Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Active discussions
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Project-class)
This page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Karachi Kings–Lahore Qalandars rivalryEdit

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

I doubt it. Harrias talk 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The rivalry is famous, but not so famous to have a stand alone article.Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. Hard to say there's a true rivaly between two teams in a six-team tournament that's only been around for five years or so. For the tournament format, they play each other twice each year. Maybe refs 3, 4 & 5 in the article might be enough, but I wouldn't fancy its chances of surviving an AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The PCB have clearly tried to push it as a rivalry from the outset (almost all the early sources are republished press releases), however it seems obvious that it is based on the cities rather than the cricket teams as there is simply not enough history there. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is now an AfD discussion for this, feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no references present to show these both teams rivalry. As per it Fails WP:NRIVALRY Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRINEdit

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

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

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

Presumably the same as this guy? Played in the same season, has identical batting and bowling figures. In this instance, his full name is on CA but not on CI. Bobo. 21:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyone able to find out how far he advanced in his military career? Maybe something the guys over at WP Military history might be able to help with. If he didn't advance all that highly, then perhaps a redirect to a list (which would need to be created)? StickyWicket (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
When are we going to stop redirecting people just because we've never heard of them? We might just as well have a rule that every non-Test playing player from every country other than England should be redirected, just to save time. The fact that we are trying to destroy our own project is sad. We are talking at cross-purposes with regard to bright-line notability and random notability in other contexts. Although I have always been interested to wonder whether there was a non-English cricketer who didn't progess high enough to reach CRIN but was notable enough in other areas. Bobo. 09:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The list exists: List of Combined Services (Pakistan) cricketers Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:CRIN is definitely not tight enough by any stretch and currently fails in it's primary purpose, largely disregarding the requirements of WP:N (and to a lesser extent WP:V) – it's why we have hundreds of stubs about non-notable cricketers from all over the world that are nothing more than mirrors of appearance data on Cricinfo/CricketArchive. Notability should be confirmed by significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the statistical repositories of Cricinfo/CricketArchive. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If CRIN is not tight enough, suggest alternative brightline criteria we can adopt. CRIN matches every other team sport subject-specific guideline. Too many people come by and say, "here is a problem", without being willing to say, "this is how the problem can be fixed". Bobo. 03:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow, didn't even bother looking for that list because the team is so obscure I didn't even think the list would exist! It's not so much because we've never heard of them, I tend to redirect to lists/categories if I can't find much on them (so they're either A. Smith and have no other details or appeared in one FC match and there's no other mention of them). Some single FC appearance cricketers, like Lothian Scott, have interesting lives covered by sources and warrant inclusion, others, which we're unlikely to ever know all that much about, are more appropriate as redirects. That said, the speed at which people want non-English language covered cricketers deleted is annoying, because sources in Punjabi, Hindi ect could exist. Also, by doing that, we keep the deletionists off our backs. It's a compromise. StickyWicket (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
When some of those deletionists belong to our project, we are dealing with Frankenstein's monster, unfortunately. And once again, I like the fact that 16 years of my own work is often being passed off as "non-notable"... etc, etc, over and over again. The requirements of N state: "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"... or. Exclusionism for exclusionism's sake becomes boring and inconsistent. If this were happening on any other WikiProject, the deleting users in question would probably be admonished and, likely, topic-banned. Frankly, I would rather we be consistent and say that every non-English cricketer be deleted, because, consistency. What's the point of a project which does not run to bright-line criteria? We've turned against ourselves and that's disturbing. Bobo. 03:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
In any case, there is more to deal with than those with minor first-class data. There are dozens of even Test cricketers with zero references. Fix the more important articles before looking at the ones which have so few views that they do absolutely no harm to the project as long as they conform to brightline criteria. Bobo. 03:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please desist from the ad-hominem remarks. Characterisation of contributors as "deletionists" or "inclusionists" is not at all accurate and wholly unhelpful, only fostering a "them and us" battleground – in short, it is disruptive. It also gives the impression that you are only interested in driving away anyone who may oppose your viewpoint. And this: "I would rather we be consistent and say that every non-English cricketer be deleted, because, consistency" is simply pointy. FWIW, topic-bans (or more) are generally more forthcoming to those who refuse to engage in constructive discussion. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Attacks? Against who? I'm just frustrated at the state of the project that I've involved myself in for the last 16 years. And my point remains. There are Test cricketers whose articles are so bare that you'd actually question whether, save for an infobox, they were worthy of an article. Which remain entirely unreferenced after 16 years. Let's fix those before worrying about supposedly "less notable" cricketers. If we were working towards brightline criteria, this wouldn't be a problem. What is the point of being involved in a project which is voluntarily destroying itself? And why is it that when people say, "notability requirements are too loose", they are unwilling to suggest their own? It's been 16 years and nobody has yet bothered to do so in a way that would be universally applicable. Bobo. 10:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1 – Clearly explained above; frustration is no excuse. 2 – Clearly explained in previous discussions (per WP:N); it's about significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, not infoboxes or refs sections. 3 – What you mean is brightline statistical/appearance criteria; the problem is, that on it's own such criteria are incompatible with WP:N; It's why NCRIC/CRIN fails, and the volume of articles going through AfD in the past few years is a clear indication of that. 4 – Changes have been suggested here countless times, but there seems an overall unwillingness to make NCRIC/CRIN more stringent. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If you are saying subject-specific criteria are too loose, then please suggest your own. As a project, we can then decide whether we can adopt these new criteria. If you are saying something is a problem, then you can put forward a way of solving this problem. If you are here to build an encyclopedia rather than destroy it, then surely you can help enhance what we already have. As I've said, there are dozens of threadbare Test cricket articles. Have at 'em. Bobo. 12:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record (and as noted many times, in many discussions), the community is saying that many NSPORT criteria are too permissive; the evidence is clear that NCRIC/CRIN is one of the many. The first step is for this project to acknowledge that NCRIC/CRIN is out of step, and be willing to make changes. Only then can we properly discuss what form those changes take. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
That RfC suggests Follow-up discussion should be held to determine...Proposed specific changes for the criteria in each sports-specific subguideline, which is what Bobo is asking you for. It says nothing of the need for any given project to make any acknowledgement, just to have a discussion. I think that the "1 appearance deserves an article" approach is too lax, but I've never been able to think of another that isn't equally as arbitrary so generally steer clear of these discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Given the hostile response to the very suggestion of change (which has been raised many times since the RfC, both here, AfD and elsewhere), it is my view is that such acknowledgement would be helpful (if not necessary) as a starting point in order to move forward; I didn't mean to imply the RfC required it. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure there wouldn't be any hostility towards change if you suggested something universally applicable that we could all agree on. Any ideas, wjemather? You are still yet to offer anything in the way of ideas. Bobo. 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
While I'd support the inclusion based on him playing in a F/C match, I tend to stay away from the one match/one name/no dates people. Probably best to focus resources elsewhere than pick the bones over an article that will (probably) never exist in the first place. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Lugnuts, the individual in question on Cricinfo: here shares exactly the same statistical details as the individual on Cricket Archive here. If we cite Cricket Archive as the source for his statistical details then that should cover both or at least stop us from having two articles on someone we assume is the same player - unless there is a serious coincidence going on! (Blah blah GNG blah blah). Bobo. 12:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"support the inclusion based on him playing in a F/C match" – this is the crux of the problem with NCRIC/CRIN as highlighted by the OP. Playing in a single match actually makes it rather unlikely that someone will meet GNG, which directly contradicts the opening statement of NSPORTS. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The two notability guidelines directly contradict each other therefore rendering each other worthless. Like Lugnuts says, if you worked on enhancing articles rather than questioning the existence of others, the project might get somewhere. Look at the number of Test cricketers with no citations. Work on those. They are surely much higher priority. Bobo. 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the RfC linked above did come to the conclusion that GNG took precedence over the SNGs and WP:NSPORTS also states that passing any of the SNGs does not mean an article is guaranteed to be kept, and that some content is better placed in Lists than standalone erticles. I know you are keen on having clear rules to determine which articles should exist, but it is not always that simple. We don't all have to have the same views or priorities on what to improve for the project to work. Spike 'em (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
That RfC was a complete and utter mess and I'm surprised anyone found any consensus in it. If we cannot work to brightline criteria, what's the point in trying? (And I'm not referring simply to vote count tallies either, that's precisely what makes it such a polarized conversation). It's easy to say, "I don't like it this way". What frustrates me is those who say they don't like it who are unwilling to provide an alternative solution. Bobo. 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Going back to Wjemather's point about Narky's question - "Does CRIN really say that he can have an article?" Yes. But that doesn't mean it must be created. You can always find examples of individuals that do meet the notabilty requirements, but most people would say (strong) delete at an AfD. The one-appearance line is ubiquitous across sportspeople, and IMO it's fine as is. How much time is wasted on an AfD for a cricketer who was active in the past 40 years or so, but no-one bats an eyelid on a stub about a moth species described once in some obscure text in 1782, or a village in Guinea-Bissau with 10 people living there. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't believe, Lugnuts, that there is anyone out there who truly believes Wikipedia shouldn't be a completely comprehensive resource of information meeting brightline requirements. It's almost as if they are trying to censor information because its existence upsets them. Bobo. 20:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Amending NCRIC/CRIN is not about deletion or censorship – articles on subjects that fail GNG should get deleted/merged/listified/redirected regardless of any subject specific guideline. The problem is the current "one-match" bright-line criteria is proving incompatible with GNG (as sources simply don't exist outside of CI/CA data), with articles passing the criteria regularly being deleted/merged/listified/redirected. And yes, the guideline "doesn't mean it must be created", but while most would agree, some see it quite differently and believe all who pass should have articles, regardless of GNG (or N). wjematherplease leave a message... 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Choosing at random which articles offend us contrary to brightline criteria is censorship. I cannot believe anyone does not think we are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia based on brightline criteria. We revisit the same point. You believe the subject-specific guidelines are "too broad". Submit your own subject-specific guideline. Offer it to the group. If we choose to accept it, that's cool. Saying "this is a problem" without being willing to provide a solution, is a waste of time. Bobo. 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's choosing anything at random. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Censorship is censorship is censorship. Articles are chosen at whim because people are offended by their existence. If there was an article written on every first-class player, people would find articles to take to AfD just for the sake of arbitrary time-wasting. Bobo. 11:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't chose anything on a whim. When I find something that, after research, I don't think comes close to meeting a criteria I do something about it - either suggesting a merge, merging boldly on occasion, opening an AfD or PRODing as appropriate. I don't generally go around looking for such articles, but they turn up every now and again, especially if you happen to be working through lists of players as I have. If you want to call that censorship then I don't think it helps your argument, but it's up to you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Yep, and I agree with all the points you make here too. The list of possible competitions is something I'm planning on working on, if that will help. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Also most of the sports specific criteria that I've seen make it very clear that they are "presumed notable" if they meet the requirements. But that doesn't mean we should just abandon WP:GNG e.g. in cases where we have people who've played 1 game and don't even have first names for. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
"Presumed" is a nonsense word which adds zero and takes away zero from the guideline. If people are unwilling to work to NPOV criteria, then you have to question why they are working on a project which is trying to collate all knowledge based on a certain subset of criteria. Bobo. 11:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I would suggest "are likely to be notable" - as in WP:NBAD. I prefer the way that reads anyway - more straightforward English with less room for lawyering Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what "likely" means. Still makes it sound like people will wheedle their way out of working to brightline criteria. Which destroys our aims as a project. Sigh. Bobo. 19:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Yes, and I think there is a pretty wide consensus that that's a suitable way forward in those cases. Given the history, it might actually be worth making that super-clear in a newer version of NCRIC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: a list would be really helpful - I've mentioned in the past that I'm not convinced, for example, that modern University matches are really proper first-class cricket, but I know that's likely to create some argument. I think someone else wrote about competitions such as the Logan Cup being a bit dodgy at some point as well. Those aren't make or break examples for me: it depends on where people decide is the best place to think about drawing lines.
The T20I stuff also worries me a bit - I'm not quite certain whether the current wording rules out every player from places like Monaco who plays in a T20I now. I think it does, but I'm not entirely certain. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the T20I bit needs a tweek too. It does rule out cricketers for Monaco playing in a T20I and is meant to exclude all the associate players from teams who got full T20I status after the ICC changed the rules a year or two ago. Maybe the Pananamian starting XI might think differently on that... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
What about a scorecard as criteria because at least that way you got some information (whether they were a opener or a number 11) and that way it rules out some guy who played in 1975 who was mates with the captain CreativeNorth (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
What, like this match? I think we need a bit more than that - as interesting an idea as that is - to make the players in it notable per se. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
If all we needed to do is add scorecards, then given that most of the people who submit articles for deletion appear to be members of our own project, I think they know how to do that themselves before submitting for deletion. Finding information takes effort. Clicking on a link to send to deletion does not. *shrug* Bobo. 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
"Clicking on a link to send to deletion does not." I mean, giving that carrying out WP:BEFORE checks is a requirement of the deletion process, the latter actually takes more effort, technically. Harrias talk 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I was referring only to the physcal and mental effort it takes to click a button... Bobo. 22:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Scorecards are routine coverage and only prove existence/occurrence; they do nothing to prove notability (per GNG & SPORTBASIC). They also wouldn't rule out someone "who was mates with the captain" as they'd still be on the scorecard regardless. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Ironically there are, of course, plenty of examples of first-class matches where someone got picked because they were mates with (or related to) the captain. And others, for what its worth, where they just happened to be handy when an extra player was needed. Scorecards are, obviously, not enough by themselves. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

List of competitionsEdit

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

@User:Lugnuts would you consider the Shpageeza Cricket League in Afghanistan as notable as I think the national T20 league is Afghanistan Premier League? Anyone else's view is welcome Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as it's their domestic T20 competition, while the APL is a franchise league. Compare the IPL with the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy in India, for example. Both notable T20 leagues. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wisden TrophyEdit

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

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 FAREdit

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

2018 Pakistan Super LeagueEdit

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

It is predominantly a list of matches, with very little prose about what happened during the tournament, so I'd say it needs some work before it gets anywhere (though I've never taken part in a GA review so may be giving duff information). Spike 'em (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, as a minimum, it will need a prose summary of the group stage, and then a bit on each of the knockout matches and final. I haven't looked beyond that at the general quality of what is there. Harrias talk 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I think, to put it kindly, it needs a LOT of work to get anywhere near a GA standard. Spike and Harrias have covered the issue about more prose. You've got more prose about the opening and closing ceremony, and nothing to sum up the matches. Info on the background to the tournament, including why a sixth team (Multan) was added would be great. And to go with that, reactions and aftermath of the tournament. At a glance I can see at least half-a-dozen unsourced claims too. But if you're up for improving it, every edit would be welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: - thanks for making a start on improving this. I was trying to think last night of a similar article, and then it came to me - the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Take a look at the summary section, a great way to breakdown the match details week by week. Good luck! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

List of cricket recordsEdit

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

I only saw that different pages have kept different lists. SO decided to utilize the Covdi-19 lockdown and get all the pages to similar level of info. If you have issue with that then I would be more than happy to revert back everything. Ankurc.17 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to revert everything back, but thought it would be good to have a discussion on what is appropriate for all of the lists. Rather than cross-populating any record listed on any of the pages (which are possibly added without discussion), we should choose which ones are appropriate for all. I can see the worth of some of the "most runs at a position", for example, but it needs to be properly sourced. I think that lists of results that are only going to keep growing (like listing every series whitewash, or every 10 wicket victory) are not worthwhile keeping. Spike 'em (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The reason I switched from HowStat to Cricinfo for the most runs at a position and Average was because it wasn't covering all the teams. Anyways what ever be the consensus I am ok with that. Like i said earlier, I just wanted to keep all the pages in a similar format. Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there a source that lists the 250 runs / 5 wickets in an ODI series? It seems a strange weighting of runs to wickets to use (50:1, whereas 10:1 or 20:1 would be more usual). I can see Howstat has lists of 250/20 and 200/16 in Test series, but nothing in ODIs Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I have pruned the England lists, as they are the ones on my watchlist, and am also removing some confusing rowspans. When there are overlapping rowspans in different columns I find the table difficult to read. Spike 'em (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bored again, so I'll askEdit

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

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

2018 PSL after expansionEdit

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

Notable?Edit

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

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

I'd probably redirect to the 2020 English cricket season and then make sure it's mentioned on there somewhere. It's more obviously relevant to the season in terms of that's where we can discuss reasons etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Merged & redirected to the main article (redirecting to the season article would be a bit of an easter egg) and added an anchor & note to detail cancellation. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Gentlemen of KentEdit

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

Newspapers.com has newspaper articles on some of the matches they played. British Newspaper Archive probably does too (you can access BNA via your library and library card, for some libraries). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The lack of obvious sources is the thing that's stopped me from creating an article in the past. I can probably cobble together something that's acceptable enough by using a Kent history and then some more passing mentions in other sources I have available and newspapers dealing with the social side of Canterbury Week will probably give us something else - it probably all links to Band of Brothers and the shady East Kent underbelly of amateur cricket... It'll take a coupe of days to get around to it I imagine.
Have you worked through every player now? And is there a handy category (or sandbox list?) that would be useful to help insert links? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The alternative would be a section on the KCCC page; the two are completely interrelated. If the sourcing is looking really weak this might be a better solution - then if sources come up it can be split off whenever. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Much the same, I almost created the article last year, but didn't as I'm reluctant to create just another 'team X played first-class cricket X amount of times', as they don't really tell anyone anything! I did think the two were interrelated, having created some articles on players that featured for the team who have newspaper obituraies saying they played for Kent (when their only 'Kent' matches were for the Gentlmen of). I've worked through every player and given them an article, or a redirect where appropriate. If you could cobble something together with your sources, that would be fantastic! StickyWicket (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The same is true in newspaper match reports. I think a paragraph on the Kent page - with a list (naturally...) would probably be the better option. With redirects from both Gentlemen of Kent and Gentlemen of Kent cricket team - unless anyone else has better ideas? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Is done. I'll work on a list of players at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

ZiauddinEdit

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

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

Royal London One-Day CupEdit

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

  1. Why does the winners list include all predecessor cups e.g. ECB 40, Pro40, when the article is about the 50 over competition from 2014 onwards?
  2. Should we remove the sponsor name from the article name as we have done with ECB 40, Pro40, Women's Cricket Super League? And if so, what should the article name be? Maybe English cricket One-Day Cup or English One-Day Cup? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Probably ECB One-Day Cup? Harrias talk 10:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
There was a discussion in 2018 at WT:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 84#English Competition Names - this is referenced on the article talk page. I think I dealt with all the T20 Blast stuff but the other competitions never got dealt with iirc. ECB One-Day Cup seems reasonable and deals with the issues which were raised at the move discussion on the article talk - it then depends on how we deal with all of the other 40 over etc... competitions. The WT link above might help with that re: the Cricketer article. I think I still have a hard copy of that article lurking in a pile behind me if that helps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the 40-over competitions being included. They may not have been exactly the same number of overs, but it's still List A cricket and no one competition ever ran alongside another as far as I can tell. Also, we shouldn't be coming up with our own names for these competitions; whatever name we settle on for the article needs to follow the article title naming conventions, and that means at the very least needing a source for it. "ECB One-Day Cup" doesn't seem to be a name that has ever been in common parlance. – PeeJay 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I know, it's tricky - especially as there are other competitions with the name one-day cup. There's a video from Lord's which does call it just the one-day cup - as do Notts in 2020. Given the complex history of the competition it might make more sense to try to avoid the sponsor name issue if possible - but that means we end up calling it just one-day cup, which is clearly something that's too geographically ambiguous. English one-day cup is clearly wrong (Glamorgan), so if there's a desire to change the name then ECB, as the organising body, is sensible.
But it's tricky and it might mean we have to keep with the sponsor name maybe - the B&H more or less has to stay with the sponsor name as there's really no sensible alternative. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The winners of earlier domestic one-day competitions should probably not be detailed in the RL article as it seems like unnecessary duplication of indirectly relevant information. And we should probably stick with the common name, which seems to quite clearly include the sponsor, unless there is a source for a generic official title. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Cricket".