroll about 6 paragraphs)

Draft 1:

Victor Thomas Trumper (2 November 1877 – 28 June 1915) [a] was an Australian first-class cricketer who played for New South Wales in a career that lasted from 1895 to 1914. Beginning as a sound and technically correct batsman, he soon developed a taste for aggressive, daring and innovative play, and effectively pioneered an approach to batting that would later be described as ‘artistry’ [1].

Principally an opening batsman, Wisden Cricketers’ Almanac described him as ‘the best and most brilliant of all the great Australian batsmen’ [2]. Many players went further. A succession of Australian captains, including WL Murdoch, G Giffen, GHS Trott, J Darling, H Trumble, MA Noble, C Hill, HL Collins, WW Armstrong, W Bardsley and J Ryder, described him as the greatest batsman of their experience [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].

Trumper was also recognised as an exceptional athlete. In 1900, he threw a cricket ball 113.6 metres to win the Patriotic Sports competition [13]; three years later, he slammed on-drive into the second storey of a boot factory, for an unimpeded carry of approximately 123 metres [14]. The universally admired image of Victor leaping-out for a monster drive, offers another example of a remarkable athlete.

In terms of his legacy, Victor Trumper is a controversial figure and there are two distinct schools of thought. His Test career is unremarkable; 48 matches with 8 centuries and an average of 39, is not the record of a great player. And it is on this basis that he is routinely dismissed as one of the all-time greats. He was omitted from Australia’s ‘team of the century’, and overlooked by ESPN in their choice of the 25 greatest cricketers [15].

On the other hand, there are those who claim that Trumper should not be judged by overall figures, that he is an exception. Assertions have been made about his ‘unselfish character’, team ethos and appetite for adventure and risk-taking. Typical, is the comment by JC Davis, when he likened Trumper with all-rounder, JM Gregory. “He (Gregory) is essentially a great man for a great occasion. In this respect, he resembles Victor Trumper, who did not care a continental whether he made runs or not in many matches. He went in and derived delight from taking risks and plugging the ball in all sorts of ways impossible to other men in ordinary matches. But when his side was up against it, the real fighting Trumper came to light.” [16].

And there is numerical data to support Davis’ claim. How many batsmen make their highest scores exclusively when their team has their backs against the wall? Trumper’s four highest Test scores fit this description (214*, 185*, 166 and 159) [17]. When all of his performances in ‘a crisis’ are considered, a remarkable picture emerges.

230 (vs Victoria in 1901); 185* (vs E in 1903); 63 (vs E in 1907); 166 (vs E in 1908); 159 (vs SAf in 1910) 2 (vs E in 1901); 65 run out (vs E in 1902); 178 (vs S Australia in 1903); 68 (vs Victoria in 1903); 135 (vs S Australia in 1907); and 214* (vs SAf in 1911) [18]. Trumper’s reputation for mastery on wickets damaged by rain (stickies), where peers average under ten, is also grounded in reality. Eight times a rival captain sent Victor ‘in’ on one of these stickies and Trumper responded with:

45 (vs S Australia in 1900); 0 (vs E in 1901); 16 (vs MCC in 1903); 46 (vs MCC in 1903); 58 (vs Derbyshire in 1905); 47 (vs S Australia in 1910); 51 (vs W Australia in 1912); and 25 (vs Victoria in 1912) [19].

In Trumper’s time, England was considered the home of cricket and sentimentally known as the Motherland [20]. Most of the world’s best bowlers competed in the county championship, typically on wickets with a generous covering of grass. Given that matches in England were limited to three days, wickets were expected to fall at regular intervals and 280 was considered a solid first innings total. For a batsman of this era to prove his worth he needed to perform in the Motherland, against the cream of English bowling [20]. Trumper’s performances in England, when operating on the first morning of a match, make for a fascinating list [21].

Good wickets: 104, 101, 70, 113, 1, 104, 2, 0, 77, 85, 36, 108, 92, 86, 133 Damaged wickets: 38, 31, 3, 58

If one defines a successful innings as 70 on a good wicket and 30 on those damaged, Trumper was successful in 74 percent of these first morning performances. To give this context, Don Bradman, in his four tours of England, was successful in 39 percent of his first innings (11 from 28) [22]. For any single tour, the best performance on this metric is CG Macartney with his 60 percent in 1921 (6 from 10).

Add to this Trumper’s scoring rate, which for these innings was somewhere between 85 and 90 runs per 100 balls, and even sober judges can be left spellbound. Consider the following account by Sir Home Gordon, one of England’s most esteemed critics of the era. “At the last MCC dinner to the New Zealanders, WA Hadlee sat between (Percy) Perrin and myself. He asked the Selector whether he did not think Bradman the finest batsman he had ever seen. Perrin replied that, great as Bradman is, he did not consider him the best Australia had produced, for he thought Victor Trumper easily the finest. Immensely surprised, the young visitor turned to me and I unhesitatingly agreed with Perrin.” [23]

Perrin and Gordon’s assessment of Trumper is no isolated event. The opinion of Australian captains from this era has been noted, add to these similar claims from England captains PF Warner, CB Fry, AC MacLaren, FS Jackson and AE Gilligan, and one can understand the ‘second school of thought’, that Victor is an exception [23] [24] [25] [26]. Furthermore, according to statistician Charles Davis, among specialist batsmen, Trumper is the third faster scorer in Test history and the fastest over the first 110 years. [27]

For those willing to contend that Victor Trumper was the most talented batsman in history, there is a compelling case to be made.

In the early days, Trumper was a watchful and technically correct batsman. Like most young players with aspirations to reach the highest level, Victor prioritised ‘weight of runs’. In February of 1898, in a match against South Australia, he made his first half century at this level. Over the next two years, playing for his state and club, Victor produced the following sequence: [28].

Good wickets: 191*, 133, 162*, 34, 37, 15, 113, 292*, 68, 0, 0, 15, 23, 260*, 253, 208, 77, 119, 165, 57, 7 and 118 Damaged wickets: 4, 19, 45

This performance on good wickets, 2450 runs at 129, had set the Australian cricket community agog [29]. Hopes were high that Trumper was about to emulate WG Grace and break record after record., However, canny observers noted a change in attitude since his return from England. Commenting on Victor’s 208 against Queensland, the Herald correspondent noted that “he used to keep the ball well along the ground, he now lifts it, and consequently takes risks. He is now a pronounced hitter” [30]. It presaged the emergence of ‘Trumper the artist’.

As a flair player, Trumper was 70 years ahead of his time. Balls outside off stump would be banged against the leg side fence; sliding towards square leg, full deliveries on leg stump would be thrashed through the off side; to spin bowlers who broke the ball away, he employed a one-two combination. Somewhat prematurely, Trumper would glide down the wicket, sliding right foot behind left in quick succession. If, as expected, the bowler noticed this and held the ball back, Victor would abort the intended drive and, from well down the crease, rock back and cut behind point [31] [32]. Another signature move was a three-ball combination. Here, Trumper would hit the same good length delivery to three different parts of the field [33]. According to MacLaren, Warner and Jackson, setting the field for Trumper was a ‘hopeless business’ [34]. Thus, when a reference is made to ‘Trumper’s artistry’, it is these ideas which are being invoked.

Another defining and related characteristic was a desire to take risks. According to EP Barbour, “The mischievous imp of Trumper’s genius loved to ‘play with the fire;’ it often got him out against bowling which on another occasion he might flay to pieces.” [35]. Should Trumper consider the game ‘safe’, his appetite for risk was remarkable. In the last four Tests of the 1905 series, England decided to sit on their one-nil lead and effectively batted Australia out of each game. For Victor, this was a green light to throw caution to the wind and he launched his last seven innings thus:

Lords: (.2.111) Leeds: (..1…) and (.W) Manchester: (44.3..) and (12.1.4) Oval: (4..W) and (.14.34)

In other words, Trumper scored 41 runs off 36 deliveries, at an average rate for the first over of 6..83.

Statistically, 1905 was a poor series for Trumper but as Richard Lawrence observed, ‘he would often get himself out not by being defeated by the bowler but because of his constant desire to dominate and experiment [36].

[a] New South Wales Rugby League. NSWRL. Retrieved 9 October 2011. [1] Noble, M.A., The Game’s the Thing, Cassell and Co., London, 1926, p164. [2] The Referee, Sydney, February 2, 1916, p12. [3] The Referee, Sydney, June 28, 1915, p1. [4] The Register, Adelaide, June 30, 1915, p7. [5] The Sun, Sydney, December 21, 1913, p11. [6] Darling, D.K., Test Tussles on and off the Field, published by author, 1970, p50. [7] The Chronicle, Adelaide, October 11, 1902, p20. [8] The Sporting Globe, Melbourne, October 27, 1943, p14. [9] The Sporting Globe, Melbourne, October 30, 1937, p8. [10] Evening News, Sydney, January 29, 1913, p2. [11] Fingleton, J.H., Masters of Cricket, The Pavilion Library, London, 1990, p57. [12] The Sporting Globe, Melbourne, November 10, 1943, p13. [13] The Herald, Newcastle, March 31, 1902, p3. [14] https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1026113/charles-davis-on-cricket-s-biggest-sixes [15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Cricket_Board_Team_of_the_Century [16] The Arrow, Sydney, May 6, 1921, p7. [17]. It is actually Trumper’s five highest scores when one considers his 'sticky wicket 74 (out of 122), at Melbourne in 1904, is worth at least double. [18] The first five scores are from the third innings, with his team trailed by at least 100 runs. The next six scores are from the second and fourth innings, when his team was chasing at least 380. Refer: Carini, R., The GENIUS: Victor Trumper, published by author, Sydney, 2019, p109-125. [19] Carini, R., The GENIUS: Victor Trumper, p86-89. [20] Brown, L.H. Victor Trumper and the 1902 Australians, Secker and Warburg, London, 1981, p1-4. [21] All matches in England until the series was decided. ‘Damaged wickets’ are defined as those where Trumper’s six peers were dismissed for less than 90 (combined).

[22] Bradman’s scores in the first innings when in England:

Good wickets: 66, 252*, 32, 38, 334, 14, 58, 0, 37, 65, 244, 258, 58, 278, 2, 143, 104, 12, 59, 56, 81, 146, 187, 98, 11, 54, 38 Damaged wickets: 5,

[23] Gordon, Sir Home Bart, Background of Cricket, Arthur Barker Ltd., London, 1939, p92. [24] The Referee, Sydney, March 15, 1911, p12. [25] The Daily Mercury, Maitland, November 14, 1936, p11. [26] The Times, Bathurst, November 21, 1924, p2. [27] http://www.sportstats.com.au/hotscore.html#fastestadjusted [28] Carini, R., The GENIUS: Victor Trumper, p263. [29] The Referee, Sydney, February 15, 1899, p8. [30] The Herald, Sydney, November 20, 1900, p32. [31] Noble, M.A., The Game’s the Thing, p186. [32] The Register, Adelaide, January 5, 1904, p7. [33] The Glen Innes Examiner, March 2, 1914, p4. [34] The Labor Daily, Sydney, April 11, 1929, p3. [35] The Mail, Sydney, February 27, 1935, p28. [36] The Cricket Statistician, London, summer 2019, issue 186, p48.

Ren185 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this before, but I think it is still too long and has too many stats for the lead of the article. Many of the statements about "damaged wickets" and "successful innings" seem quite arbitrary, and some of them even seem chosen to fit around Trumper's scores. The sections describing how he played would be suitable for a "style and technique" section as suggested by BST above. I'd also suggest copying this all into your sandbox so it can be worked on better there. Spike 'em (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find merit in your observations. The statistics that I provided about 'sticky wickets' and 'successful innings' have been peer reviewed and are clearly enlightening. Just saying they 'seem quite arbitrary' is meaningless without a specific critique. For example, are you suggesting that 70 runs is NOT a successful innings?

Moreover, it is obvious you know very little about the subject.

1) You said that the piece should be 'less effusive' but those of us who have read extensively on Trumper will know that this type of prose is standard when describing him. For example, from Gideon Haigh "No other player, not even Grace, not even Ranji, was exciting responses of such widespread lyricism."

2) You wrote that in my analysis I was 'mixing Test and first class games'. In case you hadn't noticed, these are ALL first class games.

3) You claimed that my statistics regarding his performances when opening for Australia were 'straight out false' and promptly referenced his Test scores. Anyone with a knowledge of Golden Age cricket would understand that most of Trumper's games for Australia were against the English counties.

In Trumper's time, performances against Yorkshire, Surrey, Lancashire and the MCC, were more compelling (particularly to English critics) than those produced in Australia, against weak English teams. Again, those familiar with cricket during this era would know this.

In order to critique my work, you need an understanding of the subject, and unless someone on this platform has the required knowledge, this initiative of mine is pointless. Ren185 (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

So let Haigh (and Cadus and Pardon etc...) talk by quoting them where appropriate. That's what we have to do I'm afraid - NPOV is important here, no matter whether you think Trumper was better than, say, Hutchings on his day... And, yes, getting this into your sandox (link at the top) would be a good idea. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Policies simply do not permit selective use/manipulation of statistics, along with creating novel benchmarks and criteria, in order to push a particular point of view. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

70 seems a successful innings to me, but why have you chosen 70 rather than 50 or 65 or 72? I've never seen another article use this number, so it seems you have picked 80 and e 0 as they fit nicely with Trumper's scores rather than use a recognised benchmark. Most readers when they see mention of performances for Australia will think they are Tests rather than tour games. Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Derek Varnals

Hi. Is anyone able to find any more info about Derek Varnals? He played in three Test matches for South Africa in 1964/65, and until today was showing as being alive. However, Cricket Archive and Cricket Country show him as passing away in September 2019(!) I can't find any obit online, and he's not mentioned in the last two editions of Wisden either. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:. Who knows! I couldn't find anything either. StickyWicket (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sydney papers might be the place to look I suppose - assuming he was living there at the time of his death. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in the Australian media. The only mention of his passing that I could find was a reference to him dying the previous year in a 2020 story about a school reunion in the Cordwalles Old Boys Club magazine.[5] Hack (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for taking a look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Rajkumar Das

Can someone who knows Indian cricket take a look at this article, please? Is this the same person as has been deleted at Raj Kumar Das? If so, this stub should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What was the topic of the deleted Raj Kumar Das? If the deleted article is of the director they're different people. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Rugbyfan22 I think it was the director, in which case the article should stay, but any cross-redirect should be deleted. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there's almost a 20 year DoB difference between them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alan Burridge

Hi guys, while creating some minor counties list today I came across this player, Alan Burridge, who's article is completely unsourced (not even to database sources). Looks like he was at one point but everything was deleted for some reason. He had a reasonable career playing 30 odd LA matches, for Durham and minor counties and the one line of his article suggests he was an administrator somewhere. Could someone take a look please if they get the chance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added a brief synopsis based solely on CricketArchive. Will take another look when I get time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wjemather, I'm going to add an infobox now as I've got a bit of time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder why he doesn't include his time at Middlesex on his LinkedIn; I've not found anything on the specifics of his resignation yet, although The Times hints at player registration issues. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, but then again he's in his 80s now so fair play to him for knowing how to use LinkedIn in the first place. There's a category suggesting he was a footballer for/from Sunderland, do we know anything on that? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Rachael Heyhoe Flint, Baroness Heyhoe-Flint

Shall we change the title to just Rachael Heyhoe Flint ? We don't have "Colin Cowdrey, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge" or "Learie Constantine, Baron Constantine". Tintin 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It was moved by someone who is banned as a sockpuppet now (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachael_Heyhoe_Flint%2C_Baroness_Heyhoe-Flint&type=revision&diff=600540844&oldid=596492548 ) Perhaps an admin can delete Rachael Heyhoe Flint and move this there ? Tintin 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If no-one objects in the next 24-36 hrs, I'm happy to revert, as this was an undiscussed move. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts. Liz moved Baroness page to Rachael Heyhoe Flint this morning. Tintin 10:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

George Wilder (cricketer)

Hi all. I'll be expanding this article shortly, I'm just wondering what he was doing in Las Vegas in 1948 when he died, and what killed him? BNA doesn't offer any clues, but if seems in his younger days he liked to speed often and was up before magistrates in Worthing numerous times. Does anyone have access to US newspaper archives who can see if there's any mention of his passing in June 1948, so I'm wondering if he might have died in a car accident. Cheers in advance. StickyWicket (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Really annoyingly the Las Vegas Age is digitised until 1947. There are some possible Nevada archives, but initial searches aren't promising if I'm honest. Iirc there are books on Hants cricketers - @Rugbyfan22:?? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have a Wisden obituary. Perhaps he was a permanent US resident by then, which might account for his death not being noticed? JH (talk page) 08:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't find anything from Hampshire's historian. A google search shows that a George Wilder was a land owner in Sussex (near Chichester) at the time of his career, and he sold up (potentially to move to the US), so perhaps he purchased land in Las Vegas, but I can't really see anything else. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

His death certificate from Las Vegas states that he had been resident in the US for three years, and in Las Vegas for only two. His profession is said to be "None" and he had served in the Royal Navy, but no dates are given. His birthdate is given on the certificate as 9 June 1875, not 1876. His wife's name was Nina. The body was going to be taken to San Bernardino in California. Stanstead House (the second "a" seems to be optional) burned down in 1900 and was rebuilt in 1903. It was sold in 1924 to the Earls of Bessborough. Johnlp (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

He was the owner of Stansted Park and oversaw its reconstruction following a serious fire in 1900 and in 1912 he was involved in a high profile divorce, selling it in the same year to a Major Cecil Whittaker, who sold it to the Earls of Bessborough in 1924. Cricket wise, he was on the Sussex committee from 1901 to 1905. Stansted Park is a 20 minute walk from my house, so I'll take a walk to the chapel where his ashes are inturned to see if there's anymore information on him there (on the off chance!). I have noticed in the 30s and 40s there is a George Wilder performing what seems to be comedy shows in Vegas, maybe this is the same guy? Anyhow, thanks for looking! StickyWicket (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnlp:. Thanks for that, seems that the Wilder performing in Vegas probably isn't the same guy then. StickyWicket (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a report in The Times on 8 March 1912 concerning a court case in which Wilder's ex-wife Una was charged with sending him a letter in which she threatened to murder him. Johnlp (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing the same in the NYT in May 1912, Una was a native of Brooklyn. Seems he lived a rather interesting life. I'm seeing a few Gazette mentions during WWI of a George Wilder in the RNVR, but can't be sure it's him because he's one of those helpful ones with no middle name!!! StickyWicket (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

100+ IPL matches

Hi. For info/further input: I've flagged up a couple of questions about this list on the article's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

CfD

Hi all, please see this CfD for Category:Bangladesh under-19 cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

IP edits

Hi. For info, there's a known issue with IP edits no longer showing on the watchlist. Best guess is that it went wrong approx. mid-morning yesterday (9th May) UK time. The temp. fix is to untick the "my edits" box on the hide row on your watchlist. Obviously that might flood your own watchlist with your own edits, but at least you can see any sneaky IP vandalism that might have slipped through. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of international cricketers and appearances

Further to the above, we appear to have:

• List of cricketers who have played 100 Tests - which is quite long, but is a relatively well established milestone;
• List of cricketers who have played 200 ODIs - which is about as long;
• List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is - which is longer and misses out a tonne of women players who have made the same number of appearances

Aside from the naming issues, I can't quite work out why 200 ODIs and, certainly, why 50 T20Is. Do we need these lists at all? Can't this be covered in the relevant records list - although I'm hesitant to add anything to the behemoth of Original Research and StatsAttack which is List of Twenty20 International records? If we do, is 100/200/50 right? 50 in particular I find an odd number, given that there are maybe 20 players with over 100 (mostly women fwiw). Appreciate any thoughts before I go to the individual articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Yeah we definitely don't need the T20I list, that's going to become huge over the next few years. StickyWicket (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment maybe T20 one should be 100 as well, that would cut it down significantly. Joseph2302 (talk)

• In the short term, certainly. It would cut it to six men and 17 women. But it'll grow - there are 266 men and 44 women who have played 100 ODIs - so we wouldn't want that list. So what is actually notable these days? 200 seems to be arbitrary to reduce the size of the list (83 men; there's also a single woman who needs adding) - is that acceptable? Or might it be better to have the top five listed in the relevant records list? Or do we go for a List of cricketers who have played the most One Day Internationals? And cap that list at, say, 25 men and 25 women? I honestly don't know whether the ODI or T20I list are notable - perhaps with each at 100 as that seems like the only really notable boundary figure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

For the T20I list, the top five are listed on the individual team record page (examples: Ireland, New Zealand). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Given how the lists will inevitably expand, moving to "List of cricketers who have played the most Tests/ODIs/T20s" and limiting to the top-20/top-25/top-50 for men/women may be the way forward. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Wjemather for T20I’s and ODI’s, though I would keep the Test list as it is. Slightly of topic but loosely related I was surprised we don’t have List of cricketers with centuries in all 3 formats. There are a few outdated sources 1 2 alongside the usual databases. Thoughts. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Would the same best fit the IPL list, above, or a more radical solution of deletion? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would delete the IPL one or set it as 200 games. There's 14-17 IPL matches a season (depending on if a team makes the playoffs), and so players would only need to play in 6-7 seasons to meet this threshold. Therefore, the threshold is too low, and now evidence that 100 games is a "significant achievement" or that the article therefore passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Personally I am not in favour of the IPL list. Mainly because I think that if that list stays, what’s to stop BBL list or a CPL list, dare I say it in a few years even a 100 list. These T20 leagues are roughly equal to domestic cricket (and although it would be interesting we don’t have a country championship list) which is why I think these lists should just be for international cricket. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The IPL list of 100+ matches is now at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Tim Seifert

Hi. Does anyone else think that the health section on Tim Seifert's article is WP:UNDUE and not needed? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the section - which was a recentism/not news disaster area - and summarised in a sentence in the main bit. Whether or not that's even needed is another question - for now, maybe, but in six months time I think it could be removed. Having it there will stop the children adding it at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

you may be letting yourselves in for an edit war based on previous history!Spike 'em (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks both. I could understand it if it was a national captain who was ruled out of a series due to COVID. Maybe we should be adding massive paragraphs of when someone splits the webbing in the hand when taking a catch. Important to note! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit silly really. COVID for a sportsman is no big deal, so we shouldn't be having sections in the majority of articles for when someone gets it, otherwise we become the medical history encyclopedia of so-and-so! StickyWicket (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@StickyWicket tell that to Marco Rossi, he hasn't play a game since he was tested positiv late 2020. --Moedk (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For that one example I can think of dozens of Premier League footballers and first-class cricketers who have had it, recovered within a week or so, and played in the latest round of matches in that sport. So yes, for most sportsman it's not big deal and unless it has a direct impact on their career shouldn't be included in articles along the line of "John Smith caught COVID, recovered" – thats puffery and adds little of value to the article. StickyWicket (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Potential way forward for NCRIC

Hi guys, many of you will be aware there's a discussion going on at NSPORT over SNG and changing them. Cricket has been mentioned a lot, and as with previous discussions it seems that many feel it needs updating, although there's never been any real consensus on what to change. One potential idea I had was to create a list of notable domestic competitions that playing one game in would likely lead to presumed notability (the presumption that the article would pass GNG). The current list at WP:OFFCRIC (which is not clear and difficult to find) just lists all current FC/List-A/T20 competitions and some but not all historic competitions. This would be similar to what football and rugby union use for domestic notability then. I have started a potential list here with the competitions I feel would lead to presume notability (it is no way near final and likely needs tidying up).

The two real questions I want to ask are. 1.) Is this change to NCRIC something those on the project would be willing to accept to help try and improve NCRIC which many feel to be too inclusive (as shown by AfD nominations)? and 2.) How do people feel about the list I've created and what competitions need to be added/removed and what dates from when presumed notability begins/ends need changing?

Those are the only two things I'm interested in here. It's not to discuss any other potential options, just this one, or not changing anything at all or just general discussion. This only related to Male domestic cricket also, with no potential changes here to NCRIC on International or Women's cricket. I also appreciate there's been a lot of tension on the project and lots of things have been discussed recently, but from reading discussions there is the genuine threat that the cricket SNG may be removed entirely until something acceptable can be created. Thanks guys. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I tend to try to avoid these discussions (too much stress at times), but I would suggest that the first-class tournaments in each Full Member's domestic structure should be included, so that would mean:

Sri Lanka Premier Trophy (from 1988-89)

India Irani Cup (in addition to the Ranji Trophy)

Zimbabwe Logan Cup (from 1993-94)

Bangladesh National Cricket League (from 2000-21)

Ireland Inter-Provincial Championship (from 2016)

Afghanistan Ahmad Shah Abdali 4-day Tournament (from 2017-18)

And then also the main List A and T20 tournaments in each of these countries (happy to do you list if you like). Bs1jac (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I was unsure on what to do with Ireland and Zimbabwe as I haven't come across/researched many domestic only Irish and Zimbabwe players. In terms of Sri Lankan's almost every one that's gone to AfD has been deleted as coverage has been difficult to find. Whether that's a historic player issue and not a current player issue I'm not sure. Not sure either about the Afghani FC tournament. Irani Cup I'd be happy to re-add, I'll look into the coverage for it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Got you. All of these events are worthy of coverage, but whether that means the players involved should be presumed notable is above me! Have you considered the CSA Provincial Competitions by the way? i.e. those for provincial teams that used to be the top level in SA before the franchises arrived. They are still FC/LA/T20 status. Bs1jac (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked through all of them before deciding. In terms of the CSA Provincial competitions I'm not sure how much coverage those playing in it get. They seem like the 2nd level of domestic competition in SA. Would someone playing one game for KwaZulu-Natal Inland against Gauteng gain enough coverage to be notable, I'm not sure. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you there. Again, I was coming from the angle of the tournaments themselves being notable (which they are, as are several others possibly including some that don't have FC/LA/T20), but I realise we are talking about presumed notability of the players here . Bs1jac (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there's no issue over the presumed notability of the tournaments, but NCRIC allows creation of an article for any player who's played FC/List-A/T20 cricket pretty much, which some users (admittedly not from the project, but from other areas) don't like due to stub creation and other issues. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created articles for every Irish first-class cricketer (give or take one or two obscure ones I'm sure to come across), so a fair chunk will have plenty of sources. The Irish Interpro is covered by RTE, BBC, Cricket Ireland ect, though disappointly Cricinfo can't seem to be bothered to cover it (: I've always tended to stick to creating articles on players from the 10 full members, then 12 when Afg and Ire were elevated. StickyWicket (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks StickyWicket, I remember seeing reasonable coverage of the Irish T20 league but wasn't sure whether that coverage filtered down to specific players. Would you say there's likely presumed notability for FC, List-A and T20 cricketers. I suppose they've only been officially classed since 2017 so there will likely be good internet coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of Member nations, we've seen the struggles at finding coverage for Sri Lankans, so I'd imagine it'd be similar for Afghani, Bangladeshi, and possibly Zimbabwean players, especially in the let's say less covered FC and List A comps. Happy to be told wrong on this though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say there is reasonable coverage, and that will soon expand with Munster Reds being added to the List A competition, so more exposure for them. An Cricket Ireland are ensuring the best 48 players across Ireland get regular matches with the four domestic teams, so coverage will increase. We've always struggled with Asian coverage, mostly finding sources in their native languages. That and attracting editors from the subcontinent. Off the top of my head I know of only User:CreativeNorth (Pakistani, who should come back as he was an excellent editor) and User:Gihan Jayaweera (Sri Lankan and also a good editor). StickyWicket (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The big issue is like they have said, sources are a struggle for those type of pages where we can't access it. Basically these type of pages (South Africa, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe) doesn't really have an website for their papers from back in the 60s or 70s compared to something like Australia or England. If they do, then it might be under subscription which is a pain in itself. HawkAussie (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

These were my views as well, coverage may well exist for these players, but we can't find it, and others will use that as an excuse for saying coverage doesn't exist at all, and we have no real rebuttal for that. I'm happy to add the Irish competitions to my list though, but don't think we should add the other nations competitions as those at NSPORTS will likely disapprove of it, unless one of the two editors you've mentioned can come up with a good location for finding significant coverage sources for them. How do people feel about some of the dates for the comps as well? There's been a few late 1800s early 1900s County Championship players at AfD and we've been struggling for them as well. Maybe it should be County Championship (1918–onwards). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also interested to hear the views of the other main page creators in @Bobo192:, @Johnlp: and @Lugnuts:. Those who create the pages should have the biggest say really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

THanks for the work/ping RF22. Did you know about this page that I started last summer, which has the same goal of trying to list at the FC/LA/T20 domestic tournaments? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, Yes that's where I sources the main information on tournaments. Obviously I have filtered some out that would likely not bring presumed notability, and added some missing historic tournaments that would bring presumed notability to players. My plan was also to integrate this list into the guidelines more if people approve of a change like this, but we'll get to that later. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not around until much later today, perhaps tomorrow, and will add my views then. Johnlp (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Will respond when I am more alert. Just reminding myself to do so. Bobo. 10:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll try and leave this open as long as possible/until we have a good consensus to get as many views as possible from the people it's important too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at something similar what I proposed, though I'm less certain on the 10 FC/LA/T20 or combination of minimum after players who had more appearances than 10 were still being nominated, so kinda lost my goodwill on that. But there it was again:

• International cricketers: Test, ODI and T20I cricketers are automatically notable - including T20I players from associate nations, as an international sportsman is an international sportsman! International cricket also includes international cricket not afforded the aforementioned statuses, but instead first-class, List A, or T20 status (i.e. Intercontinental Cup, World Cricket League). The same for women's cricket too.

• Domestic cricket: players in domestic cricket are only notable if playing in any competition which holds FC/LA/T20 status in any of the 12 full member nations of the ICC. Players in events such as the Everest Premier League, or Global T20 Canada do not qualify for inclusion. Cricketers with over 10? appearances in total across any format(s) are automatically notable. Cricketers below this threshold are included on a case-by-case basis where appropriate sources can be found to indicate wider notability outside of cricket, for example Milo Talbot (British Army officer). If sources can't be found for one appearance John Smith, redirect him to a list. The same for women's domestic cricket too.

• Umpires: Umpires who have stood in an international cricket match are automatically notable (and you can assume have a lengthy domestic standing to have reached international level). Those who have not stood at international level, and are not former players qualifying them under the above domestic cricket section are done on a case-by-case basis also. For example, Ron Lay never played at first-class level, but did umpire in FC/LA cricket on 316 occasions between 1953–1968 – he is therefore notable in that respect.

• Teams: very much dependent on what coverage can be found, especially for historial teams. Personal elevens that appeared a handful of times should be redirects to the person they were named for (99% of the time those people are notable in their own right, irrespective of their CRIN notability). Any teams that are lacking sources should be redirected to a list of teams for that particular country, like List of historically significant English cricket teams.

• Stadia: grounds which have hosted men's/women's international cricket automatically notable. Grounds in domestic cricket included based on how many FC/LA/T20 matches have been held, again I'd argue over 10 makes those grounds likely notable in their own right. Below that, additional coverage required for sure, failing that, redirect to a list of grounds in said country, or of said team.

To be honest, sources for many domestic cricketers pre-WW2 aren't that hard to source. My first-class military cricketers project has guys who made a handful of FC appearances, yet they're covered by multiple books, are gazetted in the London Gazette, have obituaries published in newspapers and Wisden. Plenty of ways to source them. StickyWicket (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On a side note about lists, when redirecting to lists, I find the bog standard names only lists boring and of limited use to readers. If we are to aim to become the best resource for cricket on the internet, any lists of teams should contain that teams statistical history, sortable by player, like with List of Bermuda ODI cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad you like the lists btw. Bs1jac (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I noted your suggestion ahead of suggested what I've suggested, and in terms of specific competitions they're not far different from what I've suggested., albeit with the removal of some competitions that we're seeing are not great for presuming notability. The only issue I have with setting a specific bar of number of matches is that in many cases it wont be great at presuming notability. Someone making their County Championship debut this year for example will likely have significant coverage of their junior career and perhaps even U19 appearances, but under guidelines wouldn't be notable until they have 10 appearances (yes they'd pass GNG but I'm talking about presumed notability, and one match for someone at that level would bring presumed notability) and the same would likely occur to anyone playing in one of the big T20 franchise tournaments. Also as we've seen at some AfDs 10 appearances in the Quaid-e-Azam isn't enough to stop articles being deleted as has occurred in at least 2 maybe 3 discussions I can remember. I do agree that perhaps women's cricket could be expanded on the official list. One user recently (I can't remember exactly who) has created towards 20 English Women's domestic cricketers (who wouldn't pass current guidelines but look like they pass GNG) and has been commended for that, maybe the English domestic women's comps should be added to the list. In terms of the lists I totally agree with you, but would take a lot of hard work from the project to do. I try and maintain the Hampshire ones (FC, List-A, T20 and International) and they're all up to date, but it does take a good while to update them, and I note that the majority of other counties don't have lists like this, and just lists of players that likely aren't complete. But if there's enough on here willing to do it, certainly it can be done. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point, I've seen someone on the NSPORT discussion taking aim at Test cricketers. The nomination of players who made 10+ appearances when the nominator agreed 10 was sufficient, then went against that, is disheartening. My 10+ appearances idea was more of an olive branch, not nah, withdrawn now. It's good to see women's cricket being expanded. I'd support adding the women's domestic games to the list (though if we can find a way to quietly dump that Hundred shite, that would be great!!!). I'm going to be on a clinical placement in the back-o-beyond in a few weeks, so I won't have much to do of an evening, so can make a start on some lists then. StickyWicket (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's got a bit vitriolic over there now, it's basically become those who don't like them versus those who create/edit sports articles. If there's continuing support for these plans I'm happy to take them further and add more women's domestic cricket to them (perhaps the RHF trophy and maybe the female IPL and other female franchise tournaments to it). In terms of the lists I note that only a few of the county sides have lists like the one you've mentioned. Does CA or CI have an ordered list on who played when to make creating these lists easier, or is it more just like putting a jigsaw together from the alphabetical lists? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It has indeed. The most recent proposal is outlandish, particularly the part where it is suggested to start banning people. No way! It could be the best proposal in history, but with that in it I'm opposed out of principle. I think it just goes to show we're best running things in house. We didn't have an issue before all this. That sounds like a good idea, it would be nice to bring the women's inclusion guidelines on par with the men's. Unfortuantely CA and CI don't have any lists like that, so it's more a painstaking jigsaw to put together. It's a bit like List of Irish first-class cricketers I put together, painstaking, frustrating and still not correctly formatted!!! As a starting point, I'd likely make a start on lists for teams with <50 players. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that really concerned me, the proposal in itself isn't too bad, but adding about banning people is almost turning it to something you'd expect in a facist regime and not Wikipedia. That's annoying and I'd agree with starting with the smaller teams as it'll be easier. I noticed recently that the Hampshire list I edit the current player cap numbers are about 100 players out (listing in late 600s early 700s for current players whereas in fact they are late 500s currently) so god knows what's happened there. Maybe only players after they regained first-class status have cap numbers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It really did come across as very totalitarian in nature. How to makes friends and influence people! Then again, a few days ago the proposer was calling for an article up for AfD to be deleted under G5 because it was created by a user who was banned sometime ago (circumventing the AfD, which at the time was keep), so I don't really expect anything better from that user if I'm honest. StickyWicket (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think people are starting to become facetious just to spite other users with different views. Everyday this week we've had a new deletion close discussion on cricketers for a minor issues such as an article only be 'redirected' and not 'deleted and redirected' or because the closer had a different opinion to his. If people want to actually get something to change I think we're probably further away than when the discussions started. Hopefully my suggestions here are sort of a step forward for cricket though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've figured out the Hampshire list! I created that back in 2010 and somewhere I have a draft hanging about for pre-1864 players, so that'll be where the discrepancy comes from. I'm obviously easily distracted! I think we're further away than ever from a solution. I'll have to take a look at those discussions you mentioned, I missed those. I think your a big help to this project, so thanks for all your work. StickyWicket (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Hampshire list was originally in 4 sections if I remember correctly: 1864–1885, 1895–1918 (I think), 1918–1970 (I think) and 1970–present (again, I think). I combined them as I thought this was strange, and have updated each season since the merging. It's only recently I noticed the discrepancy in the caps (not that it's a big issue as the page doesn't state there official cap numbers). Thanks, I feel its most important that the creators have the biggest say in discussions (although I see Lugnuts has stepped away today (I hope he's alright as his talk page is concerning)) and although my creations in other sports tend to have other sources than statistical ones they tend to mainly be stubs (and my cricket creations in the past were all stubs). I just feel it's better to come to a solution that the majority who edit cricket articles regularly are reasonably happy with than being given something or told to do something they've not had a big say in. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Blimey, 11 years ago I made that. I think I split it because it was the done thing back then for large lists and I do recall my laptop at the time lagging! That is concerning what Lugnuts has put, so to be on the safe side I have emailed User:Emergency. I think it's important those most involved with projects have the final say, I'm not much of a fan of outside interference in the project - it never seems to solve anything and just creates a shitshow. My creations used to be very stubby, but they're more niche these days like cricketers who died in war, or MCC members who had interesting backstories. But from stubs we can grow to make good articles. My original creation of John Manners was a bit naff and now he's a GA and hoping for FA at some point. StickyWicket (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My view will always be that if you build them someone will add to them. Lots of my rugby stubs are picked up by specific editors who follow a certain team who will then add information and update them along the way. Some will obviously not get picked up but that doesn't mean they're not as valuable/notable as those that have. A lot of the time I find sports articles are just filled with trivial information and fancruft, such as our favourite baseball FA recently, and quite often that can be the difference between it being a stub or a C class article, despite them being of about the same quality in terms of GNG and a specific SNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Storm has suggested some differing dates for presumed notability for the Pakistani Quaid-e-Azam cup (been updated on the list). How do people feel about them? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd need to analyse (hopefully I'll get time later), but seems a bit random (which sums up Pakistan domestic cricket!). Also need to add the Patron's Trophy (some years) and Pentangular Trophy (most, if not all, years). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently they were the years when the competition had 8 teams or less, but I'm concerned about some of the earlier dates and finding notability for players from those years. It's the country that's confused me most so get back to me with your views as I really am not sure on any of the Pakistani competitions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the PCB were as equally confused!!! Still, makes for a good quiz question: Which Pakistani airline which is currently banned from flying in the US and Europe once had a first-class cricket team? :D StickyWicket (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I should have a mostly free day tomorrow, so will see what I can do. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot for your help. There aren't many examples of Pakistani cricketers that have been kept to go off to try and work out if there's an period/tournament/teams that gets notability apart from more recent cricketers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not getting very far with finding a reasonable benchmark. The incessant restructuring almost makes it a season-by-season exercise at times, and it just doesn't appear that individual cricketers have been afforded coverage to anything like the level of players in England/Australia/New Zealand, for which we have the most easily accessible information. As such, it's likely that even players with dozens of appearances will not meet GNG.

Anyway. FC was almost all knockout until 1979/80, so few players outside the most successful teams would accumulate appearances (and likely coverage) during this era. After that, competitions were often flooded with lesser teams and a lesser players; e.g. there were almost 40 teams in the Patron's Trophy in 1986/87 & 1987/88. Descriptions such as "minnows" or "no better than club cricketers" are common. It's the same story with the List A competitions since the late 1990s.

I'm just not seeing a way of structuring a usable appearance-based guideline based on competitions for Pakistan domestic cricket, other than perhaps the Pentangular Trophy, which was contested irregularly but generally involved only the top teams or provincial sides (as the QeAT has been since the 2019 restructuring) when it was held. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. I think I'll go with the three 6 team reformed competitions from 2019 as presumed notable and and add the Pentagular Trophy to the list. Some other players may be notable but they can still have articles under GNG rules anyway so I think it's best to keep it simple for the reader instead of having just random tournaments that were, and random tournaments that weren't. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Any other views on the rest of the list Wjemather? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Basic purpose of WP:NCRIC (in my view) was and is to protect deletion of pre-internet era cricket articles for which we can't find coverage but it exists (for example, south asian countries where newspapers archives are almost non-existant). So my point was to fine tune previous seasons to recent seasons where we agree that less teams mean more chances of meeting WP:GNG. Whatever we do here should be across the board (if we want to omit QeA trophy's all seasons except recent ones then we have to do the same to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Carribean, India, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, or any other country where finding coverage for pre-internet era cricketers is hard, for them cricketarchive is a good source to support the article for time being). Störm (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If you really think that the presence and formulation of a guideline is to prevent deletion rather than foster creation, that's a very negative view of a project, and one that I would hope no long-term members would want to prescribe to. But I'll point once more towards the Related Changes pages and say that there is so little work going on in terms of article creation that it really doesn't matter. Bobo. 02:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If I nominate a Pakistani bio with even 20 matches then it will get deleted because no will be able to find the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. To save such articles, we need fine tuned WP:NCRIC with WP:GNG so people accept worthiness of WP:NCRIC. Most people nowadays don't care about our bright line because everyone knows it is broken. And, if in current climate, if anyone will RfC for removal of this brightline clause then they can easily find consensus for removal. As AssociateAffiliate has said it is better to fix our issues in-house. Störm (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Storm's first view is pretty much correct, although a bit specific to pre-internet era players. It's as much a guideline to help the creation of articles as it helps a creator know what he can create on and what not to create on, but as the guideline says I something is created that can't be proved to be notable it may be deleted or merged. In terms of removing SA, Zimbabwe and the West Indies these three countries have the added benefit of English being the main/one of the major spoken languages in their countries, so there would likely be sources in English, which are easier to find than sources in Urdu or similar or languages that uses a different alphabetical style to English. My suggestions certainly need fine tuning and I thank Wjemather who is currently helping on the Pakistani notability side of things. Obviously we want as much creation as possible to happen, but you have to remember that a lot of creators will only want to create topics on current players, who because of Lugnuts tireless work basically all exist. There's not been many male English cricketers created because the season hasn't started yet and all the current players who are notable have articles already. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22's proposal seems a bit too long to be an SNG, but I think it's still an improvement. My thought was one Test/ODI or select "top" domestic match (Indian Premier League / post-1963 English County Championship), or any 10 first-class/List A/other top-level domestic T20 matches. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My proposal is actually makes no change to the length of the cricket SNG at WP:NCRIC, just changes the wording. It changes the document at WP:OFFCRIC to better list notable competitions and better align to presumed notability, and edits WP:CRIN which is a complete mess and really needs a rewrite. In terms of your proposals a lot of amateur plays still had notability even if it was under 10 matches, and some players that have played 10 matches in certain competitions are still not notable. We'd have to decided what top domestic competitions are, and the likely list would still end up similar to the one I've suggested I'd imagine. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that WP:OFFCRIC was previously not important to the SNG, and under your proposal it would be. Other than that, I agree; there's a reason I'm not making my own proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OFFCRIC has existed for a while and is linked to the notability guidelines on the home page of the WikiProject. It lists all the competitions that have been played at the highest international or domestic level as noted in the first bullet of WP:NCRIC. It's always been an aide to NCRIC since it's inception and I still intend it too be, but just make it clearer it exists as currently it's slightly hidden and not easily accessible unless you go through the project. It's similar to the list of professional leagues as used by the Football WikiProject at WP:FPL which is linked in a similar way that I intend OFFCRIC to be linked. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific competitions discussion

Thought I'd split the heading so discussion on the competitions list I've suggested (here) can be better discussed, as people seem to have differing views on what should and shouldn't be included. The original list is at WP:OFFCRIC so you can see what's already been removed. Discussion on associate nation T20I can also be done here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • Competitions we're certain bring presumed notability: Tests, ODI, T20I between full member nations, County Championship + Bob Willis Trophy, Sheffield Shield, the various England and Wales List-A comps in matches between first-class counties, Afghanistan Premier League (APL), Big Bash and Big Bash League, Bangladesh Premier League (BPL), T20 Blast, IPL, Super Smash, Pakistan Super League (PSL), Mzansi Super League (MSL), Sri Lanka Premier League, Lanka Premier League, Stanford 20/20, Caribbean T20, Caribbean Premier League (CPL), Champions League Twenty20.

• • Competitions that may bring presumed notability, but may need more discussion: Others listed here, T20Is between associate nations, World Cricket League

• • Competitions we don't believe to bring presumed notability: Afghanistan FC comps, Bangladeshi FC comps, Dunleep Trophy (IND) , Quaid-e-Azam before restructure and Patron's trophy (PAK) , Howa Bowl (SA) , SA 3day cup, Premier Trophy (Sri Lanka) , Inter-colonial comp (WI), Zimbabwe FC comp, UK universities matches, Afghanistan List-A comps, Bangladeshi List-A comps, English minor counties list-a matches or matches against a minor counties/cricket board side, Vijay Hazare trophy (IND), Most Pakistani List-A comps (as not listed), CSA one day cup (SA), Zimbabwe List-A comps, Dhaka premier division T20s (Bangladesh), Syed Mushtaq ali trophy (IND), Super 8 T20 (PAK) + T20s before National T20 cup reform, CSA Provincial T20 comp (SA), Africa T20 cup (SA), SLC Super Provincial T20 + SLC Twenty20 tournament (Sri Lanka), Zimbabwe T20s.

Hope this helps clear it up a bit. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this section in - I was searching for the list myself! I'm not 100% sold on the inclusion of the Irish competitions. The competitions themselves are clearly notable, I'm just not sure that I would like to say for sure that every player who plays in them is going to be (as an example, Michael Gilmour seems difficult to track much down on - certainly compared to someone like Hugh Bernard who played the same number of matches at a similar time). Some, certainly - but I think I'd rather go to GNG on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

StickyWicket said that the coverage of Irish cricket was good, and given he's created a lot of the articles on it, I've trusted him on adding to my list. Happy to see other views though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Understand the point, but someone like Jamie Magowan seems marginal at best. Would that survive at AfD based on the sources found with a search for Jamie Magowan cricket? It just seems the sketchiest of them - if this was a player from a 1906 Championship side I'd be less worried if I found this much, but it's a 2017 debut player where we'd hope for more I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the Irish FC/List-A/T20 comps as I was undecided on them when doing the list. The better players in the comp, who will likely get better coverage, are probably all internationals anyway, given its only a 4 team comp. Any others with coverage would still be notable under GNG. I'd like to know what StickyWicket says again though as it may only be the tournament that's notable not the players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd be happier with that - it seems the odd one out amongst the list (and would be an obvious way of attacking the guideline imo). As you say, we have the GNG fall back to rely on in any case and if coverage increases in quality then we can add it later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: How do you feel about this? Is the coverage on the players good enough for presumed notability, or is it best if it's left off for them, and then discussed again in the future if the coverage of the players continues to grow. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion - add Bangladesh Cricket League to the list (a four-team first-class tournament comprising the best-performing players from the eight-team National Cricket League). Störm (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Störm, Have moved it here so it's easier to discuss specific competitions and people can find discussions more clearly, I know very little about Bangladeshi cricket, but a four team tournament may lead to good notability for the players, do you have any examples of players who've only played in the Bangladesh Cricket League and what the notability of them looks like. Obviously the guidelines are not always about performance (although better performance could lead to better notability) but the presumed notability of players. For Sri Lanka for example we weren't finding any sources on any FC only players no matter how good they were. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Aren't we in danger here of creating our own two-tier set of competitions? Including the four-team Bangladesh F/C competition, but not the Zimbabwe four/five-team equivalent, for example? Doesn't this enforce WP:BIAS? Also, and probably an oversight, but there's no mention of the FC/LA comps for New Zealand or the West Indies. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's one reason why I don't think the Bangladeshi comp should be included. I'm not sure there is enough coverage for it anyway. The FC/List-A comps for NZ and WI are both listed on my potential list and I think they should be included, but a couple have said maybe they shouldn't, so they're in the second bullet of this section. Realistically I think they'll likely be included. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a ton of coverage on the NZ comps (websites such as Stuff, NZ Herald, etc), and the WI ones have good coverage too. Esp. when their LA tournaments have invitied English teams to take part, such as Kent and Hampshire! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts That's good information to know and makes me more confident in including them, was wondering how much coverage the Australian List-A comp (Marsh cup or something along those lines) gets. Wasn't sure if it was timed alongside the BBL or anything so it was just grade players playing or whether the coverage is actually good for it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of Australia's LA comp. is pretty good too. Under normal non-COVID situations, their calendar would have specific slots for their FC, LA and BBL tournaments, with little or no overlap. Ditto for New Zealand, too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This was my assumption. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket South Africa (CSA) has now restructured its domestic format. As of last month, it used to have two FC/LA competitions running at the same time, franchise and provincial. There were six franchise teams and 15/16 prov. teams. The franchise element has been scrapped, with the next season (Sept 21 onwards) having just the prov. teams. From the looks of it, it will be very similar to the county setup in England, with two divisions, with promotion and relegation. A bit of crystal-balling, but I'm sure that CSA will want this to be their flagship tournament, with plenty of coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's presumably going to be the same competition as the Sunfoil Series/Currie Cup? That is on RF's list - there was some discussion in the section above about SA; the whole franchise thing generally confuses the heck out of me... Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's listed on the list. I knew about the restructuring of the format, but i'm not sure we can guess the coverage of the new competition before it starts. Obviously when it starts and if it has good presumed coverage for the players then it can be added at the time. I removed the CSA larger tournaments as I struggled to see how someone playing for KwaZulu-Natal Inland would get enough coverage for an article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the conversation above. If we keep the Currie Cup on the list for now and then revisit and see in the future I guess. I'm never too clear on the coverage for SA, but I suspect in part that's been caused by the franchise stuff. There seems the likelihood of at least some coverage - although some of the SA papers seem paywalled (if anyone can get into this article I'd be fascinated to read what it's about!). Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not too different from their rugby stuff. The main rugby Currie Cup has the 4/5 powerhouse sides, but then another 10 sides who are smaller and get less coverage, although it's split into 2 divisions. They then play a number of other tournaments to fill out their calendar, but have also created the franchises that used to compete in Super Rugby and now will compete in the Pro14. At least with the franchises it's easier to work out presumed notability for the players as you're only dealing with saying 100/120 players instead of towards 500. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Have removed the Indian Ranji Trophy from the criteria now after AfDs showed that it doesn't bring presumed notability for all players from one appearance. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Women's domestic cricket

Does anyone have any idea about including women's domestic cricketers? Could we suggest that:

• Women's Cricket Super League
• Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy
• The Hundred (cricket)
• Women's Big Bash League

might be producing notability for players on a consistent sort of basis - we certainly have a lot of newly created articles with pretty good sourcing for the RHFT. Mpk662 is working on these and I'd be interested in their view here. It's possible we might consider the Super Smash (women's cricket) as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, currently on the list at WP:OFFCRIC are the Women's Big Bash and Women's Cricket Super League (KSL). I've suggested adding the RHF Trophy, Women's T20 Challenge and confirmation of the Australian Women's Twenty20 Cup in my proposals. The Hundred (ew) should be left out until the competition actually begins. If there's coverage for the players in the Super Smash then I'm happy for that to be added as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. My view is that an argument can be made for any professional or semi-professional league to be included: so that's the Women's Cricket Super League and Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy (and upcoming Regional T20 and Hundred) for England, Women's Big Bash League and Women's National Cricket League for Australia, Women's T20 Challenge for India and possibly the Super Smash and Hallyburton Johnstone Shield for New Zealand. Just had a quick look for how professional NZ is - detail here. As Blue Square Thing mentioned I've hopefully (presuming I haven't missed any) made pages for everyone who has played a WCSL or RHFT match. Pretty sure there's similar coverage for all WBBL and WNCL players and WT20 Challenge players. So far NZ only has coverage for international players and I think there's a debate to be had there. Re the old Australian Women's Twenty20 Cup - not sure when the state sides became semi-professional: they started fully professionalising from 2016 (eg NSW), so presumably they were semi-professional before this. Again, debate to be had but I'd probably be in favour of including all the tournaments above as long as there's enough coverage: obviously women's cricket coverage lags way behind men's so any expansion to me is a good thing (and hopefully less contentious!) Mpk662 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your views Mpk662, if the coverage for NZ players hasn't really dropped down to the levels of domestic only players yet then I'm not sure we should be including their comps at this stage. The older Australian T20 tournament is sort of already included on the list at WP:OFFCRIC (with the word QUERY next to it) so that's sort of why I've left it in, and knowing how popular Women's cricket is in Australia. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mpk662. What sort of date would you take the WNCL and WBBL back to? I think in OFFCRIC it says 2015/16 probably: does that make sense? I know coverage is better in Australia than it ever was in the UK, but I'm not sure how far back that goes. Women's T20 Challenge makes sense - almost all the players in that seem to be internationals anyway and it's so recent that coverage is solid in general.

On NZ, gut feeling says it might be best to hang back a bit and see what coverage is like - the GNG fall back is always there if it's needed. Things will likely change quite a lot over the next few years. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to be judging on Australian domestic cricket, as I don't know too much about it, but for now 2015–16 seems good for WBBL and WNCL: that was the year the WBBL started and seems to be when larger investment and professionalisation started happening across the board (see here for example). Happy to hang back for now on NZ and any earlier Aus domestic cricket, but perhaps could be expanded in future if anything further comes up Mpk662 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mpk662, maybe we should leave the pre-Women's Big Bash tournament out then if it wasn't fully professional. Seems like there was an increase in coverage with the Women's Big Bash, and others with coverage would be notable with GNG anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That all sounds good - could you add the women's stuff to your own document RF? I was originally looking for it there... Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my list was only for male domestic anyway, but I will do if it's all implemented. It's in my proposals anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Have added to my list now, no idea what the potential regional T20 comp will be called so I've just left it as that at the bottom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You've almost got it, literally just going to be called the Women's Regional T20, unless they decide to change it to something more flashy before the season starts. I'll make a page for it soon if no one else gets to it. Mpk662 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'm sure the ECB will get some great sponsorship name or something. Obviously won't be added until it kicks off. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

T20I criteria

The discussion that took place about the T20I issue is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 85#T20I / WT20I widening scope and International Cricket in YYYY articles. I'd suggest we stick more or less to that - it seems to be a reasonable compromise. I wonder if Lugnuts, who wrote it, would have a view? Or Harrias, Spike 'em, Andrew nixon, Topcardi or PeeJay all of whom contributed? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable compromise on the T20I issue. We're not seeing loads on articles on associate T20I players anyway. I've looked at some of the lists at Template:International cricketers and most of the associate players are still redlinked. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to be proved wrong but the scope agreed there looks far too wide for what we are aiming to achieve here, including potentially thousands of players for which GNG-level coverage is a pipe-dream. Just because we are not seeing the articles, doesn't mean we don't have to consider them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Could potentially remove the global qualifiers and regional finals from the list. Anyone who's played at a World Cup should really be considered notable. If there's coverage they'll pass GNG anyway or they might pass another part of the GNG. Article creation still seems low though, probably because of the lack of interest/coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Since the ICC gave full T20I status to all its members a couple of years ago, I tweaked that guide to disallow ALL players from Associates who previously didn't have T20I status from meeting the existing notability criteria. Here are some examples of the lists of players who this applies to: Peru, men, Bhutan, men, Austria, women, Mozambique, women. It's unlikely any redlinks on those lists would become blue, either via finding info on each player, or someone creating them on the off-chance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Do you think the players who have only played in global and regional qualifiers would get a good enough level of coverage to pass GNG? As Wjemather's suggesting it may well be a case that people feel this is to inclusive still. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was just the final of a regional qualifier, so maybe that can be ditched, but I do think anyone who plays in a global qualification tournament (men's, women's) would pass. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts Yeah its only regional finals that was a typo sorry. Not sure there's a need for the regional finals aspect to be included, but the global qualification tournaments could potentially be included, depends on others thoughts. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable position to take - if there's coverage that shows notability for other players then articles on them is reasonable. The regional final bit was only for men as well, so it would remove a level of difference between men's and women's cricket, which is probably a reasonable thing in itself.

It might be a good idea to have Test and ODI and bullet one and T20I as bullet two btw - or at least bring the current bullet 4 up to bullet 2 so that the two are more obviously connected. It caused some issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gough (an article recently re-created btw - Lugnuts: would this meet our criteria or not? My gut feeling says not, although it has decent sourcing so might be considered to meet wider notability anyway) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: may have a view as they worked on many of those lists and has a wider interest - also in women's cricket above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's not a bad idea. It seems likely that bullet 3 will be removed as the World Cricket League would be too inclusive, but moving it up to bullet 2 would help. That AfD looks like it'd fail the cricket guidelines, but looks enough there to scrape GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

re: Christina Gough - strictly would fail WP:CRIC, but there seems to be plenty of interviews and the like sourcing that article. I know I've created a couple of articles on female cricket captains that would fail too, but easily pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That was my gut feeling as well - I don't object to it, but wouldn't die on a hill defending it if people decided it should be deleted. It's almost a good example of the "person who doesn't meet these criteria but about whom there are clearly a bunch of sources" fall back Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Will need tidying up on WP:OFFCRIC which doesn't have this criteria on associate T20Is at all. But i'll change it with consensus. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes I do a lot of the work on the player list pages for each team (men and women), including lots of research on Associate nations. I do NOT however create any player profiles (I did a couple in early 2019 before Lugnuts pointed out the earlier discussion). I think the player lists are very useful and fit well with those for FM nations. Regarding player notability (for international players), I broadly agree with the current criteria but have to say that they are not especially clear. Note that the WCL no longer exists going forward. I would say Bullet one: everyone who has played in any men's/women's Test or ODI (including AM nations). Bullet 2: Everyone who has played any T20I/WT20I for a FM national team. Bullet 3: anyone who has played a T20I for any team since January 2019 (men) or June 2018 (women) at a T20/WT20 World Cup, Asia Cup, and probably men's and women's global qualifier. Regional finals less so. Then perhaps Bullet 4 to cover T20Is for those few AMs who had status prior to 2018/2019? Regarding players outside of these criteria, I did nominate (successfully) a small number for deletion from Singapore I think, and considered asking the group about about the handful of players on the Germany women's list... these fail CRIN but are well written and sourced, presumably by someone with specific knowledge of the team so I chose to leave them be. Bs1jac (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Bullets 1 and 2 can be combined there I think and bullets 3 and 4 can be combined as well. Just to check full T20I status was given to all men's teams in January 2019 and women's teams in July 2018 right. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's correct, although women's was backdated to June 2018 to include the 2018 women's Asia Cup. Bs1jac (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the Asia Cup (both men's and women's) get enough coverage for presumed notability? I'm guessing yes from the teams involved. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say definitely yes for the Asia Cup. Every other instance it is played in ODI format so that's a yes (generally if a non-ODI team qualifies, they tend to get special ODI status just for the tournament). The other times, when it is T20 format, any team coming through qualifying would likely be an established AM (Hong Kong, UAE, Nepal). There is always plenty of coverage of the tournament, and the teams involved would generally include players likely to have coverage in the media. Bs1jac (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Well there are two small teams who apparently have a bitter rivarly, but I don't know if India vs Pakistan would generate any news. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I guessed as much. Think we seem quite happy with these guidelines on T20Is now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Fletcher siblings

The infoboxes for Afy Fletcher and Andre Fletcher list them as siblings, but there is no reference for this in the text, and they aren't listed as such on their Cricinfo or CricketArchive profiles. I've had a quick search around but can't find anything that explicitly lists them as siblings, although they are often linked together as 'the Fletchers' etc. Andre's page also says that his sister is Sherry Fletcher, again with no source. So just wondering if anyone can confirm/deny what relation they have, if any. Their birthdays are also only 9 months apart, which seems a bit close! Mpk662 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems unlikely as their birth dates are 8.5 months apart (they could be half or step siblings, but full biological siblings seems unlikely). Also, this piece by Ayf mentions that she has a sister, but no mention of a brother. Personally, I think we should remove as per WP:VERIFY- there doesn't seem to be online, easy to access source supporting this (only sources that do have obviously copied it from us). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the names. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly a hoax. Added to Afy's article with this edit by a user who was blocked for, wait for it, continuing to add unsourced content into cricket BLPs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Vibeke Neilsen listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Vibeke Neilsen to be moved to Vibeke Nielsen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move

I request the interested members to participate in the discussion about requested moving of the page ICC Test Championship to ICC Men's Test Team Rankings. Thank you. Selva15469 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There's also similar discussions for the ODI and T20I pages here:

• ODI page move
• T20I page move

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

all of these plus the related templates should have been bundled. Spike 'em (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Player nationality in lead

Jack Carson (cricketer) is listed as an "Irish cricketer" in the lead. However since 2020, he's eligible to play for either England or Ireland (although currently not for Ireland as he's playing for Sussex as a domestic player). Lots of sources refer to him as Northern Irish, but Northern Ireland don't have a cricket team (as Ireland has a unified team for North and Republic of Ireland). My thought would be to remove Irish from the lead, but I'm sure it's been discussed/done for similar players before, so thought best to see if there's a consensus on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would still refer to him as a Northern Irish cricketer: in my mind, the nationality part of the sentence is separate from the cricketer part, as in he is Northern Irish and a cricketer, so I don't think NI not having a team would make a difference: in the same way Robert Croft is described as a Welsh cricketer who played for England in his lead. This interpretation probably isn't widespread on existing pages, though, and I think the solution is often as you say to just not take a stance at all, as with Kirstie Gordon just being described as a cricketer. But I would always read the nationality as a separate descriptor describing them as a person rather than a sportsperson, and then the article would go on to describe what national team(s) they are eligible for/played for. Mpk662 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:IMOS BIOPLACE applies here - one of a raft of MOS created to avoid edit warring on articles where the North of Ireland comes into play. If he plays for Ireland then I'd be tempted to go with Irish international cricketer and pipe Irish international to the side. Otherwise I think I'd go for professional cricketer and at present leave the nationality out of the lead as it stands. If the lead is added to then it might be appropriate to say where he was born. Whatever, Irish is not OK just now; even if he identifies as Irish there are MOS issues and I'll change that now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What's the definition of professional? Is it players on central contracts with their national team? Contracted to a first-class team? Is it applicable to all players on a f/c roster at a given time? Quite recently another editor was adding "professional" to a ton of cricket bios (mainly Indian cricketers), but I wasn't sure how true this actually was. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd define it as a player whose main job is playing the game rather than playing it as a hobby. By that definition, the great majority of current players noteworthy enough to deserve an article would be professionals. JH (talk page) 15:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy with that ^. I've added it to articles in the past where I've considered it to be worthwhile - it makes it clear that these are "proper" players (in the modern context) rather than part timers etc... - helps meet NSPORTS I think. How true it is of every modern fc player is an interesting question: are Ireland or Zimbabwe fully professional? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Prior to the abolition of the distinction between "gentlemen" (amateurs) and "players" (professionals) in English f-c cricket after the 1962 season, scorecards always indicated which of those a cricketer was; professionals' names were either printed as surnames only or else their initials followed their surnames rather than preceding them. It's a pity that the archived scorecards on Cricinfo and CricketArchive don't give any indication of whether cricketers were playing as (in a few notable cases such as WG only notionally) amateurs or professionals, as it's often hard to understand a cricketer's career without knowing that. For instance, why William Worsley captained Yorkshire or why Wilfred Rhodes never did. JH (talk page) 08:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly for that era it's important to add, yes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Josh Little

Hi. Should this section about Little getting a demerit point exist? I think it's WP:UNDUE as pretty much everyone gets the wrist slapped at some point by the match ref. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

yeah, that or WP:NOTDIARY. Unless it received widespread secondary coverage it is not worthy of mention. Spike 'em (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I guess it's not on the same level as Ollie Robinson... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi. Someone please review the article 2013–14 Victory Day T20 Cup which I nominated for GA. It has already been more than a month since the nomination. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, GA reviews can take a long time- it depends on whether someone wants to pick them up or not. There are 3 outstanding GA reviews for cricket articles, and the other two have been waiting a lot longer to be reviewed. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WTC Final

Hi. Following up from a question on my talkpage - the infobox used for the 2019–2021 ICC World Test Championship Final is for a limited overs match. Is there an equivalent/better one to use for a Test match? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox for limited overs final was created so that it can be input on the articles of World Cup finals, Asia Cup finals, Champions Trophy finals or domestic tournaments' final. But it is probably the first time an article about the final match of a Test tournament is being created on Wikipedia. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We should create a test final one, as the limited overs one only has parameters for one innings. So we should create one that is similar, but has the parameters for two inninngs matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any mileage in adding additional parameters that would only display if completed for the second innings and so on? And then rationalising the infobox as a cricket match one that could be applied wherever needed? Rather than having specialised sub-classes, each with relatively little application. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of a bastardisation of the existing infobox to make it all encompasing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Example here using alternate infobox. As BST suggests, would be better to have 1 for general use, can work on merging once design is sorted. In the existing limited overs version, I think the score is far too big in comparison to the country names, and the miniscule {{{rain}}} needs changing. Spike 'em (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of existing Infobox

Whilst we are discussing this, some points on the existing IB, and its use:

• (Usage point) Do we really need to list all 5 match officials (2 on-field, TV, reserve, referee)? To me the 2 on-field are worth mentioning, the others not. We don't list any of the players other than PotM, it is excessive to list so many officials. Given this IB seems similar in use to the Football one, usage of that only seems to list the main ref, not the assistants.
• As above, the |rain= is excessively small. Should either be readable or done away with.
• Should we add a section clearly stating the result / margin? For ODI / T20 games it is usually clear which side won, but in 2-innings games it is not so obvious. There is |details= but it is not widely used from what I can see.
• The existing IB automatically adds "overs" at the end of the number of overs if the undocumented |home_overs= / |visitor_overs= are used instead of |team1overs= / |team2overs=. This should either always be done or never. Which would people prefer (always would mean either stripping off any existing "overs" from the supplied param, or editing any invocations that use such text)? My test IB ignores all such params anyway.Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine that most of the articles which feature an infobox like this will probably also feature a scorecard of some kind - either a full table or using a template? In that case, I think we could take a *lot* of the stuff in the infobox out - stuff like the rain and umpires should really go in the scorecard template rather than the ib in my view. Certainly for a multi-day match the rain stuff is likely to be far too long for an infobox.

I'd say the result is much more important. I think I really want to see the teams involved (preferably without any bloody flags), the scores and who won, date, venue and competition. I'll live with player of the match if I have to. I don't think you need the overs - this belongs on the detailed scorecard not on the infobox summary.

The scores are way too big as well fwiw. It looks awfully like the cricket one is a modified version of the football match one (for example, used here. On that the ref is OK as its a single person and the scores make sense to be large as the numbers are rarely going to be bigger than 9. When we then try for 803/3 that's four more characters than the source one used. I suspect this is also why it doesn't show the result currently - it is possible to add that in the details field on a football match one (as in this rather less memorable match) Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the test work on the IB, Spike. I agree with the removal of the rain parameter and the bloat of all the umpires. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

T20 series between minnow sides

Do we really need an article for every international T20 series? I know that they all now have Twenty20 International status (since 2019), but I fail to see how any of these articles pass WP:GNG: 2021 Central Europe Cup, 2021 Germany Quadrangular Series (even if it wasn't postponed, don't believe it passes GNG), 2021 Kwibuka Women's T20 Tournament. Should we really be allowing articles for any international T20 series? In my mind, if neither/none of the teams playing are in the top 20 in the rankings, then it's simply not notable enough. But would be good to hear the thoughts of others. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, Most of them passes WP:GNG. Because, in present time, there are many reliable websites for associate cricket. And there always seem to have some coverage about those bilateral series in those sites. Moreover, with the evolution of technology, now most of the associate teams have their own official website. So, the confirmation of the future tours can be found on those sources to pass WP:CRYSTAL. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I observed that Emerging Cricket, Cricket Europe, Czarsportz or some other sources publish information about all the associate teams, even which are below 20 in rankings. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph, I think there's plenty of coverage for the Central Europe Cup and the Kwibuka tournament. Certainly the latter has got coverage not just in the main women's cricket websites, but local press coverage in Rwanda. If anything, it helps fight the gender-bias on WP. What about 2020–21 Nepal Tri-Nation Series as an example? At the time of its creation, Nepal were ranked 15th, the Netherlands just inside the top 20, and Malaysia outside the top 30. I think in both cases WP:GNG has been met. There's also a proliferation of A-team tours, where there has been the precedent to delete those in the past. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources for these series/tournaments, or is everything just routine coverage of the event at the time? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

T20 series between minnow sides

Do we really need an article for every international T20 series? I know that they all now have Twenty20 International status (since 2019), but I fail to see how any of these articles pass WP:GNG: 2021 Central Europe Cup, 2021 Germany Quadrangular Series (even if it wasn't postponed, don't believe it passes GNG), 2021 Kwibuka Women's T20 Tournament. Should we really be allowing articles for any international T20 series? In my mind, if neither/none of the teams playing are in the top 20 in the rankings, then it's simply not notable enough. But would be good to hear the thoughts of others. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, Most of them passes WP:GNG. Because, in present time, there are many reliable websites for associate cricket. And there always seem to have some coverage about those bilateral series in those sites. Moreover, with the evolution of technology, now most of the associate teams have their own official website. So, the confirmation of the future tours can be found on those sources to pass WP:CRYSTAL. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I observed that Emerging Cricket, Cricket Europe, Czarsportz or some other sources publish information about all the associate teams, even which are below 20 in rankings. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph, I think there's plenty of coverage for the Central Europe Cup and the Kwibuka tournament. Certainly the latter has got coverage not just in the main women's cricket websites, but local press coverage in Rwanda. If anything, it helps fight the gender-bias on WP. What about 2020–21 Nepal Tri-Nation Series as an example? At the time of its creation, Nepal were ranked 15th, the Netherlands just inside the top 20, and Malaysia outside the top 30. I think in both cases WP:GNG has been met. There's also a proliferation of A-team tours, where there has been the precedent to delete those in the past. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources for these series/tournaments, or is everything just routine coverage of the event at the time? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted women's players articles

I've noticed that there are some dead links for women's players from the Netherlands, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (ODI and T20). All of them seem to have been deleted for being created by a banned/blocked user (e.g. Abida Khan), which is fair enough, but is there a reason that they haven't been remade/restored since? As far as I'm aware they all meet notability guidelines, so just wondering why there is now this hole when every other international women's cricketer has an article. Thanks, Mpk662 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mpk662: Thanks for this - I'd forgotten all about them to be honest. I've just (re)created a deleted Sri Lankan bio. I'll take a look at the rest. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to recreate them. It's just an oddity that sometimes occurs when articles get G5 deleted- you end up with random article gaps. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Most of the deleted ones are now notable enough, so no unease in creating them. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

List of recent deaths

Has the WP's list of recent deaths of cricketers been done away with as part of the recent radical revamp of the WP's main page? I know there's still Wikipedia's list of all recent deaths, but trying to find cricketers in there is a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack, and I thought the the project's own list was far more useful. JH (talk page) 08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jhall1: it's at the top of this page. You can edit the list here. StickyWicket (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Thanks for the link. I've added the cricket journalist David Foot, whose death I found out about yesterday. I still can't work out how to get to Recent Deaths off my own bat, though. You say it's "at the top of this page", but the headings that I see there are "Main page Discussion News & open tasks Deletion alerts The Nets Assessment The Library Contests Awards Members", none of which seem to lead me there. This major revamp of the project page has taken me by surprise, and it's going to take a lot of getting used to. I don't recall seeing any discussion in advance of it happening. JH (talk page) 07:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jhall1: I just went BOLD and did it, thought the old one looked tired and didn't really organise the project all that well, such as what needs doing. The deaths are in the infobox at the top of this page called 'Summary of Cricket WikiProject open tasks'. When I have some more time I'll start trying to recruit new members from various social media platforms with sections interested in cricket, such as reddit. It's all set up for more engagement, i.e. newsletter and contests. StickyWicket (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: OK, found it now. Thanks. I was rather expecting to find it on the main page itself, rather than on the discussion page, I suppose just because thast's where it used to be. Could I suggest that on the main page, in the "What do we do?" section, where it says "Keep Recent deaths up to date when a notable cricketer dies (in addition, sad though it is, a newspaper obituary presents an opportunity to improve the cricketer's biography)", which currently just links to the central Wikipedia list of all recent deaths, there should also be a link to our own recent list. I find that central Wikipedia list pretty useless in searching for cricketers, as it has far too many names. JH (talk page) 09:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jhall1: that's not a bad idea actually, I'll get to work on it. How would you like? As a sub-page on the project? StickyWicket (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Yes, I would think so. BTW, the redesigned main and talk pages look very stylish, but it will take me a while to get used to them, as I'm at an age where it takes me time to adapt to change. I'm surprised not to have seen any comments on them from anyone else, making me wonder if most people rarely look at anything beyond the discussion part of the talk page. JH (talk page) 20:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jhall1: Thank you, I based much of it on the only other project I'm a member of and it seems to work well there! I'm the same and only 31, takes me a while to adapt to new things on here. I looked at the traffic and the talkpage is mostly where people come to, the main project page doesn't get that much traffic. Feel free to add anything you'd like to see created at some point here at open tasks too. StickyWicket (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)