Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

Mass prods

Hi. Please see this. 35 articles in < 1 hour, including two batches of 10 articles done in one minute (05:58, 06:12). How can any WP:BEFORE work have happened here? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Because I do the research and write the nominations before hand - often well before hand. All the ones I nominated today I started reviewing on the 25th of May. BilledMammal (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Does that include George Hanmer Leycester? Who...; well, there's quite a lot and he may well meet WP:AUTHOR as much as anything else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that includes George Leycester, although I was searching for him as a cricketer, not an author. I had another look now, including for him as an author, but wasn't able to find anything that counts towards WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but when cricketers with 50+ first-class appearances get PRODed, it takes the p*ss a little. They're quite clearly notable as cricketers if they make that many appearances, irrespective of if it is in 1800 or 2022. Would it be too much to ask to post such cricketers here first? We are a small number of editors and we can't have eyes on all cricket articles. StickyWicket (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a very sensible suggestion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If we know almost nothing about someone beyond their name appearing on scorecards (or indulging in OR), it really doesn't matter if they appeared in 0 or 1000 matches, it is exceedingly difficult to justify a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Who was more famous? George Leycester or Felix Organ? One was undoubedtly more famous than the other, while the other has the benefit of having lived during the age of the internet. I know which as a cricketer is far more notable. StickyWicket (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This list has also been put forward at the VP as being problematic and needing to go through the deletion process. All BlackJack creations. Some of very obviously notable and there are issues with the selection here. The NCCC source is probably written by Peter Wynne-Thomas, or based on his work at least fwiw.

List of articles from VP with notes

Robert Tolley - Notts so sourced at NCCC, although mostly statistical Noel Turner (cricketer) - Notts. Played amateur internationals for England as a goalkeeper - clearly notable - NCCC; Wisden obit John Wheeler (cricketer, born 1844) - Notts - long profile at NCCC Herbert Wilson (Nottinghamshire cricketer) - Notts - profile at NCCC Richard Seddon (cricketer) - Notts. Clergy as well NCCC George Paling - Notts; long profile NCCC John Parkin (cricketer) - BLP; Notts - long profile Henry Parr (Nottinghamshire cricketer) - Notts - brief profile, brother of George so might be more associated with that John Pennington (cricketer) - Notts profile Charles Pepper (cricketer) - Notts; died in WWI so will appear in McCleary etc... NCCC; NCC Kenneth Poole - BLP; Notts - long profile David Pullan - BLP; Notts - NCCC Walter Speak - Notts - profile James Stapleton - Notts NCCC Harvey Staunton - Notts, clergy, Cambridge blue at rugby, died in WWI - NCCC Joseph Sulley - Notts - NCCC Percy Oscroft - Notts, taught at Uppingham - NCCC William Gilby - M/sex, one match; one line CI profile Charles Hoare (cricketer, born 1851) - M/sex, Surrey - written profile on CI. Brewer linked to George Hoare somehow Michael Flanagan (cricketer) - M/sex, Ireland???: brief CI written profile Augustus Ford - M/sex; S&B - CI written profile; Wisden obit Thomas Fox (Middlesex cricketer) - M/sex, one match - also football. V short CI profile Arthur Francis (Middlesex cricketer) - M/sex, two matches. V short CI profile Tom Lowe (cricketer) - Notts - NCCC. Brief Walter Lowe - Notts - NCCC. Brief William Marriott (cricketer) - Notts - NCCC Walter Marshall (cricketer) - Notts - NCCC Percy Mason - Notts - NCCC Martin McIntyre - Notts - long profile Michael McIntyre (cricketer) - Notts - NCCC Jack Mee - Notts - long profile Henry Morley (cricketer, born 1852) - Notts, one match - NCCC Thomas Morley (cricketer) - Notts, Norfolk football - NCCC William Jackson (cricketer) - Notts - NCCC Maurice Dauglish - M/sex, Harrow, Oxford - CI written profile Sholto Douglas (cricketer) - M/sex, WWI death - CI profile Frederick Dunkley - M/sex, MCC pro - CI Frederick Mathews - Surrey, two matches Edward Howsin - Notts, doctor - NCCC Humphry Cobb - M/sex. Brief CI - Rosslyn Park FC Arthur Coode - Cambs, M/sex - footballer - CI brief Clement Cottrell - M/sex, Harrow - CI brief Maurice Coxhead - M/sex, Oxford, WWI death - CI brief Gordon Crosdale - M/sex, C/house - 3 matches - CI brief John Gilbert (cricketer, born 1816) - Notts - NCCC William Goodacre - Notts NCCC Christopher Harrison (cricketer) - Notts, clergy - long profile Percy Harrison (cricketer) - Notts, one match - NCCC William Henson (cricketer) - Notts NCCC Francis Buckland (cricketer) - M/sex - CI plus CA profile reffed already Walter Bunting - M/sex, 3 matches, CI v. brief Gerard Burge - M/sex, Marlboro - CI Arthur Burghes - M/sex, Essex - CI Francis Tinley - Notts - NCCC Vincent Tinley - Notts - NCCC Frederick King (cricketer) - Kent - one match; Carlaw, Goulstone Walter Phillips (cricketer) - Kent - two matches; Carlaw - brewer and farmer John Head (cricketer) - M/sex, Clifton captain - CI brief George Hebden (cricketer) - M/sex; served in WWI - CI brief Henry Herbert (cricketer) - M/sex - CI brief Perceval Henery - M/sex, Wis obit - CI Allen Herbert - Kent, M/sex - Carlaw, CI, prob Wisden obit William Holdship - M/sex, 3 matches - CI v brief John Hunt (cricketer) - M/sex, WWI death - CI, Wisden obit John Truswell - Notts - NCCC Charles Cumberlege - Surrey, two matches; Wisden obit William Horncastle - M/sex, 1 match - CI v brief Bob Hurst - M/sex - CI Percy Hale - M/sex, 1 match - v brief CI Kenneth Harper (cricketer) - M/sex, got a knighthood - CI William Harrington (English cricketer) - M/sex, CI. Prob Wisden obit George Hart (cricketer) - M/sex; long profile Obviously notable Samuel Dakin - Notts - NCCC John Day (cricketer, born 1881) - Notts - NCCC Ernest Simpson (cricketer) - Kent, WWI death, Has a chapter in Lewis, plus Carlaw and other sources. Obvs notable Henry Croxford - Kent. Carlaw in some detail Edward Curteis - Kent, Army. Carlaw Tom Pawley - Kent, One of the most important figures in the history of the club around 1900 as he managed the side to 4 championship. Tonnes of sources William Norton (cricketer) - Kent, three matches, Carlaw George Elliott (cricketer) - Kent, Surrey, Wisden obit; Carlaw Frederick Hollands - Kent, detail in Carlaw Charles Marshall (Surrey cricketer) - Surrey. 40+ matches Kevin Mackintosh - Notts, Surrey. BLP - NCCC Benjamin Taylor (cricketer) - Notts - NCCC Bill Taylor (cricketer, born 1947) - Notts. BLP - long profile Ronald Taylor - Notts - NCCC Francis Tinley - repetition Vincent Tinley - repetition John Sparks (cricketer, born 1778) - Surrey, early 19C. 50 fc. Francis Nicholas - early 19C MCC etc... 23 fc William Lambert (cricketer, born 1779) - Carlaw first line on him is "the leading allrounder of his era". Yeah, he's just a touch notable. John Brand (cricketer) - early C19. 28 fc Thomas Vigne - Surrey early C19. 60fc Emmanuel Vincent (cricketer) - Sheffield, 30fc William Palmer (cricketer, born 1736) - very early so would need a careful search Thomas May (cricketer) - the Mays are both tricky ones as they're very early. Are mentioned by Haygarth briefly in prose. There's a list to redirect to Richard May (cricketer) - see above John Walker (cricketer, born 1768) - very early so needs a careful search John Wheeler (Kent cricketer) - I have him earmarked for a probable redirect Edward Woodbridge - Surrey, quite early

Two are repeated, but that leaves 98. The last few are difficult as they're so early, but there are others, Lambert for example, who are clearly very notable indeed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, William Lambert shouldn't have been on that list - when articles have that much prose, I don't actually bother to check them for notability, I just assume they are and move on to the next one, so I'm not sure how I managed to note that name down. Of course, I wouldn't have taken that article to prod or AfD; I catch those mistakes before that happens.

However, looking at what you've provided for the rest, I'm still not seeing a WP:GNG pass yet - the Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club articles might be reliable, but unfortunately they are not independent of the Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work here, BST. There's clearly multiple examples of notable individuals from this group (the knighthood, the footballer, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think all the PRODS seem to have been removed by Ficaia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

They were. The full list is as follows, if editors here want to try to improve them before I take them to AfD:

1. John Gouldstone
2. Richard Wyatt (cricketer)
3. Thomas Mellish
4. John Dampier
5. Thomas Burgoyne (cricketer, born 1775)
6. John Pontifex (cricketer, born 1771)
7. Richard Simmons (cricketer)
8. George Leycester
9. Thomas Nicoll (cricketer, born 1770)
10. Richard Lane (cricketer)
11. John Gibbons (cricketer)
12. John Goldham
13. James Grinham
14. William Greenway
15. Thomas Shackle (cricketer, born 1834)
16. Thomas Shackle
17. Andrew Schabner
18. John Stevens (cricketer, born 1769)
19. Charles Ellis Bayly
20. Noah Mann junior
21. Francis Mellersh (cricketer)
22. William Hooker (cricketer)
23. Humphrey Repton (cricketer)
24. Robert Walpole (cricketer)
25. George Shepheard
26. Henry Page (cricketer)
27. Edmund Carter (cricketer, born 1785)
28. Richard Searle (Sussex cricketer)
29. John Bentley (cricketer)
30. Charles Pierpoint
31. George Wenman

Wenman has been improved since the nomination, but still may fail WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pictures of cricketers

Hi. Looking for some help with someone who has knowledge in this area when it comes to free images. User:Hamza Ali Shah has uploaded several images to Commons from screengrabs from Youtube, such as Iftikhar Ahmed's picture. I sent one for deletion at Commons, and they've replied saying " It is owned by the Afganistan Cricket Boards’s Youtube channel which I have stated. They have uploaded their video under a commons license". The images have this text in the license section - "This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license. Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license."

I have no idea if these types of images are OK or not, so would appreciate input in this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm never too sure either. We're not using the video, are we? But a still from it. Is that OK under a CC BY? Honestly, no idea - CC BY is pretty handy for images themselves, but no idea whether it applies to frames from videos. I'll be interested to see the outcome of the deletion discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi. Other examples of these sort of images are on Babar Azam, Haris Rauf and Haider Ali. I saw these and that’s why I thought it was fine to upload these images.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 18:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think people are aware that there are other ones. I **think** from just having read the "adaptions" section of the CC BY 3.0 license, that it's probably OK, but I'm not really certain. I sort of hope someone from the Commons can tell us for sure! Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Might it just be worth emailing the cricket boards or domestic teams and asking for photos? Nothing like a bit of free advertisement for them. StickyWicket (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it the same for tournaments as well? I think I’ve come across a few pages with the images as clear screenshots of videos. CreativeNorth (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve actually tried that previously. I asked for an image from the PCB but I didn’t receive any reply.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 21:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Damn, that's annoying. Dunno why they can't just offload a few images. StickyWicket (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Saurashtra Premier League

Morning. Thoughts on the notability of the 2019 Saurashtra Premier League and the 2022 Saurashtra Premier League? I'm struggling to see how these regional tournaments would pass WP:NSEASON and/or WP:GNG. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

I've PRODed several similar leagues which were deleted (see here), but the PROD on this one was removed. I don't think they pass either, you'd have my support at AfD. StickyWicket (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sticky! I've grouped those two together at one AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Victorian Cricketer Bill O'Halloran -- 1963/1964 Cricket Season

In relation to the article on William O'Halloran (cricketer), which has recently been substantially expanded . . . as of 17 June 2022 I have been unable to locate any information that identifies the dates, opponents, nature, etc. of the Sheffield Shield (and/or other Victorian representative team) match/matches that he is said to have played for Victoria during the 1963/1964 cricket season. Does anyone have any further details relating to his Victorian appearnce(s) in the 1963/1964 Cricket Season? Lindsay658 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1 November v Suth Australia at the MCG - 0 and 9, 3-0-8-0, 1c. Only bowled in SA's second innings. Drawn match.
• 22 November v WA at the MCG - 14, 16-6-26-2, 1c. WA followed on and he only bowled in their second innings. Drawn - Vic scored 519, WA 247 and 7/355

That's what CricketArchive have, but that's paywalled. If you search for the start date you'll probably be able to find something. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Thanks for the dates and matches. Following your info, I have been able to locate (non-paywalled) verification (and details) of his participation, at [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Lindsay658 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Bit WP:NOTSTATS that expansion isn't it, really needs to be more wordy. StickyWicket (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems Wisden didn't do an obituary for this guy in 1995, and can't find an obituary archived on Trove. StickyWicket (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

6ixty

What is this monstrosity? Human (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

At first I thought, OK, T10; that makes sense. And then I read the bullet list. Hilarious. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Fans will be able to vote for a 'mystery free hit' via an app or website" - You couldn't make it up. And yet someone did. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wait for them to introduce a rule where if the fans pay a certain amount the batter gets recalled. The ICC would make millions as half of India spend their salary to get Kohli his 71st. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The most annoying thing is the way it is spelt. If you read it the way it is, it’s pronounced Sixixty. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks fun. The Abu Dhabi T10 has been good to watch, but I've always felt that in such a short form, wickets should be limited, which this is doing. The 'mystery free hit' is a bit gimmicky, but a few sports are trying out ways to engage the audience; Formula E has a fan boost for the five drivers who get the most votes or something like that, so meh, whatever. Hopefully it'll be broadcast in the UK so I have a chance to see how it plays. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just sounds tacky! Next, they'll have a viewer vote for your mid-innings least favourite player to stand on their head and juggle ice cream! T20 is brilliant, in my opinion these formats created by dodgy characters and interests serve to do nothing to enhance the standard of the sport, or attract long-term spectators or participants. StickyWicket (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Preferences

Hi all. I don't know how often you check all the tabs under your preferences, but I've been using the following for a while now, which you may or may not find useful. Or maybe everyone knows about them already, and I'm late to the party! :D

1. On the Gadgets tab, under the Appearance sub-section, fourth from the bottom is "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". For example, if you tick it, and then link to a page such as Kyle Abbott it stands out so you know it's linking to the wrong target. Or you can spot the orange dab links when you view a page.
2. On the Beta Features tab, right at the bottom of this page is a handy feature called "IP Info".

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been using the disambiguation feature for a while, and tried the second one now. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Standardise (and possibly overhaul) criteria for bowling records

I'm looking at updating England cricket team#Records and List of England One Day International cricket records and notice there is a big discrepancy with List of One Day International cricket records for the criteria used for non-volume bowling records (so best average / strike rate / economy rate). Both the pages here and the refs used on cricinfo use a criteria of 2000 balls bowled for England records, but only 1000 for overall records (e.g. England average; Overall average).

I'm wary of even using balls bowled as a qualification criteria for average or strike rate, and think number of wickets should be the qualifier there, as that is the divisor being used: we'd never used balls faced as a qualifier for batting records (other than Strike Rate, which is the batting equivalent of Economy Rate).

Howstat uses a criteria of 50 wickets, which I think is a far better measure. I've argued similar points Talk:List of Cricket World Cup records#Discrepancy between Batting and Bowling average lists, but it was a bit of an echo chamber! Before I make an arbitrary choice of how many wickets to use, does anyone else have a view on this? Our pages should not just be a mirror of cricinfo (or any other single website), so does anyone else know of any other decent stats sites we could use as a guide? Spike 'em (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Our criteria should be the same as that used by the majority of reliable sources – i.e. we shouldn't be creating our own – with particular weight given to any official source. Further, if sources disagree on criteria for the same category, are they really valid records that we should be including? And yes, we should definitely not simply be a mirror of the source (which would include just taking the top of the list in each category). When it comes to statistical records, if it is not possible to reference a particular record (whether current holder or otherwise) to a non-statistical source, I'd question whether we should be including it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of Wisden to hand, but what do they do? If they have team level stats tables?

Tbh, I'd be surprised if they dealt with strike rates, economy rates and so on in print. I'd prefer to remove all of them from stats articles - it all just gets too much if you're not careful. I wouldn't go as far as saying we have t have prose sources for everything though - it's nice to have them, yes, but they are written at moments in time and records, obviously, move on. Sometimes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Wisden does have this info. On page 1295 of the 2022 edition they have the qualification set at 75 wickets for average, strike-rate and economy for Test cricket. Page 1360 for ODIs has 1,500 balls for strike-rate, and 50 wickets for economy. Nothing for average. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, there you go. We should use that, unless there's a reason to doubt it at all? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

When you say Nothing for average, do they just not list best averages, or they do have a list but don't state a qualifying standard? If the second what is the lowest number of overs / wickets to appear on their list? Spike 'em (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I meant they didn't print a table for best averages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No probs, I thought that is what you meant but thought I should check. Seems strange that they don't include what is usually the most frequently quoted stat for bowlers. Spike 'em (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to mean less for one-day cricket these days than economy rate etc... I can understand that - it's the way the game has gone. I'm surprised they have strike-rate etc... for Test cricket in the same vein. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For info, I've just had a quick look for T20Is too, and Wisden doesn't have any stats tables for economy, strike-rate or averages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I was going to ask about that, but figured you would have mentioned then if they were there! Spike 'em (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

British Newspaper Archive

Hello all, I wonder if anyone with access would be able to let me know what this article says about the Scottish cricketer Arthur Sellers. I can normally tell from the preview, but it appears a bit muddled this time with script in place of letters/numbers. Cheers in advance. StickyWicket (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I no longer have a subscription to BNA as a lot of the 8papers they have are now also available on Newspapers.com. Is the article in question available on there? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know about Newspapers.com, I shall check it out. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Judging by this result, it doesn't appear to be on there. StickyWicket (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

newspapers.com only covers a few British newspapers (partially). Thincat (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, but coverage seems to be expanding quite rapidly; until last year they pretty much only had the Guardian/Observer. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The article on Arthur Sellars is mostly about his record as the groundsman for the Scottish Rugby Union, responsible for the pitches at Inverleith and Murrayfield, though it does also mention cricket a little. It's quite long and written in an irritating "light" style. I can send a PDF of the whole page by email if you send me a PM with your address. Johnlp (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks John, I've PM'ed you. StickyWicket (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Jackie Clark

I'm wondering if anyone can help me find a few significant sources on Jackie Clark? It was PRODed today but if I'm not mistaken then significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure of her stature per WP:NCRICKET so I de-PRODed it and thought I might give it a shot to find couple of sources to keep it from an AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Depressingly nominated by someone with the following extensive list of new article contributions *rolls eyes* StickyWicket (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Return of the Jack?

Anyone else think the instigator of an edit war on Jonny Bairstow is a returning editor? Spike 'em (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Obvs. But did no one spot the last one... ;-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It would have been great to shake things up, no... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Lots of good work done as well. A shame at the end. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed their flame out. I guess he chose not to do any contentious cricket editing so hadn't raised any suspicions with me! Spike 'em (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Took a sensible approach, did the odd bit of cricket work but never went too far. Lots of GA work iirc. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The other two articles they have visited (Charles Cumberland (English cricketer) and William Bullen) also need further review. I've removed a substantial amount of WTW/OR/SYNTH and general waffle/trivia from both, but I think there is probably more to be done. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've done some work on Bullen, who I'd previously done bits and pieces on. I don't have access to books right now so there may be a little more I can add in some of the Kent histories, although I doubt it. I'll see if I can get to Cumberland this evening.

The page references - especially for the profile from Haygarth - are incredibly useful to have. That's what was so often missing from the articles as they were previously created. Any of those that Jack (yes, I know the IP claimed not to be, but there are such obvious tells that it's clear...) can add would be really useful. That's what'll help "save" these articles - not scorecard synthesis. Doesn't matter where they're dropped - a talk page will do if necessary. But we could really use any profiles because people don't have access to the sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be another that joined just after the previous sock got banned, not as sororal as they would like to claim? Spike 'em (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Updating articles

I am wondering who will help update the cricket related articles. I probably don't have enough time like Lugnuts had or don't edit as fast as them. But I did as much as I can today and already got a headache. Human (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Bobo. 11:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There aren't many of us left. People who actively contribute and foster new article creations are few and far between. They've all been chased away by people who have barely any article creations. StickyWicket (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Should you return, please leave this destructive battlegrounding behind. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wjemather, very rarely has anyone provided evidence that long-term content editors contributing to the project has any value, because we are being driven away by people who we assume have zero resources, let alone will, to do so. At least half a dozen, if not more, serial content creators have been driven away - the saddest of whom is 02blythed, who left after considerable bullying in spite of having all the best intentions. But that is not what bothers me. What bothers me is that we've been working at cross-purposes and we can't actually work out what those purposes are, because I can't see that they are being worked towards. In my world every individual who passes our primary notability criteria should exist as a skeleton so that those who are willing could add more as and when necessary. If they can't, I can't see the issue and need serious convincing that an issue exists. Bobo. 11:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Duplicating a database is not content creation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it here and now, many Test cricketers' articles are simply "duplicated database additions", if that's what you wish to call them. Bobo. 13:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. As I say, in theory I believe every article could start out as a skeleton and those who have the ability to add can easily do so. It's odd that the ones who protest are generally the ones with nothing to add. At least half a dozen serial content editors have been driven away by people who it seems have nothing to add. The project is and has been working at cross-purposes ever since this started and, as I've shown, don't encourage long-term content creators to continue to do so. Bobo. 13:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it's been a long time since I checked out 02blythed deleted content contributions. Bobo. 13:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean updates like these? If there is a consensus that they are actually desirable (in the context of WP:NOTNEWS) I would suggest automating them; have a bot scrape the relevant database source and put the data into wikidata, and then transfer it to the article with a template. BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, a bot was looked at previously and the complexity of the statistics sections means it's impossible I think. There are other solutions, including radically reducing the fields in most infoboxes if necessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the infobox is bloated with excessive statistics that are generally not included in the article. Reducing to the most significant stats is long overdue. Of course, updates like the one BilledMammal highlights (which just update the retrieved date by a few days) are utterly pointless – I would hope no-one wastes time continuing such activity. Back to the original question... remember we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or tickertape, so there is no rush to get anything updated. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The update highlighted actually updated the date of the last international match as well - which is sort of more significant. It's one field that I would consider removing for any active player - although that's probably going to be tricky to automate. Let's not rush too much, but I think there's stuff we could do with the infobox that makes sense: it's not uncommon to come across players who we say are still playing who last played 10 years ago or who have scored several hundred more runs than we say they have. But we'll see what we can come up with at some point for sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of what was happening, but readers have no indication of that since it (date of last international) is not the purpose of the field and there is no hint of such an intent during updates. I think the date is useful, as is can prompt to look to see if anything has changed and update as necessary; (edit:) as such it's not especially useful to update anything before the relevant match has completed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is making valid points, specially about the automated one if it is possible, but I expected short answers, not waking up to huge essays. Human (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

We've given reponses, if they don't suit you then fair enough. If you have any interest or knowledge in the area please feel free to contribute. Bobo. 11:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a short response from me! Is there anything else you'd like to know here? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The hundred

Apologies, long retired user returning to ask a question as still edits anonymously sometimes. What format of cricket are stats from the hundred being added to? T20? The hundred article isn’t clear and I can’t find the answer on the web. 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:5545:9A67:6A23:F238 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hundred stats are recorded as T20 statistics. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

At first sight, that seems wrong, as 100 balls a side is very different from 120. But I suppose there's a precedent, as anything from 40 overs (the John Player League) to 65 overs a side (the first season of the Gillette Cup) is lumped together by all the authorities as List A. JH (talk page) 08:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's just 20 5-ball overs. But not called overs. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Test or test

Hello to your group. I don't write on Cricket but have written a lot on Rugby Union and Rugby League. It's been a quandary of mine for some time as to whether to refer to rugby Test matches using the proper noun or otherwise. I imagine this is a flagship article on the topic History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 and I see that you've gone with "Test". Do you have an established protocol based on a WP ? -Sticks66 03:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of Test is in this project's style guide WP:CRICSTYLE. Though the page is quite new, it was included in the main project page before that, and the use of Test has been enshrined since the very early days (See [6] as an example). Spike 'em (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

In newspaper coverage and in cricket books, the word is almost always capitalised, which seems sufficient justification. JH (talk page) 08:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou both.-Sticks66 10:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

AfD's

Hi all,

Just letting you know that I consider most of the articles linked here to still fail GNG, Sportcrit #5 and, in many cases, violate WP:NOTDATABASE. As such I plan to start bringing the articles I prodded to AfD next month, and after that I will start working through the other articles I listed.

If you believe that any are suitable as a redirect, or if you can identify sources, please do so. In addition, if there are any particular examples that you believe are notable but you need more time to prove it, please list those examples and I will refrain from nominating them for the moment.

BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the cricket contributors have been driven from this site by years of systematic targeting of cricket articles. So you might find it hard finding anyone willing to even bother. Sadly, Wikipedia seems to have plenty of users willing to delete the work of others, while contributing next to nothing in fostering the creation of articles themselves. Like another user targeting cricket articles right now who has 3 article creations: one a disambiguation, one which was deleted, and one of which is an actual article. Very strange reason to join an online encyclopedia to just want to hang about policy and AfD pages... StickyWicket (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a list - maybe in a table format that people can make additions to so that there's an opportunity to see what the consensus is, would be helpful. Somewhere crafty if necessary (a draft is just what I'm looking for right now). If it's the very early nesses then this means trawling through every year's worth of cricket magazine and probably relevant years of The Times as well just to see what's available. Which is time consuming at best - and with so few people, really a bit of a drag. Blue Square Thing (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal/BlackJack Cricketer Stubs. Done; I've also attempted to assess the current sources in the articles, and expanded the list to most of BlackJack's cricketer stubs. If there is more information that would be useful (such some of the categories) let me know and I'll see if I can add it. Feel free to edit list, or move it out of my userspace if you prefer.

Regarding the very early cricketers, if that is what is required what I would do is abandon BlackJack's work as terribly done and start again; rather than working backwards, looking for mentions of specific individuals, I would work forwards, looking for who is mentioned and attempting to create an article using those sources - in other words, what BlackJack should have done in the first place. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know when I'll get a chance to do anything very much with that, but it's not a quick job! There may be some ways we can short cut some of them or prioritise in a sensible way, but I'll need to take a bit of a look properly first. Fwiw I'm not sure that "stubs created by BlackJack" is necessarily indicative of anything very much - I think there are potential GA (if not FA) hidden in that list! Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There are at least two potential GA's, probably FA's, in that list; Peter Wood (cricketer) and William Harvey (priest) - and that is solely from looking at the current references. So yes, I agree that current "stubs created by BlackJack" isn't a perfect indication of whether they're notable - although I find it to be strongly suggestive that they're not - but it is indicative of whether they are likely to be violations of WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 (and WP:MASSCREATE and WP:FAIT).

I have been wondering if, rather than nominating them for deletion, I should propose the ones that are currently sourced only to statistical sources be moved out of article space; this would give time for editors to address the NOT and SPORTCRIT violations (or create new, compliant articles from scratch, if they prefer), and in the process allow them to demonstrate there isn't a WP:N issue.

In terms of prioritizing, would it be helpful to get a rough idea of what clubs they played for and when they died? BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

On the last point, possibly, yes. Or when they played. Or both. I'm likely to be ridiculously busy for a few weeks for a range of reasons. I do intend to start thinking about this properly, but I'm really not sure how much time I'll have with one thing and another. I'm sorry about that.

In terms of moving to space, redirect is a better option for me as stuff's findable. I'd be surprised if there weren't decent redirect targets in most cases here. But there's probably need for an attempt at basic triage for each article first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

When they played would be harder, but I'll see if I can get that data. And no rush, I understand; I'll focus on Sander.v.Ginkel stubs for the moment.

If I made the proposal it would be on the basis of WP:NOT (and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5) violations, rather than notability, so I don't think that redirects would work per WP:REDLINK. However, I can try to improve findability; what is it about redirects that make them easier to find than entries outside of article space? BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirects just make sense to me - they link to the lists we have which works as a way of showing core information, and they stop articles getting created about the same person. It's too late to go into too much detail now, but they just work better.

Collapse - that approach won't work

I've been thinking a bit about ways to perhaps prioritise. These are mostly British males I think, so I'll focus on that scenario: international - likely to have more; died in WW1 or WW2 - Christopher Sandford, Nigel McCrery or Wisden will almost certainly have written about them in some depth; Wisden obit - seems likely there will be more - but they only really started in the 1890s I think - there are other obit sources; having looked at some data over the last couple of years, once you get to 20 first-class matches they almost always come in as notable - that's not to say a chap with just one match isn't, but 20 seemed to be a watershed in >95% of cases in the County Championship era; school and university - if we know this then there's a good chance we'll find out more; there's also a good chance that they were privately educated, rich and played as an amateur; I do have some reservations about how this essentially makes our history into one about the right sort of chap rather than the Fred Huish's of the world; first-class county side - rather than playing for MCC etc... In particular, if they played for Kent after 1806 or Notts we know we can find sourcing which is reliable and from that make decisions; similar sources do exist for other counties - many Lancs players have detailed prose profiles on CricketArchive, Middlesex players are generally dealt with at least briefly on CricInfo and there are books about many county sides and/or their players - even those which weren't first-class; when they played - it is much, much harder to find details on 18th century blokes - but sources exist - Haygarth and so on when there are profiles, but I don't know who has access to those who's allowed to edit (the page references for those, Jack, would be the most useful things - as many as you can provide somehow - but it's the profiles which are key), John Goulstone's books, Nyren, Pycroft etc... The problem is access to the sources; I'm sure something goes in this space before we get to those we don't have a forename or even initial for who, Lambourn perhaps excepted, we have generally boldly redirected. That's a gut feeling and I've not had a chance to look back at that list - might be able to make a start over the next couple of days. Maybe. That might give us a better idea of the state of what we're looking for. And, fwiw, I was thinking about Bullock-Marsham as the GA candidate - I have scad loads on him but haven't had the time...

Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Collapse - that approach won't work

I've now managed to have a brief look through the 65 or so whose forenames begin with an A. It's not exhaustive, but of those I think: 10 or so are definite keeps - as in, they could be developed into really nice articles. One has already been worked on by other people; 20-25 are I think are probably going to show notability 20-25 might be notable - there are hints that there will be more sourcing 10-15 are unlikely to show notability - although I really wasn't looking too deeply so it's entirely possible some might turn out to have notability, just that I couldn't find it quickly Of the 10 or so who I think are clearly notable, 8 have Wisden obituaries, one is living and one didn't have an obit. First-class appearances were 1, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 28, 33, 72 and 91. There's at least one chap with over 100 FC matches in the "probably" camp fwiw. All played for proper county sides iirc. There's a doctor, a headmaster, two soldiers, a well known scorer and so on in there - part of the problem is thet historically people just didn't play cricket like they do today. Anyway, that took a day or so and was quite tedious. I'll see if I can get back to the list at some point, but it's going to be hardgoing I'm afraid and right now my motivation is in negative numbers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the approach I took above will take far too long. So... I worked through the Bs, Ls, Ms, Ns, Os, Vs and Z forenames - chosen because they weren't too long! I took the approach that:

1 - if there is any prose source at all we should keep for now.

This doesn't mean keep in the long term, but there are thousands of articles to get through here, so we pass them to another list. The reliability or otherwise doesn't matter for now.

• this means CricketArchive, CricInfo, Alum Camb and Alum Ox and any bog-standard references to Scores and Biographies etc... aren't being classed as suitable sources right now;
• but - CricInfo needs to be checked for prose - some of them have it (for example, of the 17 Ls, you'd identified one with prose, but three more have prose in their CI profile);
• no one's going to expect CricketArchive to be checked for prose at this point - because of the paywall. The same for other database style sources.

Fwiw, it looks like about 25% are tending to have some kind of prose. I reiterate, this is just a start point to make the handling easier.

It's possible that it's just 25% in the group BlackJack created btw. Checking the 19 stubs in total with the surname Oliver, 6 fall into this group and two are already redirects.

2 - then we go through a list and do the sort of thing I've done here:

Article	Non-db sources?	Notes
Octavius Eaden		CA, S&B - 4 FC CTC
Oliver Redgate (cricketer)		CA - 12 FC Notts
Owen Kember	Yes	prose at CI
Owen Wait		CA - 45 FC CU, Surrey

That's a super-quick pass to check which ones might be of interest. I managed to do the 85 articles in the list sections I identified above today - so it's not a long job, but it does take some time.

3. From that second pass we take out any that we think might be obviously worthwhile to develop.

We'll often be finding more detail already at this stage. So, from the Os, Wait is most likely to be taken out for more of a look, although in other cases there may be notes in the CA profile that make us want to look at people with fewer appearances. In this case, I've just checked the standard work on Cambridge Town and I can already tell that Eaden is one we almost certainly can't find much more on; Redgate - well, there's information if anyone felt obliged to work on it, but he's not exactly a priority; Wait - there's a Wisden obit and I'd say he's worth keeping.

I think we'd probably find that about 25% fall into this category, but I wouldn't like to say one way or another.

Then we pass those into another list - ones with obvious potential. Some might get developed during this process, but it depends on what the priority is: to reduce the number of stubs or to develop articles. My gut feeling is that at this stage we need to be looking at reducing the number of stubs first.

4. That will leave us with a number of stubs that have no clear and obvious scope of being developed anytime soon.

Quite how many there are is difficult to assess, but there are 1,168 (I think) on the BlackJack list alone - so if we work on at least 50% falling into the group of ones that we don't have prose for and don't see are obviously worth developing, that's maybe 600. Fwiw there are 33,000 cricket stubs, but these are by no means all articles about cricketers and a number are already redirects.

My clear preference would be to redirect those. We can almost always do that sensibly. It's non-destructive and means that if someone wants to go back to an article and develop it, that we can do so. For example, Redgate falls into this category - I'm not about to work on the article, but I could see how someone else might want to.

I think there's scope to work on batches of 250 articles. I think we could go through the process above each week with that many and identify the three groups: ones with prose; ones with potential; ones to redirect for now. We might even be able to do the redirects in that time.

Why 250? There aren't many people available. If stage 1 can be done for us it'd be quicker (but CI needs checking) as that seems to be pulling out at least 25%. If there are 20,000 stubs about cricketers, I think we'd get through them in less than two years. With a real push we might be able to get that down to 1 year. I don't see a way of speeding that up - and it's going to take a lot of time from people who in most cases didn't create the articles in the first place.

Others will object that this throws out too many articles with potential. Yes, it does. But we are going to have this forced on us in one way or another. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

To add - just worked through the 127 Ws. Took about an hour - just under. 32 pass stage 1 - so a similar %age, with a few added for CI prose etc... I expect I'd pull out 12 that I'd want to take more of a look at. - which would leave about 80. Others might fancy some of those, but that's at least 60% to redirect. At that speed of working we might get through more than one batch a week. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Does anyone live somewhere where they can get to Lords quite easily? I used to work with the MCC Librarian and could ask him about access to the library and early copies of Wisden if someone was able to draw up a list of questionable articles that could be researched? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too far away - it would involve a trip into London but that's not the end of the world. It depends on what sort of access they could provide, and whether they'd provide it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll drop Neil a line then but can you give me a rough idea of how many bios would benefit from the access? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In theory thousands, but that's clearly not achievable.

The best approach might be to come up with a list of 5-10 articles which could be used as reasonable test cases to check the sourcing for that sort of player. For now, this might be best limited to British men unfortunately - I'd love it to be extended beyond that, but I should think even looking for sources for five articles is a days job, so it would be daft to pick off too much. Professionals would also be my focus - it's much easier often to find information on amateurs.

It would also be helpful to get an idea of what books have been written on players from different counties as well - so, for example, we know about Peter Wynne-Thomas' books on Notts cricketers, but it's surprisingly difficult to be able to find useful information about books which might cover other counties. I assume MCC will have copies of most, if not all, of these.

As a start to a list, I'd include William Neale (cricketer) (now Billy Neale (cricketer)) and, obviously, John West (cricketer, born 1861). Then a range of appearances down to a handful would be helpful I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Access has been agreed. I left a message on your talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A reminder that the WP has its own virtual library which could provide some useful sources - see WP:WikiProject Cricket/The Library JH (talk page) 15:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming that all the project members at the AFD stating that sources must exist will already have been through your library so obviously we need to try something more extensive.. I believe the MCC has a lot of books about cricket and the archivist has kindly agreed to allow access. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your assumption is correct. In the year or so that our library has been in existence, I've never been asked whether a book that I've listed as being in my possession has info on a particular cricketer. But regardless of that, getting access to the MCC library is a major coup and should be very valuable. Thank you for arranging it. JH (talk page) 15:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I can probably be of help here because I have a full set of the Playfair Cricket Annual from 1948 to 1962 (a bargain buy on eBay many years ago). These are the original "handbook" types with galleries. I've also got the first "pocketbook" issue from 1963 with Gary Sobers on the cover. I'm afraid I've no more after that until the 21st century. I've also got the Wisden editions published in 1948, 1963 (#100) and 1964. If you have any players or events in your wishlists that coincide with the post-war period covered by those books, please give me the names and I'll see what I can find.

I can't help you with John West, I'm afraid, but I can help with Billy Neale and I've expanded his article somewhat. If anyone can access pre-war Wisdens, you should be able to get more on Neale from those by looking at each year's Gloucestershire reviews. As far as I can tell, he never played for anyone but Gloucestershire (in 452 matches). Neale featured in a club record partnership with Wally Hammond and, in 1948, his final season, lost his place in the team to some 21 year old lad called Tom Graveney.

I hope that is useful. Ping me or go to my talk page if you have an article I might be able to help you with. BoJó | talk UTC 13:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have the 1965 Playfair as well as every edition from 1968 to the present, so between us we have almost a complete run. I also have every Wisden from 1964 onwards. JH (talk page) 17:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game - about a defunct cricket magazine - has just been updated. Its references 2 and 3 could be valuable sources of information. JH (talk page) 08:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorting the umpires name

Hi everyone. The umpires are usually listed in the scorecards alphabetically according to their surnames. This seems to be the case for most of the cricket articles and is in line with WP:SUR. However, certain certain Muslim names have no surnames and the same goes for South Indian names where the surnames are listed first. They are all listed as per the usual Western naming convention. But Mashfi23 has brought the exceptional fact and is trying to amend them without a consensus. Me and users such as Kirubar are trying to follow what was done in the previous cricket articles. This shouldn't have been an issues unless the constant disagreements and reversions we are encountering. I am just seeking for consensus here for convention in which umpires should be listed to avoid further edit warring or disagreements. Thanks Human (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I imagine it might need to vary. I wouldn't list Asif Iqbal under I in an alphabetic list, for example. Possibly the best option is to list them as they're listed on the scorecard? Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We should do whatever the scorecard does. Though I think the scorecard lists them as if it were a surname, but that's their problem and not ours- we shouldn't be expecting editors to know whether someone's name includes a surname or not. Either way, it seems like an argument over nothing, as it's just the order of listing 2 people (and this was my view when someone randomly brought it up on my talkpage). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:OFFCRIC

I've been reading this document which is very interesting and potentially useful. I was surprised by the Indian entries, however, and I think Sri Lanka needs more consideration.

Proposals:

1. include Ranji Trophy (from 1934–35) and Duleep Trophy (from 1961–62) in notable Indian first-class tournaments
2. include Premier Trophy (from 2015–16; as rebranded Premier League Tournament) in notable Sri Lankan first-class tournaments
3. remove Pentangular Trophy from notable Pakistani first-class tournaments

There can be no doubt at all that the Ranji and Duleep Trophies are two of the most prestigious domestic competitions and both receive substantial media coverage in India. It could be argued that the Ranji Trophy in particular is the third most notable domestic tournament in the world after the Sheffield Shield and, historically, the County Championship. The Irani Cup is included in the notables list but this is in fact an annual one-off match.

I agree that editions of Sri Lanka's Premier Trophy before 2015 should be viewed with caution but the SLC has made a real effort to improve standards since then, first by rebranding as the Premier League Tournament and, this year, as the Major League Tournament. It is difficult to obtain Sri Lankan media coverage in English-speaking countries but it does exist and it has certainly taken notice of the rebranded tournament, the purpose of which is to better prepare the players for Test cricket.

Domestic competitions in Pakistan have long been chaotic and seemingly lacking control although the new format of the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy looks promising. The same can't be said of the old Pentangular Trophy which was probably cancelled more often than it was actually held.

I agree that the two first-class tournaments in Bangladesh should be set aside for the present but we should keep an open mind. The Afghan and Irish tournaments are still getting on their feet and the Logan Cup is well below the standard. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 12:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

OFFCRIC is more related to the notability of the players playing in the tournament rather than the tournaments themselves. We find it very difficult to find coverage on players playing in Indian, Sri Lankan and Pakistani competitions, hence them not being included, as a large number of AfDs in 2021 showed, hence them being removed when the document was updated in 2021. If you can show that 1 appearance in these tournaments provides GNG coverage the majority of the time, then I'm happy to add it. But from previous history I'm not so sure. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RF22 is right - it's hard enough to always find suitable coverage of British professionals from the 1950s with 30 appearances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'd still remove the Pentangular Trophy, though. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 14:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 English debutants

Hi all,

I've recently created redirects for all players who made their FC/LA/T20 debut in the English cricket season and were without articles. Some of these may well have enough coverage for articles, so I'm listing here if people want to create them/expand them or perhaps change the redirect to something more precise such as specific format pages for counties. Many won't have enough coverage for articles yet, but just listing now if any county specific editors want to create, or local people who have better access to local sources. Players without articles are:

• Derbyshire: Adam Sylvester, Archie Harrison
• Durham: Jonathan Bushnell, Tom Mackintosh, Oli Gibson, Stanley McAlindon, Mitchell Killeen
• Essex: Jamal Richards
• Gloucestershire: Luke Charlesworth, Will Naish
• Hants: Dom Kelly, Charlie Mumford, Harry Petrie
• Kent: Max Luckett
• Northants: Gus Miller, Alex Russell
• Notts: Ben Martindale
• Somerset: Jack Harding (already deleted at AfD)
• Sussex: Charlie Tear
• Warwickshire: Kai Smith, Hamza Shaikh, George Maddy
• Worcestershire: Henry Cullen, Reeve Evitts
• Yorkshire: Ben Cliff, Harry Sullivan

Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked at Luckett earlier int he year but couldn't find enough to justify an article really. He's played a bit more 2s since then, but it's probably best to wait and see what happens I imagine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I might be able to start an article for Richards, he played all Essex's RL Cup games this year so should some coverage about.--Bcp67 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Couple of the Durham lads have played multiple games this season (Bushnell 4 FC/3 LA/2 T20, Mackintosh 4 FC/8 LA) so I imagine there will be some coverage on them. Just don't have the time currently myself to do an in depth search for sourcing on them, plus I wouldn't be 100% sure on where to look for good Durham coverage, as I struggled for Gibson earlier in the season. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

As if the GNG problems were not enough, three cricket articles have been summarily deleted by sysops for copyright violations, while another is at WP:CP with a recommendation to delete. Three of these articles were forks of English cricket team in Australia in 1962–63. One is 1962–63 Ashes series, which is at WP:CP. The other two were Australian cricket team in Australia in 1962–63 and MCC tour of Australia in 1962–63 which were deleted by Primefac because of unambiguous copyright infringements. Yesterday, Jimfbleak had to do the same with Dick Pilling.

The tour articles were all written by Philipjelley and concerns have been expressed about similar articles written by him, especially those on the 1970–71 tour of Australia by Ray Illingworth's team. One of the problems is the inappropriate use of blockquotes to introduce sections but the real issues are cut-and-paste sentences and very close paraphrasing. As it happens, the books used by Philipjelley are rare and we have not yet found a copy of one, but the violations are clear enough.

Dick Pilling was a straight verbatim copy of a Wisden 5CY article by jguk who said in the midst of some external links that the source was "out of copyright". Given that he got the content from the archive site and that Wisden is still an active publisher, that is doubtful. Even if it is true, he did not attribute the source in any conspicuous way and he plagiarised its entire content.

I have recreated Dick Pilling and will do some more work on it. He was an England Test player so there will be no SIGCOV problem. I see no reason at all to recreate the Philipjelley articles as English cricket team in Australia in 1962–63 will provide sufficient coverage of the tour.

We need to be on our guard when working on other articles by those two editors. If you see something that breaches COPYVIO, use Twinkle CSD and select G12. It will help the sysops if you provide some explanation of the issue on the article's talk page. BoJó | talk UTC 10:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

1962–63 Ashes series has just been deleted because of the copyvio issue. BoJó | talk UTC 17:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

England Test cricketers

Articles for a dozen or so England Test cricketers were de facto deleted a few weeks ago, and there may well be others. Their problem is mainly a lack of citations, which can be readily rectified by members of this project: there is unlikely to be a problem with WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. My view is the way to tackle this is by bringing inadequacies to project members' attention here, not by wholesale destruction of work that goes back up to 20 years. I have undone the deletions I've found, but there may well be others. Johnlp (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Didn't realise this - thanks for spotting it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just scanned through List of England Test cricketers and didn't see any red links so, assuming that the list is complete, it looks like all is now OK. JH (talk page) 08:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The articles in question had been redirected, so might not be apparent on scanning a list.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:England Test cricketers lists 688 articles (3 of which are list pages) so looks like 22 are missing on current count. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22. It looks as if the ones missing from the category are team captains from the second half of the 20th century: Gatting, Close, Dexter and Illingworth definitely. I'll get a full list. It's probably someone who took them out of players because they are in the captains category. BoJó | talk UTC 10:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Minor rounding gripe

Over the years I have noticed that cricinfo (and also cricket archive) truncate values obtained by divisions (e.g batting & bowling average & strike rate) to 2 decimal places rather than rounding them. Almost all the stats on here are copied directly from one of the sites, so do we care? I know it is a minuscule difference, but I get vexxed by this!

As an example, if we use Joe Root's Test batting average : he has scored 10504 runs and been out 210 times. To 3 dp this is 50.019, which I would round to 50.02 if showing to 2 dp. cricinfo shows 50.01. We can calculate the figures ourselves, using something like {{round|10504/210|2}} to show 50.02 under the terms of WP:CALC, but is this something anyone cares about? Does anyone have a Wisden to hand to see if they do rounding properly (or have cricketers always truncated their averages)? Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this before, and it is just one of those cricket things for some reason - The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians have this document (Section 2 - Averages) on their FAQs page which explains it, and they're probably the most accurate source on such matters! Mpk662 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I did wonder what the ACS position was on this. I guess I'll have to go and undo all the rounding that I did on a couple of stats lists! Spike 'em (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cricket World Cup

I have nominated Cricket World Cup for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Lists of international cricketers from Australian states

I found these five articles, and I think there's a few problems with them:

• List of international cricketers from Queensland
• List of international cricketers from South Australia
• List of international cricketers from Tasmania
• List of international cricketers from Victoria
• List of international cricketers from Western Australia

Firstly I'm not convinced they're really appropriate topics for stand-alone lists. There's already lists of Australian international cricketers, and lists of cricketers who played for each state team, so this is starting to feel like WP:LISTCRUFT.

Secondly the selection criteria seems pretty vague and inconsistent. For example, Joe Mennie is listed as being "from" South Australia even though he lived in New South Wales until he moved to SA to play for the Redbacks, so it would seem that it's based on which domestic team they played for first instead of which state they're "from". But then Michael Bevan, who first played domestic cricket for South Australia despite being from Canberra, is not listed as being "from" South Australia.

Thirdly, though this is a smaller issue, they're out of date. Some of them haven't been updated since the 2011 World Cup.

I was going to bring them to WP:AFD to see if they should be deleted but I wanted to see if people here had any input. OliveYouBean (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. – PeeJay 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree they aren't needed. We have lists for cricketers that played for a state's cricket team e.g. List of Queensland first-class cricketers, and these articles seem to be a much worse version/almost duplicate of them. And agree that "cricketers from X" is ambiguous too. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, me too. Thought these had been discussed years ago actually - maybe someone came to their defence then? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've nominated them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricketers from Queensland. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Temba Bavuma

I'm dealing with someone who is constantly vandalising the page of Temba Bavuma and has been told numerous times to stop Smashedbandit (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say you should probably stop reverting them because you're both well past WP:3RR. Agree that they need to stop though, adding controversial content without sources to a BLP like that isn't ok. I'm going to warn them against edit warring. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, just saw the comments on their user talk page. Personal attacks like that are also not ok. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

He's also still refusing to remove his editorialised writing as well Smashedbandit (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah apologises for that, I've never dealt with someone blatantly vandalising a page and didn't realise there was a talk page to deal with it. Will know in the future. Smashedbandit (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Am I in an edit war?

Just saw the link to WP:3RR, I did two reverts on 2022–23 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Europe Qualifier yesterday, and a third about a week ago. Don't wan't to risk a ban for that :) Moedk (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, read a bit more and it covers "4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." Moedk (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you're good. 3RR usually just means not reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours. To be honest though, the editor you've been reverting should probably get a block for disruptive editing. Looking in their edit history I don't think there's a single edit they've made that wasn't reverted. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

He has one edit that is still current, and it itself is a valid revert of vandalism. Moedk (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I an see that now. It's certainly interesting behaviour. I'm not really sure what to make of most of their edits. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

IP making incorrect edits to article leads

Can I get help dealing with an editor in the IP range 2402:d000:811c::/48? They've been making edits to a couple of cricketers' articles with incorrect information (e.g. calling Ambati Rayudu and Dawlat Zadran "former" cricketers even though they still play cricket domestically), as well as this edit on Vinodh Perera which looks like straight up vandalism. I can't keep reverting them and it's hard to engage with them on talk pages because their IP changes each time they edit (so they probably aren't seeing the messages I'm leaving on user talk pages). Could a more experienced editor help me out with what to do here? OliveYouBean (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is someone who doesn't have English as their first language and is using "former" in an unusual manner which ends up being misleading. I've picked up some of the edits and reverted and so on, but the IP skipping nature means it's usually difficult, if not impossible, to actually communicate with this sort of editor Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There is currently another IP who keeps renaming the ICC as the Indian Cricket Council. IPs can cause a lot of problems when they get the bit between their teeth about something, so it's wise not to antagonise them too much. Olive, you could request page protection for those two articles. BoJó | talk UTC 11:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

An unusual merge candidate

While cleaning up some redirects I stumbled on an unusual situation at George alexander - Northcote's First International Sportsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was tagged for a merge to George Alexander (Australian cricketer) in 2012, but was then blanked and redirected there without merging any content, seemingly by accident judging from the edit summary. The article has serious issues, but is significantly longer and more detailed than the existing article, and most of it is referenced. If this were a new article, I would probably draftify and ask the creator to merge it, but the creator is long-inactive, so I've restored the article and its decade-old merge tag, and thought I'd post here in search of someone competent to merge the two. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin. I know of the man as Aussie team manager in the 1880s and I have a few books which should help with sourcing so I'll see what can be done. As you say, it has serious issues. I just started fixing some of the linkages which are – er, well – possibly unique. BoJó | talk UTC 05:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger complete. The later years and death information is very useful but there is nothing new in terms of his cricket career. I decided not to use the family info due to uncertainty about where he was born and lack of adequate sourcing in the original. Thanks again, Tamzin. BoJó | talk UTC 07:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Cricket in Wales becoming empty

Category:English cricket seasons from 2001 and siblings are now empty, as part of a series of deletions following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_20#Category:English_cricket_seasons_from_1598_to_1763. See e.g. [7]

This is also going to empty Category:Seasons in Welsh cricket, Category:Cricket in Wales by year, Category:Welsh cricket in the 21st century, etc. I suspect that this is an unintended side-effect that was overlooked. Should someone simply add the English century categories into the Welsh parent categories? – Fayenatic London 18:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The main difficulty is that English and Welsh cricket are combined, whereas Scottish cricket is for the most part a separate entity. At the highest level of Welsh cricket, Glamorgan County Cricket Club plays in the (English) County Championship and numerous Glamorgan and other Welsh players have been selected for England teams. The real solution would be to say "English and Welsh" or "England and Wales" in every relevant title but we can't do that because, for example, the England and Wales international team is called England. BoJó | talk UTC 20:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We only have until tomorrow to resolve this so I've taken immediate actions to populate each of Category:History of Welsh cricket, Category:Welsh cricket in the 20th century and Category:Welsh cricket in the 21st century as we need to keep (and hopefully develop) a history tree for Welsh cricket. Category:Seasons in Welsh cricket can be preserved by including the Glamorgan club season articles, although there are only five of these at present – and I've done that.

As for Category:Cricket in Wales by year, I would be inclined to let that one go, but happy to see what others have to say about it. BoJó | talk UTC 20:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cricket in Wales by year is okay because it has Category:Seasons in Welsh cricket (now populated) as a sub-cat.

Thank you, Fayenatic london, for raising this. It looks as if the Welsh categories will all be saved now. BJóv | talk UTC 05:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

New template/articles suggestion: "Countries at the T20 WC"

Hi everyone,

Since there is a template and articles on Countries at the CWC, I was wondering how do people feel about a similar template for Countries at the T20 WC and one for Champions Trophy? I think it'll be really interesting and will help compile information regarding the performances of different teams at these major competitions in a better way. What does everyone else think? I'd be willing to help as much as possible. A Fantasy (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

For the T20 World Cup sure that could be fine, but I don't think doing it for the Champions Trophy makes sense because it's not as "big" as the world cups. The articles would need to be more than just a list of match results and stats like most of the Countries at the CWC articles currently are. India at the Cricket World Cup is better than most because it actually has prose explaining things throughout the article, so it could be used as a sort of model for what these articles should look like. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok cool, that works and I agree with it. So how do we go about creating one for teams at the T20 WC? A Fantasy (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Shane Warne

Hi, I've been working on the Shane Warne article since his death in order to get it up to Good Article status. It failed a GA assessment recently. I've fixed everything except a request to summarise his domestic career with Hampshire County Cricket Club and Victoria. Could anybody help out and add some information? Or point me towards an online summary I could use? Regards, Desertarun (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

World Cup warm-up matches

Surely 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup warm-up matches and 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup warm-up matches aren't notable enough for separate articles? They're warm-up matches that aren't proper T20I matches, as teams can field as many different players as they want. I don't see why they warrant separate articles? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree; they don't. Warm-up matches can easily be summarised elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion started for the 2021 and 2022 warm up matches have been started, feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding a new parameter in Template:Single-innings cricket match

Hello editors! What about adding a parameter for match crowd Attendance just like Template:Football box? Though attendance in a cricket match are not recorded in every match. But having such parameters won't do any harm to the template, I guess. See 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. For every matches attendance was recorded. But due to unavailability of attendance parameters, it was added with the Venue parameter. If such parameter is made available then the editors can add the attendance, if it is recorded, if not, then the parameter should be left vacant. A Cricket Premi (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say no, because 99% of matches don't have good sources for the attendance (unlike football matches, which do report official attendances for every much). And so, most of the time, the attendance if added will just be an unsourced number. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

But what is the issue? If the attendance is recorded, only then it would be mentioned, else the parameter would be left empty. A Cricket Premi (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I worry that adding the parameter will encourage people to add unsourced attendances, which isn't ideal. – PeeJay 15:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - there's far too much scope for silliness with this - there's a history of this being a problem iirc at the India-Pakistan rivalry page for example Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

But in that parameter, it could be mentioned that, "only sourced attendance will be accepted", else it would be removed. A Cricket Premi (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

a) how reliable are sources on attendance at cricket matches - see above; b) a quick glance through any number of templates, infoboxes and the like shows us that there's all sorts of unreliable stuff that appears that isn't challenged because there aren't enough people with enough time to be able to check everything; c) it will add another row to the template - so, in cases such as 2022 Indian Premier League where, in my browser window right now, at least 60% of the length of the page is full of group stage matches, that's 70 more rows - and that's exactly the sort of article that will have all the attendances added to it. And, given that matches are only sourced to their scorecards and none of the linked pages appear to have attendances reported, that'll be 70 more citations needed tags added. Sorry, I get the idea, but the template, even if you use the collapsible version, is already taking up far too much space on pages such as that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

If the attendance is recorded, only then it would be mentioned, else the parameter would be left empty. In an ideal world, people would only populate it if they also add a source for it. But in reality, people will just add numbers without sources, and no way of verifying the numbers. Cricket isn't the same as some other sports that publish attendences for every game, like association football. For any decent standard football league, most match reports will include attendance figures, which means they are sourced. That isn't the case for cricket matches- ESPN Cricinfo, which we use for most match reports, doesn't usually jave the figures for attendances, so we'd need people to add a different source for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say no, because attendance at cricket matches rarely has any significance attached to it, and WP:NOTSTATS applies. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a fair question, but it would be impractical to attempt it and so I agree with the noes. The parameter wouldn't add value and would be open to abuse because cricket doesn't take any real notice of crowd numbers in the way that football does. Cricket attendances are, typically, estimated and/or unofficial. We do generally know what a ground's capacity is and so, if there is a full house or near enough, we can mention in the text that the attendance met the so many capacity. BcJvs UTC 12:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for someone with Cricket Archive access

Hi all, I'm writing an article on Islay McOwan, who, amongst many other things, represented Fiji in its inaugural first-class match, during Fiji's 1894/95 tour of New Zealand. I've got McOwan's career 1st class stats but if anyone with Cricket Archive access can tell me who the debut fc match was against (and where and when) and who he made his highest score and best bowling figures against, and any other interesting info (he obviously wicket kept as well), I would greatly appreciate it. Roisterer (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Islay McOwan played 6 First Class matches for Fiji, all in that 1894/95 tour of New Zealand. All dates listed are the starting date of a 2-day match.

• 25 Jan 1895: Fiji v Auckland. Bowling figures of 1/24 (6 overs) in first innings. Wicket was JA Kallender c&b for 11. Batting figures of 4&22.
• 1 Feb 1895: Fiji v Otago. Did not bowl. Batting figures of 2&7.
• 8 Feb 1895: Fiji v Canterbury. Bowling figures of 2/14 (7 overs) in Canterbury's first innings. Wickets were TH North bowled for 62, and JN Fowke out LBW for 0. Batting figures of 0&4.
• 15 Feb 1895: Fiji v Wellington. Bowling figures of 0/9 (2 overs) in the first innings. Batting figures of 0&2.
• 19 Feb 1895: Fiji v Hawke's Bay. Did not bowl. Batting figures of 0, was not required to bat as Fiji won by an innings. Took two stumpings in Hawke's Bay's second innings.
• 22 Feb 1895: Fiji v Taranaki. Bowling figures of 1/14 (5 overs) in Taranaki's second innings. Wicket was FE Moore bowled for 25. Batting figures of 1&7.

Also of note: He played three non-FC matches, two in that tour of New Zealand (against Southland, and Nelson, the latter of which he scored an unbeated 45 against), and then another for Suva against Bau in late 1907 where he scored 10 runs and took a stumping.

Sellyme^Talk 01:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Roisterer (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ramon Simmonds

Hi, a week ago the Ramon Simmonds page existed as a redirect, I checked on ESPN and he's played 4 first class matches, so I took off the redirect and put a couple of lines on the page and referenced it to ESPN. First off an admin came along and put the redirect back. So I undid and pointed him at WP:NCRICKET with the comment that he's played first class cricket so passes notability. Now someone has draftified the page and left the message that databases like ESPN are no good for verifying notability. So has something changed that I don't know about? Desertarun (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there was an RfC at WP:NSPORT which removed participation criteria as a notability criteria. It also introduced WP:SPORTCRIT which says that all sports bios need at least 1 significant, reliable source about the subject, which neither of the refs on the draft qualify towards. NCRICKET no assumes notability based on domestic appearances, and WP:CRIN is a project-level essay that does not have wider community support. Spike 'em (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Some cricinfo pages do have a player profile that would count as SIGCOV, but most are just database entries. Spike 'em (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Righto, now this makes sense. Thanks for the update! I don't think this is an improvement, mostly because a lot of 19th century cricketers may not have much coverage because of the era in which they played. As for Ramon Simmonds, I'll just leave the draft as it is, I doubt there will be much about him until he plays for West Indies. Desertarun (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we mark Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability as {{Historical}}, as the details on it were useful previously but have been superceded? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. Desertarun (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have just marked it as historic. It doesn't look worthwhile rewriting that, obviously if someone disagrees then go ahead and undo. It would probably be more useful and easier if WP:NCRICKET was updated first. Desertarun (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Could anyone give me a list of updated criteria for a cricketer to have its own article (although I am quite familiarized with the general basic criteria such as general notability)? --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 04:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only actual guideline on this is WP:GNG. WP:NCRIC only specifies that players who've played at international level for a Test country are likely to have significant coverage. The new version of WP:NSPORT seems to basically say that all the sport-specific criteria are just ideas of which players are most likely to pass GNG. Really I think you just have to use common sense and try to check if the player does have significant coverage. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

All right, thanks. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 20:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about teams in cricketer infoboxes

There's a discussion about whether to include future IPL teams in cricketers' infoboxes happening here. I'm letting people here know since this pertains to a lot of cricket players. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Medal templates

Is there any consensus to add these to infoboxes, for either national teams or individual players? They look like they overwhelm what are already lengthy infoboxes for me, so I feel inclined to remove them. If they do exist, then they should only include the very top level tournaments and not things like the age group, Asia Cup or tinpot 3-way series, as I've seen added. Spike 'em (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you here. We should be looking for ways to cut down the infoboxes, not add more bloat to them. I also feel like it's just... not an appropriate way to refer to the results of a cricket tournament? To have a heading saying "Medal Record" and then put results for a bunch of tournaments that don't give out medals is bizarre imo.

It looks like Loyal luz is adding them to a lot of articles so I'd love to hear their perspective. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, would be good to hear why you think these are appropriate @Loyal luz: Spike 'em (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you both about this. In WP policy terms, it's original research and therefore a breach of WP:OR. I did the GA review for Shahid Afridi a couple of months ago and I would certainly have challenged this medals table if it had been there then. I think its usage in cricket articles is inappropriate as you've already pointed out. At present, I think it's only being used for international events but what if someone thinks they'll award medals to winners, runners-up, semi-finalists, whoever in the franchise tournaments? I'll also be interested in reading what Loyal Luz has to say. BcJvs UTC 11:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Champions trophy should be considered as top tournament in my opinion . As all top playing nations compete for it . It shouldn't be removed from Medal Record , what are your views ? ✨Ashish Legend✨ 12:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It would be useful to know if a player has won a world cup or asia cup. More so than when they first or last played a test in my opinion. The issue is that the title is "Medal record" which is patently the wrong thing to name it. I'd suggest that be changed to "Tournament record". Desertarun (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Russell Bencraft

Hello all. I've recently expanded this article. If anyone has some additional material which could expand it further, that would be awesome! StickyWicket (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello (I've kept on meaning to pop by your user page, but "other things got in the way"). There's a book on Southampton FC which might be worth trying to find someone at the football project who might have access to it: Saints – A complete record. Seemed quite useful when I ran across someone with it (since, obviously, left) years ago. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to pop by whenever! I have dropped a note on the football project page, hopefully someone can expand his football admin as it seems quite notable and has that book you have recommended. Also, if anyone would like to reevaluate the article's class, feel free. I don't like to reevaluate articles where I've made a substantial expansion. StickyWicket (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Pakistan first-class player lists

I've been looking at some of the player lists for first-class teams in Pakistan today, and I think it might be better to merge the lists for the older teams into a single list (List of Pakistani men's cricketers (1953/54 to 2018/19), probably split up into multiple pages alphabetically). A few reasons:

• There are far too many older first-class teams that really aren't that notable on their own, so each having their own list seems like a bit of overkill. The players are still categorised based on which teams they've played for, so I don't think the lists are also necessary.
• Most players played for more than just one team (because of how frequently Pakistan reshuffled their domestic system), so it would be useful to have a single list which shows all the teams each player represented.
• With the changed notability criteria, most of the older players for these teams won't qualify for a standalone article. They are good redirect targets to player lists, but with the number that have played for multiple teams over a long career, it's hard to choose a single redirect target. Having just one list they can be redirected to would make this aspect easier.

It would be a lot of work to make this list, but I'm happy to do that if other people think this is a good idea. OliveYouBean (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea and a different solution. I can see the logic behind it, particularly with the number of different teams. Category:Lists of Pakistani cricketers (4) seems to have 42 pages in it. That might be a lot to combine into one list - this might work better split into different time periods rather than trying to cover that whole period. Was there any set of key time points in the period that would make sense to split it into? Or were the changes just all a bit random?

The PSL started in 2017? It's difficult to combine that into such a list perhaps, but then the reorganisation of the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy came after that. Which is frustrating.

I guess I'm just not totally sure how this would work. And it's a heck of a lot of work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The PSL thing is annoying. It would make sense to keep that out of this list, but since it was introduced before the Quaid-e-Azam changes there's no clean way to do that. It makes me feel like Pakistan's cricket administrators don't care at all about the pain they're causing to Wikipedia editors.

Splitting into different time periods is an option, but I was thinking it could be split more along the lines of some lists of fictional characters like Lists of Marvel Comics characters (split into a separate page for each letter of the alphabet), but presenting the actual information in table format instead of prose.

Just as an example, an entry could look like this:

Player	Span	FC	LA	T20	Teams	Ref
Aamer Bashir	1989/90–2008/09	201	140	9	Multan (1989/90–1992/93) United Bank Limited (1991/92–1996/97) Peshawar (1995/96) Bahawalpur (1997/98–1998/99) Pakistan Customs (1997/98–2003/04) Multan (2003/04–2005/06) Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (2004/05–2005/06) Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (2006/07–2008/09)

Yes, that's one player playing for two first-class teams in the same season. For a while Pakistan split the regional and service based teams into two different competitions, but had the competitions at different parts of the season so players could play in both.

The advantage of this is if Aamer Bashir doesn't pass notability criteria, then the article can be redirected to this part of this table and still retain most of the info from the original article. I think this is better than redirecting to just one of the lists since so many Pakistan players have team histories like this. Ultimately there's no pain-free way to handle it, I just think this might be less painful than having the content spread over however many separate lists. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I can certainly see the advantage from the POV of redirection. I don't think I'd include the FC, LA and T20 cols - for current players this would be a nightmare in terms of updating. Instead I think I'd add a Notes col after the teams that could be used like this:

Player	Span	Teams	Notes	Ref
Aamer Bashir	1989/90–2008/09	Multan United Bank Ltd Peshawar Bahawalpur Pakistan Customs Pakistan Telecommunication Ltd Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd	Played over 350 senior matches

I might also remove the years from the teams col - that saves you having to repeat Multan for example and might take some of the work out of it. I'm not saying "do that", I'm just throwing a slightly different look out there. I *think* in this case a list of teams is probably useful (I've used a ubl template btw). This might also stop the table getting super wide - especially when you get longer names in there. I removed the ref for ease of this page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Those are defs good ideas. Having a notes column instead of a fc/la/t20 columns is also a good idea because it gives the added option of including notes about international appearances, which is useful information. I'm going to have a go at making a draft of part of the list to see how it looks and whether it's feasible to do it for a huge list. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References

I got started on this at User:OliveYouBean/List of Pakistani men's cricketers (1953/54 to 2018/19) with the first 50 players alphabetically. Based on the number of players (I'm estimating it's about 4,000) it would probably take a few months for me to finish this list. I'm happy to do all that work but before I fully commit I'll leave this here for a few days to see if people object to the idea. If people think it's better to keep the separate lists for each team I'll just work on those instead (which will be about the same amount of work regardless). OliveYouBean (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks pretty good actually - to be honest, better than I was expecting it would do; I wasn't sure how many players like Aamer you'd run into with loads of teams. How many As are there in total?

Once you have a method that's established and a bare list of names, I can probably lend a hand with a few letters of the alphabet. Given the issues with teams it's probably going to be the most effective way to go I imagine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I did this much using the list from CricketArchive here. Only about one in five players they list actually played for a top-level team, so I had to physically check each player's page, but it shouldn't take more than a week to create a raw list from this (just a list of names with a link to a CricketArchive profile). I'll start on that in the next couple of days.

At a quick estimate, I think there's about 1000 players in the A's who'll end up on the list. A and S are huge because they're common letters, and M is huge because hundreds of players are called Mohammad. The rest of the letters are much smaller, I'd say less than 100 players in most letters. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I **think** that Mohammad and its variations are usually indexed using the second name aren't they? Because it's just so common. Pakistani name has some indication on this - might be worth checking at the Pakistan wikiproject.

In theory CricInfo has easier to use lists as they have fewer non-top level players (e.g this list) but they changed the formatting recently and they're harder to use now. A raw list is certainly a good starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Please review!

Hi all. I have recently expanded the following articles, any reviews/reassessment/improvements welcomed :)

• Ronnie Aird
• Russell Bencraft
• Francis Lacey
• Dick Moore (cricketer)
• Edward Sprot

Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice. Useful ones to do as well with the whole deletion/creation at scale thing still rumbling on (very slowly). I happened across one who shot himself with a blunderbuss the other day who was quite interesting to write about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in Edward Sprot's former state, I'm sure a deletion tag would have been haphazardly applied at some point in the near future! Expanded Frederick Hyland, who was quite interesting to write about, turns out he has the shortest first-class career of all time. StickyWicket (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You just had me racking my brain there for Oswald Cornwallis, who played a match for Hampshire but was probably never on the field. But he played for the Navy as well it turns out.

I'm fairly certain there's a chap who has their only FC appearance for some team or other but who probably never even made it to the ground, but for the life of me I can't remember who it was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Cornwallis was mentioned in an ACS publication recently, I'll see if I can find it. News of the death of his brother, who was killed on duty in a town in Ireland, arrived just after the toss was made (I think, not 100%), so he was given permission to miss the match. That town in Ireland was Gort, home of the famous cricketing and rugby playing Quinn brothers. StickyWicket (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. Arthur Morris
3. Bart King
4. Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)
5. Bodyline
6. Charlie Macartney
7. Ian Chappell
8. Marcus Trescothick
9. Paul Collingwood

FA nom

Hi all. I've nominated John Manners for FA status here. I have been meaning to nominate his article for a while now! Any comments or feedback appreciated :) StickyWicket (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

National cricket teams

I think we need to revisit the nonsense that is England cricket team, England women's cricket team, Ireland cricket team and Ireland women's cricket team. It seems ludicrous to me that these four teams should participate in international cricket, and yet we don't give them the distinction of being referred to as "national teams". To all intents and purposes, the England cricket team is the national team of England and happens to include Wales as well, just as the Ireland team represents the nation of Ireland as well as the six counties north of the border. Would it be pointless of me to open a new RM? It's been three years since it was last discussed at Talk:England cricket team. – PeeJay 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ireland don't represent one nation: they represent both the Republic of Ireland and also Northern Ireland (which is legally part of the UK). The fact that other sports have Ireland national team doesn't make it correct in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with this. Calling them "national" teams when they represent two countries would be kinda weird. Same reason it's the West Indies cricket team not the West Indies national cricket team. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a sovereign nation, I tend to just use "cricket team" as opposed to "national cricket team". StickyWicket (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure it matters what you do. What matters is what sources do, and most of them refer to the England and Ireland teams as national teams. – PeeJay 10:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to look right now, but I'd be interested to see how widespread the use of those terms is, particularly in the mainstream media. If it is the case then COMMONNAME would seem to be more likely to apply. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I can understand frustration on this but would tend to prefer the status quo here (but see my query above). I was surprised to find that the Ireland national rugby union team is the title of the article - I would have expected that issues relating to the naming of 32 county Ireland sides would have been dealt with in the various MOS and compromises surrounding the raft of Ireland related articles, but I'm not sure it's ever been addressed at those forums. On a fairly fundamental level I'd probably tend towards anything that's 26-county based having the word national in the title, but if it represents the 32 counties I'd tend towards the situation we have with the cricket article naming. I'm assuming, fwiw, that we'd not look to expand this to the West Indies at all? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't expand it to the West Indies, but England and Ireland are recognised nations, at least in some regard. Even though the 26 counties gained independence 100 years ago, the cricket team continues to represent the nation that was, and even though England also includes Wales (as it did legally until the 1950s), that should be considered a national team too. – PeeJay 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

ICC U19 WC Template

{{ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup}} has information on both the men's and women's Under-19 Cricket World Cup. WOuld it not be better to separate these i.e. have one template for the men's competition and one for the women's? They're clearly run as separate competitions (unlike e.g. The Hundred (cricket) where they run men's and women's tournaments together). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I formatted it the way it was a few months back because there were just one or two women's pages being added and it didn't seem worth it then, but now there's probably enough pages about the women's tournament to justify a split. Mpk662 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ICC Women's Under-19 Cricket World Cup

Been a massive expansion of the ICC Women's Under-19 Cricket World Cup page over the last couple of days, mostly with what seems to me to be unsourced statistics and tables, some of which is very WP:CRYSTAL (such as assuming the teams at the 2025 + 2027 tournaments). Obviously this kind of thing is a staple of tournament pages, but just seems massively premature, seeing as the first edition of the tournament isn't even over yet. Didn't want to just revert it though as a lot of effort has gone into it and, as I say, this kind of thing is standard. So any opinions on how to go forward on this appreciated! Mpk662 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I notice the same alleged qualifying lists are on 2025 ICC Under-19 Women's T20 World Cup and 2027 ICC Under-19 Women's T20 World Cup too. Both of those articles should probably be deleted/moved to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON, and unless there's actually sources for the qualifying teams for 2025 and 2027, that should be removed as per WP:VERIFY. Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro please can you explain why these teams have qualified- the ICC doesn't look to have set out the qualifying schedule yet? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, having delved further, there's 8 automatic qualifiers for the 2025 event: the hosts, the 2023 group winners (who are not yet known), and the next highest ranked teams on the ICC T20I rankings as of 27 February 2023 (which is in the future). Source: [8] None of these teams are known yet, other than the host, so anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the source may have gotten confused between the 2024 (senior) Women's T20 World Cup and the 2025 Under-19 Women's T20 World Cup - for instance he refers to "the host Bangladesh". Beeeggs (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: MD Hydrogen 123 keeps re-adding this made up qualifiers list to articles with no sources. It's getting really annoying and disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The details of the tournament will be published soon by the ICC. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Which means they haven't been published yet, and we shouldn't be guessing what they are.... Wait until ICC actually confirms the qualifying process instead of guessing/making up what you think the rules will be. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Joseph's clearly right here MD Hydrogen 123 - just be patient and wait. And at that point put in what's actually known. Adding a bunch of assumptions is a very poor way to develop an article. We have time. Hang on. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The number of editors re-adding this fake information is getting ridiculous. Have left a message on the talkpage, but it's getting to the point where we might need admins to block people for this disruption/made up shit. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd added this to my watchlist. I have now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to this, a lot of similar unsourced information is being added to the individual under-19 team pages - I'm slowly going through each one and updating stuff on these pages anyway now it's the end of the 2023 tournament, but there may be pushback on some of the things I'll remove. Mpk662 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use foul language in discussions. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

H. H. Armstrong

I've been trying to find out this cricketers full name. I mean, it must exist, he played a decent amount of matches and put in some solid performances. The page was edited in 2020 by a user (now inactive) who added things — albeit unreferenced — which allude to his personal life. The detail is such I can't help but think, if it's not all made up, that it must have contained a full name. I wonder if anyone might have better luck than me? I checked the usual places for an ID. StickyWicket (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that neither Cricinfo nor CricketArchive has a date of death, which is unfortunate as his obituary might well have been in the following year's Wisden. In fact CricketArchive doesn't even have a date of birth for him, though Cricinfo does at least manage that. Assuming that Hampshire CCC has a club historian and/or librarian, then contacting them might be your best bet. Assuming that "his daughter gave an album of press cuttings and badges to the Hampshire Cricket club museum" is correct, then it seems highly likely that the club could help. You could see if any relevant articles from the Hampshire Advertiser are available online. Also you could try combing through the obituaries in the Wisden section of Cricinfo, if you haven't already done so. JH (talk page) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If the birth date is correct, then there are two H H Armstrong's born in 1862 in the UK - Herbert Hinchcliffe who was born at Huddersfield (far too many Hs there) or Herbert Horace born at Islington. Both seem to have been born in Q4 if October is correct. A Herbert H Armstrong died at Bournemouth in Q1 1942 aged 79, so this is almost certainly one of them. I'll need to dig more into the genealogy stuff to see if I can find out which one, but my money's on the chap born at Islington. There are a bunch of Harrys and Henrys born in the same year but none with a known middle initial; one of them died in York in Q4 1942 with the right sort of age, but that seems less likely based on what the previous editor had done. So, Herbert almost certainly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that one of the Herberts seems likely to be the right one. Though they conveniently both died in 1942, neither the 1943 or 1944 Wisden has an obit. I imagine that in wartime info on the deaths of former cricketers was less likely to reach the almanack. JH (talk page) 08:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The other Herbert H Armstrong who died in Q1 of 1942 was too young to be our man - only 62 (probably Herbert Harry Armstrong born at Wellingborough 4Q 1879 if the location and age are anything to go by). A search on deaths for Herbert Armstrong shows that Herbert Hincliff Armstrong from Huddersfield died aged 5 in 1867 - it's a just about perfect match - so I'm 99.8% certain that our man is Herbert Horace. Assuming the year of birth is correct of course. He might show up elsewhere but I can't find any linkage to cricket online easily. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Marriage search turns up a Herbert Horace J Armstrong marrying at Ringwood in 1Q 1889 - which is a reasonable match if that helps at all. I don't find any other obvious marriages that match, and the article says he was at Ringwood later in life. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Herbert Horace Armstrong born at Islington in Q4 1862 was living in 1881 with a (female) cousin in Southampton. The same chap got married to a Julia Tarrant in the first quarter of 1889 at Ringwood, but they then appear to have moved to London where he was a fruit salesman, living in Bow in 1891 and in Clapton in 1901 and 1911. In 1939, he and Julia were living in Ringwood where he was described as a "wool dealer (retired)"; the 1939 register gives a precise birth date of 25 October 1862. At times (his marriage and the christening of his son Horace Basil in 1894) he is given a third forename "Joel". After Basil, there was a daughter called Alma born in 1906/7: I can't find her christening. The death in 1942 is down as being in the Bournemouth registration district: Ringwood might well be in the district and, if not, Bournemouth might well be the nearest hospital. I can't find a will for him. His wife lived to the age of 98 and died at Watford in 1969. I'll leave you to decide how to make this not OR! Johnlp (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, got him here in a way that AA can see. Shows an infant death for another child as well - presumably not known about by anyone later in the family. Ringwood's certainly close to Bournemouth so that all makes sense. All we need is someone at Hants to have written even vaguely something about a name now... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If the daughter gave records or a scrapbook after his death, then it might be in Hampshire CC archives as the gift of a Mrs Wilcox: Alma Mary Armstrong married a jeweller from Harrow at Christchurch (sort-of between Ringwood and Bournemouth) in Q2, 1939. Johnlp (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

She probably died in 2003 at Wellingborough (odd coincidence). If it was a bequest after her death that might help narrow things down.

This blog is still going by the looks of it (and is pretty reliable in my experience of it). They might be interested in what we turned up. And then may write about it... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all these guys, some interesting finds there, and I too think, on the balance of probability, that Herbert Horace is our man. I'll drop Dave Allen an email and see if he can write something on his Hampshire cricket history site. Was surprised so little was recorded of him, given his decent FC record. StickyWicket (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thecricketblog.info

Is it a good source for match summaries, or should we prefer sources such as cricinfo? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a self-published blog, and the author doesn't seem to identify themselves on the website, so per WP:BLOGS we shouldn't use it as a source. Websites like cricinfo would be much better. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Have to be careful using blogs. For example, I use hampshirecrickethistory on a regular basis because the author identifies himself as the Hampshire archivist, so I know he is a reliable source. StickyWicket (talk)

More eyes wanted

There's an ongoing article split discussion at Talk:Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23#Article should be split? about whether the series is actually 1 or 2 separate series. Please feel free to contribute your thoughts there. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose- I am of the personal belief that dividing the article into two separate series is not necessary. The existing article presents a satisfactory amount of information and I do not discern any compelling justification for its fragmentation.

✨Ashish Legend✨

13:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Don Bradman

I hope this correspondence finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing to respectfully propose an amendment to the statement on the Wikipedia article of Sir Don Bradman, which currently reads "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time".

As an avid admirer of cricket, I believe that it would be advantageous to specify that Sir Bradman is widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time in the format of Test Cricket. His achievements and statistics in this format of the game are truly exceptional and have earned him a well-deserved reputation as one of the most remarkable cricketers in the history of the sport.

However, it is crucial to note that Sir Bradman did not have the opportunity to showcase his skills in contemporary formats of the game such as One Day Internationals and T20s, which entail a different set of abilities and challenges.

To ensure a clear and accurate representation of Sir Bradman's legacy and to avoid any confusion, I propose that the statement be revised to read "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time in Test Cricket (or first class cricket)". This alteration will accurately reflect the magnitude and nature of Sir Bradman's achievements, and provide a comprehensive and unambiguous understanding of his impact on cricket for fans and enthusiasts of the sport. I would be grateful for your favorable consideration of this proposal and I am available to provide any further details or clarification that may be required.

✨Ashish Legend✨

14:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

✨Ashish Legend✨

14:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

✨Ashish Legend✨

14:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

✨Ashish Legend✨

14:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Problem with that, however, is that Test cricket was the only international format at the time. And without a doubt, he is one of the greatest batsman of all time as an all encompassing statement, which is backed by reliable sources, so it wouldn't be particularly helpful to elaborate further. Otherwise, we'd be saying it for all pre-1971 international cricketers of some repute. StickyWicket (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

We're clearly better with it staying as it is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

John Manners at FAC

Hi all, hope you don't mind me posting this here! The above article is at FAC, but has only had one review (which was a 'support') and is about to be archived. Any comments or suggestions at his FAC here would be much appreciated, as if successful it will be the first cricket FA for a long while! StickyWicket (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Last Kent first-class venue needing a photo!

Hi all. There's one more existing cricket venue in Kent which has held FC matches which requires a photo. If anyone has any photos of Hesketh Park (Dartford) hanging about, or lives close by, a photo of its playing area and pavilion would be awesome. StickyWicket (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I drove past it last year - traffic issues at Dartford which meant it was bloody chaos. Nothing on geograph by the looks of it - I'll try and stop off at some point. The new pavilion looked rather splendid so I can probably get some sort of image that's half decent. Iirc we need a better one for Rectory Field at Blackheath and for Gravesend as well. And any sort of image for the Angel Ground has defeated me so far. I have a better image for Garrison Ground 2 at Gillingham I know - I'll try to remember to dig it out at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I had the same issue last year when someone decided to climb the bridge, and I was stuck on the Essex side for a few hours (: I did see the new pavilion, looks quite jazzy. Not sure why Kent don't play there given its proximity to Essex. The Rectory Field one isn't the best, quite dark and more rugby orientated. There's some annoying glare on the Gravesend one too. With the Angel Ground, there's probably some old photos we could use under fair use? There's one here someone has found from a 1932 edition of the Illustrated Sport and Dramatic News. Look forward to seeing your pictures and what you can dig out on the Garrison Ground 2. StickyWicket (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Photos of Staffordshire cricket grounds

Hi all. Just noticed our photo coverage of cricket grounds in Staffordshire is somewhat lacking (with none of the grounds which have hosted List A matches having photos, and only one FC ground having a photo). The list of grounds is here. Thanks in advance if any Midlands-based people can snap a few pictures! StickyWicket (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Jack Gregory

For a great cricketer, the article on Jack Gregory is disappointingly brief. JH (talk page) 09:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Too many great cricketers with no so great articles. I've made a start on some of the more notable pre-war Hampshire cricketers, including some Test ones. StickyWicket (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

ICC Women's T20 Champions Cup?

[[Category:2027 in cricket]]? User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU and PrashantSahu1177: now recreated as ICC Women's T20 Champions Trophy. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Weirdness in Mogens Christiansen infobox

In the infobox on Mogens Christiansen, "3;/&7;" and "&20;/–" look like errors, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to look like there. -- Beland (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like IP vandalism changing the infobox to a load of fake stats: [9]. Have reverted, so stats match Cricinfo: [10]. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism goes further back, so reverted to May 2020. Moedk (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 and Moedk: Aha, thanks for the investigation and fixes! -- Beland (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

request

im not an expert in cricket, but did some updates on few asian tournaments, please check if all formats/technical things are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.200.205 (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass draftification discussion on Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Policy on information in match descriptions

I have had 4 edits reverted (well, 2 different edits, but one of them got reverted 3 times) and am wondering if they were justified. The article Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 has, under the 4th Test, the note "Cameron Green (Aus) scored his maiden century in Tests." I noticed Green's score was not in the match summary, so I added it for context. Despite me trying to add it, it has been removed 3 times: [11] [12] [13]. Similarly at Sri Lankan cricket team in New Zealand in 2022–23 I tried to add Nicholls' score to the note "Henry Nicholls (NZ) scored his first double century in Tests" and it got reverted [14]. I can't see the logic against including relevant information. Where there is a note saying Green/Nicholls reached a milestone, surely most readers would want to know what they scored? Is there some policy I am unaware of? Adpete (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC), revised Adpete (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

In this case, and where his innings is finished, I wouldn't have a problem with that. The bigger problem is on individual player's pages where stats end up being partially updated - which can go on to cause all manner of chaos. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Eton and St John's College, Oxford registers

Hi all. I've just expanded George Wilder (cricketer) (2-years after I said I would :D) and happened across an entry by Walford in The County Families of the United Kingdom for Wilder, in which it states he was educated at Eton and St John's College, Oxford. However, I can't seem to find anything to back this up. I wonder if anyone has access to the Eton College Register 1889-1899? I hope that might shed some light on this claim, as the 1883 to 1889 and 1893 to 1899 registers don't mention him, so I am hoping his entry will be in that four year gap. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It might be here - and Etonia may well have other stuff as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Awesome stuff, he's in the 1889-99 register. Really odd, I went on the Eton site earlier and the archive link didn't even work! Cheers BST! StickyWicket (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Cricket leagues vs cricket competitions

Is there any difference between cricket leagues and cricket competitions? So far as I can tell, there isn't, yet we have separate categories Category:Cricket leagues and Category:Cricket competitions and an absolute bunch of similar sub categories such as Category:Cricket leagues in Afghanistan and Category:Afghan domestic cricket competitions (which seem to be for the same things). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You can get knock out competitions I suppose. The old B&H was often knock out. But if we merged leagues to competitions it might work - but not, I think, the other way round? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

All leagues are competitions, but not all competitions are leagues. I can't think of a good reason for retaining leagues as a sub-category, especially given how many competitions are not considered leagues even though they have a league phase, so I'd support merging leagues into competitions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Time zone(s) in Australia

I'm currently writing match descriptions for Brisbane Heat's 2022–23 season, and in the match starting time, some matches use AEST and some use AEDT. Can I just write 14:30 (AEST)/16:40 (AEDT) or should one take precedence over the other? Nautilusblue8 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be the local time for each game per MOS:TIMEZONE. Hack (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The time in the place at the time of the match is what should be used. AEST and AEDT depend on when Australia change their clocks by an hour, as AEDT is the summer (daylight savings) time, and AEST is the winter (standard) time. Note that Brisbane itself doesn't do daylight saving, and so their timezone is AEST (UTC +10) all year round. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And if it helps, here's a list of the major Australian cities and timezones: [15]. Australia is currently on daylight saving until Sunday 2 April according to that website. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you really need to give the starting times? It seems like unnecessary detail to me. JH (talk page) 08:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it in almost every match for any league, but if that's not the case then I wouldn't mind removing it Nautilusblue8 (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, unless there's a day/night issue going on, I really don't think it's necessary (and even then I'd rather have it in prose format or as a note). People add it because they can, not because they should. Be bold and remove it! See if anyone notices (they won't) Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this person notable?

Found this - Patrick Tice. I've pruned it, but they feel non-notable. They've only played for Cambridge University, and an Irish club. Only non-statistic reference is a passing reference in an article on his sister. Secretlondon (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a delete to me. Desertarun (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Or a redirect even... StickyWicket (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion

Please offer input in Talk:2013_Yorkshire_Bank_40#Requested_move_27_March_2023. Thank you!  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

A unique record?

Just tidying up and expanding James Schofield (cricketer, born 1978) and I noticed he took a wicket with his first ball in first-class and List A cricket. Have any other players achieved his unique double? StickyWicket (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Cricket World Cup final

Hi. I am seeking attention of all editors of cricket project. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cricket World Cup final. The article creator claims it as notable saying that it is a match of the world's best event (CWC). But I think there should not be a separate article unless in-depth details are confirmed, or the date of match comes closer (and finalists are confirmed). RoboCric (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that the redirect was contested RoboCric (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The match is deemed notable enough for a separate article (for example, the 2003 Cricket World Cup Final is a Featured Article), but WP:TOOSOON probably applies as the match hasn't been played yet. It should be created once the finalists are known. StickyWicket (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate No doubt that the topic is notable. But my logic is also that as of now, it is WP:TOOSOON since sufficient information is not available yet. All the information which is given like- It will be in ODI format, it will be held on Xth November, it will be the final of 2023 CWC are already in the main article/2023 CWC. So, I would prefer a redirect for now, but had no other option without nominating for deletion since the redirect was contested. RoboCric (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Can't believe the redirect was contested!!! StickyWicket (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I was the creator of this article and had only intended to create this article for the benefit of the readers and the encyclopedia. The 2023 Cricket World Cup is only a few months away and therefore I had created this article so that information specific and pertaining to the final can be added there. Although, I do agree that there is very limited information available online regarding the 2023 Cricket World Final and therefore taking into consideration the advice offered by several editors, I then decided that it was best to redirect this article to the main article for now and have already done so myself. The article can be created and expanded in the future when more information is available. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Elahi brothers

Did my part to expand them, but still a lot of references are available. This article is quite in-depth. If any Pakistani editor is reading this, I'd say please help. Thank you. 103.244.179.234 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Standardising men's and women's team templates

I've noticed that for international teams, there are templates for men's and women's teams that have vastly different amounts of content. The men's team templates e.g. {{tl|England cricket team}} has far less information than the women's team templates e.g. {{England women's cricket team}}, {{Sri Lanka women's national cricket team}} have links for every series home and away that has an article. I believe these should be standardised, and my preference would be less information is more useful, so the men's templates are better, as I believe the women's templates are far too long to be useful. Thoughts? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Women's templates contain links to cricket tours, because they don't have a separate template as the men have, for example- Template:International cricket tours of Ireland only lists the men's tours. Maybe, separately creating templates for women's international cricket tours by country would be a good idea. RoboCric (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I find the past list of tours really useful for navigation and just as a rare place to find a complete historical list, so definitely would support keeping that as a separate template if necessary. Mpk662 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they're really helpful for navigation purposes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Major League Cricket (defunct)#Requested move 23 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Major League Cricket (defunct)#Requested move 23 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Nikhil Chopra

This article was put up for proposed deletion by a user of 17 years' standing. Odd. If anyone could help out with it, please do. Bobo. 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Added the basic two sources - CI has articles. I won't be able to do much more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet more Test cricketers being nominated, after the Elahi debacle. They either come from a place of ignorance about the status of Test cricketers (and hence notability) or they're WP:POINT makers. StickyWicket (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Photos of cricket grounds in the UK!

It's that time of year again, leather on willow is in full swing... or spin! We still have many more FC/LA/T20 venues which don't have photos, a list of which can be found here. There are subsections for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (including Northern Ireland). Any photos greatly appreciated (particularly for Essex, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire, which seem to be the most poorly covered English counties). StickyWicket (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Found one for Chalkwell Park in Essex on geograph. It's not brilliant but I've uploaded it so we have something. I can probably fill in a few more that way I imagine, and I still intend on taking a camera to south-east London at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That's better than many of the photos we have for other grounds! Look forward to seeing which grounds you can snap! I can sort out Aldershot and Cove of the Hampshire ones, the Isle of Wight might be hard, crossing the Solent costs a small fortune these days by car ): StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Denmark List A cricketers

I've updated the List of Denmark List A cricketers, with their matches in 2019–2022 ICC Cricket World Cup Challenge League, when I total the matches I get 495/11 = 45, but under captains there is only listed 44, a discrepancy that also was there before the update, there is a link to a list of List A matches played by Denmark on CricketArchive, but I don't acces to CA, so can't use that. Moedk (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

An ICC Trophy match in 2005 was a No Result outcome. That counts as a match but not as a W, L or D, so I think this was probably the issue. It was against UAE on 5 July at Bangor fwiw. I've sort of added it, but it screws the win percentage up. Given that the whole win percentage thing looks like OR anyway I was tempted to just remove it. I'll leave that up to you to decide. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

TY, I don't think I can claim enough ownership of the page to decide either way, I just thought it needed to be updated with the CW Challenge League matches. To add to the N/R "mess", Hamid Shah was captain in a match against that Qatar last December, which doesn't count as a match played by him, but gave Denmark a point in the tournament. Moedk (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That one was probably abandoned without a ball being bowled? That doesn't - I think - count as an actual match for stats and so on iirc. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and they never got to a point where they were thinking of doing the toss, so the team card might not have been turned in, I think saw somewhere that that is what makes a match count towards a player, though the closest I can come is Denmark v. Italy, but there there was a toss, and it counts an one of Anders Bülow's two T20I. But TY again, I can see on the edit page, that the DK Captains List A table has bother me since 2021, so glad it and the rest of the list is as updated as can be. Moedk (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Barney Cutbill

This article was sent to PROD for having no sources - in fact, it did have sources, but they were hidden by an overly keen user three years ago and I hadn't noticed. Is there some way we can get the article to a decent state please?

I note that the sources were removed by a user who was permabanned for three years for continued disruptive behaviour. Bobo. 05:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The odd thing is...

Given that Barney Cutbill has now been redirected, I see very little difference in principle between this (Barney Cutbill pre-redirect), and the article on (for example) John Hitchmough (cricketer, born 1958). How much less can be written in 4,000 bytes of text that is any different and would escape notice? Or Michael Bissex, whose article is pretty threadbare for a cricketer with 212 first-class appearances and only links to CA and CI, who appears to have very little information indepdendent of stats sites and mirrors to be verifiable to the everyday user. I challenge anyone to redirect an article on a cricketer with 212 first-class appearances.

Note that this applies to almost every article on every English domestic cricketer whose article(s) have been redirected - and probably dozens which haven't. Bobo. 22:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sports bios now need at least one ref which provides SIGCOV of the subject, not just a database listing. If no SIGCOV exists, then redirection is a valid ATD. Spike 'em (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I'm surprised that a cricketer with ~212 appearances has barely any independent information available independent of stats sites and mirrors. I'd be more interested in questioning (for example) Michael Bissex's article and the sources available myself. My real interest was that the references were not removed, but hidden. Which is a pretty devious way to get around the "this article has no sources" claim. There's almost nothing to stop people doing that with any cricketer of any level of notability, including Test cricketers' articles which still, after nearly 20 years, have zero references. Bobo. 10:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand this at all. The external links were removed (not "hidden") citing WP:ELNO #6 regarding paywalled links. There was nothing "devious" about it (note: your remark is contrary to policy); simply a failure to recognise that the link was there as a citation source, which inevitably happens quite frequently with cricketer bio stubs given how they were created. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That and the difference between John Hitchmough (cricketer, born 1958) - a 4000-byte statdump - and any article people might complain about is... next to nothing, in spite of it being nothing other than a statdump. I challenge anyone to contest the inclusion of this article as much as any others. One could easily write ten thousand articles on ten thousand redlinks in this manner and the articles would receive practically zero notice. Bobo. 10:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the community will work through cleaning up all these legacy database stubs eventually, and there is no doubt that a significant number will be redirected or deleted. If someone attempted to write ten thousand such stubs now they would be blocked before reaching a few hundred. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are two John Hitchmough's, born within 4 years of one another, who both played for Cheshire. What are the chances for such a rare name? They have to be related, surely?

And if anyone tries to redirect Bissex, there will be opposition. Though there is plenty of coverage on him, it's just a shite article, which as we know, isn't a reason to delete something. Any Gloucestershire fans fancy this one? I'm engrossed in my Hampshire expansion! StickyWicket (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Both born at Liverpool as well. It seems to be a name which was traditionally found most frequently in Lancashire. Names can be really, really local, so they're almost certainly at least distantly related, but, presumably, not too closely otherwise CA would have pointed the relationship out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've got nothing on the web really about Bissex btw. We've lost articles like this before. Yes, there will be stuff out there, but unless we can find it we're not going to be able to keep articles like this for long. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I was as interested in how you can have a single-sentence article for a player with over 200 appearances, and still justify its inclusion. By this reckoning, we are really looking at whether there is enough justification to include Michael Bissex. The thought of deleting or merging an article on a player with over 200 appearances suggests that somehow, somewhere, we have lost our way. Bobo. 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

We're looking for definitive citations for him. I know he'll be mentioned tonnes on Wisden, The Cricketer etc... There'll probably be at least in depth articles on his retirement. I know that those are almost certain to exist. But that hasn't helped before at AFD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, when we are looking at probably over 20 FC appearances, common sense should prevail in the likelihood that coverage exists. Like in those recent ones where someone tried to delete a Test cricketer with a combined 400 or so FC/LA appearances in Pakistan. A dogmatic approach to that just doesn't make sense, and screams Anglo-centrism, i.e.: Mark Garaway (English) with a handful of FC/LA appearances having more coverage than Manzoor Elahi (~400 FC/LA) and pretty much unsourced before someone did an adequate WP:BEFORE. Even the most obscure of players can have lots of coverage, as I have found out over the years trawling through services and Europeans cricketers. If we explore the lives of all cricketers thoroughly, we can supplant any other cricket source on the web. StickyWicket (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Plenty on him on BNA. And as you said, Wisden and The Cricketer will have plenty to say about him. Gloucestershire annals will cover him too. StickyWicket (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

---

By my reckoning, there are at least 74 articles in Category:Bedfordshire cricketers alone which are barely anything other than advanced statdumps. Bobo. 11:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

For a large amount of those newspaper coverage will exist, as to make a county eleven at any level you need to be doing things in club cricket, particularly so at minor counties level. StickyWicket (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

And if it can't be found there's a handy list article with a brief prose summary for each of the List A only chaps at List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Liverpool Cricket Club

I've just created this page. I need some extra refs though, can someone have a look? Is there a page about the club on cricket archive? Desertarun (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick pointer (sorry, not much time to go into detail RN), but BNA and Cricket would be good starting points. Cricket can be accessed through the ACS archive for free. I'd imagine Liverpool CC pops up quite a lot there. StickyWicket (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't decipher the acronyms as I've not used them before, BNA, ACS and cricket are complete unknowns to me. Let me know when you have more time, regards, Desertarun (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the ACS Cricket page. Each edition is searchable (top right). Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That's handy! Desertarun (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

BNA is probably the British Newspaper Archive - which is accessible via the Wikipedia Library.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that's me speaking in jargon! The Association of Cricket Statisticians & Historians (ACS) has many great free resources to use. Some of the books from this search might also be free to read and offer more sources for Liverpool CC. StickyWicket (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think i've now dropped enough ugly refs onto the article to get it passed GNG. If anyone agrees I'd appreciate if you took off the page tags that were added. Desertarun (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Format some of the links and perhaps add a few pictures (maybe of Aigburth or Hardman Earle?) and you'll have a solid start :) StickyWicket (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Early life of Keith Miller Featured article review

I have nominated Early life of Keith Miller for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Keith Miller

Keith Miller has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Colour issues on templates/modules

Lots of franchise cricket articles are using both Module:CricketLeagueGroupStageSummary and Module:CricketLeagueProgression to show teams' results and progressions e.g. 2023 Indian Premier League#Match summary. The colours in these 2 modules are different i.e. one module uses purple for a home win, whereas the other uses purple for a no result. Can we standardise the colours of these 2 templates, or even better, do we actually need the colours at all, since they violate MOS:COLOR, which says that Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a braindump

I hope I speak for the arch-inclusionists who have come and gone and who may still be reading this - that amongst us will (have) see(n) one simple means for the project - to have an infinitely navigable list of cricketers for every first-class team and the means to go back and forward to each team. I don't feel this creates a "walled garden". Just an easily accessible list of players and their accomplishments. If this creates an article such as List of Gwalior cricketers with just eleven names, so be it. If the difference between an article being "acceptable" or not becomes a pretty little infobox, so be it. If the difference between an article being "acceptable" or not is the word "References" rather than "External links", that's pretty easily fixable. Some see this as a problem, some do not. And that's where we have landed. What's the point of contributing?

It's worth noting that within the last 30 days, there have only been only five articles created which link to Category:English cricketers. Every single one of those five has been created by AA. This pretty much shows a level of apathy towards the project which is only now rearing its head. Bobo. 12:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

And fascinating cricketers they were, too. Europeans players in India, with only a handful of FC appearances, but with notable and fascinating life stories. I believe that many of the handful of FC appearances cricketers slated for mass deletion will also have similar fascinating life stories and notability. We just need to look and expansion will follow! StickyWicket (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a spiritually "incomplete" project can be of any use. I know I'm not alone. It's just the others who feel this way have been systematically bullied off the project over the years. Short articles aren't harmful. I would rather read basic details than eight paragraphs worth of prose about what a cricketer had for breakfast this morning. If an article doesn't have "references", it's most likely that these references were marked under "external links" instead. I probably put those together when I created those articles in 2009. Articles which have not seen a single alteration of prose ever since. That's as easy a job to fix as "this article does not give the cricketer(')(s)(') bowling figures". It's literally two minutes' worth of work. Bobo. 22:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There are those of us who are committed to creating the ultimate encyclopedia on cricket! We can, do, and will offer something CI and CA cannot offer! StickyWicket (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

J. S. Versey-Brown (or is it Vesey Brown)?

The identity of my longstanding mystery Europeans cricketer who seemed to be a handy bowler might be about to be solved. My BNA access is being resolved at the moment, but the suspense is killing me! Would someone with access be kind enough to see if the John Sidney Vesey Brown mentioned in this 1976 obituary was ever in India, or to have played cricket? His obituary is here. Thanks in advance. AssociateAffiliate (talk  contribs) 21:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No mention of cricket. The report states: installed electric lighting in Lincoln Cathedral; retired to, and died in, Bermuda, age 77; born Lincoln, educated Bloxham, Oxon; doctored his age (baptised 30 July 1898) to enrol in the army (Royal Fusiliers, Durham Light Infantry) and fight in WWI; Royal Norfolk Regiment in WWII (seems the 1st battalion of the RNR was stationed in India until 1940; and the 2nd battalion was also in India for a while); awarded OBE; wife Grace (Catherine Grace Rennie Pengilly, m. 6 July 1927), daughter Barbara.

A correction was printed the following day to state that it was his father (Charles Sidney), Lincoln's first electrical engineer, who installed the cathedral lights. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

His death was also reported in The Daily Telegraph. Piecing together other reports, it seems he worked in the oil industry and was director of several oil companies during his career, including Mobil Oil just prior to his retirement. He lived at various times in New York (Scarborough), and Portugal. Awarded his OBE in the 1946 New Year's honours list; listed as Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Fuel and Power. His daughter went to Vasser and worked for the BBC. Still no mention of either cricket or India though. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I'm almost certain it is him! With the 1st Battalion of the RNR being stationed in India until 1940 and the 2nd also being stationed there in the late 1930s through to the 1940s, it definitely tallies up with his FC span of 1939/40-1942/43. Page 204 of The Spirit of Chepauk: The MCC Story, a 150 Year Sporting mentions a Vesey Brown (CI and CA both refer to him as "Versey-Brown") as being associated with cricket in Madras (though never a member of the MCC). It does list this Vesey Brown with the initials "J C", though I think this is an error, as I can't find any record of a player with those initials who was prominent in Madras cricket (playing at Presidency level), as CA would surely record him. So close to being able to definitively being able to identify him. AssociateAffiliate (talk  contribs) 21:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Odd stoppages to play

I notice that the Interpro T20 match between Leinster and Northern Knights at Cork is currently delayed by bees. Anyone ever seen a stoppage as weird as this? StickyWicket (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A monkey stopped play in the tourist first-class match MCC v Maharashtra in 1951-52 by sitting on the outfield and resisting efforts to make it move. Johnlp (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

He wanted just to be twelfth man! StickyWicket (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Penguins Stopped Play is an entertaining and truthful read. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A local game I was watching was delayed by a fielder tending to a magpie who had fielded a ball at fine leg. Another time, a game I was playing stopped for ten minutes to wait for a turtle to make their way through the outfield. Hack (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Reassessment

I want the following Wiki pages to be reassessed- Jasprit Bumrah Bhuvneshwar Kumar Mohammed Shami জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:English cricket captains has been nominated for discussion

Category:English cricket captains has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Oculi (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Irish cricketers

Can we have some eyes on the 586 Irish cricketers that should appear in that category? Someone has taken it upon themselves to remove that category from hundreds of articles. This is not how we as a project categorise cricketers - they have always gone: Nationality → International format played → Domestic team played for. Over 400 cricketers have been removed from the category without prior consensus from here and it will take me an absolute age to revert ): StickyWicket (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:Irish_cricketers.

Note that @AssociateAffiliate/StickyWicket's assertion is untrue. Categorising cricketers by place (as I recently did for Ireland) is long-established practice: see e.g. Category:Cricketers in England by county and Category:Cricketers by city or town in England.

Also, AssociateAffiliate/StickyWicket should have notified me about this discussion when they posted on my talk 2 minutes after posting here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is untrue that we categorise cricketers by city or region, this is commonplace and something I do quite often. However, it's a bit different changing Category:People from Manchester to Category:Cricketers from Manchester, to changing Category:Irish cricketers to Category:Cricketers from County Kerry; those two categories are completely unrelated and there isn't a need to delete one to add the other, the other should just be added. Categorising cricketers by nationality has been in place since 2004 and that has not changed. It messes with the project's organisation and I know myself, and others, have spent a long time making sure everything is categorised and organised correctly. Mass replacing/deletion of categories should always be discussed at the parent project first. StickyWicket (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Irish cricketers and Category:Cricketers from County Kerry are very different. Because Irish cricketers includes people who play for Ireland cricket team (who may be from Northern Ireland or Republic of Ireland), whereas a place category is about a county in either Northern Ireland or ROI. Though the point is correct, we should have listed it with {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} so that people who aren't cricket experts (like BHG) would know the difference. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} should be used, for simple housekeeping. However, it does annoy me that people simply don't come and ask the question. I edit a fair few MILHIST articles with links to cricket and if unsure I always ask the project, it's just good practice. When you have hundreds of articles categorised (and the category is 100% fully populated), then maybe there should be a clue there that it might be a main category?! I dunno, I do despair!!! StickyWicket (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: I have diffused tens of thousands of categories. It's a routine part of category maintenance, and it would be near impossible if editors doing that work had to first seek permission from every relevant WikiProject. There is a strong whiff of WP:OWNership here.

When a category is heavily populated that is usually because nobody has yet put in the work to diffuse it. See e.g. Category:People from County Galway (238) which had nearly 1,000 articles until I started the ongoing process of diffusing it. Similarly Category:People from County Cork (106), which had nearly 700 articles.

If you believe that Category:Irish cricketers should be a non-diffusing exception to WP:SUBCAT, then please open a WP:RFC to see if there is a consensus to do do. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to open a WP:RFC, this has been in place at this project since 2004. In that time, there has been no discussion raised to change it, therefore there is no need to. Should you wish to raise such a discussion, reinstate all Category:Irish cricketers categories to pages, then gain consensus from there. Category:Irish cricketers was cleaned up in 2018, with over 100 articles de-categorised who didn't qualify for that category. So to say it hasn't had the work put in to diffuse it, or undertake housekeeping, simply isn't the case. It is one of half a dozen cricketer nationality categories which are 100% populated and regularly housekept. StickyWicket (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: so still no evidence of a consenseus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence of consensus to change how it's done. Surely, the onus is on you to provide the consensus to remove categories from hundreds of tags? 1 January 2005, the current categorisation was implemented. Raise an RFC, or else your editing will be bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE. StickyWicket (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate:I follow WP:SUBCAT. I did not remove; I diffused.

Again, you provide no evidence of a consensus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a subcat. That has been made apparent to you here, but you choose to ignore that. There is no link to nationality and locale. Your approach comes from a misunderstanding of how this project categorises players. StickyWicket (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate You are wrong, as a point of fact. It is a subcat, as I have demonstrated to you several times.

e.g.

• Category:Irish cricketers -> Category:Irish cricketers by county -> Category:Cricketers from County Kerry
• Category:English cricketers -> Category:Cricketers in England by county -> Category:Cricketers from Shropshire

It's tedious to discuss this with someone who is either failing to check simple facts or is engaging in denialism. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect.

• Category:Irish cricketers -> Category:Ireland Test cricketers -> Category:Ireland One Day International cricketers -> Category:Ireland Twenty20 International cricketers -> Category:Munster Reds cricketers. In that order, nationality -> international formats played -> domestic team(s) played for. Those are the only sub-categories for male Irish cricketers (and all male cricketers), with females following a similar tree.
• Category:People from Belfast -> Category:Sportspeople from Belfast -> Category:Cricketers from Belfast (and for counties, should be further branched to be settlement specific).

Two completely different category trees with branches. StickyWicket (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Why do you entirely ignore the other hierarchy which I set out above?

What are you trying to achieve by this denialism?

. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You sound like a machine. There is no denialism. Nationality categories and location categories are two entirely different things, as highlighted above. StickyWicket (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate again, either you lieing or you are incapable of checking very simple facts before you write.

• Category:Irish cricketers by county is a subcat of Category:Irish cricketers
• Category:Sportspeople in Ireland by county is a subcat of Category:Irish sportspeople
• Category:Irish politicians by county is a subcat of Category:Irish politicians
• Category:People by county in Ireland‎ is a subcat of Category:Irish people

Same for the English categories. And French and German and Japanese.

You may wish that is was different, but you should learn to distinguish between your wish and the actually existing reality. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah personal attacks, good one. So a person, i.e. a cricketer, is a subcategory of a place? So am I a subcategory of Portsmouth, England? Places are not subcategories to nationality. Cricket categories work completely different to categories about lawyers or clowns. StickyWicket (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: No personal attack. No fredupness with your sustained failure to distinguish between wish and reality, and your resulting sustained denial of reality.

Again, please learn to distinguish between your wish and the actually existing reality.

If you really believe that cricket categories work completely different to categories about lawyers or clowns, then please link to the WP:RFC where that was agreed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You provide me with the RFC which decided that this is how it's done, and if so, why has WP:FOOTBALL not gone down your odd path as well? Seems to me you have become judge, jury, and executioner and have somewhat gone rogue. StickyWicket (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: stable usage on tens of thousands catgories establishes the norm that every category "Fooers from ThisPlace in ThatCountry" is a subcat of "ThatCountryish Fooers".

So no RFC needed for that.

And note that Category:Association footballers by county in the Republic of Ireland is a subcat of Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers, so yet again, your assertion is blatantly untrue.

Are you intentionally lieing? Or do you just not bother to check the truth of your assertions before posting? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Another personal attack. WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Note how all these are Irish categories and you seem to have taken WP:OWNERSHIP of any and all Irish articles. Did you consult the football project at all? Are you a rogue editor? StickyWicket (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting your stream of falsehoods is not a personal attack. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SUBCAT.

I'm sorry, but it's nonsense to claim that Category:Irish cricketers and Category:Cricketers from County Kerry are very different]]. Those from Kerry are a subset of Irish.

Anyone from any county in Ireland (Northern Ireland or the Republic) is eligible for the Irish cricket team. Category:Irish cricketers by county is a subcat of Category:Irish cricketers, so what's the problem? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

One is a nationality and the other is a location. Joseph2302 is absolutely right. StickyWicket (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Association football also categorises in the same way. StickyWicket (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: not so.

People from County Kerry are Irish, just as people from Shropshire are English.

That's why Category:Cricketers from County Kerry is a subcat of Category:Irish cricketers an Category:Cricketers from Shropshire is a subcat of Category:English cricketers. This is a long-established category structure across all topics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They have never been used as subcats to nationalities by this project. Only locations. Ideally, regional subcats should be eliminated and replaced with town subcats. County Kerry is a large place, whereas Tralee is more localised. StickyWicket (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::: You will also have Irish cricketers who aren't from Irish counties but get their cricketing nationality from ancestry - just as you have English cricketers (and England crickters who come from South Africa or the West Indies). Things are not as simple as they appear, and this sort of diffusing doesn't seem appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: this sort of diffusion is routine for every occupation. Every category "Fooers from ThisPlace in ThatCountry" is a subcat of "ThatCountryish Fooers".

You seem to be arguing that Category:English cricketers is being used to hold both actual English cricketers and also a set of cricketers who are not English but are eligible to play for the English cricket team because of ancestry or other rules. The latter set of non-English people who may play for the English cricket team should be in a difft category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear: the solution is to create a Category:Cricketers eligible to play for the English cricket team, rather than to stuff Category:English cricketers with people who are not English and also object to the application of the basic categorsiation principle WP:SUBCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It really isn't and that is blatant WP:OVERCAT. Technically, Andrew Symonds was eligible to play for the England cricket team once upon a time...

The moment someone appears for England, they gain Category:English cricketers, until that point of qualifiying through residency (and hence become UK citizens), they will have the category of the country of origin. I.e., pre-2004, Kevin Pietersen would have had Category:South African cricketers, post ODI debut in 2004, that became Category:English cricketers. It is a structured categorisation of players, totally independent of region or city. StickyWicket (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No OVERCAT needed. Category:Cricketers eligible to play for the English cricket team could contain other categories.

But it's plain daft to stuff Category:English cricketers with people who are not English and also object to the application of the basic categorsiation principle WP:SUBCAT. There is a much better way of doing this which doesn't involve breaching the normal principles of en.wp categorisation and then giving grief to editors who apply those normal principles.

I appled normal categorsiation principles to create and populate Category:Irish cricketers by county, just as I have done for many other occupation, e.g. Category:Irish lawyers by county, Category:Irish Christian clergy by county, Category:Irish writers by county, Category:Irish artists by county, Category:Irish equestrians by county. An editor doing the hard slog of such routine work should not be getting grief from some project which has undeclared notion of exceptionalism. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Everyone in Category:English cricketers is either English by birth or naturalised. There are no cricketers in that category who are not English by either of those two prerequisites. By all means add location categories, I encourage that, but don't remove the nationality category. 710 cricketers have played Test cricket for England (out of ~15,000 English cricketers), so the above suggestion isn't required. StickyWicket (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is incorrect to say it only contains English (by birth or naturalised) players because the sub-categories contain dozens of players who do not meet that description. Also, as another example of the problem we have, "English cricket captains‎" is a mis-named/mis-leading category name – "England cricket captains‎" would be better – but then all the counties are beneath it; it's a mess. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

English cricket captains needs to be renamed for sure. It is England cricket team, not English cricket team! There are some categories in there which need deleting. Category:English amateur cricketers being one, as most cricketers pre-war were amateurs, so a pretty pointless category. The cricketers where Category:English cricketers should include only English born or naturalised players - if there are any rogue ones in there, please feel free to evict them! StickyWicket (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:English cricket captains is not a category for captains of the England cricket team. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:English cricket captains: "This category is for the cricketers who have captained England in at least one match." Someone has added a tranche of incorrect subcats. It should be renamed to 'England cricket captains' and the subcats evicted (county captains are of any nationality and should certainly not be anywhere within the tree Category:English cricketers.) — Oculi (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately it's just the tip of the iceberg – the entire cricketer category tree needs remediating. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Indeed we have List of cricketers who have played for two international teams - and also lots of odd things about passports and nationality that happen so that people can do things like play in the County Championship as a non-overseas player. Other sports have all sorts of things like this - just look at Rugby (both codes) or athletics where nationality and sporting nationality are movable feasts.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

nationality and sporting nationality are movable feasts

Indeed, @Nigel Ish. And they don't move in sync.

Which is why this attempt to abuse a nationality category as a sporting nationality category is a mess: the rump of undiffused articles in Category:Irish cricketers are not Irish by any normal definiton. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion/lack of clarity about what are we categorising here. The description says "Cricketers from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland..." but some here are asserting that it includes players who are not actually from RoI or NI, but have qualified/played for Ireland through ancestry. We have a category for players who have represented Ireland, but oddly it specifies that only overseas players are included. From a quick scan, other cricketer nationality categories are similarly mis-described/mis-used/mis-named (take your pick). The whole thing is a mess and I imagine very unfriendly/confusing for the average reader. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, @Wjemather. Some editors here want Category:Irish cricketers and Category:English cricketers to do something other than what it says on the tin, with predictable chaos.

  The simple solution is to have a Category:Cricketers eligible to play for the English cricket team and Category:Cricketers eligible to play for the Irish cricket team for people who are not of tat nationality but who meet the team's eligibility rules. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is that I believe that everyone born in Northern Ireland is eligible to play for either England or Ireland (as a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement, which includes a provision for people from Northern Ireland to choose to be British or Irish). Which means every cricketer born in Northern Ireland would be in both the English and Irish categories. But my understanding for sportspeople was that the "nationality" that we use is the sports nationality i.e. if they play for Ireland cricket team, they're an Irish cricketer. Which is reasonably consistent with what Category:Irish cricketers says. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  The ambiguity is not helpful. "Ireland cricketers" or "Ireland international cricketers" would be far better, if that is what is meant. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Wjemather: that Norniron complication applies to nearly all biographical categories by occupation in the island of Ireland.

  The solution is a simple both-and: "Fooers from Northern Ireland" is a subcat of both "English fooers and "Irish fooers". See e.g. Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland or Category:Politicians from Northern Ireland or Category:Scientists from Northern Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  True, however separate cats would also needed for international cricketers, since many are not from RoI, NI, England, etc. and would ever describe themselves as such – and clearly that is what these categories have been (wrongly?) used for. And the problem extends beyond England and Ireland. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Wjemather: Category:Cricketers eligible to play for the Irish cricket team would contain Category:Irish cricketers, plus articles for other cricketer who are eligible. Those others may be in some subcat(s), but it can work fine without subcats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ireland cricketers refers to cricketers pre-2010 who played for Ireland but were not Irish. At the time, Irish nationality was not a requirement for playing for Ireland, in either FC matches, or as overseas players in the English one-day tournament. English one-day matches cannot be considered international, nor can FC matches against Scotland, Wales, or any Test-playing touring team, due to the peculiarity of what equals an international match. They come under the bracket of domestic FC matches. For some FC players, many were English who were employed in administrative/military/police roles. StickyWicket (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I believe most people would read "Fooian cricketer" as "cricketer who is Fooian (or perhaps from Foo)" not "cricketer who has played for Foo"; and "Foo cricketers" as "cricketers who have played for Foo" not "cricketers who played for Foo before 2017 but are/were not Fooian". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  It does align with how we categorise domestic teams. Category:Ireland cricketers does read "The players in this category have played as overseas players for Ireland when they entered a team in the English one-day domestic competition from 1980–2009, or in first-class matches from 1902–2000." The annual match against Scotland ended in 2000, with a 4-year gap until their next FC appearance in the Intercontinental Cup, where ICC rules on player eligibility were much tighter and players had to be Irish passport holders to qualify. StickyWicket (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  What the description reads is largely irrelevant; category naming needs to be (as) unambiguous (as possible) and consistent with usage. Additionally, categories need to have appropriate/logical parent and child categories. It seems clear that none of this is the case at present. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say the description in the categories for correct usage is pretty clear. It hasn't been a problem for the last 19 years. They are trying to say a sporting nationality category can be superseded by a locality category; this is simply not the case, the two are distinctly separate (and categorising by region is inappropriate also, if the settlement has an article on this Wiki, the person should be categorised to there, or the category created). Their failure to create an RFC does speak volumes. StickyWicket (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Would you object to renaming these categories according to their usage, creating any appropriate additional categories, and reorganising the category tree as necessary? 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  It depends what they would be renamed to. Some of the suggestions above are not particualrly appropriate and very long-worded. At the moment I do feel they are concise and do exactly what they say on the tin. I am opposed to removing Category:Irish cricketers and replacing it with Category:Cricketers from County Foo. I still don't see how you can replace one with the other?! There needs to be an RFC opened, which was the correct procedual way to sort this in the first place. StickyWicket (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  So you do not object in principle. Good, because "concise and do exactly what they say on the tin" is evidently not the case – I explained why above. Surely, best practice is to hold a discussion to formulate a proposal prior to an RFC, and even establish if one is actually necessary. Going straight to an RFC is often not advisable at all. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  My suggestion is to create new categories, not to do any renaming.

  And for the millionth time, per WP:SUBCAT, diffusing articles to subcats is routine. No RFC needed for that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I promise you, stuff like Category:Cricketers eligible to play for the English cricket team, in my view, would be worthless. For all sorts of reasons to do with both politics in this specific case, and, in a more general way, the way that eligibility in cricket works. I'm sure that with some cool heads and some sensible discussion we can come up with something that will work and which is sensible. Perhaps you can put forward a case in a new section below for what you consider to be the issue here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Blue Square Thing: we have a problem. Some editors view Category:Irish cricketers, Category:English cricketers (and the other by-nationality categories) as meaning something radically different to what it says on the tin. That is not sustainable.

  The plain English meaning of "Irish Fooers" is "people from Ireland (an/or of Irish nationality) who do Foo". Same for every other country and for every other occupation. Whether we're talking Japanese judges or Bolivian biologists or Mongolian mathematicians, there is a clear plain English meaning.

  It is possible to add a hatnote to clarify that, but that is of little help because a large chunk of categorisation is done by tools such as WP:AWB, WP:Hotcat, WP:Cat-a-lot etc which do not display any such note. That's why countless WP:CFD discussion over the last 15 years have renamed categories to ensure that the actual name of the category clearly and unambiguously describes its scope.

  In this case, the use category names to mean something other than the plain English meaning of the category name also leads some editors to object when normal category maintenance is applied, as happened here. That is no good for anyone.

  We need to get of a point where Category:Irish cricketers, Category:Japanese cricketers, etc do what it says on the tin: where the scope of the category has the normal plain English meaning, just as it does for lawyers, golfers, dentists, astrophysicists, midwives, engineers, etc.

  I have proposed a simple way of doing that. Please explain why you think that it would be worthless. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, I think "Foo cricketers" and/or "Foo international cricketers" is better than "Fooian cricketers" for players who have represented/played for that country/team, with "Fooian cricketers" being retained purely for nationality (with locality sub-cats), and things like the current "Ireland cricketers" would simply need to be more explicit to reflect their use. I dont think "Cricketers eligible for Foo" is worthwhile for two reasons: first, it is rarely known until the player is selected; second, it isn't defining until/unless they are selected. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  So, let me see if I have this right: Tawanda Muyeye would be categorised as Zimbabwean cricketer, yes? And also, obviously, as Cricketers from Harare and Kent cricketers, because he's played for KCCC. If he were to play for England - he's eligible, he'd then have something like England One Day International international cricketers added? If I have that right - and I think I do - then that strikes me as being workable and sensible. It seems to sort of be what we already have I think - it's how Zak Crawley is categorised, although it's obvs simpler for Zak.

  Where I get confused is with, say, Robin Smith (cricketer) - born in South Africa and made his senior debut there, but isn't categorised as a South African cricketer (but is as English cricketer). Would you change any of the way he's currently categorised?

  Thanks - I find categories tricky to deal with in lots of ways. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Individual cases can be decided once the category structure is defined; however, it's possible to be both English and South African and we should simply follow the sources when it comes to nationalities (bearing in mind that "fooian cricketers" would not be a 'sporting nationality' category). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Brown Haired Girl: the example of Tawanda Muyeye above is one reason. Others would include Michael Hogan - born in Australia and played there first, but then played in Wales and then England as a domestic player due to residence and is, I believe, qualified to play for Australia and England (and also, presumably, Wales); Grant Stewart - born in Australia, plays in England as a domestic player but also plays internationally for Italy where his mother was born - rather like Eoin Morgan he's also presumably qualified by now to play for England at some point; Fred Klaassen - born in England, grew up in New Zealand and plays for internationally for The Netherlands - again, would be eligible to play for both England and New Zealand in the future; Marcus O'Riordan - eligible for Ireland by family, but we only know that because it said so somewhere really obscure and I read it. I could add Ben Compton, Arafat Bhuiyan, Nathan Gilchrist (complex one), Matt Quinn, Hamidullah Qadri and Daniel Bell-Drummond as probably eligible for more than one international side - and that's only from one domestic team's current squad.

  There may be other current Kent players who are eligible for Ireland (or Scotland). I don't know of any that are, but, hey, Tony Cascarino played soccer for Ireland with only the most tenuous claim to an Irish ancestry. In the case of professional sports I'd say that trying to even find out who's eligible for which national side would be a time sink so very deep that any attempt to categorise in that way is doomed to failure.

  There must be a better solution. I just don't quite know what it is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note I have struck my comments and unwatched this page due to the continual series of personal attacks, and doubling down on these attacks by a certain editor. This poisons any chance of sensible discussion, so it is clear that contributing further to this discussion is futile.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nigel Ish, I note that you make no objection whatsover to the poisoning of this discussion by one editor's repeated assertion of proven falsehoods. Your only objection is to requests to stop posting untruths.

  That is entirely the inverse of how an encyclopedia should be built. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Lloyd Budd obituary

Hi all. I've expanded this Hampshire player and international umpire, but can't find an obituary anywhere. It seems a little odd that a man who was umpiring Test and World Cup matches in the decade prior to his death should simply disappear into obscurity by 1986. Would anyone be kind enough to see if they have more luck? Cheers, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I googled but have drawn a blank. It is possible his death wasn't publicly announced at the time and there were no obituaries. Presumably Kieran Hornsby from the YouTube channel WeCricket died in March of this year, but there has been no confirmation at all, it could be a similar thing. Desertarun (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Medal Record

Coming back to a topic from 18 months ago. At that time the discussion went in the direction of Medal Records are OR and so should not be added, but still quite a lot of articles have them attached to the infoboxes (see Steve Smith (cricketer)). Is there a consensus to delete this from the articles?--Maphry (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Heads up

Letting editors here know that there's going to be soon a proposal to mass remove over 1,000 cricket players, and if that succeeds, several more will be made that will be even larger-see User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The usual suspect... StickyWicket (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A large number of these (I'd imagine, I've not looked into it with any detail) could be simply redirected I'd imagine. Perhaps some discussion could be put into that, rather than a filter based system, before a mass RfC like this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I do however think a lot of these will have significant coverage and interesting lives. I've come across a few of late with over 100 FC appearances who were a couple of lines; these, under this proposal, will be deleted, which doesn't sound like an appropriate WP:BEFORE will be carried out. Thoughts? StickyWicket (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a talk page discussion linked to the link than BeanieFan11 added btw. There are things that might be able to be done to break this up and there's already been some success with pointing out issues with the automated way that this list has been generated. If it works the same way as WP:LUGSTUBS, redirection is always an option - we simply move back to mainspace and redirect to a suitable list. It'd all be much easier if there were a way of grouping these by country and era though. What works for New Zealanders from the 1920s won't work for Pakistanis from the 1970s, for example. And this is only the first 1,200. There's more to come. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Life would be easier if there was one solution for all problems. I will struggle to keep up with there being ten different solutions for ten different countries. I question whether there would be almost anything we can find in independent local media relating to almost any non-Test Zimbabwean player. Bobo. 15:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

How long did it take for us to come up with selective lists of articles which filled selective inclusion criteria? For that matter, how long did it take to go from, "No, there is no need to add lists of single-team first-class players" to "this is absolutely necessary"? To single out Lugnuts is unfair and, to be honest, sounds more like a personal vendetta than a step towards finalizing inclusion criteria. There are other users who, over time, have contributed article skeletons with an aim to potential expansion. We are a group of two distinct groups of users - those who would gladly have 10,000 skeleton articles in case there is a chance for article expansion, and those who would rather write 10,000 characters of (mostly) bumf, simply to fulfil a criterion which says "this article satifies me". Many of these are English county players. A significant number of skeletons (and even less) are Test and ODI players. If our inclusion critieria has become "this article upsets me because it is too small", then that is another step towards systematic destruction of the project. Bobo. 12:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Lugnuts is a handy target because the articles are mainly sourced only to CricInfo and/or CricketArchive which can be argued is simply a database (I know it's not, but that's how the argument will run). And they're not here anymore (for now, at least), so that's easier, especially given the nature of the ban.

I think your characterisation is a little extreme fwiw. It's possible to be in a position between those two groups and to see cases where some stubs can act as useful seeds for future article development whereas others are likely to be less useful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

+1. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The assumption that Lugnuts is the only one is unfair. There have been others, of whom most if not all have become disillusioned by the seemingly non-existent aims of the project through internal pressure, who were still doing the same thing, myself included. Bobo. 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Be assured that no-one is making the assumption that Lugnuts is the only one who has mass-created stubs from databases that will never be expanded because sources with significant coverage will never be found. Lugnuts just happens to have been the most prolific (in many areas, not just cricket), to such an extent that it was deemed to be disruptive by the community and they were banned from creating any more stubs. I have no doubt that similar stubs created by others, both cricket and non-cricket related, will be attended to at some point in the future, and your creations will be among them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The existence of Wikipedia articles is not "disruptive". The creation of these articles is not "disruptive". Who and what are article creators disrupting? The aim(s) of the project? What are the aim(s) of the project? Bobo. 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed by the community at length on many occasions. You participated in several of those discussions, so I do not believe you are ignorant of the issues. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Issues are only created by those who wish to create them. If we were all working towards the same goal there would be no issues. Bobo. 17:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My question is and always will be, what do we consider to be the aim of the project, and is there any point if there are two groups of people with exactly the opposite aims? Bobo. 16:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If our inclusion criteria is going to become "we don't like articles which link to only CA or CI", this is going to remove a lot of Test and ODI cricketers - let alone those who have no references or external links at all. Are you prepared to be that user? (General "you", not targeted towards anyone, please understand). More power to you, but it just goes to show the direction we have ended up going. Bobo. 12:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

SPORTSCRIT says that any new article should contain at least one significant, non-database source. IF we can't find such an article about any particular cricketer then we'd struggle to justify having an article about them. Like it or not, WP:CRIC cannot ignore the wider consensus on this site. Spike 'em (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What a wonderful way to render our aims worthless and unattainable. Whatever we think they might be. Bobo. 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

How many times are you going to come on here and stay "this project is broken" and petty "whatever" comments again?

We can't have a local consensus that overrides site-wide guidelines, and whatever your aims may be they are not shared by everyone. Spike 'em (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Until we start AfD-ing cricketers with dozens of Test appearances... it's amazing how so many of those have zero references at all. Bobo. 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry, I wasn't amending your post, I indented in the wrong place). Bobo. 17:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Before you are tempted to repeat/rehash yourself again in this regard, anywhere on WP, please review WP:IDHT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I, and dozens of others, avidly await the deletion of dozens of Test cricketer articles. Good luck. Bobo. 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If only there were something that could be done about those articles... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to 2023 Wikipedia, where anything and everything will be deleted. You can see the backlash to the proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, or search on the terms "NFL" or "BeanieFan11" on the ANI archives and you'll see what I mean. Unfortunately I'm not really sure that Wikipedia can be saved at this point, and I've adjusted my priorities accordingly. (And I write as one who is fairly moderate in terms of road notability.) --Rschen7754 18:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Criketpedia. I echo Spike in that site-wide consensus that WikiProject Cricket cannot make the rules alone. I don't know what Test or ODI mean and I don't particularly care. I do care about what the notability guideline sets forth. If they're worthy of note, then they will have coverage. Your project is not worthless despite what I and others may say about the notability of cricket articles. SWinxy (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd say understanding what Test and ODI mean would be quite an important piece of homework for commenting on this project! Test cricket particularly is the pinnacle of the sport, and anyone playing Test cricket will be amongst the best cricketers in one of 12 countries. Of course, coverage we can access is dependent on the era and the country: Anglophile countries will have more coverage than say Sri Lanka or India, because their print media is better digitalised. Likewise, John Smith who made a few appearances in 1908 is likely to have less coverage than a one-Test-wonder today, simply given one lived in the digital age and the other did not. Does that make one Test cricketer less important or notable than another? Not by my book. A player might play one Test or 100 Tests, but by appearing in a Test match they already reach the notability threshold just by that; thereafter, it's how much they might achieve in their career.

We are all told a pretty strict project when it comes to assigning notability. Yet we seem to get the brunt of it, sadly because people don't understand the sport and the status matches hold. We already deem most players outside of the 12 Full Members who appear in a T20 International to be non-notable. How many other projects exclude international players that you know of? StickyWicket (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So, an AWB-assisted analysis of the list above shows that only six of the articles in this batch relate to international cricketers:

• Ameer Saiyed – 5 T20I appearances for Botswana
• Ankur Vasishta – 4 ODI appearances for Hong Kong
• Asif Iqbal (Emirati cricketer) – 1 ODI appearances for the UAE
• Champa Sugathadasa – 8 WODI appearances for Sri Lanka
• Chandi Wickramasinghe – 8 WODI and 1 WT20I appearances for Sri Lanka
• Collette McGuiness – 4 WODI appearances for Ireland

I can't easily catch articles for those with so many appearances in domestic cricket, and reading through the guidelines set out for this draftification, getting any of these articles back will be pretty easy if they meet the criteria. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I noticed a couple of Surrey chaps, at least one with quite a few appearances. They must be in the fairly early As because I only for as far as something like Andrew. I'll try and go over things and let people know of any that are obvious priorities. The problem is that there's so many and they aren't particularly helpfully sorted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any easy way to run a report showing FC/LA appearances? Hack (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know - maybe Harrias does? I've asked if there's a way to technically create lists by country and I imagine that might help quite a lot - I've been working on New Zealanders and they turn up a tonne of coverage in at least 75% of cases. I have a suspicion that by flooding the list with so many names it'll make it impossible to do anything more than sample the list - and if you hit a bunch of chaps who it's going be really difficult to find sources on it'll skew any view people have. Although I have no doubt that the eventual RfC will end in them all being sent to draft anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sifting out by nationality (or anything else that has a Category) is simple enough, but doing it by number of appearances isn't. (Technically, I could write a Python script to scrape the data for each player from Cricinfo, but... not going to do that.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

How would you go about sifting by category? Is that an AWB job? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a Quarry job; I'll do it for you this weekend. BilledMammal (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be really helpful. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See discussion about this stuff at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) #NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be null and void. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This process looks like it's about to be formalised. I've been provided with the results of a quarry database query with the names of players and the sides they're categorised as having played for - national sides, teams etc... I've turned this into a very long table ay a sandbox. If you have a particular interest in a team (I note quite a few Surrey players, for example) you can sort by team and then use your browser's find process to jump to the point in the list (there are no Kent, Hampshire, Yorkshire, Somerset or Northants players, for example - but 39 or so from Essex).

I believe the first set of articles (probably the first 1,200 by forename) will go live in a few days. I've argued that there's a case for tagging each article for at least a week before whatever happens to this happens so that anyone who has a particular interest in a set of players can double check that there aren't any really obvious issues where we need to intervene. I don't think I'm going to win that argument at this stage.

So, yeah - there's probably about 5,300 articles Lugnuts created that'll end up getting picked up by this process. All of them have an infobox. There are just under 38,000 articles with cricketer infoboxes - so this is maybe 15% of that set. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've had a look at the names of the Surrey players in your list, and the only name I recognised is Nick Kimber, who played 10 List A (but no f-c) games for the club in 2021-2. So it doesn't look as if there are any significant players who really demand to have their own article, which is somewhat reassuring. JH (talk page) 08:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That's useful to know. The Essex list is the ones that worries me a little more tbh - I know someone worked on one chap who was clearly notable earlier in the process, so it might be worth someone taking a bit of a look through at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion at Twenty20 International

Project participants may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:Twenty20 International#Requested move 5 July 2023. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)