Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 58

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Loganberry in topic Are these the same person?
Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 → Archive 65

Nationality categories - a new proposal

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Well I say nationality categories, but my proposal actually involves getting rid of them!

My proposal is one which I think resolves any ambiguity over nationality and means that players would only have one "nationality" category.

We simply have "Cricketers from" categories.

For example, instead of Category:English cricketers, we have Category:Cricketers from England. Instead of Category:West Indian cricketers, we have Category:Cricketers from the West Indies.

These categories, if needed, could be broken down by country (in the case of the Windies), state, province, county, etc, and then further by town/city if needed.

So, to go on some of the examples above:

Simple and easy - which probably means everyone will disagree with it! Thoughts? Andrew nixon (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds rather sensible. But how would you deal with the chap that Alan Gibson used to refer to as "the philosopher Green, D.M., not T.H." who was, if I recall correctly, Lancastrian through and through but whose mother was taken to Wales for the birth because of wartime dangers? Johnlp (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"Ted Dexter goes in Category:Cricketers from Italy, as well as his international category." And presumably Colin Cowdrey would go in "cricketers from India". I don't like that at all. It seems to me that it would be seriously misleading, and it would be even worse for similar cases where the person hadn't played international cricket so that there wasn't another category to give a clue. Nationality is surely more important than country of birth. Just because Ted Dexter's parents happened to be abroad when he was born doesn't make him any less British. Incidentally, one fascinating case is Robert Poore, born in Ireland when it was still part of Britain and I suspect one of the "Anglo-Irish", who served in the British army, and who when stationed in South Africa played in Tests for that country against England. JH (talk page) 10:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd pretty much echo these thoughts. While I agree that the categorisation suggested makes sense and is easy to implement, I wonder about its utility. It is little more than an item of trivia that Ted Dexter was born in Italy; it's not a category that tells us anything useful about him; the other players in the category would have only the most tangential connection to him. Other questions, along the lines of Poore, would be raised by players from Bangladesh and Pakistan born before Partition. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course the other solution is to simply get rid of the nationality categories all together. If a player has played for a national side, we need a category for that, but is a persons nationality actually relevant for their article? The other solution is the one we have now - nationality categories for the country they play internationally for, and for birth if appropriate, and any other nationality category we can provide a source for. Whatever the solution, we need to separate the nationality categories and the cateogires for the countries they play for. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You could argue that if nationality is relevant, then it should be possible to explain why in the prose - Arif's case being an example of this. A problem with categorisation, as ever, is that "Did cricketer A play at f-c/LA/T20 level for team B?" can be answered yes or no. "Is cricketer A nationality B?" can be a far more vexed question, especially given that citizenship, legal nationality, residence and cricketing affiliation are all different things. Unless you do indeed have "Cricketers born in New Zealand" or whatever, this will always be a problem to some extent. Personally I think we were going on all right until this latest round of discussions broke out, but now we have them I suppose we have to come to some conclusion. Just don't ask me what it ought to be! Loganberry (Talk) 12:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget what I said above - I now say, let's not bother with nationality categories - they cause more trouble than they're worth! Andrew nixon (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

I'm creating a proposal along the lines of the previous discussion, to try and get something finalised about this. We were lucky with the Barbados CfD so lets try to ensure we do clean this mess up properly. It's in my sandbox at the moment while I sort it out.—MDCollins (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal looks excellent. My one query is about teams like Barbados and the other West Indian teams (and, I suppose, Ireland, Scotland, and the Netherlands, who have played domestic cricket in England). Is there room, I wonder, for both [[Category:Barbados domestic cricketers]] and [[Category:Barbados international cricketers]]? Or some other such division? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess both could be a sub-cat of Barbados cricketers. There was an example above of someone who played for England, but not in a Test/ODI. I was thinking that they could be left in the parent cat (England cricketers) - and that there'd only be a handful of them. For the (example) Barbados ones, is it easy to tell if the matches were just domestic FC/List A or International List A (but not ODI)? I guess they could both be sub-cats of Barbados cricketers?—MDCollins (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that Category:Barbados domestic cricketers should go in Category:Players in West Indian domestic cricket by team and Category:Barbados international cricketers (better name?) should go in Category:Cricketers by national team. Does that make sense? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Presumably there are other affiliate countries to which that could also apply. Providing we can tell the level of the matches...Are you thinking that (taking Barbados as an example) matches for Barbados are all domestic (against other WI islands), and (according to Barbados national cricket team, the only international matches are those in the 1988 Commonwealth games (which had List A status)? If that is the case, is there need for such distinction? If not, just put Category:Barbados cricketers into both domestic/international parent categories. But if yes, that would work.—MDCollins (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The obvious examples are Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands (and Denmark? Not sure...), who have played in the English domestic structure for some time. But yes, for Barbados, the only example would be the 1998 Commonwealth Games. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolkata Test Match 2001 Ind vs Australia

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

FYI

The annoying thing is editors that aren't exactly very knowledgeable about cricket wonder why have an article about this test and not all the others. In other words, they don't understand it's significance. It's looking very likely that the article will be deleted. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I too suspect it will be deleted. It seems it's ok to have dozens of articles on NFL matches (non Super Bowl), including College fixtures, yet we can't for cricket. Dare I say American bias? Jevansen (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope it will be kept now that the article has been improved. American football has articles on individual plays, such as The Miracle at the Meadowlands that you mentioned yourself, so one of the most extraordinary of all 1,500+ Test matches should be a no-brainer to keep. We'll see. Loganberry (Talk) 15:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
After a rally from cricket editors, it now looks as if the article will be kept. A complete scorecard has also been added. Got to keep those Americans honest. ;) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
As Loganberry pointed out, we even have articles on American football plays! I think we should make an article for that over Ishant Sharma bowled to Ricky Ponting in Perth last year. Let's give Herschelle Gibbs one too for hitting 6 sixes. Those would make interesting AfDs. Jevansen (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Or even the Harbhajan V Ponting battle! Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
What about Garfield Sobers' six sixes against Glamorgan? Or Michael Holding's famous over to Geoff Boycott in the Caribbean in 1981? Nick mallory (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Imagine how quickly Americans would put them up for Speedy Deletion! - Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The miracle at Meadowlands looks ridiculous but we have Ball of the Century. Tintin 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eden Gardens

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Eden Gardens is in danger of being deleted as copyright infringing material! Surely, this cant be correct. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is true. The offending paragraphs (the first fc match, and "as part of the modernization") were added by an anon on Jan 8, 2005, while this was present in other site at least by Dec 2003. Tintin 04:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely the whole article wont be deleted..? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never understood the logic behind admins deleting a whole article because one section is plagiarised ... instead of just removing the offending material. Can someone please explain it to me? Jevansen (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes! The problem with just removing copyright material from the article is that it would still be present in the page history (which is therefore still an infringement of copyright). What an admin does (or, at least, should do) when processing a copyright violation is delete any revisions of the article that contain infringing material. Unfortunately, this means any revisions that were made on top of that infringing material still need to be removed. --Nick Boalch\talk 18:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case, there is very little un-offending material. Even the lead was directly copied. As we can't find a "clean" version in the history, it is easier to start again in order to remove all offending details. I have saved the last version at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Eden Gardens so we can use it as a template - i.e. have access to the infobox at least. If anybody can construct a clean version, noting the instructions given, it might be saved, but probably best to start again. It can be re-created, but it needs to be started afresh.—MDCollins (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely the infobox I put in isn't copyright material. ;) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No - that's fine!—MDCollins (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I sense this stalling so I have created a new, brief entry to put into the main page - which has now been done - and we can build a good article out of it. It is all new, no copyright issues should exist, and that should all be sorted. I apologise for stepping in and doing it by myself, but I'd rather have this short article which can be expanded than a copyvio tag just sitting there gathering dust. SGGH ping! 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Saved me from doing it :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 03:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sreesanth

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is it just me or his rowdy party stereo completely nn? Can't be any worse than my neighbour surely... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but "Sreesanth's way is to be aggressive. Sreesanth will always remain Sreesanth"! [1]. This includes his music! (Seriously, incredibly non-notable) -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that froth, I find the information about his name (which should be much more prominent) rather opaque. YM - could you do something to help explain it? --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Shanthakumaran is his father's name per Indian_name#South_Indian_names, see also Laxman Sivaramakrishnan. Kris Srikkanth's son plays for Chennai Super Kings, his name is S Aniruddha etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He's back, with a dispute about Sreesanth complainging about a broken aircon! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin required

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Can an admin see if there's anything salvageable on the deleted Rilee Rossouw. As it was speedied I suspect not but thought it would be best to check before recreating it. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

He hadn't even made his FC debut (or List A) debut when it was deleted so I assume it would have been one of those two sentence stubs that are floating about, for Under-19s World Cup players. Jevansen (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be pedantic but he made his first-class debut on the 8th November, two days before the deletion. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right, sorry didn't look closely enough. In that case, stub or not, it shouldn't have been deleted. Jevansen (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The subject was notable at the time of deletion but I don't find it surprising that the article was deleted given the state of it. Although shouldn't "one of South Africa's up and coming young cricket players" even unsourced avoid CSD A7? --Jpeeling (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Created on 10 November 2007 and deleted the same day, the entire contents of the article reads "Rilee is one of South Africa's up and coming young cricket players. He is a Grade 12 pupil of Grey College in Bloemfontein". Nothing to salvage, simply not notable. Nev1 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, has WP:Cricket decided on how to deal with the notability of Under-19s cricketers? I know a lot were created a couple of years back and most since then have probably played FC or List A cricket but what about those that choose a different career path? Andre McCarthy for example has an article, he's almost 22 and hasn't played FC, List A or Twenty20 cricket. Jevansen (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall a discussion on the issue (but I'm not one of the more involved editors), but my own opinion is that if a person's only claim to "notability" is that they played in some U19 matches their article should be deleted. Nev1 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The cricket guidelines don't consider 'under-19 only' cricketers to be notable. The current most promising player in world cricket was deleted two years ago when he had only played youth cricket and there was additional discussion here. More recently there was the AFD of Hemant Punoo where four cricket regulars !voted delete. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who's played first class or list A cricket is notable in my book. Current under 19 players aren't. It's a matter for judgement of course, a certain Mr Collins certainly deserves his place here for something he did when just 13. Nick mallory (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, everyone! I was one of the early members of WikiProject Cricket but my contributions have been very minimal recently as I've been on an extended wikibreak since early 2007. I'm now starting to become active again as an editor and I was delighted to see this WikiProject still active and busy. Anyway, just wanted to say hi to anyone who remembers me and introduce myself to those of you who don't: I look forward to working with you on cricket articles! --Nick Boalch\talk 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly remember you :-) Welcome back! [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome Back. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. Johnlp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

welcome back ! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A belated welcome back from me too! Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shirt numbers

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Several of the squad lists in the national team articles list the shirt number of a player (I've not gone through them all, but England, India, and West Indies do). I don't see the point of this as it's arbitrary and unimportant. Plus players can have different numbers in ODIs and IT20s, and there are no numbers in Tests. So, what do they add to articles and would it be a great loss to get rid of them? Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously if you deleted them then their shirt numbers would not be included in the information that the article provides.... why remove information? SGGH ping! 12:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much for the reasons I mentioned above. They're arbitrary and unimportant and detract from other information. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but thought it might be worth raising here. Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ICC WC Qualifiers

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

If my calculations are correct, Kenya are in serious danger of failing to qualify for the World Cup. Namibia have just thumped them by 200 runs which makes the final round of matches very interesting.

Assuming my calculations are correct, were Kenya to lose their final round match to tournament favourites Ireland and if either the Dutch or Namibia win their final match, the Kenyans would miss out on the WC. Jevansen (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I always expected Ireland to qualify without too much trouble, they have all four county players available and they've all benefited from playing in the county championship (it's just a shame that England are poaching Eoin Morgan). I expected Scotland to do better, they're trying to go professional and have some experienced players, but for whatever reason haven't lived up to their potential. I'd be disappointed if they don't qualify for the World Cup, and it doesn't look as if they will, but the tournament's been surprisingly tight. For me, the biggest surprise (apart from Afghanistan obviously) is Canada, they did poorly in the 2007-08 ICC Intercontinental Cup (winning one match out of seven) but seem to be the lead contenders to face Ireland in the final. Namibia showed potential in that tournament (finishing second) and I'm not too surprised they're in contention to gain ODI status.
I don't think Kenya will beat Ireland, but I do think they'll finish in the top 6. It's very close and any of the bottom four teams could yet gain ODI status. Nev1 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone remember when it was thought Kenya would be the next test nation after the 2003 WC? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep. At the time they were performing at a clearly higher level than Bangladesh. I personally think the preciousness about "Test" status holds cricket back from greater global growth and cricket in Kenya would be stronger if it had been given some recogintion of its strength at the time. Ireland appears to be the strongest associate at the moment, and by some margin, however their better players will seek opportunities elsewhere. Why not give them Test status? Yes, they will get beaten, and badly but NZ didn't win for some time, early Indian sides were not strong and inclusion of Zim and Bang (along with smaller grounds, deader pitches and better bats) has already affected any statistical considerations. A quick and dirty FC structure could follow along the lines of the historic provinces (Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connacht). -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, we've already got Bangladesh, West Indies and New Zealand. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk)

ODI status heh.... I was wondering why Mashrafe Mortaza fetched about 600K at the IPL auction and is ranked about #8 in ODI bowling for my IPL preview series. Well the rankings obviously don't weight weak teams sufficiently. Mortaza averages 40+ against the main 8 teams in ODIs and Bangladesh plays a lot against the subminnows which pads his average so much. Same for Abdur Razzak............. I'm guessing KKR just want all the Bengalis to support them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since being appointed Bangladesh's vice-captin in June 2007, Mortaza has averaged 35.9 against the leading ODI teams (still not great admittedly) and hasn't played Kenya so the ratings can't be padded out that much. Also, it has to be taken into account that Mortaza is one of the few genuine strike bowlers that Bangladesh have, so opposition batsmen are going to treat him with more respect than some of the medium pacers they field, cutting down the dismissals he'll get from batsmen making mistakes. Statistics don't tell the whole story. While KKR probably did choose him to appeal to a Bangladeshi audience, I think Mortaza's talent is under-rated. I'm not so impressed by Abdur Razzak (his average over the same period as Mortaza against the best is 45.3), but I was surprised that Shakib Al Hasan wasn't picked up by anyone. Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Afghanistan have got ODI status, replacing Bermuda in that list. I've updated the national teams template to reflect the results. Can I ask people to keep an eye on the article on the Afghan team, as it does attract the occaisonal editor who has little knowledge of basic spelling/grammar/wikipedia rules, and I suspect they'll be there in force soon! Andrew nixon (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Kenya make it through! Full credit to them, winning when it mattered most. I just read that Steve Tikolo will retire at the year's end which is disappointing, would have been fitting for him to bow out in a WC. Jevansen (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Afghan will get a lot of home games! Shakib Al Hasan is the most under rated player in the world currently. Will be Bangladesh's captain one day, probably after Mashrafe. He'd get into the team as a batsmen and as a bowler, although that probably isn't all the difficult with Bangladesh... Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As a team of amateurs, Afghanistan won't be able to afford to go on many tours. But they do have Pakistan as a neighbour who aren't getting much cricket at the moment... Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I dare say that Afghanistan would be more willing to tour Pakistan than any other ODI nation .... for them it would less dangerous than staying at home! Jevansen (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No ODIs at home for Afghanistan - they have no ODI approved ground. They prepared in Pakistan for the WCQ, so it wouldn't surprise me to see them play ODIs against Pakistan there. They may be a team of amateurs, but they're now getting a seven figure annual sum in ICC funding that should help! Andrew nixon (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well Afghanistan have beaten Scotland in their first ever ODI. Quick trivia question - which are the other three teams to have won their first ODI? Andrew nixon (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Africa XI, Australia, Bermuda, ICC World XI, New Zealand, Zimbabwe. OrangeKnight (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's four teams that won their first ODI, then, and two that won their first farce. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 18:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wasn't counting the joke XIs, but I did actually forget about Zimbabwe! Andrew nixon (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kamran Khan (cricketer)

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Warne picked the above guy to open the bowling for Rajasthan Royals in the IPL. Khans hasn't played first-class or listA cricket yet, and is making his debut in the IPL. He's probably notable as he's received some coverage in the news because his selection was so unexpected, but what do other people think? If a player has only played T20s are they notable? Nev1 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are. Twenty20 matches are major cricket by any definition. And the IPL is clearly a professional league, so all players are inherently notable per WP:Athlete. I'm almost surprised the question is being raised. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point, sorry about that momentary aberration. Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You need to remember though that before the IPL era, Twenty20 cricket wasn't always taken so seriously. Andrew Johns (famous rugby league player) appeared in an official Twenty20 match for NSW as part of a marketing gimmick. He now has his own Cricinfo and CricketArchive profile. It may be a 'major cricket' format, but, hypothetically, say NSW had also fielded their physiotherapist as part of this stunt ... he's not notable for his occupation unlike Johns so would he qualify for an article? Of course, now with a Champions League place on offer and all the money that comes with it, Australian states wouldn't dream of doing another Andrew Johns style stunt. Jevansen (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your hypothetical physio would indeed qualify for an article as he would have played in a fully professional league! Andrew nixon (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

South Africa and Test cricket

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone assist with this query? -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. JH (talk page) 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new category

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

We now have several articles about individual Test matches, including

There are even more articles about individual Test matches that would definitely meet notability and requirements AND improve the coverage of cricket on Wikipedia. Some ones that come to mind off the top of my head include:

No doubt there are many more.

I don't see any requirement to rush out and create articles on Tests for the sake of it (it is hard enough keeping articles about individual series from deletion) but I think there is definite scope to create a category for these articles such as Category:Test cricket matches.

I am looking for advice on a) Do you think the category is worthwhile? b) is it likely to survive the inevitable CfD discussion and c) if it is worth creating, what would be the best name for the category? Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Not sure about an ODI cat though. :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 12:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd go for a category with a wider scope and have something like Category: Historic cricket matches (I'm sure someone can pick a better name), in which would go matches such as those Tests listed above, maybe the first ODI, THAT South Africa v Australia ODI, etc. There's an article on the first USA v Canada match floating around somewhere which would obviously go in there as the first ever international in any sport. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I like Andrew's suggested name for the category. JH (talk page) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
So do I!—MDCollins (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks a good idea to me but isn't "historic" a bit subjective? That might cause the "inevitable CfD discussion". Probably best to follow precedents set by baseball, American football, etc. when choosing a name. --Orrelly Man (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Category: Famous cricket matches? I personally like Andrew nixons Category: Historic cricket matches better. But understand Orrelly Man concerns. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see the "Historic cricket matches" category including some sub-cats in the future but for the time being I think this is a good idea. Failing a better cat name suggestion "Historic cricket matches" suits me.
I agree that following a precedent is a good approach, but a brief look at "Category: Baseball" - probably the best equivalent - doesn't show any similar category. I would argue that baseball is closer to ODI than Test cricket in that, in baseball, the series result is more important than an individual game. However, there have been some major upsets and unlikely comebacks in baseball in recent years (check out Boston_Red_Sox#2004:_World_Series_Championship ALCS Game 4 as just one example), yet I can't find an individual essay on that game. This does not mean that there should not be, just that I can't find one. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Orrelly Man is correct, the name would not survive CfD. The subjects of articles on Wikipedia are required to be "notable" anyway, so a category name that stresses this notability would not be seen as appropriate. For example, a category, Category:Notable people from Portsmouth or "Famous people etc." would not be allowed, however Category:People from Portsmouth is accepted. The idea of expanding the scope of the category is a good one, but the name would need to be something more vanilla, like Category:Cricket matches. This may also include things like The University Match (cricket), Gentlemen v Players, Eton v Harrow, North v. South etc. If the number of Test cricket matches continued to grow, then that could be split as a sub-cat. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I just looked up American football for its individual game articles and they have curiously used different category types between college and NFL. College games are held in Category:College football games while NFL games go into the high-level Category:History of the National Football League. Interestingly, Category:College football games is a sub-category of Category:American football games but this has no articles and does not have an NFL sub-category, so it looks as if the gridiron project hasn't completely sorted out its category structure.
Even so, what they have does provide a precedent and you could create category:Cricket matches under category:History of cricket, perhaps then decomposing it into category:Test cricket matches, category:First-class cricket matches, category:Linited overs cricket matches and so on. --Orrelly Man (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Created, see Category:Cricket matches. Ideas for description and parent cats welcome. Thanks for the tips. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Looks a useful category. --Orrelly Man (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Wisden Almanack Shipping

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not Wikipedia related but for the last few years I have been buying my Wisden Almanack through cricshop as it is cheaper than buying it in Australia. Normally postage is about ₤4 for "Rest of the World" and when I ordered this year's edition last week I was told it would be ₤4.75. However, I have since received an email from cricshop saying that, rather than the ₤4.75 they originally quoted, postage would be ₤36, which would make ordering through Cricshop far more expensive than buying it from the local book store. Has anyone else received the same follow-up email? --Roisterer (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No I haven't but suggest try ebay - I've bought several books there and postage is never more than £10 UK to AU. I guess you're paying about ₤40 for the book plus the postage. A quick look there now shows you should be able to get Wisden 2009 on ebay for £25 plus postage. Say $80 all up at worst. Djanga 00:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New FAC

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1. his mate Tallon is there too now YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ipl TV coverage

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Now I know this is completely off topic, but I'm extremely PISSED OFF to find out that Tasmania won't be seeing any IPL coverage this year, like WTF? I was looking forward to viewing some of the young Indian guns play but now Tasmanian Digital Television and Ten have robbed me of the right because they aren't yet broadcasting ONE HD down here. Is anyone else from around Australia in the same boat? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No different in rural parts of mainland Australia covered by Southern Cross Ten, such as where I live. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's really very poor. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No digital TV here. Very poor. IPL less popular than home shopping?? I was looking forward to checking out the young talent: Uday Kaul (Punjab wk who averages 50+ and is a teenager), Abhinav Mukund (CSK batsman, 19 yo, averages about 55), Kamran Khan, Tanmay Srivastava, Pradeep Sangwan, Yo Mahesh, Cheteshwar Pujara, Sunny Sohal etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got HD TV but we don't get "ONE HD" down here. Was also looking forward to seeing Ex Aussies Hayden, Gilly, McGrath and of course Warnie! Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, didnt CI know that Watson is in UAE? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see how Dubai Sports City is coming along. From what I saw 6 weeks ago the nets at the were just dust bowls. The rest of the Dubai Sports City is still under construction. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
this is a look at the stadium at the beginning of March. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't get it here either, in the capital city of Australia. You'd think Network Ten would at least show some highlights at 2 or 3 am. As YM pointed out, viewers would be more keen to watch IPL than Vanessa Williams talking about Proactiv. Jevansen (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if they will do their weekly highlights on Sunday afternoon like last year, although with ads, it was only 40 minutes for about 10 games so it wasn't that informative. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like youtube will be popular! Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got it on Setanta but I don't think that comes with the normal Sky package anymore :( SGGH ping! 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A question about grounds?

Latest comment: 15 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

Are grounds that have staged only List A matches considered notable?--Blackhole77 talk | contrib 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes. We consider a player who has only made List A appearances to be notable, so it would seem inconsistent not to apply the same standard to grounds. I'm not sure whether there are any Twenty20-only grounds, but if so, I suppose those ought to be included as well. Loganberry (Talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting question if I may take it a stage further. Would it be possible for a venue that has not been used for first-class or ListA or T20 to be notable? Could a venue arguably be notable for historic reasons or perhaps for association with a particular individual or event? I notice there are articles about minor counties clubs and the English leagues as well as some minor clubs in other countries, so would their venues qualify as notable? --Orrelly Man (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it's possible, at least in theory. The analogy there is with a player such as AEJ Collins, who would not ordinarily pass our notability threshold but is nevertheless clearly notable in his own right. I did think of the Lord's Nursery Ground (which surprisingly is not mentioned once in our Lord's article) but it turns out that this has hosted one f-c match, MCC v Yorkshire in 1903.[2] Loganberry (Talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Some examples would be grounds which were important in the early days of the game. There's a lot of debate about whether games in those days can meaningfully be called first-class. I believe that the ACS and Cricketarchive take 1800 as a fairly arbitary starting date, so some major 18th century grounds would never have staged a match now recognised as first-class. JH (talk page) 17:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, very good point. I don't think anyone would suggest we should be without a Broadhalfpenny Down article, for example. As it happens the text in that does use the term "first-class cricket", but as you mention CA regard all matches there as "misc". Loganberry (Talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that Berri Oval (in Berri, South Australia) or Lavington Sports Oval (in Albury, New South Wales) are notable, despite each being the venue for a One-Day International! They probably are, I guess. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As Loganberry says, if a minor second-XI cricketer happens to play for Devon in the C&G Trophy as his only List A match can be notable, a ground which has hosted a single game must also be notable.—MDCollins (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole question of first-class cricket is a can of worms especially as the official definition dates it from only 1947. I was looking at a book a few weeks ago in which the author's view was that first-class cricket began in 1864 when overarm bowling was authorised. There seem to be umpteen theories but I think we need to look beyond mere terminology and decide if the writers regard the matches of a period as important to their histories. For example, you mention the agreed importance of Broadhalfpenny Down but Derek Birley among others places equal stress upon the importance of matches at the Artillery Ground, which was a much earlier venue.
However, historical notability is easier to establish than the notability of, say, Shropshire's home ground in the minor counties championship or the home ground of a Lancashire League club. One of the things I had in mind was that many famous players were Lancashire League professionals and it is possible that some of their deeds might confer notability on the local venue: e.g., Learie Constantine had an illustrious career at Nelson Cricket Club, so is Seedhill Cricket Ground therefore notable, although the short article about it does not actually mention Constantine? --Orrelly Man (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for talking so much in this debate! As far as f-c status is concerned, I take the easy way out and simply follow CricketArchive's lead. Not everyone will agree with it, but it has the major virtue of meaning that there is always a solid source at hand for referencing statements along the lines of "Bloggs made his first-class debut against EI Addio's XI in May 1866". The same applies to grounds - those of Shropshire's grounds that have hosted a List A game are notable: those that haven't aren't.
The Lancashire League question is a bit trickier, and I'm really not sure. To be honest, our coverage of even first-class grounds is not all that good outside the major venues, so I've rather pushed it to the back of my mind and filed it under "I hope someone else decides this"! Hopefully those editors who are more knowledgeable than me about league cricket will have a better answer. Loganberry (Talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not happy about CricketArchive which needs to make its mind up about the difference between a first-class match and a major match. You mentioned above that they classify matches at Broadhalfpenny Down as "misc" but there is more to it than that because those with scorecards are grouped within "Major matches in England in 17yy". So what is a "major match"? According to major cricket, a major match can be any of first-class, Twenty20, ListA or even single wicket providing the players or teams are deemed worthy of major status.
It is not enough to rely on CricketArchive for verification. CricketArchive has no official function and only expresses an opinion about the status of a match or venue in the same way as other sources. CricketArchive is a very useful source for details of a match's scorecard but this is a purely statistical solution and in terms of verifying the match's history, status, relevance, etc. I believe it is necessary to consult sources that do not focus on statistics.
Sorry, but as I wrote above, the whole issue of "first-class cricket" is a can of worms and we need to consider the historical importance of a match or venue rather than its inclusion in a list of statistics. --Orrelly Man (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across as being stubborn about this; that wasn't my intention at all and is not my view. Since I write (and know) rather little about early cricket, it would be wrong of me anyway. I should have made clearer that I follow CA for f-c status about things I write, which are almost always mid-19th century at the earliest, by which time I think it's reasonable to do so. Loganberry (Talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's a can of worms. My understanding is that CricketArchive, being run by a couple of leading lights of the ACS (Peter Griffith and Philip Bailey, IIRC), abides by that body's decision that f-c cricket began in 1801 (not 1800 as I said earlier). That's a fairly arbitrary date, but then any date would be arbitrary. I know that BlackJack, for one, strongly disagrees with it, and regards many earlier matches as being f-c. Prior to 1801, a so-called "major" match on CA is I think a match that would probably have been rated as f-c had it occurred after 1801. I regard CA as being as authoritative a readily available source for the status of early matches as we are likely to get. I certainly place a lot more confidence in it than I would in Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So, would I be right in assuming that the LC de Villiers Oval, the Walter Milton Oval, and the Stan Friedman Oval (three of the grounds that have hosted matches in the recently concluded World Cup Qualifiers) are notable as they have hosted List-A matches?--Blackhole77 talk | contrib 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The first one has hosted 24 List A games and 19 FC matches (several for Northerns so is definitely notable. The others by extension are also fine, yes.—MDCollins (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the question of the notability of matches played before the, as JH says, arbitrary date of 1801. I am very impressed by Derek Birley's award-winning A Social History of English Cricket and will quote from it endlessly. On page 14, he refers to a match in 1697 which I understand is the earliest "great match" that is known to have been recorded. He does not say the match was first-class, but his passage definitely confers notability upon it: it was a "great match"; it was played for what was then a huge sum of money; it was an eleven-a-side game (so none of the odds nonsense that occurred with early Gentlemen v Players fixtures, for example); it was played in Sussex which is one of the usual locations of early top-class cricket. With Birley for verification, any article that describes this match is justified in doing so. If we knew the venue (it was somewhere "in Sussex"), then I believe that venue would be notable enough to warrant an article, albeit it might be a very short one.
CricketArchive does not include this match and I would say that is another example of the site's unreliability as a source for early cricket. Having said that, I agree with JH about CricInfo. CricketArchive is fine where complete scorecards have been found so I agree with Loganberry that it is an excellent source for matches played from about the mid-19th century onwards. But when it comes to earlier games and venues, we need to look further afield at purely historical considerations in order to establish notability. If you read Birley, he confirms the notability of places like the Artillery Ground and Broadhalfpenny Down by establishing their historical importance and credibility.
Anyway, what about Seedhill Cricket Ground and the like? --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
There isn’t a problem with Seedhill: it hosted nine County Championship games between 1925 and 1938 and is therefore definitely notable.The football ground that used to be next door (before the M65 got in the way) was probably also notable, not least as the Most Obscure Venue Ever to Host a Football League Championship Winning Side (Div 3 North, 1922-23).
On your wider issues, JH is right. Our former contributor User:BlackJack went through agonies on past pages of this talk thread debating what was first-class/major and what wasn’t. Essentially, if I remember the gist of it, the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS) came up with a list which dates major cricket back to 1801 and which has been widely accepted in world cricket. In fact, after 1801 there are only a very few matches whose significance is disputed, and Jack wrote an article about those which I’ll try to find and point to here. The disputed matches are important because, among other matches, they relate to games played by W. G. Grace in 1879 and 1881 and by J. B Hobbs in 1909-10 and 1930-31 and their inclusion/exclusion affects some of the most treasured cricket stats, such as the date of W. G.’s 100 hundreds and Hobbs’ career total of 197 or 199 centuries. The dispute leads to anomalies between www.cricketarchive.com, which is based on the ACS view, and Wisden, which has been publishing stats for a century or so. The stats in question have been only relatively recently disputed, and Wisden has been understandably reluctant to budge from its long-standing position.
Before 1801, it’s more problematic. The ACS appears to have been unable to agree about 18th century cricket and earlier and seems to have parked the issue until it investigates further; Jack himself did a lot of research work in old reports and literature; Birley and lots of other cricket historians have trodden similar ground. Patently there are games that are so well-attested and that have playing in them players of such repute that everyone will see them as significant (major, or the equivalent of first-class). Because of Jack’s contributions, we have a lot of material on seasons, players and matches, and some on grounds, from this era. But we, and everyone else, are hamstrung by lack of reliable data. Birley’s book is a smashing read, and a great service to cricket historians in its coherence and its intertwining of cricket and social history, but its data is, I think, no more reliable than anyone else’s, because in the end everyone goes back to the same few basic texts. Some things await discovery, no doubt; other may remain unknowable. Part of the fascination… Johnlp (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
And that is a very fascinating contribution, Johnlp, so thank you for that. I've just read the Variations article and it is illuminating. I would say that a big mistake was made when they celebrated Grace's hundredth hundred but everyone should have lived with the error and just accepted Ashley-Cooper's classification. It seems to me that the root problem is lack of official interest.
Evidently the whole concept of "first-class cricket" is statistical and I think it should relate to organised competitions only. That was apparently the basis of MCC thinking in 1895, except that they gave in to themselves and the universities and so effectively awarded first-class status to friendly matches, whereas football treats friendlies as non-first-class. Even a Celtic-Rangers friendly (!) would not be first-class in football stats. I think CricketArchive's major matches idea would work if it was applied across the board. So, any non-championship match (i.e., and not limited overs either) would be major or minor while first-class status would be ascribed to championship matches only. Hence, tour matches and MCC matches would be major. I think Test cricket should be separate from first-class too. But I'm not sure if I would be making things simpler or even more complicated!!!
I should have looked closer at the Seedhill write-up! But I still wonder if a similar league venue that has not been used by Lancashire would be notable? I gave Shropshire minor counties club as an example above. A little research tells me that their main ground is London Road in Shrewsbury and this is also the home of Shrewsbury Cricket Club. So, is Shrewsbury Cricket Club notable enough to warrant an article and would London Road (cricket ground) be notable if someone decided to write an article about that? --Orrelly Man (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say. I think that making Test matches separate from f-c would be a bad idea, though. Surely Tests have to be a subset of f-c matches? I'd have a real problem with the idea that Test performances should be removed from players' f-c records. (In practice, I suspect that all that would happen would be that statisticians would start quoting "Test + f-c" figures.
A couple of other points. Under one of irs editors, Wisden did switch to the ACS figures for a couple of years. But then with a change of editor it went back to its traditional figures again. (I think it was right to do so, for the reason you give.) As far as players' statistics are concerned, the status of pre 1801 matches may not make that much difference. That's because we have full scorecsrds for comparatively few of these matches. What tended to happen was that the promoter of a match would place an advertisement in the press, stating that such-and-such a team would play some other team on some date at some ground, but that no report of the match would ever be published. There's also the problem that the bowler was not credited with dismissals for which he had the assistance of a fielder. And it wasn't till about the middle of the 19th century that the number of runs conceded by a bowler was routinely recorded. JH (talk page) 09:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
My main task on here at present is expanding the 19th century year in sports articles by moving in what we know about boxing, racing, football, rowing and cricket which are among the few sports that were active in the period (baseball got there first as usual; they certainly beat all other sports projects for enthusiasm but I'd put cricket a good second ahead of football). I've found it useful to lift the leading runscorer and wicket-taker from your seasonal reviews and it struck me that it was not until I reached 1860 in sports that I found a bowling average!
I just did a quick check of CricketArchive scorecards in the 1830s and the first one in which I can see the name of the bowler (i.e., when a catch was taken) is in 1836. In fact, it seems to me that there was no more information given in 1835 than there was in the 1770s.
Incidentally, apologies for the datelinks I introduced to 1864 English cricket season. Some projects use these and some do not. WP:SPORTS and WP:YEARS tend to use them still. Grace started very young, although we have in one of the year in sports articles that he shares the longest career span record with one John Sherman: 44 seasons as I recollect. --Orrelly Man (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not directly related to the grounds question or the previous discussion here (hence the change of indentation) but relevant, I think, to the more general "what is f-c?" question as it applies to us on WP: the convention on the football WikiProject is only to count league games for a player's appearance total; even the FA Cup Final doesn't count. So, for example, Paul Scholes (all over the press for his "600th game" recently) is only listed as having played 412 matches. Personally I'm not keen on the "league only" restriction, partly because it's so out of step with what you read in the general press (Ryan Giggs' imminent 800th game doesn't show on his infobox either), but I imagine the football project's participants thrashed this out long ago and have their reasons. I still prefer the cricketing way, though. Loganberry (Talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very odd about the articles for Scholes and Giggs (and no doubt other players too), the infobox shows different figures compared to the "career stats" box at the bottom of each page. Not a consistent approach at all !
I too believe cricket's way of calculating career figures is the better one. RossRSmith (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the football project should include the FA Cup and the League Cup in its classification, not forgetting European ties. Like the sport itself, the football project is too focused on the leagues. Even so, notability goes beyond the Premier League and the County Championship. I do still feel that we need to look beyond mere statistics when considering notability by studying historical importance and the significance of a given event.
And returning to the purpose of this topic, does anyone think that the London Road cricket ground in Shrewsbury (see above) is notable enough for an article, especially given that both its home clubs do have articles? An example like that is the crux of the venues notability issue. --Orrelly Man (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
London Road has hosted four List A matches and two internationals - so I don't think there is any doubt over its notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Indian state cricket associations

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone created a whole bunch of articles for cricket associations in each team in India (Board_of_Control_for_Cricket_in_India#Members ), copy pasting the same stuff and just changing the name of the team. The articles are pointless and most are not going to grow any further. But the main problem is that there are several ridiculous and/or highly non-notable entries, some of which are classified under "future members" :

I suggest that all the entries above be deleted. Don't know where he got the classification of associate, affiliates and futures because the BCCI official sites only lists the first class associations. Tintin 06:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These articles are a waste of space. --Orrelly Man (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Alistair Day-Stirrat

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Notable? --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania are not an ICC member, hence have never played any official international cricket, so he is not notable. No references provided in any case. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; I can't see that he justifies an article, at least not unless he's done something notable in another field (which would still require references, of course). I did find his LinkedIn profile (here) and it does mention cricket, but doesn't say anything about captaining the national team. Loganberry (Talk) 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the articles assertions that he works as a pusedo-ambassador of the game, developing fledgling national teams in these Baltic countries, has any weight ot truth to it. That might make him notable from the non-playing side of things? SGGH ping! 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair when I wrote this I really wasn't sure myself. I have no objections to it being removed if majority say they want it gone.....Cls14 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I prodded, the prod was contested, so it's now at AfD. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian national cricket captains

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The above article has been listed to be removed as a Featured List. While the sources are provided at the end of the list, there are no inline citations as required in the featured list criteria (I thought inline citations were a requirement of an FL, but apparently it is only stated in the FA criteria), also the list is a bit difficult to navigate (eg: you can't sort the columns). There's a lot of work to be done if the list is to remain Featured. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has been moved to List of Australian national cricket captains. I don't think the new name is an improvement, regardless of what the naming convention says. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamence at FAC

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Are these the same person?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Cricinfo bios for Aamer Ali and Amir Ali. Both born on the same day in Karachi, both playing for Oman, both with the same first name (Syed), one with seven List A games and one with seven LA and two f-c matches. CricketArchive lists just one player (Aamer Ali) with 14 List A and two f-c games, who has the aggregate stats of Cricinfo's two players. I'm inclined to believe CricketArchive simply on past form, but can anyone confirm one way or the other? "Amir Ali" is a redlink in the Todo section, hence the question. Loganberry (Talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the same person. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There are several other Aamer Alis and Amir Alis (and, again, CI and CA don't always agree on which form of their name to use!) but none of the others have played at international level (even though it's not ODI level), so (for now at least) I'll put this one at Aamer Ali with a redirect from Amir Ali. Naturally those may have to be changed in the future, eg if an Amir Ali plays Test cricket. Loganberry (Talk) 00:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_58&oldid=1087829348"