Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Merge required?

Abdul Halim (cricketer) vs Abdul Halim (Bangladesh cricketer). I'd do it but the tables scare me to death, and leave me uncertain whether they are the same individual. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Both articles had same DOB and sourced the same Cricinfo player. Done the merge, article now exists at Abdul Halim (cricketer), and messaged the creator of the duplicate page. Joseph2302 22:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; much obliged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD nomination

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of England Test cricket centurions as per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:DIRECTORY... RG | talk page —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Something to be aware of

Please see Template talk:WikiProject Cricket#Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2016. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This works now. Fixed by Redrose64. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Another NOTSTATS bundle at AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International cricket in 2003. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:India's ODI head-to-head records Suggestion

Template:India's ODI head-to-head records should be deleted as it does not serve any purpose. Pages related to this template have been deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh and Hong Kong in One day Internationals discussion. RG | (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This should be a speedy delete IMO, but I guess it'll have to go through WP:TFD. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

More Templates for Deletion

If someone could list the following templates for deletion, as all the articles that this template links to are deleted:

• Template:ODI cricket matches
• Template:Test cricket matches

Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done TfD started at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 27. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunshine Coast Cricket Association

Hello, I came across Sunshine Coast Cricket Association in the WP:NPP long log. It appears to me that the article fails WP:CRIN since it is an amateur club cricket. I am not very sure if I should take it to AfD and hence looking for opinion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Whilst I think there are exceptions where amateur club cricket can be notable, this doesn't seem to be one of those exceptions. So I agree that you should take it to AfD. JH (talk page) 10:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I Zingari. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that I Zingari was one of those exceptions. JH (talk page) 17:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

As well as being a former first-class cricket club. Johnlp (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I was offering IZ as an example of a notable amateur club. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

PRODed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Jhall1 and Joseph2302, since Joseph has already PRODed it, I guess we are good for now. I have put the page on my watch-list. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Another two AfDs

Hi guys, I have just nominated both List of Zimbabwe Twenty20 International matches and List of T20 cricket matches featuring Pakistan for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zimbabwe Twenty20 International matches). This follows on from the recent deletion of other lists of matches. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on these two articles

Hi guys, what are you thoughts of the existence of these two articles:

• List of T20I cricket series featuring Sri Lanka
• List of Test cricket series against Sri Lanka

They just simply list the Test series and the T20I series that Sri Lanka have played in. I can't seem to find any other similar articles. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

After further thought, I have decided to nominate these articles for deletion (refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of T20I cricket series featuring Sri Lanka). -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Two more AfDs

Hi guys, I have just nominated another two articles for deletion: List of Twenty20 matches played by Nepal and List of List A cricket matches played by Nepal for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twenty20 matches played by Nepal). Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian - can you hear that noise? It's growing louder! It's the Nepalese cricket fanboys with pitchforks and rocks! They're nearly at your house! Still, have a good Christmas. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Found two more

Hi guys, I have put up another articles for AfD: List of Test cricket series between New Zealand and the West Indies and List of Test cricket series between England and New Zealand (refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Test cricket series between New Zealand and the West Indies) -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Four more AfDs

Hi guys, I have nominated four more articles for deletion:

• List of Australian ODI batsmen who have scored over 2500 ODI runs
• List of Australian ODI bowlers who have taken over 100 ODI wickets
• List of Australian Test bowlers who have taken 200 or more Test wickets
• List of Australian Test batsmen who have scored more than 5000 Test runs

Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian ODI batsmen who have scored over 2500 ODI runs -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS

Given the ever-increasing incidence of this issue throughout CRIC, I've proposed (indeed, provisionally implemented) a change of emphasis at WP:IINFO, within which NOTSTATS resides. Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTSTATS. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've replied at that discussion and at the latest AfDs. My view is that this proposed change (and some of the recent AfDs) are based on a misreading of WP:NOTSTATS, which warns against making factual information inaccessible through the use of impenetrable stats, rather than advocating a blanket eradication of statistical information. Facts can be presented in many ways, and stats are a perfectly respectable way of doing so, so long as they get the information across. With cricket, stats are an important and integral part of the game -- to the point that the leading arbitrator of some of its more arcane disputes is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, in that order. Johnlp (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The ACS have a lot of things in their favour and one of them, unlike the people who produce lists of bare statistics on here, is that the ACS always provides context. CricketArchive does not but, to be fair, they make the reasonable assumption that their market is limited to people who understand their product. I have no objection to statistical tables which support a narrative or which are used within the proper context to summarise a player's career, for example. The lists we have deleted have all been of the bare stats variety and meaningless to a reader who is unfamiliar with cricket. We might be able to understand these tables but editors have a duty to provide context so that anyone who comes across the article will have a reasonable chance of understanding what it is about. That can only be achieved via narrative. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1

Would be lovely to have comments from experienced editors at the Featured List nomination page. Thanks. Lourdes 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Cricket/Archive 81 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning re CricketArchive

Hello. I've received this message from one of my IP contacts: "Beware of Trojans linked to cricketarchive. I'm told they resemble McAfee messages or windows edge".

As I've said in reply by way of thanks, I've found that by using different browsers the horrendous CA adverts are excluded from the Firefox platform. I strongly suspect that the source of the trojan problem is those "sensational image series" they have at the foot of each page on Chrome and Edge. They are deprecated by reputable sites and CA should take heed. Anyway, my advice is to use Firefox for CA even if you use Chrome or Edge for other sites. On Firefox without the ads, CA is remarkably quick, like it used to be in its early days and no problems copying content either, although you do still encounter that annoying mouseover.

I hope this is useful. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Any adblocker also works to remove the adverts entirely, which, given their fairly horrendous nature, is probably a good way to view CA. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I've got on Firefox but I haven't found how to do it on Chrome. Do you know how to set it or obtain it? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure - I use Safari at home which blocks it using AdBlock. I presume the security software we have at work blocks it with Chrome - I know on my tablet it throws up full page ads for pizza companies... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jack, for installing ad block in chrome you need to go to apps in chrome there you will find 'web store'. go to web store and search adblock plus and install it.RG | (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello RG. It was well hidden and I wouldn't have found it without your directions. All okay now, no ads on Chrome. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Keaton Jennings

Heads up that his page is attracting a lot of IP edits (IE bad edits) in recent hours. I've requested page-protection. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow some people really know how to have fun. I tried reverting some of the rubbish, but giving up for now and will try again later once these people are tucked up in bed Spike 'em (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Spike (and to everyone else who's been helping). Page is now protected. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks as though semi-protecting the article caused him to lose his wicket. My apologies to fellow England fans... Bencherlite^Talk 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean that if we set off a bout of vandalism on Jos Buttler's page then he will score a ton too? It's a small price to pay! Spike 'em (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Eggheads

I don't know how many of you watch this quiz programme, despite its obvious constraints. Is it true that "Colemanballs" is being renamed "Vineballs"?

Anyway, the other night, there was a "sudden death" question in the final round, with which the Eggheads won the contest. It was: "Which former Surrey and England batsman was known as The Master"?

No need to give the answer here, of course. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Sunil jediya

I've just come across User:Sunil jediya which looks like an attempt to create an article on a young Indian batsman who has a first-class century to his name. Would someone who knows more about Indian cricket than I do care to have a look and see whether it's worth transferring to mainspace? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Be careful with this one. One of the links appears to lead to a phishing site of some kind. Suggest a straightforward delete. Johnlp (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ouch - I've just had a closer look, he seems to be merging his life with that of Virat Singh, that userpage is mostly a copy of his article. I guess I'll just blank it but it might be worth keeping some eyes on it.Le Deluge (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Now blanked. PS, does that mean the original Virat article has links to a phishing site? Le Deluge (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it looks fine. Johnlp (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Charles Tuke

Would someone help sort this mess out please?

• Charles Tuke (cricketer, born 1858) (CA)
• Charles Tuke (cricketer, born 1857) (CA)

Right now, entering Charles Tuke takes us to an awkward and misleading redirect page. Cheers in advance. Bobo. 00:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What needs to happen is the following:

1. Articles need to be created about the cricketers
2. Then change the redirect into a disambiguation page for the 2 cricketers and the guy in the redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

All sorted. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

U19 tours

I'm sure this has come up before, but are U19 tours notable? For example this? As a U19 player would fail WP:NCRIC, I'd assume the knock-on affect would be the same with tours. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say no, only the U-19 world cups are notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts. WP:NCRIC states: "Youth players (e.g. members of under-19 teams) are not notable unless..., etc." That being the case, I don't see how an under-19 team can be notable. I've AfDed the article. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Was going to send it to AfD but I see Jack has done that - thanks again! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to judge the notability of a tour by the notability of those who take part in it per se. I'm not unhappy that under-19 players won't usually have their own article, but if a tour creates enough independent press coverage then shouldn't it have an article? Now, it might not do so, but if there is enough coverage of it to meet the GNG then it can have the article - whether or not the people taking part in it at that time meet the GNG or not.

To extend the arguments being made here, if the players don't merit articles then the team doesn't either - so you should be looking to delete the team articles as well? Really? That seems unreasonable to me as they would appear to have enough coverage to make them notable.

I don't know if the article in question has enough coverage to make it notable yet, but I'd be wanting to look at specifics rather than apply a simple rule to determine notability. I imagine there are under-19 tours where notability would be difficult or impossible to show, but others where it would be clear (say, Australian u-19 in England). Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

To add an example, there would appear to be multiple articles just on CricInfo about the Sri Lankan under-19 tour of England in 2016. It's an under-19 tour but has multiple, independent, reliable sources devoted to it - doesn't that make it notable? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Good points, BST, but NCRIC does say (albeit re players): "Youth players (e.g. members of under-19 teams) are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". So, a tour would be notable if it meets GNG. In theory . Jack | ^{talk page} 10:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've got no problems about players - out of interest, I'd argue the coverage just on CI of the Sri Lankan tour would pretty much meet the GNG - what would others opinions be? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Karun Nair

Predictably, this article is now receiving a lot of attention and much of it is unwelcome. We should keep an eye on it. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Update. I've requested semi-protection until all the fuss dies down. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Afd of interest

Hi. I've started this AfD for a U19 cricketer. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

International record by England in Home Grounds

I'm struggling to think what is best done with this and would appreciate other members' views. It certainly needs a cleanup, the title alone is entirely unsuitable. I can't decide if it breaches WP:NOTSTATS, certainly borderline. Any thoughts, anyone? Thanks.

Oh, and all the best to everyone in CRIC for 2017. And may Yorkshire regain the title . Jack | ^{talk page} 17:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To me it's simply a bunch of tables all of which come from CI - so I'd say NOSTATS - the lead is simply a set of general waffle. Presumably there are similar articles for every other top tier nation? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem to my mind is not that this is composed largely of statistics: indeed, stats are a perfectly valid way of conveying information in an orderly fashion, and WP:NOTSTATS is a helpful guide to appropriate use of stats, not a reason to bash each and every article that uses stats to illuminate its subject. The "policy" that I think applies here (and elsewhere) is WP:Listcruft, which basically boils down to "don't create a list just because you can". Johnlp (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Listcruft is a good one;I like that. Never seen it before, though. I see it refers to "indiscriminate or trivial lists" so really it should be part of WP:IINFO, I would think. It's certainly one we can use as a rationale for dealing with some of these lists for the sake of lists. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that Listcruft is an essay not policy. Someone will quote that at you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd !vote for delete at AfD. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thelma McKenzie

Hi guys and happy 2017 to everyone. I came across the article on Thelma McKenzie, an Australian female cricketer who played in only one Test match in 1948. She was born on 6 April 1915. However, neither her ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive profiles give a date of death. Now if she is still alive that would make her 101. The problem is she appears on Lists of oldest cricketers, List of centenarians (sportspeople) and List of living centenarians with the Cricinfo profile used as a reference. BUT a lack of a date of death is not sufficient evidence that she is still alive. A search for a death notice online came up with nothing. A search for the fact that turned 100 also was also fruitless. Until we find evidence that she is still alive I suggest that she be removed from the lists. Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not that unlikely that she's still happily alive. Both CI and CA are pretty alert on these things usually, so AGF and leave her alone. Johnlp (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem could be marital name since her career ended. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that McKenzie was her married name.[1] Hack (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

First-class_cricket#Important_matches_classification

Hi all. I don't understand what this section is about. Are we saying that there's a type of match that's not first-class that the ACS has called "Important matches"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition is difficult. Basically, first-class cricket was not officially defined before the 1895 season. The ACS solution to pre-1895 matches which were, shall we say, "first-class standard" is to call them "important matches". The cutoff date in their publication is 1864, not 1895, because at that time (1981 publication) they followed Roy Webber who asserted that first-class began in 1864 (the year overarm bowling came in). Arguments have arisen about the status of some matches in which W. G. Grace took part in the 1870s and 1880s but the fact is that none of them were officially first-class and so the best solution is to extend ACS' "important match" classification from 1864 to 1895. It's complicated, I know. Please do ask if anything isn't clear. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Is "important cricket" a term the ACS have been using for several decades? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It is, Dweller. They published A Guide to Important Cricket Matches Played in the British Isles in 1981, eight years after they were founded. They had various stipulations about how a given match might qualify as "important" but essentially it is where a match can be seen to have a standard equivalent to one played since 1895 that is officially first-class. I decided to introduce the term "important match" in WP because of the ACS verification and its ease of use; plus it is less ambiguous than the "unofficial first-class" label often used previously. In a more practical vein, "important matches" tends to be used for those in the 18th century and the Napoleonic period because, from about the 1820s or 1830s, surviving data becomes increasingly comprehensive and it is much easier to decide on a match's status from then. People still tend to use "first-class" for games in the last half of the 19th century. A theoretical curiosity is that, "officially", W. G. Grace did not become a first-class player until he was 46 years old! Hope this helps. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured content

Hi guys, it would be great if we could get some reviews of the featured lists and articles nominations that are currently open. We have:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium/archive2
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Zealand cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by David Warner/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Cricket World Cup Final/archive1

Also, if anyone is looking a for a DYK QPQ credit I have had Template:Did you know nominations/List of Big Bash League five-wicket hauls open for a month untouched. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review for Tom Wills

G'day, the article about Tom Wills, an Australian cricketer, has been nominated for a peer review. The review has been open for several months without comment, so if anyone is interested in reviewing, I'm sure that the nominator would be greatly appreciative. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Wills/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Stumped

I think this ought to (finally) have its own article. Anyone disagree? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to WP:BOLD and created Stumped, but may have broken some incoming links to the old section. May need a bot to change the links. Spike 'em (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the page was previously a redirect to Stump (cricket)#Manner of dismissing a batsman Spike 'em (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also trying to clear up the links to the old page. Stump (cricket) has 1000s of links into it, but when I check many of them (players) I can't see anything that does link there. I did edit the cricketer infobox, as that had a link, but the players still appear on the list, even after I save their page to make sure the new template is used. Any ideas? Spike 'em (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spike 'em. It depends on your search criteria and the fact that the term may be transposed in article view from "stumped" to "st". As you say, Stump (cricket) receives countless links. Taking Saqlain Mushtaq as an example, the four instances of "stump" in that article were links to either Stumpings or St but you cannot find the "St" ones in page view because they are transposed by the links. In edit view, all four links are highlighted providing you do not search for "stump" on "match case" or "whole word" (the latter tending to be a default). I've changed all four to Stumpings or St and Saqlain now links to stumped and not to stump (cricket).

Obviously, we cannot do this for every article which links to Stump (cricket)#Manner of dismissing a batsman without the help of a bot. Unless such a bot can be created, I would let the redirect do the work for the time being except that anyone who comes across the link should change it to stumped but don't waste time seeking it out. Thanks for doing the redirect, btw. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I can understand the ones where there is a disguised link to the page, but many of the listed pages have nothing when try to edit the page and search for stump. I think there may be a timing / caching issue with the pages using an infobox, but there are far too many links outside of that to do manually, so I'm leaving it now! Spike 'em (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

James Melville (cricketer, born 1936)

An IP editor updated this article on 21 October with the date and place of Melville's alleged death, but left it unsourced. I've had an external communication wondering if we can find some verification... but my usual sources give no clues. Can anyone else help? Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It'd perhaps be useful if they gave some idea of where they got that date from? I can't see anything. Harrias ^talk 17:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing's come up via the KCCC news page. Chances are that if he has died that it'll be on there at some point - they're usually quite good at announcing that kind of thing Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not breaching too much confidence to say that if Kent CCC knew, I wouldn't have posed the question. Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The death has now been confirmed and is on www.cricketarchive.com. Johnlp (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Two for AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Ashes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uttarakhand cricket team. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Marylebone Cricket Club players

The big one that we'll all shied away from until now. I've decided to have a shot at it. MCC teams in all levels of cricket since 1787 have featured more than 12,000 players. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In all levels? I have a good friend who played for MCC in friendly fixtures that were very much not first-class. Would you include them? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no. The list is first-class only. The problem is that I have to sift through 12,000 players to find out which ones did play in first-class for MCC. As I've found, there are many otherwise first-class players who played for MCC in minor matches only (including one Test player, so far) so it isn't just a case of excluding the obviously minor players. Anyway, I've done letter O and now I'm tackling the Smiths . Jack | ^{talk page} 09:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a list here of MCC FC/LA players which need articles. 800 or so! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant, AA. Just the job to save me a lot of (b)linking Jack | ^{talk page} 15:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Amy Satterthwaite

The Amy Satterthwaite article will hit WP's homepage sometime soon as part of a DYK. The page is rather brief; any chance that those with an interest in cricket want to spruce it up a bit? Lugnuts, you just added to the article - thanks! Schwede66 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66: there seems to be a lot that could be added to that page. Might be worth expanding the Satterthwaite article and going for a double hook. Hack (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the DYK hook, she is the only woman to take 6 wickets in a T20I innings - strangely, that wasn't in her article, but I have added it in. StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hack: You are too late for a double hook, as the hook has already been promoted to a prep area. I dropped a few sources onto the article's talk page, but aren't really interested in cricket (and also don't understand the sport, I must say - let's blame growing up in Germany for that). So I'm hoping that those who do understand the sport take an interest before the hook hits the main page. Schwede66 04:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the expansion is in full swing. Thanks, team! Schwede66 04:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Irish Inter-Pros

Now that the competiton has been awarded FC/LA/T20 status from this year, would it a good idea to create separate articles for the provincial teams? At present they are all hosted on the pages of the parent cricket union. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed

Anthony De Mello Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's conflicting information about whether the recent India/England series used the Anthony De Mello Trophy or not. Sources including [2] and [3] say that they were competing for the Anthony De Mello Trophy, but [4] says they categorically weren't, and says they were playing for the Paytm Trophy. Any ideas which sources are actually correct? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This photo from Cricinfo's scorecard (scroll down) shows it was played for the Anthony De Mello Trophy. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

International tours

OK, can of worms time. For international tours, why do they start with the demonym of the touring country instead of the name of the team? For example, the current tour of India by England is English cricket team in India in 2016–17 and not "England cricket team...". This applies to all of England's overseas tours, as does it to any visiting nation. Why would it be the "English cricket team" and not the "England cricket team"? WP:CRIC#STYLE only gives guidelines such as "cricket tours are named "[visiting team] in [host nation] in [cricket season]". Both Cricket Archive and Cricinfo use "England" and not "English". Google searches for "England cricket team" India 2016 are much higher in volume than "English cricket team" India 2016.

I'm guessing this just goes back to a style that was adopted way back when and has become the accepted standard since (which is fine). I was just wondering why it is used. And I certainly don't want to start moving hundreds of pages! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine it was a style taken from Wisden back in the day, but it does make sense to go with the name of the nation rather than the demonym. I would also say that maybe we should change the name of England cricket team to England national cricket team. Even though the team represents Wales as well, it's no less the England national team than the Australia national cricket team is for Australia. – PeeJay 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember this has been discussed to death, but can't for the moment remember the reason why we settled on this. On the subject of England though, it seems to me that WP:COMMON would preclude the use of "national" and I'd suggest that the Ozzies might well be wrongly named. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is some discussion on the topic from 2007, with some fondly-remembered and much missed names in there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a very long time ago but, if I remember rightly, we decided on "English cricket team" instead of "England cricket team" because not all English teams making tours, especially in the early days, played in Tests and some teams were not really representative of England in the international sense, so we called them "English" instead of "England". PeeJay may well be right about Wisden. I would support Dweller's point about the word "national": keep England cricket team and move Australia national cricket team to Convicts cricket team, er, Australia cricket team. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So one of the questions is, if these pages are renamed to 'England cricket team in ....', will we still have pages with names like English cricket team in Australia in 1861–62 because it cannot be renamed ?

Hello, Tintin. That team was also called H. H. Stephenson's XI, which is probably more accurate as it definitely was not fully representative of England. Interestingly, though, it is generally agreed that the English cricket team in North America in 1859 WAS a fully representative team. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote this in 2007 on this page and ten years later, I feel the same way: "Maybe I should say this very quietly, but I'm not entirely happy with England being renamed in this way, partly because the England cricket team is very rarely referred to as the "England national cricket team" and partly (this may be related to the first reason) because the England team actually is the national team for both England and Wales. --Dweller 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In Test cricket, it effectively represents Scotland and Northern Ireland too. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: I'm not sure which way your comment indicates that you lean, but either way, I'm not happy with the suggestion above that Australia national cricket team be moved to Australia cricket team. It makes sense for the West Indies cricket team to be so named since the West Indies isn't an actual country, but to avoid the word "national" would set cricket apart from every other sport on Wikipedia when it comes to naming our national teams. We may not refer to the England national cricket team as such colloquially, but that is what it is - the England national cricket team (which also happens to represent Wales). – PeeJay 15:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Why would we call it anything other than its COMMONNAME? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons might be that, though the tours are single events and should therefore have a single article, the English teams played some matches (the Tests) as "England" and some (other FC games) as "MCC" right up to the 1970s (I think)... and early tours in, say, the 1890s, often used the name of the captain or the tour organiser for the other FC games outside the Tests. A different consideration nowadays is that perhaps we should be considering whether to include "men's" in the titles to differentiate them from women's cricket tours: different can, same kind of worms, I suspect. Johnlp (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought consistency with the rest of the encyclopaedia would be a good reason. – PeeJay 19:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to highlight that, In case of men's teams, we use demonym for all but New Zealand.srini (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That is actually a very good point, Srini. NZ seemingly goes against consistency. I think NZ, like the Czech Republic, is a nation without a demonym – New Zealand is a noun used as an adjective; New Zealander is a noun which I've never seen in use as an adjective; Czech is a noun used as an adjective. There are probably other examples. On balance, having read all the very good points raised in this discussion, I have to agree with PeeJay that, whatever our own opinions might be, WP convention is always the decider. For example, we have England national football team, England national rugby union team, etc., etc. so we really should have England national cricket team too, despite its multi-national representation. I'm currently involved in a similar issue about naming convention and common usage in the schools project (don't ask!) and consensus, with which I completely agree, is that places like Eton (much as I deplore their existence) must be called "public schools" and not "private schools". Great fun. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(unrelated) Isn't "Czech" the accepted demonym for the Czech Republic (aka Czechia)? – PeeJay 12:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it is in terms of usage. Does that mean "New Zealand" is also an effective demonym? Jack | ^{talk page} 12:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. I guess you wouldn't say "He's a New Zealandish man", you'd say "He's a New Zealand man". – PeeJay 14:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And I think it's actually the adjectival form we're looking for, not the demonym (which of course would be "New Zealander"). – PeeJay 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. A demonym can be both noun and adjective (e.g., Australian, Indian), but the New Zealand/New Zealander scenario is an exception. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand's cricket team is do refered to as New Zealanders when the play a tour match against domestic teams and demonym is also used for all other national teams in given case but for England cricket team. Which is referred to as England XI.srini (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that also applies to Ireland and Scotland, though to a much lesser degree. To be fully consistent, the teams in non-international matches should be called "Englishmen", "Irishmen" and "Scotsmen" but it's starting to sound like one of those awful old jokes now! There have been "England" teams since the 18th century, sometimes colloquially referred to as "All England" (there used to be an "All India" team too, which played against Lord Hawke's tourists). To deal with "All England", "England XI" and "Rest of England", we created Non-international England cricket teams applying to any team called England (or similar) which is not playing in an international match. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So, where do we come with this discussion? I'd recommend the use of denomyn like Sri Lankan cricket team in England and Ireland in 2016 and same style for women's tours. For simple reason that is what has been done foe years.srini (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris Sabburg

Would an article about Chris Sabburg meet all those notability etc. guidelines? He was famous for dismissing Kevin Pietersen as a sub fielder. But technically he is an uncapped player that didn't play international cricket and he barely plays domestic cricket (nine T20 matches according to cricinfo. But I think he's become famous enough to earn a short article, hm? Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, as he'd come under WP:BLP1E. He's a cricketer known only for one thing, and that one thing isn't playing in a professional enough league. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. Playing 9 games in the BBL/Champions League is sufficient. They are fully professional leagues. The-Pope (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he passes WP:CRIN. It is heartwarming for recreational cricketers to see that professional teams see fit to have non-bowling number 8s who don't get to bat too! Spike 'em (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, per above. I struck my previous, incorrect comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll get to make an article about him then. Thanks for explanation. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm new here but one guy from wikiproject cricket has already discouraged me to contributing here thanks to his aggressive attitude. I'm talking about user:Lugnuts; I will make this article but you guys could influence him to be less butthurt over minor things... Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'd stop with the personal attacks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't be so oversensitive. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So here is my draft of Chris Sabburg article - if anyone wants to correct anything, feel free to do so. I will move it to main space in a day or so. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Feedback will be appreciated Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hashim Amla should really have a better wikipedia page

His international career section is a complete mishmash - he is truly a legend of the game, imo and deserves a lot better. I'm learning more about wiki and don't want to make a hash ;) of it. Something a little bit more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Gilchrist's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmacmillan (talk • contribs) 14:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly most biographies are in this state. The best thing is to start work on it - you can't really do anything worse judging by the current state! Also drop a note on the article's talkpage so that anyone who has it on their watchlist will see and perhaps lend a hand. You could also draft a copy of changes for each section in your sandbox too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Move request

Your input would be appreciated Talk:Mahendra Singh Dhoni#Requested move 19 January 2017. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Trent Kelly (cricketer)

I was expanding this article as a response to an RM at Talk:Trent Kelly (politician). Now I think I need some help. --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox cricketer

The mentioned template needs to be amended to show all three formats of cricket, right now it has provision to show only two.srini (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We've been through this a few times in the past: the core problem is that there isn't enough width in the template to accommodate more than four types of cricket, and you really can't widen the template any further. So for each player who has played more than four types we make a judgement on which are the most important forms of cricket for the individual, with the proviso that Test cricket will always be the "premier" one. I'd argue that for T20 and T20I in any case the run-of-the-mill stats we collect may be less important than others such as batting strike rate and bowling economy that we don't collect, so maybe that is a material point. Johnlp (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The main issue comes in simply the amount of work that would be needed to change it. A while back, I proposed an interim measure, which would be a switch to this one: User:Harrias/infobox. This gives most of the current information in what I think is a more modern looking and compressed initial format. The extension to this could be splitting 'Career statistics' into two sections, one for international cricket, and one for domestic. But it would be some work to then convert pages over, considering that Template:Infobox cricketer appears on over 20,000 pages. Though admittedly, we would only need to make changes on the pages for international players. Harrias ^talk 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you above but my intention was to add this section in template
| type3 =
| onetype3 =
| debutdate3 =
| debutyear3 =
| debutfor3 =
| debutagainst3 =
| lastdate3 =
| lastyear3 =
| lastfor3 =
| lastagainst3 =
Which will be useful for domestic players--srini (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I often don't include that bit anyway, as it seems to take up space while not adding much information of value. But that's just my own opinion. Harrias ^talk 07:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Request Move

The ongoing 2016–17 Inter State Twenty-20 Tournament is being televised as 2016–17 Syed Mushtaq Ali Zonal League and the upcoming 2016–17 Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy is being titled as 2016–17 Syed Mushtaq Ali Inter Zonal League in the official website of BCCI. So I suggest moving the pages accordingly.--srini (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ICC page revamp

Heads up that the ICC website has had a recent revamp, with all their articles moving to new URLs. For example, this story now brings back a 404 error, but is now located here. There's no obvious maping to the old URL to the new URL that I can see, so all those references on WP are now dead. There's some good news as the search function on their site seems to find articles if you have the old page title. I guess the old pages are all indexed via the Web Archive, so they could be recovered by the bot that does this. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 16:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hate it when websites do this. I guess if you mark them on articles as deadlinks, then the deadlink box can fix them. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability and ICC World Cup Qualifier(s)

Hi. Currently WP:CRIN states that a player is notable if they've played in at least one match in an ICC World Cup Qualifier event. So two questions:

1. For the sake of clarity, should the distinction between the men's and women's qualifier be noted here?
2. Should the same apply to the ICC World Twenty20 Qualifiers too (again both men and women)?

Happy to make the change if there's agreement to do so. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say that notability criteria should be same in case of men and women as well as ODI and Twenty20. But I would like to add that it says "has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level" and in explanation it takes only about First-class, list A and T20 matches. My point is the 4 day tournament played in Afghanistan falls out of this category, as it's not a first-class competition but at the same time is a competition played at highest domestic level. So some change is required.srini (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the men and women should be on equal footing. The issue about cricket in Afghanistan is for another thread. Although, I do agree with your rationale as it's the highest level in that country. They could get first-class status, just as Ireland have now, and it'll be a non-issue. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Infact, Afghanistan's domestic matches could get FC status today! But back to the original question - any objections (or support) for the changes? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Afghan issue, until it is awarded First Class status, I'd keep it out. From what I've read previously on here the "highest international or domestic level" criteria is to cover times before First Class being officially defined. If we are to include the highest domestic level in any country, then we will need to do the same for all countries with a cricket league. Spike 'em (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd back Men and Women being equal, and World T20 being on similar footing to World Cup Spike 'em (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've always been the main author of CRIN, I take responsibility for any omissions or ambiguities. I've made some changes to take account of all the very pertinent points raised above. The equal status of women's cricket and the omission of T20 qualifiers needed to be rectified. Srini is right about "or domestic level" and that needed clarification. Could you all please read CRIN again to review the changes made and we can kick it around a bit if necessary till we have the right wording. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That looks good - thanks Jack. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the amendment @Spike 'em:, but as we are on the topic, I understand that wikipedia articles are based on notability and historical importance, so the concern is that it WP:CRIN fails to credit cricket tournaments held outside the administration of ICC or BCCI or any other country who don't receive the status, but which are or were quite popular due to media coverage eg. Indian Cricket League and World Series Cricket, involvement of celebrities eg. Celebrity Cricket League or nature of sports eg. Hong Kong Cricket Sixes and Double Wicket World Championship. Where do the blind cricket fall especially the Blind Cricket T20 World Cup 2016/17 and Twenty20 Asia Championship for the Blind 2015/16.--srini (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN is a notability guideline. It gives us a rough outline of what might and might not be notable, but WP:GNG and WP:N are the key policies. If we wrote CRIN to cover every single possible cricket-related topic, we might as well just write a list of articles. It gives us an idea for the main areas in which we will have articles. Beyond that articles can be taken on a case-by-case basis according to the key policies. Harrias ^talk 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's right. There have been cases where a person failed NCRIC and CRIN but did meet GNG and so was eligible for an article. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Afghan competition was awarded first-class status today [5]. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Karachi Kings—Lahore Qalandars rivalry

I've prodded Karachi Kings—Lahore Qalandars rivalry initially but would welcome any suggestions - my suspicion is that similar articles where there is no evidence of actual rivalry taking place are deleted at AfD, but I'd like to canvas other opinion as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

PROD contested so now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karachi Kings—Lahore Qalandars rivalry. All contribution welcome. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sri Lanka national blind cricket team

Could somebody from this project please check notability of the Sri Lanka national blind cricket team? Thanks. Schwede66 08:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

John Hampshire page move

It strikes me that John Hampshire, who passed away yesterday, is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've started a discussion on the article talk page about this, so any thoughts before I attempt the page moves myself would be gratefully received. Spike 'em (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles by User:02blythed

I see this user creates new articles from time to time, but they are incredibly poor quality. This is a recent example. I see a couple of people have tried to guide him on his talkpage (@IgnorantArmies: and @Joseph2302:), but there doesn't seem any improvement. You can see a load of recent prods along with other quality issues on their talkpage. I'm all for people filling in the blanks, but this seems counter-productive when the articles are like this. Here's a full list of page creations. I'll notify them of this discussion, and ask them to request help before creating any more. Worst case (which I don't want), is they get warned too many times and are blocked for disruption. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think at the moment 02blythed is a net drain on WikiProject Cricket and on Wikipedia as a whole. I'm not opposed to mass stub creation per se, but their creators need to meet certain standards. The comments on 02blythed's talkpage demonstrate pretty clearly that those standards are not being met. What's disturbing is that the same issues seem to be cropping up over a period of almost 10 years. Lots of patience has been shown by other editors, and it's not an understatement to say that hours have been spent fixing 02blythed's errors – not only spelling, grammar, and sourcing, but also removing PRODs and defending articles at AfD. It's not fair to expect that from other editors. If 02blythed is to be allowed to continue editing, I would want to see (a) an acknowledgement of the mistakes they've made and (b) some sort of guarantee that they're not going to continue along the same path. If there's no response (as with most of the comments on 02blythed's talkpage), then a formal warning should be issued. If the article creations continue after that warning, I would support a block. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise this user had been here so long! I'd just assumed they were fairly new, until I looked a bit further up their talkpage. Wow. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, Fabrictramp granted 02blythed autopatrolled rights recently. Per the above, the autopatrolled right should be revoked for 02blythed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

On a (very quick) look of their list of creations, seems like a hell of a lot of duplicate names. Agree Autopatrolled should be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled is to ensure that articles meet notability guidelines etc... and reduce workload of those who review new articles. Given that every article seems to have some kind of sourcing (via CI or CA sources for the infobox and external links) I'd say it would be difficult to argue that they don't meet auto patrolled basic standard. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, they don't look a lot worse than many of the other stubs that get created. I mean, personally I don't like the idea of stub creation for anyone who technically meets NCRIC (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. H. Barnes for example) but to be honest if it's just a few spg errors here and there then that's not that onerous a task for people to deal with. Of course, if we're going to oppose technical stub creation per se and enforce the GNG criteria and ask for proper sourcing then that's a different matter. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. They all meet WP:NCRIC so far as I can see. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not unusual with stubs to be honest. They occasionally get fleshed out with a few scorecard details as well, but that's not much better and it's not really proper sourcing imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubt all their articles meet the cricket notability (I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise), but it's all the clean-up work that's required behind each and every article created by this user. Spelling errors, not getting the team's name correct (first example I gave), "First class" instead of "first-class", nothing linked except "cricketer" and the country in the lead, minimum categories (no teams, just birth year, and some other basic cats), not to mention the time wasted by people saving prods/AfDs, etc, etc. I'm not expecting perfection, but the basics for someone who's been here this long shouldn't be too hard to master, and these things I list here are across virtually all of their new articles. Not just one typo here and an incorrect team there, but endemic to their work. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what you get sometimes with stubs though. The articles are understandable and, with a very few exceptions, meet notability criteria - 3 articles deleted out of over 400 I think? Someone will wander along at some point and improve them, add the links and so on. Knocking users for poor use of English would take out many of those who edit on subjects such as the PSL for example. We'll cope; it's shruggable imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well as long as it's now been brought to the attention of the project. I'm glad we've got users who think sub-standard articles of incredibly poor quality are a good thing. I'll leave it in your capable hands to wipe up behind this user. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably delete most of them for failing the GNG of course :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

02blythed has, in the past, cleared up a lot of articles on my redlink list, for which I am, of course, thankful. The trouble with that is that if these articles are, indeed, substubby in nature, and then get removed from the list as bluelinks, there is no way to tell - other than with difflinks to earlier versions of my page, which articles meet an "acceptable standard" and which don't.

On the whole, the work done by AssociateAffiliate and Lugnuts is something which I definitely could not match in terms of standard or thoroughness.

I will once again point out that at any point in time, claiming any one first-class cricketer is more or less notable than another is a gross violation of NPOV, and that the GNG does not handle these problems definitively (by which I mean, if the only problem with any cricket article is *sources* - plural - this is a frustrating, pernickety, and easily fixed problem - even by any user who requests deletion). If there were some way of creating a template through which a CA and CI profile can be linked to the page for the appropriate player at the same time, this would help massively in terms of providing multiple sources which can be proven to be independent of each other - otherwise, I see no necessary conflict between WP:CRIN and WP:GNG guidelines - other than that the GNG fails to handle this issue other than by pluralizing the word "source". Bobo. 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Bobo, is my suggestion above about using WikiData to provide automated sources in the infobox what you are referring to? It only works, however, especially for new articles, if populating WikiData becomes commonplace for new article creators, and not something that's done after article creation by bots or other automated methods. As most people (myself included until recently) don't know how WikiData works, it will take some time to become commonplace. I'm trying to populate all existing cricketers' WikiData items with CricInfo and CricketArchive IDs, from lists I've extracted from those sites, rather than from links in our articles, but it's a very slow process due to many name variations and incorrect/vague/uncertain dates of births/deaths. The-Pope (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll simply state that I utterly disagree about what seems to be the primacy of NCRIC or the ineffectiveness of the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with the notability of the articles, clearly they are all notable by the project's standards (which is fine). If it was an issue of creating non-notable atticles over and over again, without stopping, they'd be blocked by now. The three out of 400 that have been deleted are probably notable (I've not checked), but I suspect they were given the prod by a user (in good faith) when seeing a poor one-liner, no-one challenged it, and BAM! it's gone. Even if they went to AfD, it then wastes the time of the user listing it and everyone who states "Keep" for it to close in 7 days. If a user has poor use of English, they really should not be creating articles until they can grasp the basics. They clearly have some understanding of English, but as this is the English-language WP, then it should go without saying that poor English for mass-creation is not acceptable. It reflects badly on WP and this project if tons of stubs of this quality are started. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, if I worried every time I found an article that reflected badly on Wikipedia and/or used poor English I'd be in a constant state of anxiety. Anyway, I've worked on one of the user's stubs that I don't think meets the GNG but technically meets NCRIC and have left a note on their talk page to make some suggestions. I've no interest in working on the others - I've already developed another stub today from a different user and come across yet another that I didn't bother with from yet another. But a stub that's barely notable anyway is entirely shruggable for me - there are far too many of them anyway to make it worth bothering with. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have read and considered everything that has been said about the articles I have created. I appreciate that they are of a low standard in terms of content, but all are notable per guidelines. I appreciate my grammar, spelling etc is poor but thats due to me having dyslexia. I will consider whether to continue creating articles or just retiring in general if its causes issues for others in terms of my grammar etc. 02blythed (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's true that you have dyslexia, then I'm sorry to hear this, and I'm sure deep down everyone else is too. This conversation shouldn't even be happening if this is the only issue. As a compromise, why don't people do what I've been suggesting for years. Actually working to *improve* articles which they know pass NCRIC instead of whining about "quality" of articles. Quality comes over time. Information comes over time. Here is a list of 02blythed's created articles if people are prepared to help out. If not, then it's not 02blythed who is a net drain to the general improvement of Wikipedia content...

This whole conversation is sniping, malicious and unnecessary. There is no necessary conflict between NCRIC and GNG, and we are all here for the same purpose. Bobo. 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So how many have you improved from that list? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

None. But I retired from Wikipedia years ago thanks to pointless bullying and victimization towards people I consider to be close friends. If you can suggest ways in which any of these articles can be improved beyond their current state, please do. Bobo. 16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One. Bobo. 17:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a ton that state "First class" instead of "first-class", which of course should be linked to the correct term, too. Pretty much all of them are in that state, so you can get cracking with those. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's your only issue regarding those articles, I would say we're doing pretty well as we are. Bobo. 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I've listed many issues in this very thread. You obviously missed it. If you think these are pretty well then you're best off staying "retired", because you clearly don't care about this project. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop being so prescriptive and criticising other editors. You do a lot of good work, but can also be very short with people who don't meet your standards. A bit more WP:CON or WP:AGF wouldn't go amiss here. Spike 'em (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I expected an editor with 10 years' worth of editing to be able to grasp basic article creation. Only for someone who's made about 50 contributions in the last 3/4 years to accept that sloppy editing as OK. Maybe that's the standard he's used to, but things move on in his self-imposed hibernation. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Spike 'em. To say If you think these are pretty well then you're best off staying "retired", because you clearly don't care about this project is totally uncalled-for, especially to someone who has done so much good work for the project in the past. JH (talk page) 10:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been busy. We're all busy sometimes. There are many reasons I've scarcely edited in the last four years, not all of which are related to the encyclopedia. Although as is clear from the above conversation, some of them are...

While completion of our main project has been continuing, my main focuses in life have been away from WP. As should everyone else's. Real life is more important than anything else. If we as a project are not busy improving articles, then we are working against the aims of the project and of the encyclopedia in general. And complaining about it for four days is not the way to do it. Exit, pursued by a bear. Bobo. 11:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"I've been busy" And what you really need is to spend time fixing the basics when you're already busy. But in your eyes, that's OK. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you misinterpreted. I meant busy outside of Wikipedia. Sorry. Bobo. 12:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, have you realized that in the amount of time you've been busy insulting 02blythed, you could have fixed every article you disagree with yourself with zero input from us? Just saying. Sometimes time is best spent fixing things than complaining about them. Bobo. 13:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ditto for you in the time you've spent defending those articles. Just saying. But you won't do anything to help either. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I do have dyslexia unfortunately and was told that I had it while at university, unfortunately it does affect my spelling also being able to identify mistakes which may be clear to people without it but is not noticeable to me. All the articles are notable per the criteria and tbh the amount of extra content requested makes little/no differences to the article. If someone wants to improve the articles then that's fine but I believe it's best for them to have an article (however small) rather than no article at all If I was creating articles that had played extensively then I could understand that more could be written about them but most of those created recently have played a handful of games and little will likely ever be able to be put in an article. 02blythed (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One day, if more information comes to us, we will be able to improve the content of these articles in terms of prose text. Again, if people are complaining about this, then my response is "either fix it yourself with information you've gathered yourself from secondary sources, continue whining that they don't pass WP:NCRIC guidelines, or provide objective, NPOV reasoning as to why and how you think NCRIC should be changed, because according to complainers it doesn't stand up to current scrutiny". Bobo. 11:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed my comment above in which I suggested that 02blythed places too much emphasis on infobox instead of narrative. As he has dyslexia, it's not surprising and I admire him for getting involved to the extent he has over a long period. I agree with Bobo that it is up to the project to improve its articles, the vast majority of which begin, rightly, as WP:STUBs.

In the early days of CRIC, we resolved to create an article for every single Test cricketer. That was soon achieved and has been maintained. We then set ourselves the bigger goal of an article for every single important/first-class/List A/T20 cricketer and the reason why Bobo and others created those massive redlink lists was to help us all identify which players still needed attention. The club lists and categories provide extra means of monitoring. As there are umpteen thousand top-class cricketers from 1701 to 2017 across several countries, this is a "Rome wasn't built" objective and we decided and have often restated that the best approach is by creating stubs for the majority of players, those who appeared in one to a few matches and about whom little is known. As Bobo correctly says above: "if more information comes to us, we will be able to improve the content of these articles".

I notice that once again there are negative comments about NCRIC vis-a-vis the tiresome GNG which only ever has a bearing on a cricket article if the subject fails CRIN, but does have notability elsewhere. As far as cricket notability is concerned, CRIN is the agreed guideline which the project has approved both by stated WP:CONSENSUS and by actual usage over a period of twelve years or more. NCRIC is only an intro to, or a summary of, CRIN. In addition, CRIN has virtually always (except in a few cases which slipped through the net) been used as primary verification at AfD, not only to confirm that a player is notable but also, very significantly, to determine that one is not.

As I have said on countless occasions, although I have had periods of absence, I am the main author of CRIN and I have updated and amended it numerous times when the project has agreed that a change is needed. If anyone wishes to propose a change to CRIN (and, as a result, to NCRIC) in the light of this discussion, then please do so. We will consider it and if there is a consensus for change, I take the responsibility. You may recall that it was changed only last month in response to an issue that arose.

Currently, although there are other areas of the project I would much rather address, I'm working to create articles for all of the remaining county club players with redlinks. There were about 800 of them when I started two weeks ago and it's down to below 500 now. The clubs concerned are Kent, Middlesex, Notts and Surrey (see Bobo's lists and the club player lists). The only practical way to get this done in a reasonable time (say, a month) is to create stubs using a template and so, if you like "industrialise" the process. All that is necessary is confirmation that he is/was a top-class cricketer with a verifiable source. I also think that full name, dates where known, clubs, years as a player and the places if known of birth and death should be included. An infobox is optional and, for practicality and to save time, I waive the option. The infobox and such details as his highest score can be added later. Other necessary items are the reflist and the categories.

If anyone would like to help with the four counties, you're most welcome. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Dont industrialise it then! There's no need - they'll get done. There's only one Kent red link that really needs doing as far as I can tell anyway, and that's for a chap who was aide de camp to three British monarchs and had a distinguished military career. Cricket needs to take up no more than three sentences in the article (one and half of which need to be dedicated to his brother and another half to the rest of his family) and anything that refers to him as a cricketer is a joke to be honest. Industrialisation has the effect of not noticing this much more significant part to his life. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh! The use of the word "industrialise" was ironic. As for "they'll get done", no, they will not get done unless someone sits down and does the work. You say there is only one Kent redlink that needs doing – the project has a stated aim of creating an article for every single first-class cricketer, even if the majority of them merit a very short article only. I counted well over 200 Kent redlinks that need to be converted into articles: there are now about eighty. You appear to be opposed to the creation of stubs. Why, I do not know. A stub is a foundation and, when time allows and as more data becomes available, the stub can be developed into a larger article. A meaningful stub is always preferable to a redlink which tells the reader nothing except a name. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing's going to "get done" until it actually gets done. And that requires considerable co-operation on the part of those who are likely to oppose the existence of an article simply because there exists a supposedly "substandard" version of a perfectly valid Wikipedia article. That is the only way things will "get done" - by the people who judge these articles as "substandard" actually getting up and doing something about it rather than deciding to inappropriately tag them. Not prepared to do the work? Then don't complain when you find it isn't done. Bobo. 19:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It come back to the question of reliability of the supporting evidence and so on. And they will get done, but most of them don't *really* need doing that urgently - I find it odd, though, that we have a tonne of one-liners on one-match wonders but until about a year ago we didn't have articles on, say, Dick Blaker or Eric Hatfeild, both winners of the MC and both having played a reasonable number of games. It seems to me that at times it's all about the number of stubs created rather than concentrating on the quality of articles - and I'd much prefer a focus on quality and research than I would on very short articles where there's been no attempt to discover if the person has any other notability - some of those one (or two) match wonders are much more interesting - see Keith Barlow for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@02blythed: - thanks for reviewing and commenting on this discussion. I can see you've taken the points on board, and where possible, help to improve the quality of the stubs that you are creating. BlueSquareThing has dones some improvements on the article I initially linked to, Christopher Abrams, showing what a new stub should look like. I agree with BlackJack - CRIN is what we use for notability and filling in the redlinks. People's time is precious and users can only dedicate what time they have to build content, rather than all the trivial back-and-forth that goes on here (across WP, not just this project). While the England domestic lists are getting more blue with each day, so are ones for other countries. I've recently finished off New South Wales, with Australia having more than half of all its domestic cricketers with articles. New Zealand is on its way, as are other lists. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments above understanding my situation. I am trying to complete cricketers in alphabetical order as you may have guessed and country by country so none are misssed. I created a number of the Bangladesh cricketers and it would be great to get all first class/list A cricketers completed from all countries, when real life events do not need get in the way, so my creations may be as and when I can I will create articles as I have before with each team he has played for and the yrs in brackets to fill out the article more. 02blythed (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This conversation looks largely resolved in a positive manner, which is nice to see. My only question would be about the autopatrolled flag. I think, even though it is clear 02blythed has taken the comments on board and is making efforts to improve, there are still some issues (such as spelling) that are going to continue due to things that are out of anyone's control. As such, I think the autopatrolled flag should be removed from 02blythed's account so that more people are likely to look over the new articles. I hope this doesn't sound harsh and I want to make it clear this would no impact on your editing or creation of articles – it would simply mean there will be more eyes looking over your new articles. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled is making life easier at the New Page Patrol - it is designed for those people who can create a notable article - not a perfect article. NPP doesn't need to be dealing with every spg mistake. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jenks24. No disrespect to 02blythed in that but if some of the basic mistakes in spelling and linking can be corrected at an early stage, that helps everyone. New Page Patrol has copyediting functionality as well as looking for hoaxes. If they spot that something like a defaultsort or an obvious category is missing, they deal with it, and they do correct spelling and grammar too. Any patroller who doesn't do those things should not be a member. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Handled the ball

MCC have just announced handled the ball is to be removed from the laws and subsumed into obstructing the field. Should the articles be merged when this does happen, or the one on handling the ball kept as a historic record of the dismissal type? I assume they are not suggesting that historic scorecards are changed, in which case, I'd say to keep the current article. Not a major task, but the other 8 dismissal types will need to be updated on 1st OctoberSpike 'em (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, keep it and comment etc... There will need to be a bit of follow up on a couple of articles - the first and last players given out that way for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The historical record does not change. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep as is. Does the lead need re-working to say "was"? Also the run-out rule has changed slightly, taking into account the bat bouncing up in the air after being grounded. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It will do. According to the story on lords.org, the Laws will be republished on 1st October, so it remains a valid means of dismissal until then. Spike 'em (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the current article. Bit of a weird decision. Other than Hilditch, almost every instance of handled the ball I can think of was to prevent the ball from rolling back onto the stumps. It's stretching it a bit to say that any fielders are being obstructed. If they're fiddling about with minor details they might as well lump hit the ball twice in with the other two and rename it "obstruction". IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, hitting the ball twice is actually there for the safety of the fielders but I agree with you about handling which is completely different to obstruction. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep per maintaining historical record. I'm surprised the question is even asked. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Rohan Rangarajan

Hi guys, I have just nominated Singaporean under-19 player Rohan Rangarajan for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan as he failes WP:NCRIC. Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, time for a very old merger

A (very) long time ago, it was decided that {{Infobox cricket team}} should be merged with {{Infobox Test team}}, {{Infobox women's national cricket team}}, and {{Infobox non Test cricket team}}. At first blush there appears to be very little in common between the templates. While I am technically capable of merging the four templates together, my lack of knowledge of cricket makes me hesitant to just bung all the disparate parameters together and end up duplicating them unnecessarily. I've started a discussion here. I'd appreciate any input re: potential duplicate parameters. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Norman Morris

Another one to sort:

• Redirect Norman Morris (cricketer) to Norman Morris (disambiguation) or similar
• Add Norman Morris (English cricketer) to disambiguation page
• Create redirect from Norman Morris (cricketer, born 1907)
• Create redirect from Norman Morris (cricketer, born 1849). Need to create article on this cricketer. Played county cricket for both Kent and Surrey.

Cheers in advance. Bobo. 11:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

IgnorantArmies

For info, I've just spotted that IgnorantArmies has been blocked, apparently as a sockpuppet. You can see the full details on his talkpage. I hope it's a big mistake, and IA certainly states it is, and gets fixed ASAP. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Charles Marshall

Can someone please sort out this situation? I don't want to get mixed up myself!

• Redirect Charles Marshall (cricketer) to Charles Marshall disambiguation page
• Add Charles Marshall (cricketer, born 1843) to disambiguation page, redirect Charles Marshall (Middlesex cricketer) to this title (or the other way around)
• Add Charles Marshall (cricketer, born 1863) to disambiguation page, redirect Charles Marshall (Surrey cricketer) to this title (or the other way around)
• Need to create article on Charles Marshall (cricketer, born 1863)
• Add Charles Marshall (cricketer, born 1842) to disambiguation page, create article on this player.

Trouble is that there are two Charles Marshalls who played for Cambridgeshire. Cheers in advance. Fixing my lists as I speak. Bobo. 11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The other is Charles Marshall (Cambridgeshire cricketer). Jack | ^{talk page} 12:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Kent CCC players

We've now got the Kent redlinks down to what seems to be a definite 82 players so – one big push and all that. You can see the redlinks at User:BlackJack/box3#Kent or at User:Bobo192/Sandbox or at List of Kent County Cricket Club players: all have been updated this morning. Note that these are players who have played for the county club and in top-class matches only. Earlier Kent county players are subject to a separate process. Any help with these redlinks, such as I've had from Lugnuts especially, much appreciated. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. And thanks for your hard work in doing the majority of them. I'll knock out a few stubs each day until they're done. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

BURRMP! Although there is bound to be one (there's always one!) who has slipped through the net, we now officially have an article for all Kent CCC players. Thank you to Lugnuts, Blue Square Thing and others for your help with this county. I think there about 300 players left in county cricket, all of them from Middlesex, Notts and Surrey. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there are 286 names to be investigated which means that some already have articles, perhaps under different titles, and a few will be duplicates (e.g., a player who represented two of the three counties). The breakdown is 82 Middlesex, 101 Notts and 103 Surrey. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work by everyone who has contributed! That there are so many Surrey red-links is I'm afraid testimony to my idleness, as Surrey is the county I support. JH (talk page) 17:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We all know you are not idle. These counties have been processed randomly for the most part. Mind you, I'd guess that we are deliberately leaving London till last so we'll do Notts next . Jack | ^{talk page} 13:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Team name of guest teams in tour matches

There seems to be an inconsistency between CA and CI. Starting 2017 CI use for the guest team of a tour match not anymore Australians, New Zealanders etc., but the real team names (Australia, New Zealand etc.), while CA seems to stick to the old naming procedure. Anyone an idea what the correct names are or better is there a decision by ICC or similar to change this tradition?--Maphry (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd go with what's in Wisden, but that book is so ridiculously overpriced that I have no idea what they use any more. – PeeJay 13:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

For the current India/Australia series, both sources from India and Cricket Australia refer to the away side as "Australia" and not "Australians", if that helps. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We certainly don't need to make retrospective changes - we are an encyclopedia, and should reflect the historical record. For new tours, I definitely prefer the old style, but I suppose we should follow the ICC. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Automatic infobox sources from WikiData

Recently I've been playing around in WikiData, and for Australian rules football, similarly to CricInfo and CricketArchive, we have two main stats sources, AustralianFootball.com and AFL Tables IDs. Recently I've checked that all 12486 VFL/AFL players have their IDs in WikiData (d:Property:P3547 or d:Property:P3546). Likewise, most cricketers have a Cricinfo d:Property:P2697 and/or CricketArchive ID d:Property:P2698 in WikiData. Whilst I haven't yet checked that all cricketers have IDs in wikidata, I have gone through the Constraint violations lists and found lots of duplicate articles and mislinked sources.

Tonight I added some code to {{AFL Tables}} and {{AustralianFootball}} so that if no parameters are used in those templates, the value from the WikiData property is used automatically. I've tested those two templates on Tommy Hughes (Australian footballer).

The other way in which we can use WikiData IDs is to provide source links in the infobox. Unlike {{Infobox cricketer}}, {{Infobox AFL biography}} has never had a parameter for source. I've proposed to add an automated source(s) link based on the WikiData link into the AFL infobox.

Should we work on similar code to add automated source links to CricInfo and/or Cricket Archive in the Infobox, {{Cricinfo}} and {{Cricketarchive}}? The-Pope (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If it works, it sounds a valuable addition. A caveat: there are a lot of these articles. Would be worth making the code move slowly initially, so that a) mistakes can be caught before they're widespread and b) Watchlists don't go utterly crazy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My initial suggestion is to still use the declared source or ref parameter if it exists, but to automate the insertion of one or both sources to the infobox if no source exists and the id exists in wikidata. This won't affect your watch list as it would be a single edit to the infobox template. Of the >20000 cricketers that have bios here, less than 10000 have a cricinfo id and less than 3000 have a cricket archive id in wikidata. Over 2000 of the 3300 test cricketers don't have cricinfo ids, I'm guessing as they may have pre-dated the use of the template that was probably used to populate wikidata. I'll work on finding a way to scrape the data from those sites and upload it to wikidata over the next few weeks. The-Pope (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that all (or at least the majority) of current IDs at Wikidata were imported from enwiki ext. links section templates (I was one of those, who did import). P.S. If you need some WD related assistance (technical or content related), don't hesitate to ask. If you do scrape data, it would be valuable to import some more things than ID (if you're scraping the profile pages themselves). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There might be some issues with regard to which source is used - each has advantages and disadvantages and occasionally they differ slightly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My preference would be to use both and not show any bias. The-Pope (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

And where there is disagreement between the sources? I know I've developed at least one article where there was a fairly big difference between balls bowled I think - probably someone who'd played in 4, 5, 6 and 8 ball competitions. Personally I'd prefer not to automate processes such as this if it takes away the ability of editors to select the most appropriate source - even, say, a written one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to do it. One way, which will address your concern, is to not insert anything automatically when a "|source=" line already exists in the infobox. But if there is no source stated, and there is either or both IDs in wikidata, then it would add one or both. And this is only talking about the infobox. The rest of the article and external links can still have whatever refs and links they want. A separate issue is whether we want to allow the use of WikiData to let an editor use a simple, ref/id free version of the {{Cricinfo}} or {{Cricketarchive}} templates, and let WikiData provide the ref/id details for the url link. I can't see any downside to that, especially as WikiData has duplicate detection and means that every project, not just enwiki, can use the same data. Whilst preparing for this, I've found many incorrect CI and CA links in articles, so our current position isn't perfect either. The-Pope (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes me feel more supportive of the idea certainly. I do appreciate the issue with incorrect, partially missing or out of date external links certainly and this, assuming its overhead isn't significant, is a way of dealing with that, assuming that there is an opt out of the system in cases where cricket is really a non-substantial part of the article - the chap who played the odd game but was actually much more important as a military man and businessman for example and where external links to CA and CI may be preferable not to add. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that CricketArchie has gone behind a paywall, perhaps that solves our problem of which one to use for info boxes? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I've edited Template:Cricinfo/sandbox to automatically retrieve the wikidata ID if no ref= or id= terms are provided in the template. This is the template that's normally used as an external link, not the infobox source. I've trialled it in Tim Zoehrer. Please respond to Template talk:Cricinfo if you see any issues or think you can improve the code. The-Pope (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• The updated {{Cricinfo}} template is now live. If there is a statement for the cricinfo ID number in wikidata, you don't have to specify it in the template any more. If you do specify an id or ref (like in most existing uses) then that is still used preferentially to the wikidata value. Everything seems to be working OK so far. The Category:Cricinfo maintenance tracking category is listing over 100 articles that either have mismatched article template and wikidata IDs, or no P2697 wikidata property at all. There are also about 80 duplicate id's listed on the wikidata constraint violation page, normally due to incorrect values used when the article page was created. The-Pope (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The unwanted category

While I've been working my way through the Kent, Middlesex, Notts and Surrey redlinks, it has been noticeable that the vast majority of the players concerned were born in the 19th century. Hardly surprising that they should be left behind given the obsession on this site with recentism and so-called "celebs". When I started this task, there were over 800 redlinks and it's now down to about 130. I don't know how many of those articles I've created personally because others have helped but what I have very soberly noted is that on no less than 25 occasions I have had to use this category. Still, who cares about them when there are the likes of Bofum and KayPeeee to write about? Jack | ^{talk page} 23:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, clearly we all just don't give a shit about them, and favour writing about modern celebrities. You've got us all sussed out. Harrias ^talk 07:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Always reminds me of this line from the last episode of Blackadder: "Well, er, Jacko and the Badger bought it at the first Ypres front, unfortunately -- quite a shock, that. I remember Bumfluff's house- master wrote and told me that Sticky had been out for a duck, and the Gubber had snitched a parcel sausage-end and gone goose-over-stump frogside". Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If we're doing pet hates, the biographies that annoy me are those of f-c cricketers who were actually far more distinguished for something other than cricket, but where that side of their life is either not mentioned at all or is dealt with in a line or two, probably because the biographer relied entirely on CA and/or CI. (To be fair, Wisden obituaries tend to do this too, but at least Wisden know that their readers' primary interest is cricket, something that we can't assume on Wikipedia when writing about people who are also known for other things.) JH (talk page) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There are stubs and stubs, and I'm not a fan of the bare-stub, single-sentence article, with no context or amplification. At least a redlink tells you that there is work needed; a one-liner is a redlink masquerading as a completed article, and it's much more difficult to spot the ones that really need further work when they all look the same. Johnlp (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Soixante-cinq

With 65 redlinks left to add from the CC teams (at least according to my lists...), I have to ask... where next once we've wrapped these up? Bobo. 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could go back and add the Wikidata to all of the articles that have been recently created? Over 200 articles use the {{cricinfo}} template but don't have the id number in Wikidata, see Category:Cricinfo maintenance. Many more probably use a direct url link, not the template. The-Pope (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What about starting the lists that are red-links in {{Lists of English cricketers}}? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

List of stats at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this as well - International Cricket Records. Didn't we delete a very similar article a little while ago? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I found this in the AfD archives. And this is a redlink that's been prod'd before. I think both were created by the same user. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Another good find. Send it to AFD. – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sticky wicket at AfD

Interesting! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

My umpiring coach used to say the only way you could have a sticky wicket was if was freshly varnished. StAnselm (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

International Cricket Records

Abishe (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)I have doubts over this article because User:Gihan Jayaweerahas mentioned that this article is a duplicate copy of List of One Day International cricket records,but this article is all about the combined mix stats of ODI,Test cricket as well as T20I.cricinfo]Abishe (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you find any form of pure notability for the list that, as far as I can see, you've curated? It seems arbitrary to me. I'll look again later and may well go to AfD with it as a recreation of a deleted article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see there is a way to find them on cricinfo, but are they actually notable? There seem to be many Lists of cricket records which are the same data sliced and diced according to taste. We can't have a List for each page available on cricinfo WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS. I maintain a couple of List of England cricket records, but most of the content is just a copy of what is on cricinfo, and I often wonder if it is ever viewed or in contravention of the 2 policies I've just listed Spike 'em (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I finally got around to sending this to AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International cricket records. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Name of article

Hi. I came across Emilius Bayley. It's complex as Emilius was a middle name, he became 3rd Baronet Bayley and then changed his name to Laurie when he inherited a house in Scotland. He seems to have gone by the name Emilius for sure, and from a cricketing sense Bayley is the surname we'd use. But... it's complex. I wondered whether anyone might have some suggestions? Cross-posted to WT:PEER btw. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I recall something similar for an Olympian I created years ago. I guess WP:COMMONNAME applies, using whatever seems to be the most recognised name, and create all the likely redirects too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked at John Bayley, and there seems to be some good examples at the dab page if that helps, esp. this guy. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The chaps at WT:PEER seem to be suggesting only to add the Baronetage stuff if there is a need to dab - the one you cite is one of two John Bayleys - our man Emilius's father and grandfather - so adding the nth Baronet is helpful in distinguishing. I think they're happy enough with just Emilius Bayley so I'm inclined to go that way per COMMONNAME and see if anyone ever complains. I've piped links I can find that have used other names. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone has a concern about it, then WP:RM is their friend. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IPL page moves

Rising Pune Supergiants or Rising Pune Supergiant? Please see these:

• One
• Two
• Three

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

ChrisKemp

This user seems to be violating WP:PAY editing Lord's. I've tried reverting their edits, not sure how better to deal with this, any tips? I think I'm just about to create a 3Rs violation! Spike 'em (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think they've listened to what you've said on their talkpage. Invite them to discuss it on the article's talkpage too (apologies if you've said this, I've only skimmed over the diffs), to get a bigger auidence. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to have accepted what I've said, so not sure if he was trying it on, or genuinely thought he could add such content. Spike 'em (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability of blind cricketers

I don't think this and this article pass any levels of notability, and the tournament is borderline IMO. I'll take the first two to AfD, and I can add the third article if people here don't think it's notable too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 16:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Abishe (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)I also know that the articles related to Blind cricket are less important but I was willing to do this because I was eager on creating articles related to blind cricket and deaf cricket stubs.But I would like to create articles related to blind cricket teams.On the other hand,I will wait for some time inorder to get the permission from you and other wikipedians whether it is essential to create articles related to blind cricketers as well as blind cricket competitions.Before that, I can edit on other short articles related to cricket.Abishe (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the tournament is notable. It was covered by the BBC, Times of India, ESPNcricinfo, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tournament is notable for me, but not sure anyone in Category:Blind_cricketers passes notability. A set of scorecards/stats pages/articles which don't mention the player aren't enough to establish notability for me. Spike 'em (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tournament is notable, competitors not. Cf cheese rolling, Eton wall game and other notable minority sports. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The cricketes are at this AfD. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

CfD

Please see this renaming proposal (six categories). Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Will you PAY for CricketArchive?

Well, I certainly won't. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

... I've always liked ESPNcricinfo... Harrias ^talk 16:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever happened? Are we going to have to start removing CA links from the site? Urgh, one of the most useful and practical sites, in spite of redesigns, now destroys itself. Well played, universe... Bobo. 17:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I was about to suggest we consider removing all the external links at least - they aren't a lot of help to most users behind a paywall. It might be worth someone contacting CA and asking them to consider making access available for wiki research perhaps, but starting to move to CI for stats sourcing and removing the external links is probably a fair starting position. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

enWP has currently 42,658 links to Cricket Archive, german WP (deWP) 1,039 links, which will be some work to remove. Anyway, in deWP we will start the removal. The trouble is more that this can lead to a knock-on effect, leading to other databases also ending up behind a paywall.--Maphry (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to have references that are subscription only, so there is no pressing need to do anything. We should consider a bot, or AWB process to mark the links as subscription only, but that won't be a overly difficult process. In the future, as and when pages are updated, the links can be changed to CI. Harrias ^talk 18:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the overall view of external links rather than references? Shouldn't they be generally accessible? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #6 and WP:ELREG say they should be avoided. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems sensible in general, but, as Harrias suggests, perhaps a bot in the first instance could tag them all and then it's a process of taking them out whenever any chances upon an article. I doubt we'll ever get all of them. Mind you, CA might go under by then anyway... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're quick, pressing ESC as the page loads stops that subscription page from loading and you can see the page you're after. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What smart arse came up with having to get people to subscribe to CricketArchive? I can't imagine there will much demand for it. Stupid move from CA in my opinion. Can't imagine they'll make all that much. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree PinchHittingLeggy, a very disappointing decision indeed. As for the question on table regarding the CA links, I agree with process outlined by Harrias and Blue Square Thing above. Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a real shame. I've added {{subscription required}} to Template:Cricketarchive. Jenks24 (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll guess they'll see how much revenue this makes in the next 3/6 months and then re-evaulate if nobody is signing up. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't archive bots sort this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I began several months ago to remove CA links from all early cricket articles because their coverage of the game in the 18th century and even well into the 19th is absolute C*A*. The number of errors and omissions is unacceptable: I'm not talking about a few typoes here and there. Like other people interested in early cricket, I strongly object to CA's assertion that they decide which matches were "first-class" and which were not (there was no first-class before 1895, whatever these "experts" may insist). A good example of their incompetence is an early MCC match I came across recently when I was listing MCC players. I found the scorecard in their "other matches" section and immediately thought "here we go again" but initially gave them the benefit of the doubt by accepting that there might have been a number of one-match guest players involved. All 22 players in the game had names I recognised so I checked all 22 CA profiles and found that every single one of them has a CA-given "first-class career record". So how can that match not be "first-class" when there are some in their "first-class portfolio" which did feature the one-match guests? How can a site like that be considered consistent, reliable, credible, whatever?

I noticed, by the way, when that paywall thing came up, that they are bragging about coverage starting in 1702. Well, take a look at our our version of the early matches and you will see that the earliest known "great match" was in 1697 and this game is mentioned in numerous reputable sources. They cannot even get their start date right. I'd happily bot them right out of WP but the feasibility is dubious and, in the many stub biogs which use their record only for verification, the ESPN version has to be found to replace it.

ESPN is just as good as CA, of course, much more so in its coverage of modern cricket as they give you narrative, news, reports as well as stats. I will certainly continue to remove CA from any article I'm working on. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall that for detailed sourcing of people's first-class careers, eg by season for (say) a 1980s/1990s cricketer, CA is unrivalled. Am I wrong? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree - CA has many major benefits when you want to know which Second XI teams someone played for, how many matches they played per season etc... Even records and the like are harder without CA or access to county records. I noticed Worcestershire seem to have their own version of the db up on their website - possibly other places will have as well? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. It's a shame that they have felt the need to charge for access, but I suppose they feel that they need to recoup their costs, and they presumably don't enjoy the sponsorship from outfits such as ESPN and Wisden that Cricinfo do. Although I wonder whether Cricinfo might start charging for at least some of their content in the future? That seems to be the way that things are going at present, with the Telegraph for instance recently having started to require a subscription to access most of their online content. I find CA useful enough that I might, reluctantly, shell up the £50 per year. JH (talk page) 16:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've no problem with their coverage of modern cricket and they're certainly good at limited overs, but if they consider themselves to be an "archive" they should be completely sound historically, and they are not. Recentism is all very well. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Members of the ACS are now kicking off about it: understandably, as many of them have contributed scorecards and corrections to CA over the years (as some of us have). I wonder what percentage of CA traffic comes through referrals from WP references? Johnlp (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The ACS was their "founding city", so to speak, and all their original content came from the old ACS website having been compiled by ACS members. Subsequently, they have relied on dozens of other contributors. I should imagine that WP has been the main road into CA for the last dozen years or so and must surely account for well over half of their visitors. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps more germane is that a lot of their visitors probably also come from cricket-mad parts of the world where the proposed fee is simply not affordable for a lot of people. While it's obviously sensible not to add more CA references at present, I wouldn't rush to amend or delete what we already have: there's quite a long history of paywalls coming a-tumbling down fairly quickly when the consequences in terms of traffic are realised. Johnlp (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming to this a little late as I only just noticed. Having links behind a paywall is nothing new here, there are lots of such links. Also, as others have said, Cricinfo is perfectly adequate for the scorecards etc of players. The biggest loss, though, is the capacity to show a player's entire career, innings by innings. This was invaluable for referencing those for whom no other sources exist and meant that we didn't have to link to individual scorecards, and could refer to several scores at once. We can do this for Tests, ODIs, etc from Cricinfo, but not for first-class or List A. We have a lot of articles which use this capacity (Player Oracle), and these don't need to be removed. But we won't be able to do this for any new articles/expansions unless we are prepared to cough up. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Lugnuts did give us the solution above. I've been pulling off a lot of their matchlists today which I want to compare with my own and that ESC key is as sweet as a nut: not a paywall in sight. Mind you don't hit it too quickly though or you get a blank page, LOL! Jack | ^{talk page} 22:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If they ever fix the Esc loophole, then this info posted on the newsgroup uk.sport.cricket by David North might come in useful: "http://stats.thecricketer.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20170221004930/http://cricketarchive.com/

"Either of the above will get you into copies of the archive (only major cricket in the first case), but nothing later than about the 21st Feb, and features like the Player Oracle won't work. Archive.org is slow." JH (talk page) 10:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The MD of CricketArchive went to the annual meeting of the ACS yesterday to explain things. He apparently (I wasn't there: Saturday is football-watching day, not cricket) said that the site had annual costs of £100,000 for staff and hosting fees and that the advertising produced barely a tenth of that. Hence the decision to make a charge, not just for usage, but also to those minor cricket clubs who want their results and the names of their members on the site. There's presumably an implication that if these measures don't work, the site will not be sustainable. Johnlp (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In the light of the financial information above, I'm not happy with the idea of using workarounds or loopholes to circumvent payment to a site that this project has benefited from immensely and plundered mercilessly. Nor am I happy with the idea of removing links, thereby reducing traffic to CricketArchive and making its viability even more tenuous. I'll be paying the annual subscription, because I can probably afford to do so, though I recognise that others may be less able to. And I'll start gently updating references to show that this is now a subscription site... but not removing them. What do others think? Johnlp (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I broadly agree; as I said above, there is absolutely no need to remove references just because they are subscription only. Sure, we should avoid including them as External links (per [[WP:ELREG]), but they are perfectly fine as references – though as noted ideally they should be marked as being subscription only. Harrias ^talk 14:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've no problem with references. I'm not at all convinced of the economic model of CricketArchive however or how on earth they've been able to keep going for so long if advertising is only meeting 10% of their costs. Perhaps a crowdsources, non-profit model such as that used by Retrosheet might be more effective. Either that or hand the database over the the folks who run Baseball-Reference.com. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I shall probably stump up for a subscription too. I find their site far better to use than Cricinfo, with all its bells and whistles and shoving of video clips in one's face, and it would be a shame if they had to pull the plug. JH (talk page) 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No way am I paying and I will continue to use the ESC key. My take on all capitalistic organisations is that if they can't make a go of it by fair means they cannot justify resorting to unfair ones. It has been a free site all these years and now they expect people to pay for it. Maybe they should be paying us for all the traffic we have provided them with. Did they pay me for writing up all their 1772 to 1800 scorecards? Did they hellers like. BST is right when he says they should hand it over to someone else and that someone else might take the trouble to rectify all their errors and omissions. It's the usual Tory-inspired crap that they make a balls of something (10% from advertising, for crying out loud), but it's not their fault and they expect everyone else to pay for their incompetence. Just like the banks.

Oh, I do agree now that we should not remove references and I've been adding more in where there were ESPN only. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It has changed hands twice since you made any contribution. It costs 100k a year to run and the pre 1800 element represents less than 2 percent of content. Things cost Money to run and it's hardly fair for someone to cough 100k a year so few hundred people can download statistics for free. it costs several thousand to upload all fc scores on a daily basis. When you uploaded your scores Mr Griffiths was running the site on a shoestring. he could not hope to sustain it and flogged it. I wonder how they're incompetent like banks. it's an expensive hobby to run data base that attracts a relatively small audience. Wisden cost 50 quid a year to buy for 12 months potted scores. The ACS book is 60 for all scorecards for one year. Real world not cloud cuckoo land. Remember too that for all the fc material, somebody gets paid for doing the physical scoring. I can't see what politics has to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.246.3 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Women's cricket in England

I'm sure you'll all be interested to learn that there is now a "standard sort key for gendered sports" which means that when someone searches for "Women's cricket" in a category such as Category:Cricket in England, they will not find it under "W" but under "+". I kid you not. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured list nomination

Hi guys, if you guys could please review and comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Australia Test cricket records/archive1 that would be appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Law reordering

Seems the changes to the laws will be more significant than previously thought. MCC have released this summary and these full laws today. As well as removing Handled the Ball it will reorder the other laws and move a few other bits and pieces around. Can we get a crack team of editors to draft the changes needed ? Spike 'em (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't really cover the history of the laws, including the various codes, very thoroughly. Might be worth thinking about a History of the Laws of Cricket article. Hack (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I've got a copy of laws from 1980 somewhere at the bottom of a wardrobe, I'll have to try to find it. Spike 'em (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a good idea because the history of the laws is widespread on WP and should be collated into a single article. You need to go right back to the early days of cricket and I'd recommend that you refer to the following articles at least (these are off the top of my head and there will be other useful info elsewhere):

• History of cricket to 1725
• 1727 English cricket season
• 1744 English cricket season
• 1774 English cricket season
• 1775 English cricket season
• 1788 English cricket season
• Articles of Agreement (cricket)
• Follow-on
• John Small (cricketer)
• Lumpy Stevens
• Monster Bat Incident 1771

Good luck and let me know if I can help with sources, especially the early ones. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cricketarchive

Apparently CA costs 100 grand a year to run and is not breaking even. Advertising brought in 10k but alienated visitors. The choice is pay or it will become merely a defunct database. The legal side seems clear. It contains only research not original text. Everything has appeared somewhere else. As yet no cricket authority has copyrighted it's scores. Old scores are just tbat. You're paying for the right to use the database. ACS members get 33 percent off. Ontario Railway (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't understand how it could cost anything like 100 grand a year to run that site. Maybe if they explained their expenditure needs people would be more inclined to help them. Wikipedia doesn't have a paywall and it doesn't have advertising. People are happy to donate to it, because they love it. CA have alienated a lot of that love. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They laid out their expenditure at the ACS general meeting. They employ three people on maintaining the site. Have you a spare 10k to donate. Love won't keep it going though I don't imagine the paywall will either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.246.3 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've never been a member of the ACS - stats interest me a bit, but not that much. So if they are putting all their eggs in the ACS basket, it seems a bit shortsighted. Wikipedia gets one heck of a lot of dosh from small donations. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

have they approached the ICC/ECB/CA/BCCI etc? 100 grand is nothing for some of these orgs. The-Pope (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you think CA matters to them? Ontario Railway (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because cricket is inextricably linked to its history and stats? Because a IPL club spends more on one player for a week than CA needs for a year? Because if I ran a small league team in England I'd want to independently double check the resumes of proposed international professionals. Because it should matter to all involved in the game. The-Pope (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming to this very late (I've been on the tour of the Lord's Long Room among other not so interesting places) and I have to say that I'm disappointed by this. As a one-time member of ACS who has contributed to the CA database over the years, from scorecards to player disambiguations et al. you do it in the belief that you were helping a community project rather than a moneymaking opportunity. The same thing happened with CricInfo as well, so I shouldn't be too surprised, I guess. I won't be paying 50 pounds/year for it in any case. --Roisterer (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the need for a subscription fee is intended to stop it making losses, rather than in any hope of it making a profit. Even community projects have costs. Johnlp (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

List of New Zealand Test cricket victories

I've just stumbled across this article. As it's above the standard of many of the result lists deleted in past (IE just a bare table), I thought I'd raise it here for further opinion. As far as I can see, no other nation has a list of their victories. Worth keeping or nuke with the others? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The article as a whole is fairly unmanageable and the subject doesn't strike me as particularly notable in itself - NZ playing Test cricket, yes; NZ tours and tours to NZ, yes, sure. But it just strikes me as a set of matches brought together in the same place because NZ won them - and the rationale of that doesn't seem particularly clear.

The sourcing for much if it seems to be restricted to scorecards which, personally, I consider to be heading towards OR - the cards require interpretation. There are a few other sources sprinkled through though. There are some potential POV issues in there as well that require citing at best.

My gut feeling is that the content would be better off taking the content and moving it to the individual tour pages and then dealing with any POV, OR and citation issues in those - rather than having a massively long article for which the entire rationale is suspect at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it in a bit more detail, it's full of guff such as "In one of the most acrimonious series of all time...", "Australia spent most of this engrossing Test trying to wriggle their way out of trouble..." and "...the Indian captain was delighted to win the toss and bowl...", etc, etc. I see it's now been prodded, if that gets removed, I'll setup the AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Was tagged with a prod by @Joseph2302:, but it was removed. I've taken it to AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The number of The Beast

Why me!? Jack | ^{talk page} 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Down-under devil? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, no doubt by tomorrow your ranking will have changed. I myself seem to be a lowly 6787. JH (talk page) 08:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

...but if the cap fits... ;) Johnlp (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the trouble, it does! That winning margin by Victoria, is it the biggest ever? Jack | ^{talk page} 09:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Pretty comprehensive. Never seen that before. Thanks, John. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Time to delete all the cricket biographies on here

Well, just the ones who once hit a cricket ball around a church backyard in 1834. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Who'd play cricket in a church backyard?? Harrias ^talk 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Who indeed?Johnlp (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There have been plenty of pubs with a cricket field at the back (Trent Bridge for one) but I'm not too sure about churches. They were certainly associated with early football (Everton was originally a church team). Do they seriously believe they can get the whole of NSPORT radically reduced in scope just because someone doesn't like a "substub" (Qué!?) about a cyclist? Why do they bother with these stupid non-issues and, as I said at the page, if he thinks NCYCLING is too "inclusive", take it up with that project. A load of........ Jack | ^{talk page} 16:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As History of cricket to 1725 reminds us: "In 1622, several parishioners of Boxgrove, near Chichester in west Sussex, were prosecuted for playing cricket in a churchyard on Sunday, 5 May. There were three reasons for the prosecution: one was that it contravened a local bye-law; another reflected concern about church windows which may or may not have been broken; the third was that a little childe had like to have her braines beaten out with a cricket batt!" JH (talk page) 09:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So, they're only 212 years out! LOL. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish major cricket teams

On 10 Jan User:Jaywardhan009 created 3 pages for the soon-to-be first-class teams in Ireland at Leinster Lightning cricket team, North West Warriors cricket team and Northern Knights cricket team. I think the first 2 should be moved to remove the "cricket team" qualifier as per WP:COMMONNAME. I would do it straight away, but there is a redirect from those titles (which now redirect to the team page, previously went to the relevant cricket board) and I've seen problems in moving over redirects in the past. The last one causes problems as there is a Northern Knights Aussie Rules team, so I'd suggest moving the cricket team to "Northern Knights (cricket team)" and creating a DAB at Northern Knights. Spike 'em (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Using Leinster Lightning as an example, their official Twitter page uses that name, as does the cricinfo profile. If a few more people agree with this, then log them at here, citing this discussion, otherwise we'll go down the full WP:RM process. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: - sorry, I forgot about this, but just listed the first two here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin needed

Hello, as the CfD "process" appears to have stalled, could one of the admins here please go in there and put this simple rename out of its misery? Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, the CfD backlog only goes back to 7th Feb... There seems to be a consensus to rename the categories, so anyone can just simply move them. I'll do it if no-one else picks it up. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

CfD is, and always has been, a shambles. Thanks, Lugnuts, I'll have a go at it myself. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sujon Mahmud

This article has been created by myself and I don't know how to categorize it whether into a stub or Class category. This article is about the Bangladeshi cricketer who recently involved in a controversial call by conceding 92 runs off 4 balls in a List A match. See talk page Talk:Sujon Mahmud and article Sujon Mahmud. I can't approve on this article whether it is needed for Wikipedia or not. Abishe (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017‎ (UTC)

The article and the above are factually incorrect. You described him as a first class cricketer and above say it was a List A game. Neither are true: this was a game at the 3rd level of Bangladeshi cricket. This is WP:BIO1E and he'd certainly fail WP:NCRIC and I'd say WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS too. Spike 'em (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it fails WP:CRIN by a long, long way. It might have a chance at WP:GNG because the story did make a few headlines but I doubt it. Anyway, I've place a PROD on it and advised Abishe. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There may be an article on Dhaka Umpiring Crisis in there, which then mentions Sujon (and the other player banned), but I don't think every news event warrants an article here. Spike 'em (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Maybe the incident meets WP:NEVENT, but he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am regretting for my mistakes, unfortunately I made some errors relating to this article and also I forgot to say about the article Tasnim Hasan is also created by me relating to the controversial issue. I accept the fact to delete the articles Sujon Mahmud and Tasnim Hasan. I also made a mistake in the article Sujon Mahmud that he is a first class cricketer and then went onto say about List A. Unfortunately both these articles are not meeting with the relevant criteria and notability. My poor performance makes the editors of the Wikipedia in a ridiculous way. I am deeply sorry for my costly mistakes and controversial issues. Thank You Abishe (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No harm done. If anything, it's a positive, as you now know about the notability requirements in more detail. Take a look at WP:NCRIC for more. As a good rule-of-thumb, the cricketer should have a page on Cricinfo, and that biography will detail their career, with first-class, List A details, etc. Just having a page on Cricinfo doesn't mean they pass WP:NCRIC. Examples: notable, not notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of meat and sock puppets are having fun. I'll get the popcorn. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Added my £0.02. If this does not sort the WP:CRIN issue beyond all reasonable doubt, then to be honest we've spent 13 years yawning ourselves silly over the same criteria which have not yet been found to be unacceptable. Wonder how quickly the standards of cricket coverage on Wikipedia would decrease if trusty members of WP:CRIC just... gave up..? Bobo. 09:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth me bringing up the cricketers I've created who meet WP:CRIN but have been deleted? At least four of these, A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando and N. Kumara were deleted without my knowing at the time, while S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was deleted through an AfD discussion in spite of meeting WP:CRIN. Not sure how I worked out this guy had made his FC debut, maybe I was getting his profile mixed up with someone else's! Bobo. 09:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bobo. Stubs about tiny spiders and small villages. Fine. But people get a real bee in their bonnets about sportspeople biographies. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Added a couple more points, including inappropriately deleted articles. Bobo. 10:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

And closed. I'm amazed something that poorly thought out and over-the-top lasted that long. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Cricket-playing "celebrities"

Just a random thought running through my head. Do famous people who are more notable for other things than playing cricket, such as Arthur Conan-Doyle and Samuel Beckett, need cricket infoboxes? I'm sure there are examples I've forgotten. Bobo. 21:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

They don't need a cricket infobox but you can nest the cricket infobox into infoboxes based on {{Infobox person}}. Hack (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Cricket League and teams at AfD

Please see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karnataka Bulldozers

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also see the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 British Isles Championship. Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please also see following new discussions:

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangalore Brigadiers

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Karnataka Premier League

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Hong Kong T20 Blitz

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Cricket League Twenty20 records (2nd nomination)

Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Tom Latham page move

This doesn't actually affect the current page for the NZ cricketer, but should help with the reduction of incorrect incoming links, with a lot going to the US politician. Please see this discussion for more and comment if needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have completed this move request. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just removed

Just removed a whole bunch of BLP unsourced templates from articles created by 02blythed. These each come with a CA link and therefore this claim that they are "unsourced" is untrue. If anyone wishes to improve these articles please feel free to do so via this link rather than claiming the articles are "unsourced". Bobo. 12:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations in stubs

A point arising from the two topics above. Earlier on today, I found Abdul Shakoor (Indian cricketer) as an unassessed article and that is one of the 02blythed batch in question. I revised it by ensuring that the citation is inline and not an external link. I think that with all of these stubs, including the five Sri Lankan ones, they will have a better chance of staying the distance if the citations are moved from EL to inline. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This is what I'm wondering, references vs. external links. Where I've always added external links, would references be the better choice? At the end of the day the same information is present..? This is why the "no references" tag makes no sense to me. Bobo. 16:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I always go for the inline cite over just a bare external link, as some editors don't think the ex. link is a reference in itself. It basically removes that doubt of saying X article isn't referenced and saves the time of going back-and-fourth with the editor(s) who don't think the ex. link counts. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a strange attitude for anyone to take when the external link and the reference would be completely identical! (Not from you, Lugnuts!) Bobo. 16:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Lugnuts. This should hopefully clear up this issue of referencing - especially adding CI as second source. Perhaps - especially these days - we should also always be adding CI as an additional external link... Bobo. 17:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It can be from the new-page patrolers (esp. people who are doing that for the first time). I can see their point, as technically it's not "referenced" as such. It doesn't happen a great deal, but it's a waste of everyone's time when it does! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I'm tickled by the fact that the last edit to the WP article for Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club is a five-year-old bot note saying that the article is incomplete! Bobo. 17:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriately deleted cricket articles

Just repeating something that I posted up the top to see what people think.

It says on WP:GNG that an article must "either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". On this basis, how do people feel about the reinstatement of the articles A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando, N. Kumara and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), five of which were deleted by PROD (seven years ago!) and one by AfD (two years ago). A lot of conversation has occurred since then, particularly most recently concerning the relationship between WP:CRIN and WP:GNG.

Pinging @StAnselm: because StAnselm has been an avid contributor in this debate. Bobo. 23:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the big problems is that WP:NSPORT contradicts itself over whether articles also need to meet WP:GNG, or whether satisfying the sport-specific criteria is enough. The lead says, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below," which implies that it either needs to meet GNG or the SSC. But then later on it says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." StAnselm (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted this on the Sports notability guideline page, regarding WP:N: "..it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Only a "guideline", of course, but until someone can suggest a more universally applicable guideline, everything is fine." Honest question, how do you feel about this? Bobo. 23:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't all articles stand-alone articles as long as they are not list articles? I don't understand what a stand-alone article is... Bobo. 23:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bobo, I think you should challenge the use of that phrase "standalone article" because it does not make any sense at all. Even a list could be seen as standing alone depending on the context (e.g., a list of one player's centuries is specific to him and is a separate entity from his biography). In practice, the way we operate WP:CRIN re non-notable cricket people is to propose deletion for failure to comply with CRIN unless they meet GNG's wider criteria. I believe the way forward for all biographies, not just sporting ones, is to compare against subject specific criteria first; then, if they fail that, compare against GNG criteria; finally, if they fail that too, delete. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack:, it's worth noting that only one of them is speedy-deletable by G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, and this must be worthy of *discussion* before it actually happens because it meets CRIN. We've established beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no necessary conflict between CRIN and GNG. Bobo. 11:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The S. Perera who was deleted was S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer). Bobo. 11:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you re-create these articles and see what happens (if anything)? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I fear them being mistakenly speedy deleted under CSD G4. Bobo. 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've been bold and gone ahead and done it, I've added some justification in the edit summaries. Bobo. 15:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just accidentally looked at one of these. You haven't referenced, you've just added Cricinfo as an External link. Also, is Kandy Youth Cricket Club really a first-class club? Deb (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Every reference would be identical to the external link, and Kandy Youth Cricket Club played five first-class matches in the 1991-92 Saravanamuttu Trophy season. Bobo. 16:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The references should be included as footnotes, and that's why your articles are getting tagged as "unreferenced". Deb (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated to this whole issue, and I'm saying this purely in jest. I can't help but think these articles would not have been originally prodded all those years ago had the team been called "Kurunegala Really Tall People Cricket Club". Perhaps calling a team "youth club" makes it sound to some like it's unlikely to have been a first-class club... Bobo. 17:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the Cricinfo reference that says it's a first-class club. Possibly the club itself is not notable. Deb (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Back to the Suresh Perera issue

Hang on a second, we're running into a completely different issue now. We are assuming that Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) are two different people? Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)'s infobox would assume otherwise, although his infobox contradicts the information on CA (1) and CI (2). Shouldn't we simply be citing what is in the available sources? Have we accidentally conflated the two? Bobo. 17:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: @Lugnuts: @Deb: the fact that one source has conflated the two names confuses me beyond belief... it certainly doesn't seem like someone born in 1970 would be playing for a youth team at the age of 28! Bobo. 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

They're not a youth team, Bobo. They're like Boca Juniors in football: started out as a youth club and never bothered to change the name when they became open-age. The info about Perera (OC) and Perera (KY) being the same man came from the ACS although CA and CI are in agreement that it's two men. When sources contradict each other like this, I'm not sure which way we should go. I think, on balance, we should go with the 2–1 result and split the Perera (OC) article into two. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I know. I was partially teasing, although you are right, of course. It was more the conflation of two sources which was perplexing me... Bobo. 18:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the KY match out of the Perera (OC) article as it is duplication if we accept two sources to one justifying the Perera (KY) article. It's a nightmare because CI has about 300 Pereras and loads of them have S as one initial. These two (or this one!) have S intial only but, who knows who some of them are!? Jack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There was always a possibility they were the same man. This was one reason I didn't think this article should be kept. Bobo, you need to find some more stuff! The article has to be substantially different to avoid being speedily deleted. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this is true! Initially I was mainly questioning at what point reliable sources become mightily confusing! I sometimes wonder how thoroughly we need to adhere to our agreed reliable sources. It was mostly because I was reinstating the other AfD'd first-class cricketers due to the discussion of the detachment of WP:CRIN from WP:GNG.

I've technically retired from WP now due to various personal issues, so I will keep on the down-low for now until something equally silly comes up! Sorry for not pinging you, StAnselm, I should have done that sooner. In any case, I think as cricket fans we are all narked off at the fact that CA is never quite going to be the same again... Bobo. 22:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

International cricket in YYYY

Full disclosure - I know virtually noting about cricket, I am not part of this project, I see there is an extensive archive that may answer this question already (but am having a hard time narrowing results), and am not very interested in wikipedia style concerns. All that being said, I have a question - why is are the titles "International cricket in YYYY" as opposed to "YYYY in International cricket"? The vast, vast majority of other sports I know of list the year first, then what it is (e.g., 2016–17 Premier League or 2017 Indianapolis 500) and even appears that way elsewhere in cricket (e.g., 2016 Caribbean Premier League or 2016 Asia Cup). Wouldn't is make more sense to have the year first like almost all other sports articles? I understand some cricket articles may be hard to format accurately (e.g., Pakistani cricket team in the West Indies in 2016–17 to something like "2016-17 Pakistani cricket team tour of the West Indies"), but is there a reason this is different from? Wouldn't it make more sense to list the year then what occurred? Just wondering. RonSigPi (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I can't answer the why part of it, but it's been the standard, per WP:CRIC#STYLE, for at least 11 years. So I guess the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has made this the standard for this project. I don't think there's much to gain from changing them all for the sake of it, unless there's some wider support to do so. At worst, redirects can be created. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Went to my first cricket match recently and wanted to find out some more info on it. As a non-cricket person, I found myself continuously making the same error - typing "2017 in International Cricket" and having it not come up. I have to assume non-cricket people/editors that do know a lot about sports when trying to find out cricket information would make the same mistake. So I don't think it would be just for the sake of it, I think a change like that would make things more user friendly since they would better align with almost all other sports. Far be it from me to poke bears and open cans of worms, just thought it was something to consider. Its up to the project to decide what to do, just wanted to mention my experience and found out the reason. RonSigPi (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've created a couple of redirects for the meantime. I see you're from the US - I hope you're not put off by a sport that can be played across 4 or 5 days and ends as a draw! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

About Domestic and International stats

There is a discussion about some editors like User:Blue Square Thing, that in the stat columns of cricketers, domestic careers such as First-class cricket, List A cricket and Twenty20 cricket must have higher priority than international three forms of the game. In recent edits by me, I inserted international stats at first place and then to domestic careers. This is for international players. So what are your opinions about that, should international stats come first, as because the player is engaged in international cricket, even in World Cups as well, OR only insert domestic career before international stats?... Gihan Jayaweera Gtalk 20:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In {{Infobox cricketer}} template, there's the following text (under the heading "Stats"):

"Up to 4 Column types can be used for different codes of the game. Suggested 4 are Test, ODI, FC, LA. Others may be used to make up the columns (T20I, T20, TRO. N.B. It was agreed that T20 figures would only be used to pad out the four columns, and as such they would come at the end of the infoboxes. Test, ODI, FC and LA will occupy the standard four, if one is missing, move the others to a prior column, freeing the space at the end."

I guess it all depends on how many matches the individual has played in each format. If they've only played one T20I, but 100 LA matches, then the LA would be my preference. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

To put the original comments into context, the stats which are currently inserted at Tom Latham (cricketer) are Test, ODI, T20I and LA. My preference would be to ditch the T20I (12 matches) and replace it with FC (80 matches). Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Playing for a national team is the highest honour a player can achieve, regardless of the format. Even if Tom Latham has only played 12 T20Is compared to his 80 first-class appearances, those international appearances are more important. It's a shame we can't list six formats in the infobox, but in the absence of the two extra that we would need, I think all internationals should take precedence over club cricket. – PeeJay 22:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just bite the bullet and work out a new infobox that can do both. But we've never agreed on something before, so I guess it would be overly optimistic to think we might do so now. Harrias ^talk 05:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that the international stats would be the most meaningful. I was going to ask if there was a convention about what stats to list, as I'd seen lots of T20I players with no stats listed for them. Spike 'em (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to see where this convention comes from the latest I could find was in the Template Talk Archive that says

We did agree though that the priority should be Tests, then ODIs, then First-class and then List A before we start adding Twenty20 stats. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This was in very early days of T20 cricket when there had only been about 50 T20Is (there have now been over 600). I'd say that they are more significant and of more interest to the casual reader than non-international cricket. Spike 'em (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference, in the same time frame, there have been 525 Tests and 1641 ODIs Spike 'em (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 81/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Cricket.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Cricket, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary topic move discussion

Please see Talk:Alan Keith Davidson#Requested move 20 May 2017 and join the discussion if you have a view about Alan Davidson as primary topic before five namesakes. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Assessments

Hello all. During the last few days, I've been poring over CRIC articles that have been given B-class and C-class status. Evidently, some people seem to think that just creating an article automatically qualifies it for one of these classes and I even found a bare stub in B-class. Fortunately, there weren't too many of these starts and stubs among the Bs but there are hundreds in the Cs and they all need to be reset to start-class (or stub-class!). The point about the classifications is that they recognise article quality and, really, an article that has truly achieved B-class must be a strong contender for GA. I think the criteria are out of date and do not set a high enough standard. For example, an article must have a lead section (true enough) but compliance with WP:LEAD is not required and that is a serious omission in quality terms.

To address this, I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment by re-drafting the quality and importance standards; and given them a new shortcut each – WP:CRICBCC and WP:CRICAIS. If you are interested in article assessment, would you please run the rule over the page and think about the standards I'm proposing.

As for the B/C problem, we had about 200 B-class articles and, having read all of them, I've reduced the category to just 48 which I think do meet the criteria and could be put forward at WP:GAN. I'm not saying they would pass GA immediately because that depends on the reviewer and some of the GAC remain, rightly so, at a higher standard than BCC. C-class had nearly 1,200 articles and I've already begun a reduction so there are now 1,100. Way to go. Oh, and I have relegated several articles that were written by, er, me (gulp!).

Any suggestions about article assessment methods, criteria, personnel, etc. would be most welcome. Thanks for your time. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A thankless task. So thank you! I admit I've never really grasped the concept of B-class, C-class, etc in all my years of being here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I managed to gain permission to use AWB and, with that, it didn't take long at all to change them. There are now 27 C-class and 63 B-class; I think they are all valid so we've got a startpoint now. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

CricketArchive

Hello, We are using CA as our ref. source with CricInfo but CA has decided to place a paywall so anyone using their database have to pay first. Still, we have its name in notability guidelines along with CricInfo. What should we do now, Should we stop using it or keep on written as it is? Greenbörg (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you should always seek to use book sources before either of those two. WP:CRIN makes clear, I think, that CA and CI are the less preferable options but they are the ones used mostly because of their availability. We've already discussed the CA paywall on here at considerable length and as some editors still have access, they continue to use it. To answer your question, then, it's business as usual unless it is unavailable to you. Hope this helps. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

CA shouldn't be used as an external link though. As a ref it's difficult to not use it for some things, although obituaries can be a handy replacement. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Obituaries can be a handy replacement". Bit tough on cricketers who are still alive, though. Johnlp (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Good one Jack | ^{talk page} 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that WP:ELNO states "one should generally avoid providing external links to..." (then item #6 goes into more). Note it says should and not must be. Might be an idea just to leave them for when CA find that next to no-one is bothering to subscribe to their content. Much like several newspapers who thought people would pay for news, then changed their minds. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Sends a message to CA though. I'm not going out of my way to remove them generally, but when I edit an article I'm tending to do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I too not only me I think everybody finding the same problem with Cricket Archive informing about the paywall.Can we able to rely on other sites such as CricHQ and CricBuzz.For example I created the article on 2017 Blind T20 World Cup with the help of CricHQ.But the article that I created may be inappropriate to Wikipedia guidelines.I was not aware of the notability issues.I will definitely accept the views to delete that particular article.Thank You.Abishe (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• One thing that is relatively easy to do automatically is to add some code to the Infobox cricketer template to suppress any cricket archive link used as the source at the bottom of the infobox and replace it with a cricinfo link, if the article has a cricinfo value in Wikidata. This auto sourcing from WikiData is being used in the Australian rules footballer infobox (to AFL stats sites), such as Matthew Pavlich. One edit to the template will change thousands of articles, no need to edit them all individually. The-Pope (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• • That would be worthwhile - I'm tending to change them as I work through them to CI where possible (although for some very early cricketers there are some issues with not using CA I think). Tbh though the biggest problem I'm having is that so few articles seem to have wikidata - the cricinfo external link template without using id= doesn't seem to work at least 80% of the time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

With "very early cricketers" (i.e., up to the mid-19th century), CA is unreliable; and so is CI. The only way to source early cricket is by using appropriate books such as S&B. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup venue templates

Does anyone else think templates like {{2015 Cricket World Cup Venues}} and {{2011 Cricket World Cup Stadiums}} are pointless? There's a whole raft of them in this category. I don't see how it's defining to most venues and serves as template clutter, with lots of grounds hosting lots of matches, across multiple years. I can understand why similar templates exist for the Olympics, for example, as most venues are custom built for the Games. If there's support here, I'll put them up for deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see if we can bin them. Harrias ^talk 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree. As you say, template clutter. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. You should nominate them. Greenbörg (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias:, @BlackJack:, @Greenbörg: - done. They are listed here. Please comment on the TfD page, along with anyone else who wishes to support or oppose the nom. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Add the comments for CCL template too. Greenbörg (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricketer

I propose the removal of "nickname" from this template because it adds nothing of value and its presence encourages stupid behaviour. Several times lately, I've had to remove alleged "nicknames" which contravene WP:BLP. If someone does have a famous nickname like "Fiery Fred" or "Beefy", it should go in the narrative with a citation. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely. It's not key information, and it's just inviting nonsensical additions. Jellyman (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree too. Even though most nicknames for big players can be sourced to Cricinfo, it's just not worth the hassle of sorting out the bogus ones when people can't be bothered to source them. – PeeJay 22:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The flip-side to this, is that there are lots of good sources out there for this, which are often included in the article. I recall adding the cite to Nathan Lyon's article for the Gary nickname, and found quite a lengthy piece about it (I thought it might be some OFaH ref...). I see a lot of editors, usually anon IPs, adding nicknames, and I revert every single one of them that crops up on my watchlist. I don't see it being any different to any number of other possible BLP issues (place of birth, school attended, middle names, etc), that get added without sourcing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Something to consider would be those players who have played other sports. I have seen it where fields have been removed and it has affected dual or multi sports individuals. I know of only a handful, but there are quite a few who have played cricket, rugby league, rugby union, etc.Fleets (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Are the warm up matches between Scotland and Sri Lanka considered as for the preparation for the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy ?

• Since Scotland is not eligible to participate in this tournament.May be the 2 warm up matches can be considered as for the preparation of Sri Lankan outfit.Both of these warm up matches held in England just prior to the Champions Trophy.Scotland tour of England, Practice Match: Sri Lanka v Scotland at Beckenham, May 21, 2017 and Scotland tour of England, Practice Match: Sri Lanka v Scotland at Beckenham, May 23, 2017Can we able to input these scorecards into the tournament article. Abishe (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

They don't appear on the ICC list of warm-up games, which I assume is the list on the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are not warm-up matches for the tournament. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

They could still be mentioned as matches that Sri Lanka played to prepare and acclimatise in the prose, if sources can be found to that end. Harrias ^talk 07:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I got it Abishe (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Template discussion

I had created an article related to international tour in 1986-87 season Sri Lankan cricket team in India in 1986–87 but I am confused to categorize it because Category:International cricket competitions in 1987 has been redirected to Category:International cricket competitions from 1994–95 to 1997.Do we want to create a new category page to categorize this. Abishe (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RM notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Rising Pune Supergiants#Requested move 26 March 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Articles under discussion

Please participate here, here, here, here and here for thorough discussion. Also add your comments for this template. Greenbörg (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ICC World Test Championship

Please see this discussion about deleting the template {{ICC World Test Championship}}. Also the article for 2017 ICC World Test Championship keeps getting restored from a redirect, despite no content that can't be covered in the main article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: this TfD has be closed and the template has been deleted. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)