Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

The Worst Cricket Related Article

This is Worst Cricket article, the thing that i hate the most is the structure , the article later moves to Andrew Symonds and talks about him getting slow. This article surely needs an attention 122.164.168.114 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not a good article. The only thing that is worth keeping is the first sentence, the rest is just a load of waffle. And where is Jack Hobbs? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Such an article should only deal with theory. To talk about a particular century as more notable than another is WP:OR. It does weaken the article's potential for growth though. It is still possible to discuss the different types of centuries (half, double, etc.) as well as the customs and traditions associated with scoring a century (batmsan raising bat and taking helmet/hat off) as long as there are sources to back these traditions. The only centuries that truly stand out from the others in an unbiased way are the first ones made in each form of the game, the biggest ones, the fastest and perhaps the cricketer who has the most number of them. Only statistics and history can be objective in this situation. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There are various RS that try to decide the greatest innings of all time, which may be relevant (and less OR). I think Wisden may have done one, which would be a good start. And maybe finish. Lol. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes Wisden may be an exception but generally speaking it is not a good idea to compare centuries. Even the most reputed journalists are affected by national pride so Australians will always say Warne is the best spinner, Murali for the Sri Lankans, Tendulkar the best batsman of this era by the Indians while Lara by the West Indies supporters. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a go at restarting this by having much the same intro but leading into sections about the earliest known centuries and then the highest career total. I've reduced the article to a stub. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

Re the above thread, I've dropped Aggers an email.

I also thought it'd be nice if we enhanced his article a bit. I've made a start - contributions, of course, are welcome. --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what did the e-mail say? Did it explain that what he saw wasn't a typical day around here? It's certainly a good idea to improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I told him about the vandalism, referred him to BEANS and suggested ways he can let us know if he spots inaccuracies in articles. I then moved into a positive vein, flagged up some of our work, including the Featured material, Invincibles FT drive and the subject of the thread below this. Finally, I asked for a plug for this WikiProject as we're always keen for new contributors. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, it would be great if something good could come out of this. I was half joking about WP:BEANS although it certainly applied. Nev1 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm never too sure on these things, but {{Infobox cricketer biography}} looks a better infobox than the current one, as it doesn't currently include Aggers FC record. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer {{Infobox cricketer biography}} as it's more detailed; I've used it on a few articles before but that's where I've been the only one active on that page so I thought I'd check first in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the 'current' infobox that has been adopted by the WP - it would be useful to replace any older infoboxes you come across (which is no mean feat!). In this instance, I was just coming to update it and have been beaten to it. Excellent! I'll find a random player and do that instead. Think I'll go for Mark Lathwell - a candidate for worst cricket biography. –MDCollins (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I received this reply by email:

aggers: that's very kind - thanks. It looks OK at the moment. Hope the plug brought you lots of traffic - if too much hard work!

I'm pleased he responded; he's a busy bloke. Kind of him. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRIN

Could some of you please review changes I've made to WP:CRIN in response to two or three of the topics above which are relevant to club and player notability? Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me on players. Good stuff. Club notability is probably even more fraught than player notability, so we'll probably continue to have issues there. But it's as clear as it is ever likely to be in the present form and a good basis for discussion. Well done. Johnlp (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (Modified a little. Johnlp (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure I like the idea of every village cricket team deserving an article. I don't have a counter-proposal, but it feels too much to me. Does anyone else have a view (for or against)? Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that village teams might be a bit far. It's difficult enough to get independent sources for minor counties let alone village teams. Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When we've discussed club notability in the past we've seemed to accept only those competing at the highest levels of the amateur game: ie in England, clubs that are members of the ECB Premier Leagues and the Lancashire Leagues. I'm not sure we ever got anything even this definitive for cricket-playing countries other than England, and it still leaves grey areas, like what to do with clubs that have been relegated from these premier leagues. But it's a start. Johnlp (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel its a bit too loose. There's literally thousands of small clubs which run in small leagues and competitions outside their immediate locality. I feel it should be more along the lines of limiting to clubs and associations which conform to the player inclusion criteria. ie. major cricket, or perhaps one level below. In Australia that would include Grade cricket clubs. But nothing lesser. Moondyne 02:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most articles about very small clubs will fail because of lack of sources, the need for which is emphasised in WP:ORG. I think we need to vet these articles more closely and refer any doubtful ones to this page before AfD. The problem is spotting them because they are always created by enthusiasts who do not contribute regularly to WP. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Although it is about sport in general and not just cricket, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports by popularity by country which I've raised today. The list carries loud echoes of the "cricket is the world's second most popular sport" tedium that we had a couple of months ago on here and on the cricket article's talk page. Some of the contributors to that debate have been active in compiling this list. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sehwag

Virender Sehwag moved to plain Sehwag. No clue what that guy was thinking about. Tintin 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. Sehwag previously redirected to Virender Sehwag, and the guy moved it because "not many people know his first name"... well that's what redirects are for! Andrew nixon (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tintin 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ajantha Mendis

Another astonishing performance. Could he surpass Murali's brilliance? What a talent. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent once again. I've changed his infobox, but came a bit unstuck with the domestic teams. Would any Sri Lankan experts check for me? –MDCollins (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...And he breaks the record for most wickets in a debut series (25)–MDCollins (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Phew

Every player (271 of them!) who made his first-class debut for Worcestershire before WW2 now has an article. The emphasis there is because quality varies a lot. Even so, I'm inclined to continue with post-war players rather than going back to improve existing articles, since I tend to feel that having something there for everyone (as long as it's not actually inaccurate) is, as a first step at least, better than having good articles for 50 players and nothing for the rest. Loganberry (Talk) 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done! And I think that the way that you've chosen to order things is sensible. JH (talk page) 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cricketer up for deletion

A List A cricketer I created has been put up for deletion. Follow link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trevor_Anning for discussion and please comment on the subject. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consider using Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket and watchlist same. Moondyne 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done it, also tidied up and expanded (a little) the article in question and hopefully made notability more clear.–MDCollins (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been several of these recently and, with respect, the problem is partly that they consist of little more than a restating of the stats that are in the infobox (and which are also, in any case, incomplete). Once they are given the kind of excellent clean-up and expansion that MDCollins has now applied to this one, their notability is no longer in doubt. But as a kind of proto-substub, they are always likely to be under threat. Maybe the answer is to do a bit more work on them to establish notability in the text before launching them on a world that is full of predators? Johnlp (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It only took half an hour to get from that to this. I think with a little care and preparation over the creation of the articles, notability can be established immediately, without going through the silly AfD process.–MDCollins (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Johnlp (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inclusionist by nature, and have voted for the retention of everything I've seen go through this process recently. I've also put some work in on Les Angell and Stanley Amor who were in pretty poor shape. But then I come across pages such as Jim Andrew, and I wonder. He certainly doesn't fail through lack of notability, but I'm inclined to nominate for deletion because it's not really an article, more a collection of half-transcribed factoids derived from stats, not from knowledge or from reading or the interpretation of the stats. My instinct is that having a redlink for Jim Andrew is no worse, and maybe slightly better, than having this kind of article. Perhaps I am being too harsh? Johnlp (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it barely satisfies any basic criteria for creating an article. Inter-wiki links, the boldening of the subject in the lead, never mind basic punctuation and copy writing. I can see what 02blythed is trying to do, in creating articles for everyone, and we must applaud that, but a little less haste would be preferred to one of us trying to save it from deletion, or putting in some basic work to turn it into an article. I'll add some tips on his talk page.–MDCollins (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of works by cricket historians and writers

I posted a proposal there for a rename of the article. Comments welcome. Moondyne 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Carry the bat

have a Look at howstat and cricinfo, reply Needed Bharath (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply given at the above page.–MDCollins (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And one from me. JH (talk page) 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

FT Drive update

The work on Keith Miller has resumed in earnest. Please do come along and help. In particular, the article needs some cutting down to size. It also needs a photo of him bowling... In the recent past we've been really good at collaborations - let's do it again? --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NB Currently, of the 17 Invincibles players, we've got 6 to FA and 7 to GA, so there's just 4 (including Miller) to go, plus a few other non biog articles. I doubt Keith Johnson can reach even GA, for lack of information, but I'm sure I could be surprised. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on chaps! --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

KJ can work...It just has to be "comprehensive" Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CricketArchive template

Hi,

I've created {{cricketarchive}} which I thought would be useful for use in the same manner as {{cricinfo}}. It's there if anyone wants it now (it works in the same way by using the copying the second half of the URL, after the cricketarchive.com domain bit).

Does anyone know how to remove the bit in brackets from the pagename (so it doesn't have to say "Player Profile: Fred Smith (cricketer) from CricketArchive" instead "Player Profile: Fred Smith from Cricinfo"? –MDCollins (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go and added a name= parameter as well as same into {{cricinfo}}. I'm a bit out of my comfort zone there so I hope I haven't stuffed it up. Moondyne 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deaths in a cricket match

Working on Abdul Aziz has got me thinking about various deaths during a cricket match. User:Tintin1107 has added George Summers as well as Maurice Nichol and Charlie Bull who died during a fc match (but not necessarily as a result of an on-the-field event). I've also come across Ian Folley, Wilf Slack, Raman Lamba and other non-fc players.

Is it worth creating List of deaths during a cricket match? (maybe under a slightly better title?

–MDCollins (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Andy Ducat and Wasim Raja are two others who died during non-fc matches. Tintin 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Killick too. And Reggie Northway and Dallas Page died on the way home from fc matches. Johnlp (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A very rough draft is in my sandbox. Feel free to have a play around, add some more names etc.–MDCollins (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting topic, and a question I myself wondered about a number of weeks ago. Thank you for starting this topic and for supplying names. Bobo. 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A good idea, but I think either the title will need changing or George Summers will have to be omitted from the table (but would rate a footnote). JH (talk page) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it. NB Michael Atherton wrote today in The Times about cricketers who committed suicide. An interesting read. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And there's also List of cricketers who were murdered - all a bit morbid round here, isn't it. I wonder if the three (murder, suicide and retiring dead) could all be combined into one article? Untimely deaths of cricketers or something? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tintin and I worked sporadically a while back as well on the list of cricketers who died in road accidents. It's still sitting, in fairly inchoate form, in my Sandbox if anyone wants to liberate it. Johnlp (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget players such as Trevor Madondo, Scott Mason and Archie Jackson or, on another tack, Hedley Verity and Ross Gregory amongst many others. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Walker, cousin of Ron Hamence the invincible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of three deaths on the field in early times, two of them because the batsman could hit the ball twice in those days. They were Jasper Vinall (1624), Henry Brand (1647) and John Boots (1737). BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the name could be changed, suggestions please...IMO George Summers can be included as he died as a result of injuries sustained during a cricket match. I know I have bent the rules to include those who died travelling to/from a match (Sam Moss] is another who died on a railway line travelling to a match, but didn't play at FC level); I hadn't thought about including a List of Cricketers who died in action, or those who died of malaria etc. I think that if all these are included it might be unmanageable, it may be easier to have a separate lists?

Equally the Road Accidents/Murdered/Suicide articles are still good ideas, the road accidents certainly has potential. Maybe a series of articles on 'untimely deaths'?

Any thoughts on a way forward?

–MDCollins (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Travelling "to and from" matches has the potential of getting out of control too. Collie Smith was travelling to play in a charity match. Dhruv Pandove was returning after playing in Deodhar Trophy, but his DoD is two days after the day of the match. Do we count cases like this ?

Next, this should ideally be only for first class cricketers, but do we make exceptions ? The names that BlackJack mentioned may have a case. Frederick, Prince of Wales would have been a good non-fc entry except that the article refutes the popular story.

Deaths in action should be a different article, and not sure whether those who died young deserve an article just for being young. Kenneth Gregory's In celebration of cricket had a four page list of deaths in war. So it may turn out to be a copy-paste job. Tintin 09:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tintin - if we created List of cricketers who died in a road accident, those travelling to a match could be moved there. What about train crash?? I agree on FC/List A cricketers - WP:CRIN should still apply. Perhaps those killed in action should be reserved for those whose career was curtailed by their death? (unless that is all of them) - I haven't seen Gregory's book - is it just a list of names or are details expanded? What would it be like in tabular form (although perhaps that's for a separate discussion. As there seems to be merit in those dying on the field/after being struck etc, I'll continue with that for a minute. Looking at the deaths during a cricket match title - it could invite "pensioner Fred Bloggs had a heartattack sitting in his armchair with a beer watching the 4th Test at the SCG?" :-) –MDCollins (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the Gregory book nearly a decade ago and have no access to it now. It had just the names of all fc cricketers who died in the wars. User:Johnlp/sandbox#List_of_cricketers_who_died_in_road_accidents is the road accidents link that John talked about. Tintin 10:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Beware of AfDs also. Jguk had a page on the deaths of English captain which got deleted. IIRC, there were attempts to delete the murdered cricketers' page also. Tintin 10:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. There's a policy page somewhere (don't remember how to find it) that says that even if List A and List B are notable, that doesn't mean that the list of people belonging to both A and B is notable. I think List of cricketers who died in a road accident pretty clearly falls in this category.

I've been looking into various list policies, and haven't found anything to discourage this particular type of article, provided that it is referenced, comprehensive (or has the potential to be), possibly sortable (but by what in this instance I don't know, hence chronological). AfD precedents suggests that AfDs stating 'duplication of a category' usually fail and the articles stand; due in part to the different navigation preferences of uses, and that lists can contain more (or annotated) detail. This is explained further in Cats, Lists and Nav templates. Stand alone lists is also useful. However, is there an essay somewhere regarding List A/ListB/Notability (see above?) that I haven't found? I have found WP is not a directory but can't see any barriers (unless you can find anything else).

I had a play around yesterday trying to group together all of the 'lists' above (murdered/died on the field) but don't know if that confuses things, and whether they should be kept separate. Also I was wondering whether it would be more useful as a List of cricketers who died during their career (so eliminating the murders of the more elderly. Any further thoughts? –MDCollins (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I was thinking of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, although I see that the equivalent policy for lists, Wikipedia:Overlistification, failed to reach consensus. See also the essay Wikipedia:Listcruft, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causes of death of English national cricket captains. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Test cricket from 1884 to 1889 FAR

History of Test cricket from 1884 to 1889 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The four runs

These edits were made to the Bradman article today. The reference given is http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=619662 which is based on the original SMH article at http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/missing-four-runs-could-take-dons-average-to-100/2008/08/22/1219262525317.html . Davis has analysed it with the scepticism of a scientist, ninemsn is a sensationalist reinterepretation which ignores everything except the four runs, and wikipedia now states it as a fact.

Davis' article is balanced, mentions the four runs as just a possibility, states one instance where Bradman loses a run, and considers it highly likely that there would be more anomalies in Bradman scorebooks. Since we are an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper concerned only about the latest sensation, my opinion is that until it becomes widely accepted, it is not even worth a footnote. Tintin 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are almost certainly dozens, maybe hundreds, of minor errors in the "official" scores of Test Matches, especially for 19th century ones. Nevertheless I think you have to accept the official scores as final. Otherwise you'd have anarchy. JH (talk page) 09:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And in this case, the original article even says "Is it really possible? Well yes it is, but unfortunately it is unlikely. Newspaper accounts do not mention an extra boundary to Bradman, and other possibilities, giving the runs to Ryder earlier in his innings, seem rather more likely." This sort of stuff is good journalism, but bad encyclopaedia writing. I've deleted it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Davis said it was "unlikely" that the error would have favoured The Don which is about the opposite to the way the edit read. Moondyne 12:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Scoring errors of this type were common in early times but could not have survived 20th century scrutiny, especially in a Test match. I am not suggesting that official scorers are infallible and it is certainly true that occasional errors are made in the course of a match but given the concurrent recording of unofficial scores by press and spectators alike, and especially since the introduction of scoreboards, I think it is nearly impossible that a Test or first-class scorebook could retain an error of this kind. It would be spotted at the time and sorted out. Scoring was shambolic in early times but since MCC took control of the game it got better to the point where it became reliable.

Stephen is quite right to remove this passage which is unencyclopaedic. It is sensationalism, nothing more. Even if anyone claims that there is a verifiable source (echoes of "second most popular sport"), it must be credible as well as verifiable. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Scoring errors still do crop up from time to time. As recently as 2005 in this match (a List A match and World Cup qualifier) the scorers missed the umpire signalling four, and only scored two runs. The mistake wasn't noticed until the next day, by which time the scores had all been signed off. Namibia would have won the match, and it would have meant that the Netherlands would have qualified for the World Cup automatically with Canada left to fight it out with the UAE, Denmark and Namibia for 5th place and the final qualifying spot in the 2007 World Cup. A rarity I grant you, but not completely outside the realms of possibility. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradman's 100th birthday and Main Page

Just to let you all know that next Wednesday (27th Aug) it's the Don's 100th birthday.

To mark the occasion, his article will be on Main Page (flowers, champagne and effusive thanks to Raul and Sandy).

Please help out with the inevitable "criket is gay" "this dood is gay" "Brad is gay" "noo im not ur gay duane" etc vandalism, not to mention liberal helpings of "poop"-related messages from our charming younger friends who've not yet graduated onto "is gay" messages.

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Read the excellent meta article m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Moondyne 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. This is good news... and some compensation for our Australian friends at a time when their sporting prowess is being eclipsed by the Brits. (Sorry. Couldn't resist.) Johnlp (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh it might make the silly politicians (who typically gloat about cricket too much) to wake up and realise that dominating cricket is easy because of the fact that most of the Test countries are generally very weak at sport. Although the Queensland state goverment has decided to halve the funding for the swimming program - QLD swimmers won 6 golds (all three women's relays had a pure QLD quartet) and 16 medals overall for Australia....In 1976 Australia got no golds and they started had a big government inquiry the AIS...UK can only get stronger in 2012 so I wonder if the Aus govt will resort to Chinese style strategy....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons

We really are going to have to take action as a project to prevent the littering and cluttering of cricket articles with these pointless, resource-exhaustive icons. A friend of mine who uses a dial-up connection has phoned me to say that his window was completely frozen for about two minutes when he tried to access International cricket in 2008 earlier on. I have a broadband connection and even with that there was a lockout of about ten seconds before I could scroll down the article to find a veritable forest of these ridiculous little icons that add absolutely nothing of value to the article and cause unacceptable problems for readers, especially dial-up readers.

WP has tried to address the problem in WP:FLAG but the difficulty is that it only preaches against excessive use and how do you define excessive? How long is a piece of string?

In my opinion, these things should not be used at all but I daresay some people will argue that it is reasonable to have the England flag just once next to the word England at the top of a list of English players. Unfortunately, those people who think the icons are mandatory like to place a flag next to the name of every single England player in the list and that is right over the top.

For my part, I am removing these things wherever I find them if I experience any noticeable delay in accessing a page and quoting WP:FLAG in the edit summary.

I'd be interested to read other views. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I find them useful in some places, especially in long lists. For example, in a list of matches at the World Cup, it's very useful to be able to pick out all the matches pertaining to a particular team quickly. As I said last time this was mentioned, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 47#List of Twenty20 International games, WP:FLAG explicitly supports this use.

Also, there are valid arguments about visual clutter, but bandwidth can't be a substantial issue when there are only ten different flags or so, even on dialup, because your browser only downloads each flag once however many times it occurs on the page.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are about 25 including such teams as Jersey, Mozambique, Vanuatu and Botswana. Tintin 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many times it downloads each one if it causes a reader's screen to be locked out. The reader comes first and it is our responsibility to provide him with information in a simple and readable format without using devices that are resource exhaustive. As we say in the trade, we don't need "bells and whistles" and we don't need flags either.

Another point I would make is the distorted emphasis that these things place on nationality. Are we telling the reader that Andrew Flintoff is an English all-rounder who plays for Lancashire or are we telling the reader that Andrew Flintoff is an ENGLISH all-rounder who plays for Lancashire? See the difference? This distortion is mentioned in WP:FLAG but it should be obvious that the flag emphasises the player's nationality above his age, county, skills, etc. and that is not right. It is worse we read that it is not the Indian team playing the English team but the Indian nation playing the English nation. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

International cricket in 2008

Following on from the above point about flag icons, I've now been able to remove the delay to broadband access while my dial-up friend says he now has a delay of only a few seconds: that is because the article is very long.

But I have another issue to raise about this and similar articles. Apart from the short intro, it consists entirely of statistics. Is this acceptable? I've tried finding a guideline or policy about overuse of statistics and can't see one.

I do not see how a mass of statistics can constitute an encyclopaedic article. I agree that stats can enhance an article with appropriate usage (e.g., in an infobox; a league table) but I would have thought that all articles should be mainly text with stats, images and other supporting materials as add-ons only.

My inclination is to nominate this statistical summary (it is not an article) and others like it for deletion. But I'll hold fire until I've read other views and particularly anything that points to a relevant WP policy. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's a list, not an article. Not that it's a very good list, I have lots of issues with it, but it shouldn't be judged as an article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a list. It is a statistical summary and I don't believe that such entities are valid. Statistics in tabular or graphical form are meant to be supporting materials and what they support is text. I haven't checked but I bet over 90% of the content in this summary is duplicated in the individual tour and series articles. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it! WP:NOT#STATS applies here. I don't know if there is an equivalent tag but I suppose Template:Unencyclopedic covers it. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

South African flag in player's infoboxes

This flag was used in South Africa from 1928 to 1994 so shouldn't that be the one that features in the infoboxes of South African Test cricketers from before apartheid? For those who played from 1910 to 1928 then this flag comes into play. Crickettragic (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it there's also an issue with India where Test cricket was played by the country before independence in 1947 thus the Flag of British India should perhaps be used? Crickettragic (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this before, and concluded that it was far too confusing to have old flags that nobody now recognises. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive2#Which South African flag should we use? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why use the wrong flag because of a perception that the readers will not identify with the correct historical flag? If the reader is confused by the red ensign he only has to do a mouseover and he will see a label to tell him what the flag is. But the real question, per the topic immediately below, is why use a flag at all? What value does it add and why introduce a device that emphasises the player's nationality above his skills, age, teams, statistics, etc.? Is it not sufficient for the reader to see the words "Country: South Africa"? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We're acting against Wikipedia policy by using the modern day South African flag for pre apartheid players. Wikipedia:Flag states that "When use of a historical flag and associated country name has at least a semi-officially applicable rationale, use them. For example, in lists of Olympic medalists, the USSR flag and country name should be used for reporting stats predating 1992, not those of either the Russian Federation or the CIS". Crickettragic (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the old flags. As for confusion: Ignorantia juris non excusat. To BlackJack: aren't the all international cricketers sporting representatives of their country? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are, but a flag emphasises nationality rather than states it. Why should that be given an emphasis when his skillset is not? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE

Now here's a useful guideline we can call upon in those AfD cases where someone insists that an article is not being developed or is a "bare stub". As long as the article states why the subject meets WP:Notability and it is clear that there is potential to expand, we do not have to rush in and expand it here and now just because some cricketphobe objects to it only having a couple of paragraphs. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

Just a reminder that he's on Main Page from midnight. Have your best vandal-bashing equipment at the ready. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradman and apartheid

An anon posted at the Bradman talk page with a good point. If anyone has RS relating to Bradman's stand against apartheid selection in S.Africa, please head to Talk:Donald_Bradman#Administration_and_Legacy --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's this article from cricinfo, I'm happy to let someone who is more familiar with the Bradman article to slot it in somewhere. Nev1 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too carried away with Bradman's role in the boycott movement. It would be fairer to suggest that Bradman was more interested in protecting cricket from scandal and controversy rather than fighting apartheid. He could have been bloody-minded like Muldoon in NZ with the Springbok rugby tour, and it is to Bradman's credit that he didn't take that path, but his actions were probably more pragmatic than idealistic. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think anything added to the article about apartheid will amount to speculation. My view is that Bradman wanted Australia to play South Africa in 1971-72 for purely cricket reasons: after all, South Africa was widely regarded as the world's best team at that time. But you can't always separate sport from politics and he had to listen to political advice. As a result, he bowed to the inevitable and recommended the tour's cancellation. He acted in the best interests of cricket, that's all.

Best to forget it. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Cricket

Cricket has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. - auburnpilot talk 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That article's not kept up with the rising standards of FA, which is shame, and it doesn't reflect well on this WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The section entitled "International structure" is not a structure at all: it is ramshackle. Once again we have "most popular sport here" according to some obscure newspaper report, "national sport there" according to another obscure newspaper. Apparently it is a major sport throughout Europe and is the national sport of England! Er, sorry, but I get the distinct impression that football might be the national sport of England. Surely a section headed "International structure" will discuss the ICC and explain the various membership levels? This is going down the same road to triviality that History of cricket was following by including last week's Twenty20 result.

Why are there all these audio recordings and why are there so many pictures? Why is Bradman's photo in the history section above that of the Aboriginal team and a long way removed from the text about him?

I could go on. As I've said on the review page, the trouble is that the article has been targetted by people who think in trivial terms and just have to get their own personal view in there (e.g., it's the world's second most popular sport, etc., ad nauseum).

I think that those members who are keen on quality should add this article to their watchlists and vet it closely. I think any ideas for substantial edits should be brought onto this page and I'll start that particular ball rolling myself below this topic. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we start by jointly agreeing an appropriate structure for the article, one that's comprehensive and logically ordered. As an FAC veteran, I strongly recommend ignoring the Lead until everything else is done, even though it's tempting to start there. I also think it's not worth trying to fix this in time for the FAR; the problems are too deep-rooted and unless someone's willing to pour masses of time into it over the next couple of weeks, it cannot be fixed in time. Let the FAR go and let's work on a new FA. I'm happy to suspend my other FAC work (sorry Miller and Brown) while we get this done, as it's an embarrassment to the WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a pity the article has sunk to such a level. I think cricket was my second FA way back in 2004. A deleted draft available (deleted contributions, visible to admins) dates back to the first FA drive. =Nichalp «Talk»=

Cricket: International structure section

I propose a complete rewrite of this section to place emphasis on the ICC membership tiers rather than some people's perception of the sport's popularity. The fact that it is played in over 100 countries proves that it is popular so nothing needs to be said about that. Instead, we should be providing an objective discussion about the structure in factual terms. We need to considerably reduce the number of obscure citations in this section and instead quote from a few sources such as Wisden, CricketArchive (which has the whole international structure right here) and the Encyclopedia of World Cricket by Roy Morgan. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We should just mention the three membership tiers, with a full list of full members along with examples of associate and affiliate members, and a mention of other countries that field national sides but aren't ICC members. Follow this with a mention of the three formats played at international level and the teams that currently take part in each, along with a brief description of the World Cricket League and mention of some of the other current tournaments outside that structure (South Pacific Games, ACC Twenty20, etc). That is all we need in a section on international structure, in my opinion. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy with that. The main thing is that the content reflects the title. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cricket - structure

Let's go for it. Section names are descriptive, rather than proper MOS-conforming final ones:

• Lead
• How to play
  • Roles of players
    • Batting
    • Bowling
    • Keeping
    • Fielding
    • Captaincy
    • Umpires
    • Referees
  • Equipment etc
    • Bat
    • Ball
    • Protective equipment
    • Whites
    • Field/Pitch
    • Stumps/Bails
• History
• National and International Structures
  • ICC
  • Test cricket
    • Championship
  • One Day International cricket
    • World Cups
  • 20-20 International cricket
    • World Cups
  • domestic competitions in ICC full member countries
  • Cricket in other countries

Feel free to chime in. I'm sure stuff is missing or illogical. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Having flicked through to the current article, I think the biggest difference is that I'm proposing moving away from a structure rooted in the Laws. I'd see this as advantageous, but am open to criticism. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion about the Laws because it is a too formal approach. As a starter for ten, I've created a new workspace page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket which is based on notes and essays that I've had for some time. I recommend that we use this to build the new article. I'll work Dweller's points in later on today. The structure I've got for it at present is as follows:

• 1 The game of cricket and its objectives
• 1.1 Pitch, wickets and creases
• 1.2 Bat and ball
• 1.3 Umpires and scorers
• 1.4 Innings
• 1.5 Overs
• 1.6 Fielding
• 1.7 Bowling
• 1.8 Batting
• 1.9 Runs
• 1.10 Extras
• 1.11 Dismissals
• 2 Types of match and competition
• 2.1 Test cricket
• 2.2 Limited overs
• 2.3 National championships
• 2.4 Minor Cricket
• 2.5 Other types of cricket
• 3 Origin and development of cricket
• 4 The significance of cricket

This contrasts with the present article structure about which I've noted the following, the Laws chapter being particularly unsatisfactory in terms of approach and structure:

• Lead - far too long; tries to replicate some of the main sections; yet more drivel about "most popular sport"
• 1 Overview - wrong title; replace by "The game and its objectives"
• 3 Laws of cricket - whole chapter is too formal; we need a friendly and informal walkthru of the game that introduces the concepts in a gradual but logical progression
• 3.4.2 Dismissal of a batsman - dismissals should be separate from bowling; not all dismissals are due to bowling
• 3.6.2 Runners - this is getting silly; runners need only a brief mention under batting
• 3.6.3 Substitutes - and this needs only a mention under fielding
• 4 History - necessary but it needs to be reviewed to make sure it is historical and relevant
• 5 Forms of cricket - rewrite and restructure whole chapter
• 5.2.1 Twenty20 Cricket - doesn't need its own section
• 5.3 First-class matches - doesn't need its own section
• 5.4 Other forms of cricket - far too much content; needs an overview only
• 6 International structure - this is dire (was)
• 7 See also - can't see the point of this list; links should be in main content
• 8 References - need a reflist for inlines and perhaps a short further reading list; need to stop obscure newspaper reports
• 9 External links - some of these are questionable, especially those that bang on about popularity and Twenty20

Please see the workspace page and edit it freely. I haven't included images as yet. We can discuss these later and decide what and where when the structure and text is more or less settled. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happier if we just slapped a new hierarchy below the current Lead in the main space article and then started moving appropriate text into the right place. This is the technique TRM and I have used many times when undertaking FAC projects. It saves a bunch of linking/referencing problems and slightly dodgy c+p issues to-boot. Next step is littering the new article with cn tags. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's the sort of WP:BOLD approach that I like. I'll remove the workspace page and go straight to mainspace. Obviously, I expect this first shot to get well and truly edited but can I ask people to think about structure first and we'll worry about details later. Anything in the old version that is actually useful, like some of the images, can always be retrieved from the logs. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave the existing stuff on the page and just bung the new structure at the top of it all. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope when this is done there's again a single-paragraph summary of gameplay in the intro. I found this extremely useful in the old article. --NE2 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Alec Bedser interview on BBC website

Not a particularly long piece, but this interview with Bedser, mostly about Bradman, may contain material of use to those working on the relevant articles. Loganberry (Talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few odd transcriptions in that interview. The pernickety one I remember is that I very much doubt, for example, that Bedser talks of "tonnes", lol. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Davies (cricketer)

I presume he's still fly under peoples' radar because of his fitness problems, but this guy has got to start entering the England reckoning now. He's just taken best-ever figures of 8-24 and his career average is 20.88.

More pressingly for us, we should consider if we think he's notable enough to push for Mark Davies to become a disambig page, or whether the Wolves footballer is still dominant enough that most people searching that term would be looking for him, per WP:PRIME.

Our case isn't helped by the fact that the cricketer's article is sparse. I'll give it a lick of paint. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An infobox would be nice... hint hint. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox added. The footballer doesn't seem especially notable, although a bishop probably is. We could move the footballer to Mark Davies (footballer) and use the Mark Davies page as a disambiguation page. Nev1 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I agree it should become disambig. I'll complete a WP:RFPM and start a discussion at Talk:Mark Davies --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Input requested from you guys at Talk:Mark_Davies --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The current article says he was taking wickets for 'fun' at one point, which is probably a bit enthusiastic. Mention of the name reminds me of a few other Mark Davies who've played though.

This one http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/4/4244/4244.html played 45 games for Glamorgan and Gloucester in the early nineties while this Mark Davies http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/4/4393/4393.html played a couple for Glamorgan with no success whatsoever in 1982. There are probably a few more. Nick mallory (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking wickets "for fun" is a quote from RS. I quite like it! And the cricketers you've found strengthen the argument for a disambig page, so, everyone, please do head over to Talk:Mark Davies and argue away! --Dweller (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Query about Australia's tour of NZ 1959/60

I've been doing some research on a former South Australian state cricketer John Lill on CricketArchive and noticed that he played two first-class matches for the Australian national team. According to this page Australia played four first-class matches against NZ in a tour in 1959/60 but no Tests. Seeing as by then NZ were firmly established as a Test nation does anyone know the reason why only first-class matches were played? Cheers. Crickettragic (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia seem to have, far from being neighbourly, looked down on NZ cricket. ThoughN|'s first Tests against England were in 1929-30, Australia did not play them until 1945-6, and then in only one Test. That match was so one-sided, that it may at least partially explain why the next Test series between the two counties was not until 1973-4. NZ had been absolutely hammered by England in 1958, which may have been a further argument against Australia playing Tests against them in 1959-60. Also Australia played a 5 Test series in India in 1959-60, so may have felt that a further Test tour would have been too much. I'd guess that the touring party to NZ may have been in the nature of an "A" team. JH (talk page) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, much appreciated. Crickettragic (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisden 1961 wrote of the Australian tour of New Zealand in 1960: "The team, probably the weakest representative side to tour New Zealand, were termed a "Second XI" by the Australian Board of Control. The senior players had been engaged in a strenuous tour of India and Pakistan and were not called upon... they failed to fulfil expectations. They came perilously near to defeat in the second representative match when New Zealand scored their highest ever total against an Australian side." Despite this weakness and failure to live up to the billing, the Australians were undefeated on this tour. I think I read somewhere that some Australians expected the New Zealanders to join in the Sheffield Shield, and regarded them as equivalent of a state side. Johnlp (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Pearson

I'm unsure about the notability of Lucy Pearson (cricketer). Would someone swing by and take a look? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

She's played in women's Tests and ODIs. If she's not notable, then very few female cricketers will be. Why did you think that she might not be notable, as I'm puzzled? JH (talk page) 17:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given the article a re-write. Should be clearer now.–MDCollins (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's becoming a disturbing tendency recently to nominate all stubs because they don't "assert notability", regardless of what the stub in fact asserts. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's one of the reasons why I highlighted WP:DEADLINE above. There are certain people who do not understand WP:STUB and expect everything to be the finished article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cricket: state of play

I've gone through the former version and extracted anything I believe to be relevant into the new one. For now, I can't think of anything else that could usefully be included in terms of structure and we must bear in mind the criticism about too many sections and sub-sections previously.

I've tried to tidy up the placing of images and ensure that the ones used are relevant to the content. Again, we need to bear in mind the criticism that far too many images were used previously.

I would say the article is now at the high end of start-class and very close to being B-class again. What it needs are inline citations in all sections and I haven't time to do that for the moment. I have provided many more than were there previously but we need a consistent spread of references throughout the article. If we can accomplish that, I would rate it as B-class again and then we can think about how to fine-tune it for a higher rating.

Thanks to Andrew for his feedback and to Dweller for his initiative. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that BlackJack has done a fantastic job on the article, and it's improved in leaps and bounds from what it was previously. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yowzer

On a slightly more frivolous note: 248 not out from Chris Rogers, Derbyshire's highest individual first-class score for 62 years. An incredible performance. If only the lower order had have stood up, he could have been on for George Davidson's 102-season record. Bobo. 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Flintoff page

Needs to be updated, particularly the infobox. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox updated. Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test matches (1918–1939)

This probably needs some imput from our Cricket gurus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorisations

Hi,

Just a quick query regarding the various cricketer categories - I expected to find it in the style guide...

For example, do players need to be in both [[Category: English Test cricketers]] and [[Category:English cricketers]]?

I was under the impression that as the former is a sub-cat of the latter, it was not necessary to duplicate in most cases. There seems to be inconsistency across the board here with our articles.

–MDCollins (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to put players in both for cases like this, but it isn't really necessary, and I believe it's actually against Wikipedia policy. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT is the guideline, which suggests duplication is ok if it is a major benefit - it seems to be a matter of discretion. I'm just looking at Stuart Broad who is in 10 categories including English cricketers, English Test-, England ODI-, England T20, Leicestershire-, Nottinghamshire-...etc. I don't think the first category does a lot, so I will remove it.

I was just checking whether there was any consensus here, and, if there isn't, whether there could be.–MDCollins (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I like to include "English cricketers" in all cases. It's possible that a searcher may only know the player's name and that he was English, and not be aware that he played Test cricket, if he only played one or two Tests a long time ago. Then searching through the "English cricketers" category could be their only way of tracking the player down. JH (talk page) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I always use English cricketers too for the same reason. My 18th century player articles all have at least three cricketers' categories: English, club and time period. I don't think it matters how many categories you use as long as they're relevant. A mistake I used to make in the past was that I thought the category system is meant to be hierarchical, but it's effectively relational. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cricket infoboxes

02blythed has raised a good point on my User talk page. Take for example, Wilfred Berry. The date of death of this cricketer is unknown. What should we do to ensure that no expression error occurs? Assume date of death as January 1? December 31? Bobo. 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As the template documentation indicates, one can use "partialdates = true" when dates are not entirely known, and then leave whatever is not known blank. I've fixed the article in question for you. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

... is heading towards FA quality I feel, but my sporadic internet connection over the holidays has left it getting a bit rusty, hope from here to flag it up for any attention a user can give it. Cheers, SGGH ^speak! 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Football

I notice Template:Football squad (probably substituted through another template) and a few other football templates on Sachin Tendulkar. Can someone investigate its source? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's those templates that are used for the IPL and World Cup squads. It's just an inheritance/polymorphism adaptation of the football squad and could be used on any team sport thing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Throwing (cricket)

I wanted to add something to Lord Harris's article about his action in refusing to play the return fixture with Lancashire in 1885 because they had a couple of bowlers whom he (and many others) considered to throw. (I've now added something to his article.) I naturally looked up our "throwing" article to see if it said anything about the incident. I wasn't impressed. It had only two paragraphs on the whole history of throwing, of which the second struck me as being of dubious accuracy. Any volunteers to help improve the article? JH (talk page) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that the first time a quiz question has prompted an article update?  ;-) BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It happens all too frequently. A sign that there is still plenty to do. Which keeps us off the streets, at least. Johnlp (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:) I think the throwing article ought to mention to mention at least Willes, Crossland, Nash, Ernest Jones, Fry, Lock, Meckiff, Rorke, Burke, Giffin, Griffith, and the efforts of Jim Phillips to stamp out throwing. No doubt there are other notable throwers whom I've overlooked. JH (talk page) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of international cricketers called for throwing provides a start. I think there's a list of cricketers called for throwing in Australia too. Johnlp (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of cricketers called for throwing in top-class cricket matches in Australia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff and Jack Marsh have stuff to work with. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article certainly needs sprucing up with the historical record and evolution of throwing, not just in test matches but in the first class game. I gave it a bit of a go. I remember my dad telling me that Tony 'Eric Bristow' Lock played a lot of test matches Johnny Wardle should have played in! Nick mallory (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great improvement. JH (talk page) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ali Brown

My favourite modern cricketer has, alas, been released by Surrey. If anyone wants to spruce up his page, this might be a good time to do it. He only has the test/odi info boxes, which are a bit of a waste as (ridiculously) he played few ODIs and no test matches. Should his impressive domestic first class and limited over records be added to the box? Nick mallory (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. Brand spanking new infobox with ODI, First-class, List A and Twenty20 stats. Am I the only one surprised that his List A average isn't higher? Andrew nixon (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, as any person who's watched him smash their favourite team out of sight will tell you, an average of about 31 is quite enough! It'll be sad to see him go though. -AMBerry (t|c) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have written out the fansite tone in places and sprinkled in the required cite-needed tags. SGGH ^speak! 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Surrey supporter, he was naturally a great favourite of mine. Thanks to all those who have put in work on the article. JH (talk page) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Date Autolinking

Hi again,

I've just discovered a change in policy regarding the linking of dates. The use of linking dates for the purpose of autoformatting [[4 September]] [[2008]] to produce 4 September 2008/September 4, 2008 etc. is now deprecated (see MOS:UNLINKYEARS) primarily because the links hardly ever serve any purpose (the 4 September type articles being irrelevant, and thus counting as over-linking). The other strong reason is that only registered uses set their own preferences, and that we should be aware of what everyone else sees. As far as I can see, this applies unless there is a strong reason for linking, including birth/death dates. As we have a lot of biographical articles, I thought it prudent to mention it here, because the change in policy had escaped my notice (and probably yours too).

If you want to read up on the discussion, most of it is contained here.

–MDCollins (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Quite a few editors (including me on occasion) had been using the ISO date format (eg 1987-05-30) format specifically because we knew the dates would be wikilinked. That format is almost never used in ordinary writing, and so it's going to look odd without the links. Personally I don't like that format anyway, so it will be no hardship simply to write "30 May 1987" or whatever. We should, of course, avoid formats such as 12/10/1980 which mean different things on either side of the Atlantic, but other than that I can't see it causing a big problem. I have a nasty feeling that the debate itself may become another AD/CE blockbuster, though! Loganberry (Talk) 12:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the removal of the ISO format means the dates need to be re-written as 1 January 1987 or January 6, 2003 (for US centred articles), the rough consensus being use WP:ENGVAR (Day Month Year for UK+international; Month Day, Yeah for US; both for Canada). So the months are fully written to remove the ambiguity. The argument that 99.9% of readers (un-registered) actually see 2006-02-05 in the prose is quite a strong one that has been masked by the registered users using preferences.

Just to clarify, the unlinking of dates applies not just to years but to the 'day month' combination also. Linking to [[2006 cricket season|2006]] is of course valid.

There is a monobook script to make this easier, see User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA.–MDCollins (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ISO dates should never have been used because unregistered users and any users who haven't fiddled with their preferences see the ISO date. That's been in the MoS for many years.

It should also be said that although Tony1 has conducted a long campaign to delink day-month and day-month-year dates, which may now even have consensus (I haven't been following it recently), there is still some significant argument about it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dates, for example.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)