Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 85

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

Man-of-the-match award articles at AfD

I've nominated two of them and bundled them together here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox cricket ground / AWB help

Following the T20I last night at Lord's, someone has edited the {{Infobox cricket ground}} parameters to have "lastt20ihome = World XI". In the code for the infobox, this parameter is inserted into a transclusion of {{Cr}}. There is no {{Country data}} setup for World XI, so the page now shows an error message rather than a link or meaningful text. The quickest solution would be to add Country Data for World XI, but I am loath to do so. Is there even a flag that we could reasonably use? Is anyone experienced enough with template editing to be able to test for the existence of country data before passing it onwards? The doc for Country data template says not to transclude it directly, so should the probably be replaced by a {{Cr}} transclusion, but if there is no underlying country data it will still fail.

The 3rd alternative would to edit the template to remove the {{Cr}} call completely and edit the individual pages to pass through {{Cr}} calls (as happens in Infobox Cricket team, for example), but there are 925 pages using the template. I've got AWB, but have only ever done direct replacements, I've never tried a regexp which I think would be necessary here. Has anyone tried that before? Spike 'em (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the code for the template does use {{Cr}}, the documentation is out of step, but still same issue : either need to add Country data for World XI or move Crs to individual template calls. Spike 'em (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I temporarily created a |lastt20ihomeflag= parameter that disables using country data Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to check for the existence of country data but this appears basically a temporary problem so I don't particularly wish to do that (nor would it be necessary to change 925 pages to fix this) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that it may be needed for away team at Gaddafi Stadium, as Pakistan played World XI there last year, but it seems they've played a proper team there since then. I couldn't figure out how to quantify how many of the cricket grounds actually use those parameters, but as you say it is hopefully temporary. Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cricket World Cup stadiums

What are people's opinions on category and the sub-cats? Are any of the stadiums/grounds truely defined by hosting a match in a CWC? For example, take County Cricket Ground, Derby (picking one at random), which is in two of the sub-cats. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't really pay that much attention to categories as such - do they have to "define" the thing we're including them on? Or do they simply have to be useful? If that latter, then they're OK, but clearly some are incomplete. If the former then an awful lot of categories need to be removed from pages - I see anyone who's played a single match for a team having a cat added to recognise it, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As several of the sub-cats include only one stadium, I'm not sure the sub-cats are necessary. And check out Category:Cricket_grounds_by_competition – what's the deal with that? Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Leslie Hylton

Having in the distant past brought the articles on Learie Constantine and Harold Larwood to featured status, I am currently researching the career and sad life of a lesser light who, as his current brief article acknowledges, is forever likely to be remembered for the manner of his death rather than for his cricket exploits. One problem is that Hylton has been largely written out of cricket history; there is very little that I can find in the books beyond basic statistical information and not-very-illuminating match reports. The best sources I've found are a couple of articles, this one] based on a Cricketer article, and this] from Michael Whitaker in The Nightwatchman. I've collected other articles from newspapers and magazines both, some contemporary, some recent. But if any cricket enthusiast can point me to a book or two which gives Hylton more than a passing mention, I'd be most grateful. You can use my talk, or the article's talk page.

I expect to start posting content to the article in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sunrisers Hyderabad in 2018

I nominated above article for GA review and would be happy if anyone can review and help me in getting that done. Thanks. - Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just made some minor fixes, and recommend you change the offseason section into more prose, rather than essentially a bullet list of x happened on y date. I'll do some more basic work at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone with IP of 92.97.130.128 is editing all cricket pages with wrong information. I hope someone can try to block that IP for vandalism. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is part of this long-term abuse from an editor in Pakistan/UAE. Their main areas for "editing" are on the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy squads and 2018 Pakistan Super League pages, and related articles, along with the IPL and future ICC events. I urge anyone who spots this IP popping up on their watchlist to head straight to WP:AIV, and cite the link in my sandbox. If the 92 range becomes their new home, I'll request a rangeblock to minmise the time wasted dealing with this idiot. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Rashid Khan

For info, I've been bold and moved Rashid Khan (Afghan cricketer) to Rashid Khan (cricketer), citing a previous page move for Steve Smith. Hopefully no-one objects to that, but if anyone does, please let me know.

Also, if anyone knows of any other similar page moves that should be done in the same vein, I'm happy to do those too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion. How about these 2 pages here : George Bailey (cricketer, born 1982) and David Miller (South African cricketer). Thanks. - Sagavaj (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - seeing as there was no objections, I've moved George Bailey's page. I'll sort out David Miller's page too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done the move for David Miller too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

More Vandalism

If someone could keep an eye on this user's contributions (‎86.99.216.50), as most seem to be vandalism. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

An AfD discussion

There is a current Afd discussion about the article International cricket 2019-20. Please ensure your participation in the relevant discussion. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Broadcaster information

Can anyone recall the discussion about NOT including this in articles? I recall it for a World Cup or World T20 article, but I can't find the discussion. For example, we don't include a list of broadcasting stations in each country for tours. It comes off the back of this at the Global T20 Canada tournament. Also ping @A Simple Human: and @PKT: for info. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'ping'! I was adding this to Talk:Lugnuts while he was adding the comment above: "I bring your attention to 2015 Cricket World Cup#Broadcasting rights, as well as 2018 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. Regarding the Canada T20 event, it was certainly unsourced, but I'm sure a source can be found and added by User:A Simple Human. Apart from that, it's relevant in view of the ICC's efforts to penetrate our market here in the Great White North." However, I have no idea about a previous discussion about this sort of content. PKT(alk) 19:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow enough of the discussions here to know if one took place or not. But I tend to think that in most cases there's really no case for large sections on either broadcasters or, for that matter, sponsors. These seem to be added as a matter of course (often as tables) on some types of articles and add little or nothing to the article. In the case of the article in question I can see why it might be significant to mention that it will be broadcast throughout south-east Asia, in Australia and the UK and in Canada on ATN - notably not a larger network such as TSN But I'd pretty much say that unless there's good reason to go any further - I don't see that a list adds anything of value beyond that and a list of individual country broadcasters (with flags of course - how can you have a list without flags?) is really not notable in itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As per BST, I don't see the need for a table of broadcasters for every tournament / series that happens. At a stretch I can see that they might be OK for truly global events (I see the FIFA broadcasting page is fiercely protected), but having a huge list of broadcasters on the main Cricket World Cup pages just bloats the page. Better to mention the main broadcasters in a section that discusses the attempts to make this a notable league rather than a standalone section. Spike 'em (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both. While were on the subject of the Global T20 Canada tournamnet, does anyone know why these matches are not classed as T20 matches, but as "Other T20" matches? More info is on the talkpage of the current tournament. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft/Notability Expertise Request

Hi all,

I just finished reviewing Draft:Myles Arkell in AfC and was left with a slightly confused viewpoint.

Most of the AfC grounds are fine, and as far as my non-cricketer self could gather, Cambridge University did have first-class cricket status and thus those who played for it would count under WP:CRIN. If someone could confirm that, that would be appreciated.

Obviously it's a very short article, which in most AfC reviews would have it declined, however I am aware of many NSPORTS articles that are this short and are in the guide - as a guideline it is somewhat more "generous" in this aspect

I had a look in the history and saw that the article was removed per An RfC NSPORTS discussion for its lack of quality.

So as well as the Cambridge uni question I was also wondering if you had any viewpoints about whether the NCRIC guidelines would allow this article or not.

Cheers for any answers - please ping with any response so I can see it

Nosebagbear (talk) 4:47 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Cambridge University Cricket Club held (and for the Varsity Match still holds) first-class status. The team is not as notable / important / good as it once was, but in the 50s it certainly was first-class. As such, this player passes NCRIC. I personally believe these guidelines are too inclusive, but have no better ideas for an inclusion criteria that is workable. Spike 'em (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Technically this would meet the subject specific criteria as Spike em says. Whether it would meet the GNG is another question and there has been much debate about the relative weight of those two criteria. I tend to think that the article as it is now would be marginal at best and a quick look finds nothing very much that would be possible to add to the article - he played a handful of times for Northants Seconds and a few times for Cambridge in other matches, but I can't get a lead on anything non-cricket related. Blue Square Thing (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's taken over a year for anyone who has said, "These SSG criteria are too inclusive" to admit "there is no other way for workable NPOV inclusion criteria". And this is why I no longer contribute to a project which has systematically destroyed itself. As for "lack of quality", a two-line stub on a synchronized swimmer who competed at the 1896 Summer Olympics (for example) may be the best "quality" article we can manage. It certainly seems fine for the cricketers who appeared at the 1900 Summer Olympics - some of whose prose content hasn't changed in 12 years. "The article is short" because of a paucity of information available is a nonsense deletion criterion. Bobo. 10:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, it was BlackJack who was respectful enough to help expand the articles that 02blythed was kind enough to contribute to Wikipedia before being driven away by people complaining about the quality of his articles rather than being thankful for the time and effort he put into creating them. Says a lot about the fact that the quality control of this project went so far off the rails that it provoked Jack into doing what he did. (There are 22 of 02blythed's articles still in draft space if anyone wishes to enhance them). Bobo. 11:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

For someone who doesn't want to contribute to the project you are remarkably quick to pop-up and tell us we're all doing it wrong whenever there is a discussion on notability requirements. Times change, as does consensus on requirements. Jack had a history of SOCKing long before last year. Spike 'em (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually an answer though, is it? That's just a random ad hominem attack out of sheer boredom and incapability of finding an answer to the problem. I, BlackJack, and everyone else who had been working hard for the 'pedia before then, were working towards exactly the same criteria that we, and every other sporting project, had been working towards. If you are incapable of finding an answer to the problem that you, yourself, have now admitted exists, I'd say that you're probably not in the right place to be arguing either side of the coin. Tell me how "consensus on requirements" has changed. Are you telling me that there is consensus to change the "one first-class match" criterion? Are you telling me there is consensus as to what to change it to? What would you change it to?

On a semi-serious point and away from all this, what is a "quality" article? Is the article on F. Roques of sufficient "quality"? I'd say, based on the information which is available from the quoted sources, that it is more-or-less the best quality we can manage. I contributed to this project to the exact same rules and criteria for as long as the project had existed. Maybe, just maybe, these rules are irrelevant now that the person who built these rules right from the bottom is no longer around to have right to reply. Bobo. 14:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As it happens, there is a workable solution to the issue of obscure players who do not meet WP:GNG and for whom nothing but statistics is available. And that is to merge them into lists of similar players by club. That would avoid diluting content over a multitude of almost-empty articles and prevent the inadvertent introduction of inaccuracies that can occur when inflating statistics to prose. This would also solve issues we've had in the past where players were identified only by surname and first initial, and it was not possible to determine whether we're talking about two separate similarly-named people or one person playing for multiple teams. Of course, every time I have suggested such mergers previously I've been made the target of arrogant patronizing commentary, frivolous blocking threats, and personal attacks. Let's see if things have changed since last year. Reyk _YO! 11:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This solution is absolutely fine. As long as it is universally applied. I would love it if every club which played first-class cricket - down to a team such as Kalat, who only played two first-class matches, or Gwalior, who only played a single first-class match - had individual "player by team" articles. Do we wish to expand these statistics as per any of the "players by Test nation" articles? For me, this is the best solution - although leaving redlinks at random seems silly. Bobo. 14:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I just found this after six months of not knowing this existed. Perhaps if we had included all the articles in these categories which would have come under the blanket of this discussion, this discussion wouldn't even be necessary. Comme ci comme ca. Bobo. 14:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Shirt numbers

Does anyone find the fields for ODI and T20I shirt numbers in the infobox useful at all? My main issues with this parameter are that a) it adds clutter to the infobox, b) they are always completly unsourced, and c) you get examples like this that add no value to the article.

A while back, there was some discussion on cleaning up the infobox and reducing the number of fields being used. IIRC, it really didn't go anywere, and nothing much changed. I propose we tackle this one bit at a time, and I would fully support the removal of this field as a starting point. It can easily be deprecated in the infobox, and a bot can then sweep articles to remove it from articles. Unless, of course, I'm alone with this view, and editors here wish to keep it!

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Harrias ^talk 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we can keep just one number like used in football. In football, they keep number he wears for the club though it might differ from their national team shirt number. In cricket, we can keep only current national squad number and if he didn't play yet, then it's state/county cricket team number. We can remove rest of them. Sagavaj (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Are these shirt numbers actually sourced though? Pretty sure they're not. Also what do you do about a player who wears different shirt numbers for different teams? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to remove them, although I can live with the lack of sourcing as an issue per se - it's not a life threatening lack of source is it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sledging_(cricket)#Sledging_incidents

This is going to fill up more and more and in a less and less encyclopedic manner. I'm not very active, so flagging it up here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to be a completely random list, I'd favour removing it completely. Can't see half of them being remembered a week after they happened. Spike 'em (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, there was this AfD from about this time last year, which closed in delete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be worth retaining a handful, at most, of the most infamous incidents I suppose. But the subheading needs to be changed and there needs to be a range of examples. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Rose Bowl page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ball-tampering page move

Another page move. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

and a related discussion given my attempt at BOLDness failed. Spike 'em (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Names spelt incorrectly

@Moedk: has messaged me recently, pointing out that Inger Neilsen, Susanne Neilsen and Vibeke Neilsen all have their surname misspelled. It should be Nielsen. Moedk also states they are also misspelled on CrockInfo. I have moved Inger Neilsen to Inger Nielsen but the others require an admin. Djln Djln (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Are there any WP:RS with the "correct" spelling, which would be necessary to support such a move? Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know this page or I would have pointed it out here :) Inger Neilsen and Susanne Neilsen are mentioned in "Real International Cricket: A History in One Hundred Scorecards" (google books link), if I google Vibeke Nielsen cricket it looks from the search result like she is also mentioned in the book, but it doesn't look like the page is available. OHh, on the Danish Cricket Associations site, in their magazine from 2001 on page 19 she is number 1 under "Gærdespil Damer Øst (Kreds 39)" Moedk (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Inger Nielsen should probably be Inger Nielsen (cricketer), as now the singer Inger Nielsen mentioned in Peter_La_Farge#New_York_years also links to her and they are not the same :) Moedk (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As both Cricinfo and Cricket Archive use the same spelling, compared to the other sources, I'd suggest listing them at WP:RM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, I'll do that later in the week as I'm not home a.t.m. Moedk (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 IPL Final

2018 Indian Premier League Final is not updated,i want help to update this article (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

List of matches

Is anyone aware of any sites that list all the FC/LA/T20 matches a player has played? Other than CricketArchive - I can't justify the subscription for the occasional Wikipedia edit. Wouldn't need any deep historical data, only dealing with current players, but need more than CricInfo's 10 most recent games or whatever it is on the player profiles... Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@HornetMike: I don't think there is one really, although the data must be out there. CricketArchive exists in things like the Wayback Machine, but that might not be all that helpful if you want more recent players. Or you could try hitting gate Esc key on your keyboard at the right moment - after the page loads but before it pushes you to the paywall front cover. Tricky though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're desperate for CricketArchive content, there are a few people here that have access. Hack (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

IPL-play-offs

There is a problem with user Mayerroute5 who is not able to understand that the playoff matches in the IPL are considered to be on neutral ground, other users before have tried to explain that to him but he constantly marks the games as home games.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

On seeing his talk page and contributions, it seems like he is vandalizing IPL and Formula 1 pages. I might be wrong too. Sagavaj (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this needs action against the user, he is heavyly editwaring!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The user has edited as an IP: [1].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's going on and on as IP.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And he still is doing his disrupting edits!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Left arm seamers for England

Since Mullally played his last Test in 2001, until Curran's debut, other than Sidebottom, have any left arm seamers played Test cricket for England? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No. I think Mark Footitt may have been called into squad at some point but never played. David Willey, Reece Topley and Tymal Mills have played ODIs / T20Is but no Tests. Spike 'em (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's amazing how few there have been. I remember Mark Ilott's first call-up and he was treated by the press like some kind of exotic creature. I know there are plenty of right and left handed batsmen, so where are all the lefty bowlers? Is this an international dearth, or just among Englishmen? Left arm fingerspin seems to me to have a definite advantage over right arm offspin, because of the increased chance of an edge from a right hander. But since Phil Edmonds...? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You've missed Mike Smith, but as he was a one-Test wonder, it's not surprising. There have been plenty of left-arm spinners, though. It should be noted that several "left-handed" batsmen are actually natural right-handers who taught themselves to play left-handed to combat spin bowling, such as Graham Thorpe. Richard3120 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah no, my apologies, you were talking about since 2001 - Spike 'em is correct. Richard3120 (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries: I almost missed out the mention of Sidebottom. Since Edmonds we've had Tufnell, Giles and Panesar all take over 100 Test wickets, with a few others with a handful of Tests. Back to seamers, for other teams this decade: Australia have had the 2 Mitchells (Starc and Johnson), NZ have Boult and Wagner, India had Zaheer Khan, and Pakistan Mohammed Amir & Riaz. Spike 'em (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It is amazing, actually, considering how many left-handed batsmen there have been - often outnumbering right-handers in recent English and Australian sides - but that doesn't translate into an equivalent number of left-handed bowlers. Even now, England's three first-choice seamers (Anderson, Broad and Stokes) are all left-hand bats, but right-hand bowlers... Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Left-arm seamers are pretty rare in English f-c cricket too. Which makes me think they don't do well at school/club level. IIRC, in schools cricket, guys who bowled wicket to wicket were best rewarded, because the catching behind the stumps wasn't amazing. Left armers are naturally slanting across right handers and at that level inswing is unusual. So maybe they just don't thrive because catches go down? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

When I played cricket, I had a great deal of difficulty with quick lefties bowling over the wicket, but I could make an impenetrable wall with both pads and the bat because I knew I wouldn't be called LBW if the ball bounced on the leg side. I'd feel a bit guilty when I got caught square on the leg with a ball that was on a path for middle stump, but rules are rules! Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusions on naming of Harsha de Silva

I created an article about the current Sri Lankan women's cricket coach Harsha de Silva who has also played few first-class cricket matches. But I also found another such cricketer with the same name in the Cricinfo website. There was an existing article about a Sri Lankan politician Harsha de Silva so I initially wanted to create the article under the header Harsha de Silva (cricketer) before coming up with a confusion of other domestic cricketer with the same name. So I wanted to change it as a cricket coach in the article header since the relevant person was quite notable to be a cricket coach than a cricket player. Then I changed it as Harsha de Silva (coach) instead of Harsha de Silva (cricketer) or something like Harsha de Silva (cricketer, born 1972). I need the help of other WikiProject Cricket members in this case. Abishe (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think leaving it as "coach" is fine for now. If/when the other biography is created, it can use the "cricketer" disambig, with a hatnote between the two articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Cricketers at AfD

Please see this discussion for some new articles all started by the same user. I've asked them to stop creating any more, and pointed them in the direction of WP:NCRIC. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Botswana 7s 2018

The ICC website mentions the tournament(Botswana 7s 2018) as an International Tournament starting today(20-Aug) involving smaller women teams. I am unable to find any reliable news source to start on it.Also whether it should be a seperate article or as a part of International cricket in 2018? Shubham389 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If there are no sources then it would seem to fail WP:GNG and therefore not worthy of an article (I can't see anything in WP:CRIN that covers tours / series/ tournaments). The ICC fixtures page labels them as T20Is, but their blanket inclusion of teams doesn't start until the beginning of next year and I can't see these matches on cricinfo, for example. The ICC site doesn't even have the results of the games. Before we reach the new year we should have a discussion on including all the T20Is that will spring up in the International Cricket in YYYY articles. Spike 'em (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: For women's cricket, all 104 members have had T20I status since 1 July 2018. ref. So these are official T20Is. So we need that discussion now. Harrias ^talk 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that release, I thought 1-Jan applied to both sexes. Lets converse! Spike 'em (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"I am unable to find any reliable news source to start on it" - You've answered your own question. Very odd that a full international tournament would just pop up today, with nothing about it online. As Spike points out, the ICC site does have a blanket approach to classing certain matches as X format. For example, they label all matches in the World Cricket League tournaments as List A fixtures, but they are not. Waiting is the best thing in this example. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

More cricket squads at TfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Prakash Wakankar

I have been listening to TMS recently and I was surprised to see that Wikipedia had no article about Prakash Wakankar. I have created a stub. Please expand it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ganguly, Laxman and Dalmiya

I would respectfully suggest that we consider giving the articles for Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman, and Jahmohan Dalmiya high importance. They are both highly respected and had tremendous impact in their careers in cricket and cricket administration. As most are aware, Ganguly was and still is considered by many as India's most important captain, at least in living memory, and achieved a lot as a batsman. This is more objective, but he should be there if others like Mark Boucher, Darren Lehmann, MS Dhoni and Virender Sehwag are considered important. With Ganguly, Laxman was also part of the core of the Indian batting line up. They have both been recognized for their commentary more recently. And Dalmiya was the most influential cricket administrator for many years. Chandradas17 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Chandradas17

What a Google Doodle does

[2] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(It normally gets 1,000-3,000 hits per day). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Imran Khan Article

The Imran Khan article needs attention. Barely four paragraphs on his career. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Khan#Cricket_career One of the greatest of all time and we write less about him then say Adam Gilchrist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Gilchrist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Gilchrist would probably get into more peoples' all time XIs, but nonetheless, your first point stands. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I count seven paragraphs on his career, but yes, inevitably it could use expansion. Outside of Cricinfo, any other RSs? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Any help? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This version of the article was a little more detailed about his playing career, albeit with some POV etc. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Asia Cup

The article's name always make confusion. RM already discussed earlier but there was no consensus. "Asia Cup" not indicates which sports its belong to. It is one of the most inappropriate name of article on Wikipedia that's not changed yet. Asia Cup and all chronological articles should be proposed to change as ACC Asia Cup OR Asia Cup(cricket) OR Cricket Asia Cup as same name format used for other sports such Football, Hockey and others. Cricket doesn't has the only "Asia Cup", hence a fresh RM need to be proposed to discuss this matter. Sumit Singh ^T 05:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The principle on Wikipedia (WP:COMMONNAME) is not to disambiguate a name unless it actually needs disambiguating because there are two or more things of the same name. Even then, if one of those reaches WP:PRIME, we'd stick with it. Unless there's another competition of similar standing called the Asia Cup, it'll stay with this name. See, for example FA Cup, which doesn't mention football in its name. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes and Moeen Ali

Odd pairing, but this question was prompted by reading that Moeen has now batted for England in Test matches at every position from 1 to 9.

I think I remember that Rhodes managed that from 1-11. Is this true? Is he unique for England, the world?

Our article doesn't seem to specifically mention it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Dweller, "In Tests there are three men who have occupied all 11 batting positions: Syd Gregory (Australia), Wilfred Rhodes (England) and Vinoo Mankad (India). " Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Batting_(cricket)#Cut

Is it just me or does the bloke in the photo look distinctly **un**balanced, with his back leg planted, but his weight pulling him forward? Could we find a better illustration? Surely there must be a good one somewhere of Robin Smith in his pomp? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone going to the Oval tomorrow? Maybe Cook will feel a release of pressure and get his full array of shots out and let someone get a shot of it. Does Batting_(cricket)#Nurdle off the hip need a picture too? Spike 'em (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

India Page Protection XI

From looking at the India XI for the Test that started today:

• Shikhar Dhawan, not protected
• K. L. Rahul, protected until 26 September 2018
• Cheteshwar Pujara, not protected
• Virat Kohli, indefinite
• Ajinkya Rahane, not protected
• Hanuma Vihari, protected until 10 September 2018
• Rishabh Pant, not protected
• Ravindra Jadeja, indefinite
• Mohammed Shami, protected until 8 March 2019
• Ishant Sharma, indefinite
• Jasprit Bumrah, not protected

Well I found it interesting... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Can't we get Rohit Sharma (temporary) and MS Dhoni (indefinite) back into the team?Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Five-wicket haul

Five-wicket haul currently points to a definition paragraph in Glossary of cricket terms, which seems fine as far as it goes. If you were to read only that paragraph, however, while you would now know what a five-wicket haul is, you wouldn't know about all the great content on Wikipedia related to five-wicket hauls (see Template:International cricket five-wicket hauls), including many Featured Lists. Is a separate Five-wicket haul article required? If not, how can we get the reader from the simple definition to these many lists? --Jameboy (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think there's enough material to justify an article on any of the definitions, go for it! The five wicket haul article could include references to ten wicket match, and that in limited overs, there's a different standard of four wicket. You could include sourced material of how the Aussies introduced a new custom of celebrating a 5w and you could even include a whimsical note about the nickname Michelle, if you find decent sourcing. (Note the last sentence of Michelle_Pfeiffer#Media_image. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging The Rambling Man who created the page (as a redirect). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a reason why it couldn't be a standalone article, with some tables of those who have taken the most fifers, and maybe even with a section for ten wickets in a match? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls which has a decent history of five wicket hauls. In fact, most of the text information there is exactly what I'd expect in an article about five wicket hauls. Do we need two separate articles, or could we just redirect five-wicket haul there instead? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

What about five-wicket hauls in domestic cricket, Joseph? And about the contrast between five and four wicket hauls in some ltd overs? And the new tradition of celebrating 5w? And the nickname Michelle? None of that belongs in the article you cite. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Started the article on it, feel free to help expand it. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

T20I / WT20I widening scope and International Cricket in YYYY articles

As mentioned above, all women's international teams now have T20I status, as will all men's internationals from 1st Jan 2019. This will (significantly?) increase the number of internationals and lengthen the seasonal articles should we include them all. My initial view is that we should treat all teams the same and include all such games but I've not really looked into how many T20 competitions there are amongst the lower ranked teams and whether they are mainly mini-tournaments and different levels of the ICC ladder. I can't see any details of the current matches on cricinfo, though they do list games earlier in the year. The ICC site strikes me as WP:PS so are there any other sites out there that acknowledge these games as being full internationals? Does this matter, or do we just do what the ICC tell us? Spike 'em (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

For me the bigger question would be how this affects WP:CRIN seeing as a player is currently considered notable under the guideline if they've played in a Twenty20 International. With every country now automatically having T20I status I don't think this is a good guideline anymore so it needs to be altered somehow. TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just use a case-by-case basis. For example, here are two scorecards on the ICC site from yesterday's matches: One, Two. Just look at the lack of information. All we know is a match took place and a team won. Literally nothing else. Next year, the T20 qualification for the World T20 in Australia steps up a gear. All the regional finals will be played after 1st Jan 19, so all those matches will be full T20I fixtures. At least we have a starting point with those qualifiers, complete with venues, teams, scores, players, and most important, coverage! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree - but that means that we could not longer have a blanket T20I/WT20I appearance makes a player notable policy, and all players notable based on playing T20I/WT20I, for any country, would have to be judged against the WP:GNG. Which would be a big change. Harrias ^talk 13:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's two ways to approach this. We could tighten it up to so it doesn't automatically apply to Associate Nations from when their first matches become T20Is/WT20Is. Or we could wait and see if there is a sudden increase in biographies for cricketers representing these teams. I can't imagine many editors are eager to start eleven articles for players in the Botswana women's national cricket team (sorry to anyone from Botswana who may read this). Some of the teams don't even have articles, such as Sierra Leone. My past experience from the World Cricket League shows that there's very little interest in creating and maintaining biographies, even when it's a fully sanctioned and promoted ICC event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How much of a difference would this make to the current Division 5 or above notability standard? As Lugnuts says, if there is little interest in people creating the articles then it won't be a problem. One minor issue is that there will be a flood of new records to keep track of in the List of T20I records, as there tend to be more extremes the further down the ladder you go. @Topcardi: has already added a couple of these to the Women's Twenty20 International article, but I have to say that it is updating individual lists based on single scorecards, rather than relying on a single source giving an overall list. The source used also looks to be of unclear reliability. Maybe cricinfo will get round to updating their lists? Spike 'em (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I contributed to the cricket project, so I hope you'll excuse me chipping in here, but this is very much my area. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if the project amends WP:CRIN to say that just one T20I/WT20I isn't sufficient to confer notability, then why should a single first-class appearance for a one-off team in the early 19th century do so? It would be difficult to oppose the deletion of a 19th century one time first-class player for whom only a surname may be known whilst the project says that a 21st century full international with a full name and date/place of birth may not be notable. Basing it on the status of a team seems unfair given that full members regularly play alongside associates in Twenty20 tournaments with at least two playing in the global qualifier next year. So instead, how about basing it on the level of tournament. So for players who made their debut prior to the respective cut-off for expansion of T20I status for men and women, all are considered notable. For players who make their debut after the cut-off, they're only automatically considered notable if they have played at least one match in the World T20 (men or women), global qualifier (men or women) or regional final (men only). This would be roughly in line with the criteria already in place for notability through the World Cricket League and not lead to any drastic inflation in the amount of articles on international players, if indeed anyone wants to create them. There'd no doubt occasionally be players outside of those criteria considered notable, eg. the player who set the record bowling figures in WT20Is for Botswana yesterday, but they could be tackled on a case by case basis. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds a very good idea to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ditto; I agree with Andrew nixon, that sounds a very sensible policy. Now, if he could just convince the ICC to hold and collate all scorecards and statistics... Harrias ^talk 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Cricinfo is a commercial website. Can't see them generating enough traffic for live or archived scorecards of regional women's cricket to make it worth their while. For the foreseeable future Cricinfo may be an unreliable (or at least incomplete) source itself for this type of cricket. Topcardi (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If Cricinfo deems a match (and by extension the players in that match) not notable enough to cover, perhaps our definition of notability is too broad. – PeeJay 07:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Scorecards for the matches in Botswana are available at http://www.gaboronecricketclub.com. Also the South American Women's Championships starts this week. Topcardi (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. I've not forgotten about this, and I'll draft up some wording changes (hopefully over the Bank Holiday) that we can apply to both players and the international year articles too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording change

Sorry for the delay, as promised, I've drafted some words (below). Instead of tinkering with the existing words at WP:NCRIC, I suggest we just add this as point #4:

• has appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only).

I don't think we need to get bogged down with the different dates for men and women, as I don't think it would impact anything in real terms. The date can be sourced from the ICC and added as a footnote once added to WP:NSPORT, etc. Happy for feedback on this, then leave it open for a while, before updating the guide. We can then apply this to tournaments for the international year articles, as per Spike's original query. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you've all seen this, but just incase it's been missed, I'll ping the people in this thread: @Spike 'em:, @TripleRoryFan:, @Harrias:, @Andrew nixon:, @Topcardi:. I'll leave this open for a few more days, and if there's no issues, update the necessary pages. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. Best thing to do is go with it, and then see in six months or a year whether it is working. Harrias ^talk 07:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments over the past few weeks. I've made the changes at WP:NSPORT and WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Paywall

Be prepared for a bunch of articles being PROD'ed for sources being behind a paywall. Seems to be the new fashionable thing. If we can ensure that as many articles as possible are backed up with both CA and CI profiles, this will remove a lot of palaver. Funny - WP:ONESOURCE used to be the fashionable thing. Quirky to note how things change. Bobo. 19:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that the guy who PRODed an article for WP:PAYWALL has been somewhat... um... rather colourful in his language regarding other deletion issues! Bobo. 07:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could tag the user in question so we can check up on their edit history. – PeeJay 07:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Shadowowl is the user in question in this occasion, though others have been guilty of this too, not just this user. Bobo. 07:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, that user seems fairly active, so I'm having trouble finding the cricket PRODs among their other edits. – PeeJay 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that one of my article creations was - Andrew Agar - and forewarning because this often sets off a noticeable pattern. As for "regarding patterns", once again interesting that this happens ten years after the article has been created. Strange how that always seems to be the case.

In any case, whether it sets off a pattern or not, it always seems strange how users pick out individual articles completely at random from the seventeen million at their disposal and never seem to find others - there are nine in Category:Norfolk cricketers alone which are, apparently, PRODable under this criterion... makes me wonder how they stumble upon them in the first place. Bobo. 07:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Another such article - Alester Maregwede - appears to have passed for 13 years without notice! I created the article back in 2005! Once again it makes me suspicious how nobody has pointed this out until now. Also Everton Matambanadzo, Waddington Mwayenga, Stephen Peall, Ujesh Ranchod, John Rennie, Craig Wishart, Gavin Briant, Glen Bruk-Jackson, Gavin Ewing, Trevor Gripper, Wayne James, Malcolm Jarvis (nothing from CA or CI), Blessing Mahwire... and these are just the Zimbabwean Test players! Bobo. 08:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think if the only source is behind a paywall, we should do our level best to find alternative sources. And regardless of how long the article has been up, it's correct to flag issues with them. I don't think PRODding them was the right course of action, but at least it's spurred us into improving these articles. – PeeJay 11:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

As long as the individual is a first-class cricketer, ideally they shall be backed up by both CA and CI. And until there is something stating we are not allowed to use sources behind paywall, I'm sure we'll continue to cite everything to CA and CI. Annoyingly, I seem to remember not all of CI's scorecards being linkable to certain non-international players - but this helps even more, especially for those who insist on citations rather than external links. Bobo. 11:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't be disallowing sources just because they're behind a paywall, but when the option of an equivalent source that's not behind a paywall exists, I'd say we should favour that one. – PeeJay 11:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

t20 Blast

Joseph2302 recently moved the following articles:

• 2010 Friends Provident t20 to 2010 t20 Blast
• 2011 Friends Life t20 to 2011 t20 Blast
• 2012 Friends Life t20 to 2012 t20 Blast
• 2013 Friends Life t20 to 2013 t20 Blast

All with the rationale "no sponsor name". While I understand that, I have no main issues. Firstly, as far as I know, the Blast moniker was only introduced in 2014, so this is an entirely incorrect title; if anything it should be "2010 ECB t20", which I believe is what it was called in formal paperwork (though I could be wrong). Secondly, the WP:COMMONNAME for these competitions was those previously given, with the sponsor name. Similarly, we have the 1968 Gillette Cup etc, the 1975 Benson & Hedges Cup. In other sports, the 2007 Coca-Cola 600 and 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl are two examples of Featured articles with sponsor names in the title: if the FA process doesn't have a problem with using the sponsor name, I don't think we should. Succinctly, I think these were bad moves, and should be reverted. Harrias ^talk 07:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I abhor both sponsors' names, and all words like "Blast" or "Bash", or anything suggesting subtle spin bowling has no place in the game. Why can't we call these something like "England and Wales first-class counties T20 Competition..."? That's what they are. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Because they are not the COMMONNAME. I also see no reason to not include sponsors name if that is the name used by other media to refer to the tournament. Spike 'em (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There were recent discussions about this for the NZ and SA T20 leagues, and both had unanimous support for moving them (on phone, so can't easily find them), so I didn't think the move would be controversial. If there's a better name for the articles, then move them there, but we shouldn't be using sponsor names. After all, we call it the T20 Blast not the sponsor name on main article, so having the year articles with sponsor names is inconsistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there an actual policy to not include sponsor's name? The competition as a whole has been through many name changes, so we will never have the seasonal articles match the main one (Which is actually Twenty20 Cup not T20 Blast). Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising outlet. And we don't get anything from those sponsors, do we? HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nor does any other media outlet who reports on the competition. If they use the sponsored name them then so should we as per WP:COMMONNAME. Is there any policy based argument to not use sponsored names? Spike 'em (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:COMMONNAME is Wikipedia policy. While WP:NOT also is, it makes no mention at all of not using sponsors name, nor even comes close. In this case, as far as I can tell, WP policy favours sticking to the previous names, including sponsors. I would agree with not using 2018 Specsavers County Championship, because everyone just calls it the 2018 County Championship. But I only really ever heard (or saw in the press) the T20 competitions between 2010 and 2013 referred to using the sponsors title. Harrias ^talk 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is, I think, a general trend in sports articles to try to avoid sponsors names where possible. So, for example, the FA Cup articles never include the sponsor name. The same is true of the League Cup - which I was actually expecting to see referred to be its various names: it's very clearly been referred to by its various names since being sponsored first (who can forget the 1985 Milk Cup for example - I don't think I've ever heard that referred to as League Cup triumph). And the County Championship.

In some ways I think that's a good thing, but in some cases I can see how it might be difficult - the B&H and Gillette Cups, for example, are actually quite tricky to refer to as anything else.

In terms of these tournaments, Blast is clearly wrong. I think it would probably be more sensible to refer to them as the 2010 Twenty20 Cup and so on - the overall article on the various tournaments was merged together at Twenty20 Cup after discussion here. I wouldn't be unhappy with referring to them as 2014 t20 Blast for example - I'd much rather that than include the sponsor name. We never did manage to agree what to do with the List A competitions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the incorrect naming. But I agree 2010 Twenty20 Cup is the right name for them. I'd be perfectly happy for someone to move them to those unsponsored names. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries about the naming - it was a reasonable enough idea. Anyone with any other views about the suggestion? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As there were no objections to the naming, I've moved them to 2010 Twenty20 Cup etc. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy

Hi all, I'm trying to tidy up Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy with a view to an eventual FL, but I'm struggling with a few "longlists" and some of the later voting methods. Anyone have anything that could help cover that? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This article in 2016 suggests that they don't publish a shortlist anymore, but I couldn't really find anything else confirming that officially. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

2010 long list. Harrias ^talk 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Harrias thanks, if I could close out the other couple of lists, that'd be perfect. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm still looking for a longlist for 2008 and 2014, anyone? Anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. On a different point, I don't think a downward arrow is a good symbol to choose for who's shortlisted. Asterisk? Dagger? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a "downselection" arrow, but I don't like it either. But I'm more worried about lack of comprehensive lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading this from 2008, I don't think there was a longlist process that year. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Scorecard of Final Matches with Background Color in Heading(Table)

I have a idea,its vey difficult task for me,If you see all Cricket Final Matches.You will see a full Scorecard is available in a form of table. Example - 2015 Cricket World Cup Final, you will see a Scorecard in a form of table, My Question is can we apply a color in background in top heading???For Example- if Scorecard is of India then we apply a BLUE color,if Australian Scorecard card,then we apply YELLOW colour according to their Jersey. What you all people think??? (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

In general, using colour to represent meaning - which by colour coding is what you're doing - is a very bad idea on the web in general. I'd suggest not doing so in this case for that reason and because it's very easy to create an unreadable mess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Keep it simple. Adding colours vastly increases the chance of usability issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to keep a straight face to that response once you get to your signature! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of cricket archive as source for stats

On most of the player profiles the stats are sourced from cricket archive but the source is behind a paywall and it makes it difficult for a normal user to verify the stats. However, cricinfo.com has a stat engine and provides all the possible stats with access to general members of public without a subscription. Is there any specific reason cricket archive is used instead of cricinfo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruppanbabu (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ruppanbabu CricketArchive used to be free which is why it's used a lot in articles. But since last year they charge, so I agree it's now better to use Cricinfo for new articles. But I don't think anyone is going to want to go back to every cricket biography and switch CricketArchive link for Cricinfo link. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL sums this up well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

CricketArchive also provided more in-depth statistical analysis, such as season-by-season records, or records against opponents. I'm not sure why they charge, I can't imagine a casual browser paying to look up things. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Dweller While agree with what is written in paywall section, cricinfo would be more reliable source, or at least as reliable as cricket archive, since their data comes from wisden archive itself if I am not mistaken. They are one of the biggest online portal on cricket and have detailed biography as well stats of players going way back in 19th century. I do not know if cricket archive has all this because a lot of biographies and details are from wisden almanac. But they do lack more in depth analysis for non international FC and List A by matches. They have all the possible analysis for Tests, ODIs, T20Is and T20s though. On balance of things I would still consider cricinfo to be a better source with full stats that is presented on the wikipedia page, ability to drill down in whatever way a user wants except for FC and List A, a short biography written by contemporary journalist/player and most of all it is accessible to everyone. --Ruppanbabu

Given what we use the source in the infobox for - i.e. generally names, birthdates and stats - I would strongly suggest CricInfo is a better source to cite in the majority of cases. It's the source a random visitor to the site is most likely to click in my experience - it's where I'd always look first for more information on any article (e.g. the official website is generally there and so on). On balance I prefer CI as a direct result of the paywall - we can use CA as a source within the article no problems, but the infobox source needs, I think, to be more easily accessible.

In general I tend to replace CA as the infobox when I edit any article, but those will only be ones I happen across for whatever reason. I don't see anyone about to trawl every cricketer article to do so and I wouldn't expect that to happen. But as we come across them it strikes me as a good enough idea to make it worth the few seconds needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have had WP:ONESOURCE thrown in my face through PROD-ings. Surely the best way of doing this in any situation is by - as far as possible, including CA and CI references in all articles - especially if what CI gives in more ready detail is access to individual match references to back up statistical points. Mind you, it's amazing how, after nearly eleven years - I'm not going to bother pulling out my usual argument, which is still relevant, cf 08:29, 19 September 2018 - some articles either run to just a single one of those sources or, in some cases, neither or even none! Bobo. 21:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We're primarily talking about the infobox stats. Nothing else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Fairy nuff, sorry. Perhaps that kills two birds with one stone in that case. Infobox stats through one source, prose information through both. Belt and braces. Bobo. 21:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

When this last came up, around the time of the paywall starting, I suggested that we try to use template code to automatically replace or add a cricinfo source from the wikidata ESPNcricinfo.com player ID that exists for the >19,800 items that have a Cricinfo link in wikidata. I've already done this for the AFL players, {{Infobox AFL biography}} automatically pulls the links to the 2 main stats sites into the infobox from wikidata if no specific source is provided. See Sam Switkowski for an example. The-Pope (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution if it can be made to work. Can we retain the date and year fields though please? It helps with active players to have an idea when it might have last been updated by someone competent. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added some code to {{Infobox cricketer/sandbox}}, but because it uses Wikidata, it's hard to test it in a sandbox, as sandboxes don't have wikidata. So I've changed Mark Lavender to use the sandbox template, and deleted the inline source to force it to grab the wikidata source.

Before we roll this into the actual {{Infobox cricketer}} template, we need to decide how to automate this. In the current version of the code, if there is a source parameter in the code, then it won't change anything. It only adds the Cricinfo source if "source =" is blank or missing. This probably doesn't apply to many articles, and doesn't solve the "we need/want to replace the CA links" problem. The easiest way to do that would be to just ignore the source parameter completely, and add either just the Cricinfo, or both the Cricinfo and Cricketarchive sources (if the fields exist in WikiData). This is what I've done in the AFL infobox which generally adds sources to the 2 main stats sites. But that doesn't allow for any specific cases where another source may be wanted. Is that likely to occur? The code needed to check, review or modify what is in the source field and respond accordingly (ie if cricinfo link is already there, do nothing, if not add it), is beyond my coding skills. I could make it generally ignore the source field, but add another parameter such as "usesource=yes" or "omitWikidata=yes" or similar, that forces the template to ignore Wikidata and use the template defined source if this is wanted on some articles. The date/year parameters are completely separate, and are added in all cases when they exist. The-Pope (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to be able to specify a source to be used - there are certainly cases where things vary for all sorts of reasons and where one might be preferable - including other sources. Which I appreciate makes things tricky - I can see the programming logic that's necessary in the IF source=CI THEN case, but I haven't ever edited that sort of thing in an infobox! Thanks for exploring this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Just found that there are almost 5000 articles that use {{Infobox cricketer}}, but don't have the Cricinfo Player ID field in WikiData. There are 18390 that do have the ID though. So there could be a fairly easy fix for 18390, bit harder for the other 5000. There are about 150 articles in Category:Infobox cricketer maintenance that have non-standard references. Seems to be either a named ref used elsewhere in the article, or just an unusual/incorrect ref to CA or CI.

Victorian Bushrangers -> Victoria cricket team, VicSpirit, Victoria Spirit -> Victorian Women’s Cricket Team

Hi all,
Cricket Victoria has decided to change the names of these teams for the upcoming 2018/19 domestic cricket season.
Please me know if I can be of any assistance - WP:ADMIN-ly or not - about this.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would probably suggest Victoria women's cricket team rather than the capitalised version you posted, but otherwise that seems like a fine change to make. – PeeJay 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As above with the capitalisation, but otherwise much better anyway - nicknames and the like have a generally temporary nature. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we have the correct titles before the Cricket Victoria press release, so there's no page moving needed. I've just created a few redirects to the women's team, but everything else looks fine. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Pranav Dhanawade

I found a article about cricketer who hasn't played FC, LA and T20 matches. Is he a notable cricketer? --RHcosm (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but under WP:GNG for the amount of coverage his innings of more than 1000 runs achieved, rather than under WP:CRIN specifically. Johnlp (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep, I'd imagine he'd feature in senior cricket at some point in the next few years, although the opposition did sound pretty rubbish! StickyWicket (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of in depth, independent sources which deal with the innings. WP:ONEEVENT potentially applies which might mean we would be better off with an article about the innings rather than the person - in the same way that we have an article about Scorecard of A. E. J. Collins. We also have an article on Collins despite him never playing a senior match, although perhaps his military career merits that. ONEEVENT allows editorial discretion about where the article should be. If Dhanawade does go on to play senior cricket or do something else notable then clearly he merits his own article - at that point the innings could very well be split off into a separate article. If he doesn't then the article should almost certainly be moved to one about the innings rather than about the person - ONEEVENT applying and the notability, at that point, is for the innings.

Right now? I don't mind either way. If he is going to play at a senior level it'll be soon enough I imagine. I suppose that technically we'd be better off with the article being about the innings as that's really the only thing he's notable for, but I don't think it matters too much just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is notable for the record innings. I agree with the folks above on this. The article as it stands as of now is already only about his innings and the post innings coverage. as BST would like to have. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

West Indies cricket team

West Indies cricket team’s official name changed to WINDIES. The term 'Windies' has been use for a long time as a colloquial reference to the cricket teams that represent the Carribean Islands but it will now be the official name of the side.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas265 (talk • contribs)

References

A previous discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems appropriate, to distinguish between that which was once great, and that which now sucks! StickyWicket (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Extend WP:CRIN to include competitions

There are a couple of AfDs going at the moment covering age group competitions in Bihar, India. There is nothing specific in CRIN to cover competitions. It mentions individuals and clubs / teams, saying a team is notable if it has played in "senior cricket" or in UK/ Ireland / Aus if they have played in ECB Premier League / Senior League / Grade cricket respectively. There is no mention of other countries, or a direct statement that these competitions are inherently notable. I would say that age-group cricket that is not at international level is not notable, the articles being AfDed are at regional (not even national) level. There is a related article for a local, senior competition (Hayman Trophy) which has notability tags attached. I have less problem with this article IF this is the highest level of club cricket in the state, as it would seem to be at a similar level to Premier League / Grade cricket in the Indian hierarchy. I have no idea if this is really true, nor of the standard of cricket. Are there any Indian editors who could shed some light on this, or anyone else who has any views on formalising this into a guideline? Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

On the U19 side of things there was a previous discussion where various editors say the U19 cricket is not inherently notable, I don't know if this means there was a previous consensus on this. Spike 'em (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think even some of the club leagues are dubious beyond historically notable club competitions like the Lancashire League, Bradford League, Liverpool League, Grade cricket, ect. StickyWicket (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Being an Indian Cricket fan, I suppose I can help here. WP:COI declaration: I have No links with any cricket body whatsoever. and had found these stubs during AfD patrolling.

Having read the previous discussion linked above, it did not provide any clear reason why U19 cricket is non notable. and the older discussion ended with suggestions to refer to GNG. In my personal opinion, it is wrong to conclude U19 cricket as inherently non notable because the mainstream media thinks otherwise. And it is covered regularly in depth. Wikipedia already has Article on U18 WorldCup and Category:Under-19 regional cricket tournaments. I am not aware about the popularity of U19 cricket in England or other countries, but in India, it does get decent coverage in the mainstream media. Take the example of Baseball tournaments, those happening in US are clearly notable, but those in other countries may not be notable. So the criteria should be GNG and SIGCOV.

Yes, the Hayman Trophy is a senior level tournament played at the highest level in a state. Comparable to club cricket in the state.

The "U19 Randhir Verma trophy" is the corresponding U19 version of the Senior Hayman trophy.

as far as GNG is concerned, both these trophies would pass, due to the detailed match by match coverage in the mainstream media. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If there's suitable in depth coverage that means that they'd pass the GNG that that would seem to satisfy WP:NSPORT. NSPORT is slightly confusing in that it doesn't seem to want to say what level of league should be notable per se, but if there's sufficient coverage to meet the GNG then I can see no reason why there would be an issue.

FWIW in the UK I'm not sure that there is significant coverage of domestic age group competitions, but that may well not be the case in India or elsewhere. So long as the primary considerations of NSPORT are met it should be fine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Hayman Trophy is not the highest level of domestic cricket within the state because it does not hold any recognised status, i.e. the matches are not first-class - Ranji Trophy matches would be the highest level played in the state. StickyWicket (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The point made was it was the highest level of club cricket, so comparable to English Premier League teams, which have apparently had no problem with notability since at least 2008 [3], WT:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 49#WP:CRIN, WT:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 50#Club notability again. The last of these mentions having articles on leagues below the Premier Leagues, though it is only one person opining this. Spike 'em (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Does WP:NSEASONS (from N:SPORT) address some of this? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I did read through that, but that seems to refer to seasons for individual teams at some sort of top level. Spike 'em (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree - it seems that sports leagues themselves are deliberately (or otherwise) vague. I suppose WP:ORG might apply:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject

Which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the idea of notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Spike 'em, StickyWicket, Blue Square Thing, Lugnuts thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts, since we have a consensus, can we convert this into some action. Also since the Randhir Verma Under-19 cricket Championship is already at AfD where folks are referring to CRIN --DBigXrayᗙ 14:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Stubs by Amitkr5339

See also the articles started by @Amitkr5339:, such as this, this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, please note that Vinoo Mankad Trophy is a notable domestic inter state cricket competition in India. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My other main concern is that editors like this create a very poor stub of tournaments like this and leave it. In most cases no-one wants to work on these type of articles and they just sit there in a terrible state. I know about WP:SOFIXIT, but people with the intentions of creating things like this should spend a bit more time and care on them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I agree that this newbie is making incomplete stubs. I have tried posting messages on his talk pages but he is not responding. WP:STUB allows such article on notable things. but some of his incomplete stubs can be rightly moved to the draft space or merged to the parent article or even CSDed for clearly non notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Bangladesh Cricket Board URL - http://www.tigercricket.com.bd, not http://www.tigercricket.com

Hi all,
It appears that URL for the Bangladesh Cricket Board (http://www.tigercricket.com.bd) has been replaced with the URL of some peraon's blog across a number of articles. While the blog is a great read, it isn't the BCB's website.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Linked about 26 times Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just judging from some of the urls, I think this used to be the official website, but they have lost the rights to it and it is now cybersquated / taken-over. how does one go about requesting / adding an archive link to some of the older pages, as I've deleted a few and probably best to reinstate as archives? There are some instances of direct use of the current site as a source, these should be removed as WP:UGC (which I'll continue to do). Spike 'em (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I've changed all the links in article space to archive versions (and marked as usurped) or replaced with another reference showing the same details. Spike 'em (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Stand-alone articles for (minor) tournament finals

What do other editors think of articles like this and this? They seem to becoming more prevalent, esp. for India cricket tournaments since the conclusion of the 2018 Asia Cup. I don't think they add anything, and are really just stubby content forks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

They add absolutely nothing that can't be included in the main tournament article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the only reason for having them would be if the parent article is quite long already, but in these cases there is more prose about the main tournament in the "final" article than in the main one. Spike 'em (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they're absolutely fine where the content warrants it. Those particular ones can clearly be merged into the parent articles, but if the parent articles and the articles for the finals were improved, they could be split again. Harrias ^talk 19:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - I've redirected the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A plea regarding Recent Deaths

I've noticed several times recently that players' articles have been updated to reflect their recent death without their name being added to the Recent Deaths on the Project page. Could I ask that people try to do this. Otherwise some of us could remain oblivious to a player's death, especially if he or she isn't a big name, when we might have been able to contribute usefully to their article. JH (talk page) 18:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call. I also find this page at Cricket Archive useful as starting point to trawl the web for other sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata can be used too. See tinyurl.com/ybmdetek (cut and paste it, wikidata provides tinyurl links, but wikipedia bans tinyurl links!). If you click down in the bottom left hand corner there is the "wikidata query" link that shows you the code used, and whilst the code is strange, weird, and not very user friendly, the date filter can be easily modified if you want to review other periods. The-Pope (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only one who has discovered the way to stop the paywall! Might be best not mentioning it here though, incase they're reading ;) StickyWicket (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A related issue is when articles are changed to add a date of death, but with no sources. In Australia, I am fairly confident in searching various government, cemetery or obituary sites, but not so much for the rest of the world. Here is a list of articles which are still in the living people category, but have a date of death in wikidata. This is often a sign of an inexperienced editor adding the death date to the infobox (which somehow ends up in wikidata), but not changing the living people category to a death year category. It can also happen when someone uploads a bunch of links from various sites and assigns the death of someone else to the cricketer. The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And sometimes, trying to confirm things can turn up stories like Bill Dean, who may not be William Dean (Somerset cricketer) at all! Does anyone have that Somerset Cricketers 1946-70 book and can confirm which DOB (and DOD?) is correct? The-Pope (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll get it for Christmas, but I should be able to pop into the Somerset Cricket Library sooner to confirm the relevant dates. Harrias ^talk 21:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I've got the book, but I hadn't got around to opening it until yesterday. I'll have a go at Dean over the next couple of days if I have time. Johnlp (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

NEW TABLE CONCEPT

Hello to all, In a last month I created a new table format for 2018 Asia Cup Final , you can easily view this table when you go to "Road to the final" Heading. This table looks good & also gives the complete information of the teams, so my question is can I apply this table format to All ICC T20 Finals?? (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC))

I must admit that it confused me a little. I get what you're trying to do, but having the fixtures played in the next stage under the group stage table actually made it more difficult for me to follow what was going on. I'm not entirely sure how useful the colour is either if I'm honest. I get what you're trying to achieve, but I'm not convinced by it yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Similar reaction from me as already mentioned by Blue Square Thing--DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion above, this article should just be part of the main tournament one, in which case this table would not be needed. Spike 'em (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Spike 'em please note that 2018 Asia Cup Final is not a minor tournament's match and hence I strongly believe that this article deserves its own page. we can have more discussion on this if you disagree, but SIGCOV is covered by miles here. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

There is more prose detail about the group stage matches in the article on the final than there is in the main tournament one, which I think is a mistake. The final is notable, but I think it is better placed in the main tournament article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, it is not really different to the FA Cup, for example. This has an annual article which is just a set of results and only the article for the final has any detail about matches played by the teams who got there (for example 2016 FA Cup Final / 2015–16 FA Cup). If the final is just a stub repeating info that is in the main article, then it is definitely not needed, but this is at least full of prose, so I'll withdraw my comment! Spike 'em (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If this discussion is also about the article, I observed that there are multiple references pointing to the same link. Regarding the table, I think we are used to seeing match information after/below standings which is not the case in this table and seems to be slightly misleading as with the immediate look, I feel like it is difficult to understand which match info is for which stage. Small suggestion : Maybe it's better to keep even opponents in central aligned style. Sagavaj (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been through the article and the use of references was terrible: there were often 4 or 5 uses of the same link, but with different ref names, and names given to the refs were overly long and did not identify them. Many of the links are of live reporting, rather than match reports and I feel inclined to remove them. The prose was also very un-encyclodedic: written in a sensationalist manner as if it was a blog or fan page. Spike 'em (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

New Women's ranking

ICC today launched separate rankings for Women's ODIs and T20Is as announced in January. As the updated notability criteria in WP:NCRIC considers "Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women)", I wanted as ask whether the new ranking meets the notability criteria. Shubham389 (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to note that, at the moment, the T20I rankings are not compiled exclusively from matches considered official T20I matches Topcardi (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I've split out the rankings templates as {{ICC Women's T20I Rankings}} and {{ICC Women's ODI Rankings}}, and added them to Women's cricket. I would not object to a separate article to explain them both (possibly just one article for the pair?). Spike 'em (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What prompts you to say that Topcardi? Harrias ^talk 18:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of the teams on the list only gained t20i status on 1 Sept 2018, so haven't had the time to play the number of official matches shown on the table. It must mean that the ICC is including other previous games as part of the ranking.Spike 'em (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed the case - it's actually standard practice to include some games that don't have a particular status on rankings in order to give more teams a ranking. The men's ODI rankings, for example, include the matches played by Nepal and the Netherlands at the World Cup Qualifier earlier this year despite those two teams not having ODI status until after the tournament. The ICC, unfortunately, rarely make this clear. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mystery!

Anyone got their detective skills out? I was looking to create an article on Colin Heron, who played for British Guiana once, and minor counties cricket for Cheshire. But it turned out not to be that simple! CI lists him as Colin Alexi Heron, born 1941 in Guyana.[4] CA, on the otherhand, lists him as Colin Hubert Heron, born 1924 in Jamaica.[5] There's a 2010 obituary for Colin Hubert here from Canada (with Jamaican relatives having commented). So which one is he? StickyWicket (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing definitive - but a little digging at Ancestry.com reveals Colin Hubert Heron lived in Georgetown, Guyana in 1962 Topcardi (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

C. H. Heron is reported in the Liverpool Echo newspaper in 1958 (his debut year for Cheshire) as coming from Nantwich Cricket Club; the Staffordshire Advertiser newspaper has a report of a C. Heron playing for Nantwich CC in 1954 in a North Staffs League game. Your Cricinfo Heron would be too young to have done this, so the 1924 date looks more credible. I'll let you decide how to proceed and avoid a charge of OR! Johnlp (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Here we go https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22colin+heron%22+cheshire+cricket&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0i8uK1ITeAhUMV8AKHWpoDbUQ_AUIFCgB&biw=1920&bih=969 first result. (Google books - Personalities Caribbean, Volume 5 (1973)) Colin Hubert it is... Topcardi (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Topcardi:@Johnlp: thanks for that. It didn't cross my mind to check for a book reference as he's so obscure. Amazing how even these obscure cricketers turn up in written sources. As for original research... I'd never do such a thing ;) *cough* Richard Lee (cricketer)... StickyWicket (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

DOB/sourcing assistance: James Jones (cricketer, born 1870)

There is apparently a discrepancy about the date of birth of James Jones (cricketer, born 1870). ESPNcricinfo shows his birth in 1878. CricketArchive is being used by an editor to support the 1870 DOB; however, it's behind a paywall, so I can't verify it.

Can anybody in the project assist, either by peering behind the paywall or suggesting some other sources that would be useful? —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The escape key is your friend! CA says:

Born: Q3 1870, Liverpool, Lancashire, England

Died: Q1 1960, Uxbridge, Middlesex, England Spike 'em (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The middle names are different on both sources as well fwiw. This isn't at all unknown - I found a chap who was listed as living on CI the other night who seems to have died in 2004 and there are a range of other discrepancies - sometimes both databases get the same thing wrong as well. It's difficult to know for certain which one is right in this case - they may both be wrong in their own ways. I guess some census work might pay dividends - the middle names are obscure enough that they might pull up the answer. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

James Lovelady Jones was baptized on 24 July 1870 in Liverpool: his father was a licensed victualler of the same name. On his marriage banns in 1914 in Manchester, he was described as an engineer and he had shrunk his age to 38, maybe seen as a more fitting age for marrying his 27-year-old bride. Both he and his wife are on the electoral register in Ruislip-Northwood in 1960, which squares with an Uxbridge death registration later that year. I can find no record for a James Lindley Jones, which is CI's version. Johnlp (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Irish first-class cricketers

Should the above list be renamed to reflect Ireland's elevation to Test status? Perhaps List of Irish first-class cricketers (1902-2017) or List of Irish first-class cricketers pre-Test status? I don't think it needs deleting as it's useful for checking for redlinks (my next project) and can be changed into a sortable list at some point. Thoughts? StickyWicket (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As all Test matches are also first-class matches, then I'd be tempted to leave it as it is. Maybe the use of some colour-coding, similar to other lists to highlight the ones who have played in a Test. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: would you curtail the list as it is, with 2017 as a cut-off for adding anymore names? Because presumably, any players who appear at Test level will go on List of Ireland Test cricketers, while others at domestic FC level will go on List of Leinster Lightning first-class cricketers ect. StickyWicket (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd include all of them, but either way is fine. Seeing as you're the one who's likely to do the bulk of the work on the list, go with what you feel is best in its layout/inclusion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

T20 Global League has become the Mzansi Super League

The T20 Global League which was cancelled last year at a fairly late stage after teams had already been created and investors recruited, has been reborn as the Mzansi Super League. I think the articles could be merged with the T20 Global League reduced to a section under "History". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A few sources that support the idea that the Mzansi League is the successor/continuation of the T20 Global League:

• https://www.timeslive.co.za/amp/sport/cricket/2018-10-16-majority-of-mzansi-super-league-t20-hopefuls-are-south-african/
• http://amp.ewn.co.za/2018/08/23/durban-qalandar-owner-to-take-csa-to-court-over-t20-inclusion
• https://m.cricbuzz.com/amp/cricket-news/104519/csas-much-delayed-t20-league-to-be-called-mzansi-super-league

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've started a merge discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

List of English cricketers (1787–1825) - format and references

Following a discussion at Talk:Chitty (cricketer) and following the AfD for the same person (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer)) it seems that there is some evidence of a consensus to being to work towards developing a list article to deal with these early cricketers where it is difficult to find substantive sources to move beyond statistical notability. There have been suggestions that a tabular approach would be useful and that some articles might then be redirected to the List article until such time that substantive sources are found.

So, I've suggested a possible tabular format and implemented it for the As. But I'm not sure that it's the right format.

I also have concerns over sourcing. Just about every one of the As has Scores and Biographies listed as a Reference on their page, but I have concerns that that may simply have been added to each article without the book ever being checked - this doesn't seem uncommon. There are then the issues surrounding how many matches the chaps played - and in some cases who for. Unfortunately in this time frame CricketArchive seems to become increasingly unreliable and CricInfo is essentially pulling from a similar database anyway. In a number of cases the articles on the individual players quite a different number of matches to those listed by either CA or CI - for example, Charles Anguish states that he made 40 appearances, but both CA and CI have 32. I appreciate that we're in the area of the game where it essentially comes down to someone deciding that a match is first-class and that there is a lack of consistently applied objective criteria.

My inclination is to use CricInfo where possible as it's actually accessible. Unless there are any other suggestions? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone's redirected Chitty to 1800 English cricket season instead. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The list has now been PRODed as well, so I guess this is a redundant question now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

PROD challenged and the list is now at AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD closed as it was raised by a sock account. Looks like they made some pretty WP:BOLD edits in the past month (look at First-class cricket, for example). I've restored some of the articles, might be worth checking through some of the more major ones in their edit history. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I did spend a little time clicking through some of those lists and came across a fair number of articles or 18th century cricketers where the article aserted notability via important matches (or whatever) but where CA was very clearly not assigning first-class status to those matches. I shouldn't think it matters very much, but it does raise some questions about the reliability of sources and the like. Anyone able to make any suggestions? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Hyde (Cricketer, born 1997)

This draft has been submitted and declined at WP:AFC. Despite having played First-class cricket, Hyde seems to fail WP:CRIN for not having played at the highest domestic level. Just confirming that this is the current consensus. Hack (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that any first-class, List A or recognised T20 game counted as "highest domestic level" and that there are numerous cricketers who have only played University cricket on here (e.g. Patrick Tice,Tim Moses are 2 recent Cambridge Uni cricketers). Having said that, I don't think playing in a few uni games does make a person notable, but that is for another time. Spike 'em (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And just to be clear, it is my opinion that he does pass WP:CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He passes WP:CRIN, first-class is first-class, no matter how good the players may or may not be! StickyWicket (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if a player played first-class that wasn't the highest level of domestic competition? For example, the various lower tier first-class competitions in South Africa or company cricket on the Subcontinent? Hack (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Harrias ^talk 13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The notability guideline doesn't say that. Hack (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the guideline is intended to be all encompassing with first-class matches, so it doesn't factor in competitions. A first-class match in the County Championship carries the same notability as Gentlemen of Ireland v Gentlemen of Philadelphia first-class match in 1909. StickyWicket (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely passes WP:CRIN. StAnselm (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Mzansi Super League teams

I have created a set of articles about the MSL franchise teams:

• Cape Town Blitz
• Durban Heat
• Jozi Stars
• Nelson Mandela Bay Giants
• Paarl Rocks
• Tshwane Spartans

They are fairly stub-ish, please feel free to improve and expand them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Any dab hands with a camera?

Just going through this list of English grounds without photos and wondered if anyone in the project was close to any of these grounds, and if so if they could take a few pictures for their articles? I can do Hampshire/Sussex. Any help appreciated :) StickyWicket (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can grab a picture of Sonning Lane, Reading, Berkshire, on my home tomorrow. Good shout by the way, there must be loads of people just passing by these places! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Great! That'll be Berkshire done! I was in Ireland earlier in the year, I drove past most of the grounds on that list :/ There's a good noodle bar in Worthing, gives me an excuse to go there for Manor Sports Ground! StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Second most important job in Australia

It is frequently written that the role of Australian Test captain is the second most important job in Australia behind the PM. Who said this first? I feel it may have been John Howard but am not certain and can't cite. It'd be nice to add to the lede at List of Australia national cricket captains. Moondyne (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would rather we didn't encourage populist politicians. (No matter who it was.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I didnt think this would encourage any sort of politician. It would simply add a piece of interesting trivia. I'm not sure what your gripe is exactly. Moondyne (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The quote from John Howard as reported here seems to be a bit different. In subsequent use by other commentators and in publications, it seems to be as you have it. Johnlp (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Should be encouraging any politicians?! Lying, thieving gits the lot of them! StickyWicket (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And cricket captains of Australia are of course always upright, upstanding characters of stainless virtue... Johnlp (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Unanswered question since 2015

I saw a question unanswered since 2015. Please see Talk:List of international cricket centuries by Steve Smith#Why VVS Laxman?.--RHcosm (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a procedurally-closed discussion including VVS at WP:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis. If you'd like to renominate them, then go ahead and do so (though don't include Rohit Sharma as he's now passed 25). Spike 'em (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike 'em. I don't want them deleted. But I want to create some lists such as List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey if it is allowed. Thanks for the response.--RHcosm (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess that someone created VVS's page and no-one else (other than BlackJack) ever saw fit to AfDing it so it is still here. There was also a discussion a while back to remove lists of centuries from players without their own list article. I guess if you fancy doing one for Hussey, then go ahead, but be wary that someone may AfD it. Given I've not reinstated the one mentioned above, it certainly won't be me! Spike 'em (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike 'em. I will start in the next few days.--RHcosm (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The agreed threshold is 25 international centuries for a stand alone list. Hussey only achieved 22. So we either agree that 25 is an appropriate limit and delete all lists which are less than that or we agree to drop the number to say 20. We currently have 55 lists which meet the current criteria of 25 and 11 which do not – V. V. S. Laxman (23), Michael Hussey (22), Mohammad Hafeez (21), Tamim Iqbal (20), Martin Guptill (18), Damien Martyn (18), Faf du Plessis (18), Upul Tharanga (18), Azhar Ali (17), Dinesh Chandimal (15) and Mushfiqur Rahim (11). My suggestion is to keep 25 as the threshold and the delete these 11 lists. Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, if the threshold was reduced to 20 a further 20 players become eligible for a stand alone list, which includes Laxman, Hussey, Hafeez and Iqbal who currently have lists. This would bring the total number of lists of international cricket centuries by player to 75 – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

On a related topic, should this list exist now? It falls down on two fronts: 1) it doesn't meet the 25 threshold and 2) a list of one thing isn't a list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It clearly does not meet the threshold for a stand alone list. I have redirected to List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Bangladeshi cricket grounds#Sylhet International Cricket Stadium. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Was the 25 threshold agreed somewhere? Only comments I could see referencing the threshold of 35 are from BlackJack, who liked to invent their own rules. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's better to drop down the threshold to 20.--RHcosm (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I wasn't sure TBH if it was 20 or 25. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinoo Mankad Trophy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinoo Mankad Trophy has been relisted for third time. Participation from this WikiProject is welcome. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

How are the articles assessed in WikiProject Cricket? Indian captain Virat Kohli is assessed as high important whereas English captain Joe Root as low important. I think Joe Root's article should be assessed at least as mid important. --RHcosm (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Importance tagging, like all projects, can be done by anyone at any time. However, I think things like this fall way down to the bottom of the pile of important work to be done. Root's talkpage was tagged as low importance not long after the article was created, back in January 2010. The article looked like this. At the time, just another FC cricketer, hence the low importance. I've changed the tag to high. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts Thanks --RHcosm (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Austin Waugh

Is this chap notable yet? Think he will be one day, but crystal/not inherited... --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I brought this up previously. He fails WP:NCRIC, but he could pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he'd fail AfD unless the referencing in the article was considerably improved. Win win. How soon til the U19 World Cup? If it's really soon, we might as well wait cos I think if he plays he passes our guideline. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2020 is the next one! By which time he'll be 20... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't he should have a page yet, he fails WP:CRIC and coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. Also, if we are for deleting this Dutch under-19 cricketer, then we should treat all under-19 cricketers who don't meet CRIN the same, regardless of who their famous father is! StickyWicket (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now listed the article at AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Good work. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the previous discussion, I've added a prod to Faisal Jamkhandi's article. Hopefully that'll save time on an AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Transcluding match details

I need help with transcluding the match summaries from 2018 Mzansi Super League into each of the relevant team articles. The idea is so that the match result info only needs to be inserted once into the season article, then it will apear in the team pages too without having to be manually copied. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that's needed. We don't add ALL the match results to other teams' articles. For example, Sydney Sixers does not have all their BBL results, so I'm not sure why you would need to do the same here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts The team pages have been set up with the match summaries, so I was just going with the flow, should we rather remove them? I supose the team page infoboxes should instead be expanded to include their match data? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean in articles by team and year, such as Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2018, rather than just the main team's article? Personally, I think it's overkill to create them for this (currently) one-off tournament, which could fold after the first season. But, if you have the time and resources to invest in them to make them more than just a simple duplication/list of results from the main article, then go for it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts, "Team by year/season" pages do not exist yet for the MSL, as you say it's premature to create them. Currently the team pages just have a section for this season, when/if subsequent seasons happen it may be worthwile, but not yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand or New Zealander

For the cricketers from other countries their nationality is used such as Australian cricketer, English cricketer but those from New Zealand are called New Zealand cricketer in Wikipedia articles. Instead of New Zealand why New Zealander is not used? New Zealander, their nationality can be better than just New Zealand. --Binod Basnet (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The demonym for someone from New Zealand is "New Zealander", but in this situation you are using an adjective, not a demonym. The adjective is "New Zealand". So you can talk about a New Zealander, or a New Zealand cricketer, but the phrase "New Zealander cricketer" makes no sense. Most demonyms are the same as adjectives, so this can be confusing. You wouldn't talk of a "Frenchman cricketer".-gadfium 03:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

gadfium Thank you so much. --Binod Basnet (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Statistics in international tournaments

Seeking further information / opinions on a discussion I've been having with @Lugnuts:. I recently added tables of the top 5 run-scorers and wicket-takers to 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20. I was reverted, citing WP:NOTSTATS and an alleged consensus from here to exclude these. I note that similar tables appear in every major men's international tournament of recent years (the 2013 and 2017 Champions Trophies; the 2015 and 2011 Cricket World Cups; and 2016, 2014 and 2012 World T20s) and all recent Indian Premier League seasons etc. Given this, I think it's pretty hard to argue there is some consensus not to include these (if anything, these signs point to a consensus to include). Further, I think the inclusion of the top 5 in these two important statistical categories is clearly of interest to readers and in no way excessive statistics, which is what WP:NOTSTATS suggests the removal of.

As such, I am seeking further opinions on whether these should be included. Further, if anyone is anyone able to point to a previous discussion on this topic here that would be appreciated. Macosal (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• This RFC discussed something similar this time last year - albeit tables on player pages. The general point about there being "a pretty clear agreement from most participants that swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and that where sections for achievements/awards are included, they should be more than just a basic list, being a means to expand and add value to the article" probably holds for this as well though.

The article in question has four paragraphs of prose in the lead and then very limited prose thereafter. In my view the last thing it needs is more tables - the relevant information could be summarised as prose "XXX was the leading run scorer with ??? runs whilst YYY made Z centuries..." for example - with references to the tables as they exist on sources such as CricInfo. Just because such tables exist on other articles doesn't mean that those articles wouldn't be best changed by the way. There is a case which can be made for tables of statistics, but I would generally hold the view that they should be always be accompanied by text and that, in many cases, it therefore becomes appropriate to collapse the stats table. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the input. While I see what you're saying, I'm also not seeing any consensus to remove these (and a pretty well-established WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS to include them). Open to further discussion on this but I have re-added the stats section for now (anyone could add prose if they wish to, as you refer to). I also would prefer not to see women's sport (which generally attracts a lower number of editors and content) be the first to lose content here despite every men's tournament having these sections included with seemingly little consternation. Macosal (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Add a prose paragraph or so above it and I think you'd be able to argue strongly that there's a case for selected statistics. It's probably important to understand that there is a trend with cricket based articles with editors who *only* add statistics and don't consider that prose is necessary, which is where NOTSTATS tends to come in.

I take your point about women's sports btw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ekana International Cricket Stadium

This stadium is set to host its first T20I match tomorrow (Ind vs WI), and has been moved to the snappy title of the Bharat Ratna Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee International Cricket Stadium. This is sourced in the article, but I can't find that many sources confirming it. Does anyone else think WP:COMMONNAME applies in this case and that the move should be reverted? Or can anyone find better sourcing for the new name? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We'd better hope Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu or Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch don't get international grounds anytime soon! StickyWicket (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And now bowling from the Amunugama Rajapakse Rajakaruna Abeykoon Panditha Wasalamudiyanse Ralahamilage Rajitha Krishantha Bandara Amunugama end... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit of coverage in the Indian media about it. For whatever reason, Indian media don't rank very highly on Google.[6][7] Hack (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a few days ago I actually initiated a discussion on the broader issue of venue names. It's at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Names of sports venues. Lots of opinions have been expressed, some with great certainty, but sadly nothing in the way of consensus yet. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Can people keep an eye on this stadium, a user is trying to make cut-and-paste moves. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

New Road, Worcester page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ranji Trophy Cricketers at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Irish first-class cricketers

I'm wrapping up this list now, a bit of the blurb to expand on and getting the BBI to work, but I was wondering if anyone could see if there's any Irish cricketers missing? The list does only go up to those who debuted before the Interpros were accorded FC status. Thanks! StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) There's a complete list on cricinfo. Always been there. Updated regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.104.246 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously Daft commenting above. I know you're not all the ticket, but I think anyone can see that the Cricinfo list is woefully incomplete, and lists Irish cricketers as English and some overseas players in the one-day comp as Irish too. StickyWicket (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Stumped!

I've created a page on James McDonogh, an Irish cricketer active from 1894 to 1909, but I'm having trouble finding anything on this guy. CI don't seem to have a page on him, there's no obituary in the 1913 Wisden. I can't find any book references for him, nothing on CricketEurope either! Is anyone else able to find something about him, especially as his career took him from New Zealand to India to Philly! StickyWicket (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Found on CI lurking in the Indian players section. Seems CI and CA have different spellings of his surname. I tend to trust CA more on research. StickyWicket (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

DC in 2009

Hi everyone. I have placed Deccan Chargers in 2009 article for peer review with an intent of improving it to the FA status. All suggestions are welcome. Thanks. Sa Ga Vaj 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Delhi Daredevils

A Simple Human has performed a C+P move of Delhi Daredevils to Delhi Capitals, screwing up the page histories. How do we get the articles merged? Are there any kindly admins who could do this, or where should I request this? Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be fixed now. Another problem is anon. editors now changing references from the DD to Delhi Capitals en-masse, despite the team only existing under the new name since the start of this month. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it has been done, let's see how much more of a mess gets made! Spike 'em (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ashes series top scorers

Anyone know why this IP editor is removing top scorers without comment?

217.164.107.35 a reason would be lovely. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, thanks for some reverting. I've used rollback as this appears to be vandalism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

New main project page

Hi all. I'm sure some of you will agree that the Cricket WikiProject is a pretty quiet place these days, mostly the same old users keeping the place going. Well, 2019, new year! So I was thinking about a number of changes for the project to try and breath some life back into it! I've listed them below, so please comment and let me know what you think!

• A new home page for the project to make it more appealing; at present the current home page looks a bit tired and unwelcoming. So, I've been working on a new homepage here, largely based off the Military history WikiProject. I think it's informative, easily navigable and a good place from which start out on the project. Please feel free to have a play about with it, expand it, even serve up a new banner (my banner isn't exactly the pinnacle of graphic design!).

• A series of new task forces to better organise and prioritise what areas we focus on. The above linked draft already has a few ideas, so again feel free to come up with some. Also, perhaps have some project coordinators to push the project along in the right direction?

• Members! We really need to get some fresh members to breath some life back into the project. To that effect I've created a Reddit account for us r/cricket so we can try and recruit from the 89,000 subsribers there. Any member of standing can have access to the account. I'm hoping this works and I'm aiming to provide an area on the new home page called 'The Nets' which gives people basic instructions on how to write articles, however, it would be nice for people who have featured/GA material to write guides on writing featured material.

So I'm really after opinions and ideas, and hopefully consensus to freshen the project up in the New Year. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that it has gone a bit quiet here recently, so well done for trying to spruce things up a bit. Spike 'em (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks a nice overhaul - good work! Wait for a week or two, and if there's no serious objections, I'd be bold and make the change to the layout. Once that's done, we can look at the other things. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Page (MCC cricketer)

I've just sent this to AfD as it's already been there in the past. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page (MCC cricketer) (2nd nomination). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The result was: Delete. Here are three more that I think are along the same lines:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartram (Kent cricketer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchet (Surrey cricketer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Black (Leicestershire cricketer)

Hope you all had a good Christmas too. Ho, ho, ho! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

And also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellchambers (Surrey cricketer) which bundles three more together with very similar situations.

All contested PRODs Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

And also"

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Barker (Nottingham cricketer) - bundled with one other
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Baldwin (cricketer)

Same situation re: PRODs. There are more PRODs which could be contested along the same lines. My gut feeling is that the outcome of the AfD on Page supports the argument that these PRODs aren't contentious, but it looks like they will have to go via the AfD route. None are first-class cricketers but the claim is made on the article that they are. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Chris Gayle

I'm trying to avoid an edit war on this article, could someone else please check the page history/discussion I started on the talk page. Cheers. Spike 'em (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned cricketers

Hello,

I'm working on WikiProject Orphanage and I've come across a large number of cricketers whose articles have no incoming links. A full list of the 637 can be found here.

The vast majority of these appear to meet both general and cricket-specific notability guidelines. It is in the interests of both WikiProjects that these articles become de-orphaned therefore I thought liaising with WikiProject Cricket would be the best way to go forward.

With regards to deorphaning articles, we usually find that a minimum of two incoming links suffices to deorphan an article. The creation of simple list articles such as "List of cricketers born in YEAR" and "List of cricketers who played for TEAM" would satisfy this. Unless there is any objection, I plan on going forward and making these lists. However, organic links will network articles together far better than a crude list alone, so, if possible, could some of the people with more knowledge about cricket than myself have a look at some of the articles and see if they can be de-orphaned without the need for lists? I have made the wikitable linked above sortable to facilitate this.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Many of them will already feature on a "List of XXXX cricketers" - for example, I found three at List of Kent County Cricket Club players. It'll be the really obscure teams and people who made only a handful of appearances that won't exist on one of those. There are also articles on every English cricket season (e.g. 1956 English cricket season) which might be possible link material. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Many surnames have a page listing people of that name. It's the work of a moment to add cricketers to these lists. Johnlp (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Could that be handled by a bot? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not by me: way beyond my limited and hesitant abilities. But I suspect it might be difficult as the information on these surname pages isn't always found at the same places in the biographical articles. Johnlp (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

They vary too much as well - so some surnames will simply have a page (e.g. Milne (surname)) whereas common names have their own dab (e.g. Thomas Mitchell). Then you'll get pages with a primary subject with a separate dab for everyone else as well. And plenty of surnames where no dab exists. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to all who participated, I'll just run an AWB script to de-tag the ones eligible for de-tagging and work on integrating as suggested in the meantime. Cheers, SITH (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Top icon

For the information: {{WikiProject Cricket topicon}} is ready. - - Binod Basnet (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Cricket template

Just edited Underarm bowling and, after checking the main Cricket page, noticed that there is not a footer template on Cricket terminology, play, rules, and equipment. Maybe the project should work on one (I'm not proficient enough in the game to work one up or add much to it). American baseball templates ({{Baseball}}, {{Baseball positions}}, etc.) might be used as "templates" for new templates. Haven't checked to see if this has been brought up before. Thanks, and Happy New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - we do seem to have a sidebar however at {{Bowling techniques sidebar}}. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's one for {{Cricket positions}}, which might be improved (or not, my knowledge of the game is limited). I'll add it to the Cricket page. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And another {{Cricket statistics}}. A further good example for an sport overview template is {{Golf}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone up to creating a main Cricket template similar to the {{Golf}} or {{Baseball}} templates? It could be a community project, unless someone has the knowledge of Wikipedia's Cricket collection to do a solo on this one. It might consolidate the links of shorter templates, such as {{Cricket equipment}}, the positions template linked above, and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Following on from the AfD (closed as delete), please see this discussion at the India/Aus series talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:English wicket-keepers and et al.

Is the Category:English wicket-keepers (along with other nationalities) needed? We don't categorise players by say 'Category:Short leg fielders' or 'Category:Opening batsman'. So do we really need a category for what is essentially a fielding position, albeit a specialised one? I think it might be a largely unnecessary category and bordering on overcategorisation. Thoughts? StickyWicket (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wicket-keeper seems to be reported as being a 3rd team role alongside batsman and bowler, so if there are Category:English batsmen and Category:English bowlers then keep it. If not then ditch it. Spike 'em (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the redlinks answer my question! Category:English_cricketers has a few sub-categories, batsman and bowler are not part of them. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold, and nominate Category: Wicket-keepers (and all its subcategories) for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

CfD here. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Stacey Muruthi

See this AfD for the above article. He completely fails CRIN and pretty much GNG, high time along with the recent cull of non-notable cricketers, that this guy followed suit! StickyWicket (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS Spike 'em (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

AA, there's no need to alert people of a conversation where CRIN is being respected. (Of course, there's no need to "canvass", but "canvassing" is not the point. Our integrity as a project is only destroyed when people do not work together to create an encyclopedia based upon simple brightline criteria). I'm not intentionally "bringing that up again", I'm just showing that there is a difference between respecting brightline criteria, which is what we have been doing since Jack authored them to the most insultingly clear standards, and those who decide to disregard these because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If they "didn't like it", they would have come up with "better" brightline criteria by now.

"Coverage is routine" is a nonsensical, woolly, and anti-NPOV argument. If we are not working towards consistent brightline criteria, we are not working on an NPOV project. "Routine" is a nonsense, woolly word, and the wording of WP:ROUTINE doesn't cover the material people claim it does:

"announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism".

Note that these are not "sports scores" - they are dynamic statistics. As long as our integrity as a project is not being disrespected, we should be happy. Bobo. 10:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Tables

Hello to all,
I was added 3 Statistics tables at 2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League,( [Here ] & [Here]) but these tables was removed by a user @A Simple Human: without any notice. I also discuss this issue on Article talk page([[8]]),but I not reach any discussion.My question is not about Removing the Edit,it has been resolved.my question is about the appearance of table.the example of appearance is below.this appearance is similar to BPL Template([[9]])
Example of Table

Player	Match	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	AVE	BF	SR	100s	50s	0	4s	6s
Player
Player
Player
Player
Player

this type of table should be use in 2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League,Give you Points,thanks(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC))

If you must have tables at all during the season - which I would very strongly suggest is a bad idea anyway - then the one above, in my view, is too complex. It has too many columns - I would have fewer columns than the ones currently in the article - it doesn't use tool-tips and a number of the columns include statistics which are fairly complex (strike rate, balls faced) or, in my view, unnecessary (0s for example). All of this data can be garnered from sites such as CricInfo anyway. The use of a coloured header is also, in my view, a poor choice - colour in general is a bad idea for accessibility reasons.

There's an argument that any stats table which is just as easily accessible elsewhere could just be linked - the current bowling table, for example, is a total rip-off of the CricInfo one. That's a massive NOTSTATS issue. It's also pretty early in the tournament to be adding stats - perhaps right at the end of the group stage.

I'd suggest significantly cutting the number of columns anyway (matches, runs, average, 50s, 100s for example) and considering removing them entirely.

I am assuming, of course, that at the end of the tournament someone is going to write a sentence or two to summarise the statistics to go above each table? Preferably better than is done at 2012–13 Bangladesh Premier League, but at least that's a start. I'll cross post some of this stuff at the article talk page as well as it's already developed into quite a complex discussion there, but if you want a reply from me you'd be better off pinging me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello,@Blue Square Thing:Thanks for discussion, but colour generated by me it's not randomly.The colour that I generate it's related to Team Dress or its Flag .etc.

For Example - I talk about an example, I suggest a IPL Team Mumbai Indians, Everyone one known that Mumbai Indian Players has Blue & Gold dress color, You can also see in Mumbai Indians article.The statistics section is also made of Blue & Gold colour.

According to me cricket is developing day per day. I think we should also update some colourfull Statics ([[10]] according to their team address in wiki articles.therefore I suggested above table which you can see that table heading is Green.So BPL is a part of Bangladesh therefore I generate a Green Header color.

Therefore I suggest that The Color Header should be use in Statistics Section .Only Header section will change rest of table will not change.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

In other words you're attempting to provide meaning through colour. That's pretty much the definition of what you're not supposed to do with colour with regards to accessibility. Don't do it. Anywhere it's done, it's wrong quite frankly. The header row colours are particularly obnoxious from this perspective - just use a simple table.

I will reiterate: you're copying stats from a more reliable source which could be linked as an external link during the tournament. That's a stupid thing to do. Don't do it - wait until the end of the tournament and then add much simpler stats if you insist - if you also chose to add some sentences to put them in context. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Could be worse. Such as the attendance and TV figures for the BBL... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

WTF!? Spike 'em (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, my thoughts exactly. All added by the same user each year, who seems to think they a) need to be added to WP and b) are important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: are you talking about me??(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

No, that was about the mess at the BBL page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,@Blue Square Thing: You recently answered on that page([[11]]),but Firsty please forgive me I want to reply here.so you said a word plagiarism about the tables.I think there is not plagiarism in Statistics data.beacuse Statistics data(numerical) remains same.So many sites uses same data.

For example- if a one player of Team made 130 runs. So all the websites shows that player had made 130 runs.so we also wright 130 runs on wiki cricket article.So plagiarism is not work on data like numerical forms.(if I'm wrong please correct me) (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

Yeah, probably not the nest use of words. Still doesn't make it a good idea to simply copy data from somewhere else. Just be patient and at the end of the tournament write a paragraph or so and then add a simpler table underneath. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Thanku for advice,i will remember it(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

Minor Counties article

Hi. Should the article be at Minor Counties of English and Welsh cricket, with a captial C on counties, instead of its current title of Minor counties of English and Welsh cricket? It was boldly moved almost a decade ago to the current title, but I wanted to check here before moving it again. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The thinking then was that the capital C represented the various Minor Counties competitions (principally, in terms of duration, the Minor Counties Championship) and the teams which were sent out from the 1920s onwards to play occasional matches against the touring sides or in cup competitions on behalf of the Minor Counties Cricket Association. The lower case c represented a status within the game (as a counterpoint, the county teams of the County Championship are often referred to in older literature as the 'first-class counties' (never capitalised), and occasionally as the 'major counties'). It also enabled some minimal coverage of county sides that have never participated in any of the competitions (Rutland, Huntingdonshire, Isle of Wight and most of the Welsh) within the same article. So there was a kind of logic, but if you think it no longer applies, then by all means change it. Johnlp (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If the article is about the members of the Minor Counties competition, rather than about all counties that are not first-class, then I agree that "Counties" should have a initial capital. Whichever form is decided upon, I think the other should act as a redirect. JH (talk page) 10:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably better with capital I should think - certainly that's how it was written in yesterday's BBC article. It might be worth considering at this point what happens when the MCCA changes its name next year. My gut feeling is to keep the article at Minor Counties to allow for historical ease of reference? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all - I've moved it to a captial C, keeping the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Article deleted

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium is created by me and is deleted apparently within minutes of creation. Reasons can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium. This is not right for the community and this wikiproject. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no proper justification regarding notability. I mean look at List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve. Apologies for my hot temper but I just created TWO MORE articles like this BEFORE the discussion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not a fan of these lists - is there no reason why they can't be merged into the main ground article? Even as a collapsible box or something? StickyWicket (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I neither support or oppose this notion. But keeping some of them and deleting others is unfair. A clear consensus should be reached in the community regarding this type of lists. Besides, it hurts inside as a cricket fan when some admins conclude that international centuries and five wicket hauls are "not notable". ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It got deleted in the proper way through a process which took 9 days to complete. You could have commented at any point, so I'm not quite sure why you've spammed a bunch of people today other than it looks like you've thrown your toys out of the pram. My honest opinion is that I thing we have far too many lists, many of which are much better served by an external link to CricInfo where the list will actually be kept up to date. It's probably just the way my brain works, but I can't quite work out what the joy is in copying a bunch of stats from somewhere else to Wikipedia. I mean, I get that it's easier than writing prose, but I can't quite see the point.

I stick by my argument at the AfD but will approach each AfD on its merits rather than trying to adopt a one size fits all position. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What to list and not list

If you did not know, a five wicket haul list got deleted recently. The nominator IMO seemed too judgemental and jumped right onto conclusion without looking at the related articles and consulting WikiProjects. According to him "This is WP:LISTCRUFT 5 wicket innings are not that exceptional in test cricket. Most of the sources are simply score cards." The statement clearly shows that he did not really went deep. The other commentators, also IMO, just took their stance and threw their opinion without properly checking. What I am trying to say is that was not a good consensus for deletion.

Anyways, I am not here for complaints, I want to want start a discussion on what counts notable enough for lists of fifers, centuries, grounds, etc. I am generally a deletionist but I think five wicket hauls and centuries are one of the biggest accomplishments, both for individuals and cricket grounds. There are other lists that seems less notable to me, like List of Ireland ODI cricketers, PCA Player of the Year, etc. I think any ground with more that 3 stuff is enough. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In terms of notability alone, my comment on the AfD page you link to seems worth consideration: "the 10 instances of five wicket hauls have been taken in the 8 Test matches to have been played on the ground. In other words, a five wicket haul happens, on average, more than once a Test match on this ground. I would argue with the notability of the feat in this instance." Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: You've got somewhat of a valid point. But this goes with list of centuries by grounds as well. One thing I noticed is there isn't any "List of international goals scored by grounds" in football. Of course cricket and football are vastly different but scoring a goal and taking fifer/scoring centuries are very much similar. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The point is that there may be cases where taking five wickets really isn't that notable, but that there may also be cases where it is worth a list. I don't think it's as simple as one or the other, although if I were forced to chose I'd take the approach outlined by AssociateAffiliate above and find a way to include almost all of them on the ground article and summarise the information massively Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that there's now a bundle of over 100 such lists bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: at least list of this by per country ground will work for me. List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Australian cricket grounds. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: 130 articles to be precise (i am a bot, jk) ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Single source articles

A lot of players have single sources only, such as Cricinfo or CricArchive. They should be tagged with Template:One source. I don't get why they are not deleted based on WP:1R. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been the problem from moment one - people being unable to decide whether WP:CRIN or WP:ONESOURCE is the problem, and being inconsistent with their complaints at the same time. Articles have been prodded without any sort of indication - or consistency - as to one or the other. ImmortalWizard, feel free to help out if you wish rather than just pointing out the issue. Bobo. 17:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: I think the problem is WP:NCRIC. As I've said earlier, rule number 1 should be modified to make it more specific ( such as which domestic level cricketers are significant and which aren't, also I would prefer only of a list of players in domestic clubs rather than their own articles. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If CRIN is the problem, we spent two hours earlier today attempting to come up with alternate brightline criteria and ended up with woolly weasel words like "very few" and "significant". CRIN is the problem? I beg to differ. Bobo. 18:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Rule one", as you put it, is entirely clear. All domestic level cricketers, as long as they play at major cricket level, are notable. Even if we listed out which competitions they are, this does not alter their level of notability. A "list of competitions" is unnecessary. Bobo. 18:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: yeah but it just doesn't seem right to keep so many stubs (especially the 1 source ones) for so long. Keep in mind that GNG is the mother of NCRIC. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems absolutely right, as they conform to CRIN. Want to change CRIN? That's another issue. Want to add a second source? Please do. Bobo. 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Cricinfo as a "substantial source" should be questioned as well. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Bring that up as a separate topic then - and explain and cite examples as to why this is true. You keep changing your area of complaint. CA and CI have both been used as references on this project for 15 years. Bobo. 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

To me, sources are as important as notability. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If you feel CI is insufficient as a source, this is an entirely different conversation from "these articles only have one source". Bobo. 18:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing NCRIC will ensure people to add as much sources as possible before publishing it to main space, which would reduce backlog. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving articles to anywhere other than mainspace will "reduce backlog"? Once again we're contradicting what we want CRIN to say, "More than one match" or "more than one source". Feel free to add a second source at any point you wish to any article you desire. All through this conversation you've been contradicting yourself as to whether your issue is with CRIN or ONESOURCE. Bobo. 18:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Both are interconnected. 18:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. They are two separate issues. A player passes CRIN by having appeared in one or more major matches. A player is subject to ONESOURCE if his article contains just one source. Two separate issues relating to two entirely separate things - one statistical, and one based on Wikipedia practice. Bobo. 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The ONESOURCE should be specified in NCRIC in order to clarify if we should be even bothered. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, I am heading to WP:VPP. I realized this is a much bigger issue. Feel free to follow me. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

And I surely need you guys to help me in VPP. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: and Bobo192 at the end of the day we are just normal people trying to create a better world. I've noticed that I have become a WP:HOLIC. Let me know if you are suffering from depression, since you put huge amounts of time here. We most of the time forget we are real humans and create a toxic environment. I apologies if you I offended you guys both internally. We have different ideologies and editing philosophies. We should try to work together and reach for proper consensus. Nevertheless, apologies again, let's just forget what happened for a moment. I will continue to show by current mindset and you guys can continue to do the hard work you put in. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me or posting on my talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

LOL ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, I don't understand why you think that's funny... Bobo. 19:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That was awkward, didn't know how to react. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting articles

Following the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) as Redirect and the discussion that was had last year at Talk:Chitty (cricketer), it would seem that for a group of cricketers about whom we know very little in terms of biographical information and who we know played only a very small number of matches, that merging and redirecting to lists such as List of English cricketers (1787–1825) would seem to be a reasonably common likely outcome. I wouldn't argue for this in every case - there will always be exceptions - but I wonder if there's tentative consensus that could be agreed that this is a reasonable way forward. I'm thinking about articles such as Annett (Hampshire cricketer) or R. Beeston (Middlesex cricketer) where we've little hope of finding more information given the sources. Redirecting and merging anything suitable has the advantage that if information is found in the future it's much easier to get the previous content back as a starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

While this whole business of destroying a project based on ten or more years of following insultingly basic rules because of criteria people are plucking out of thin air still doesn't particularly sit well with me, if we are planning to get rid of articles such as these, based on no specific criteria, we almost certainly need to be keeping names by team up to date, especially of those from non-English speaking countries - or comprehensive, and not based on just the names people decided to delete against WP:CRIN. Would this include players from obsolete or no longer competing teams? List of Gwalior cricketers, for example, would contain names of players from just a single first-class match played 75 years ago.

Given that the prose of articles such as Balbhadra Singh hasn't changed in the ten years since I first authored the article(s), I still find it odd that this has suddenly become an issue. An incomplete project is a useless project - and incomplete lists based on those names people have decided to delete willy-nilly are also completely useless. Bobo. 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I was suggesting merging any information from them before they go to AfD, partly to preserve what little we know about these sort of chaps and partly because having quite a lot of articles like these will simply encourage AfD to be raised. On the grounds that two recent discussions have arrived at a similar conclusion - and if five more were raised tomorrow I think they'd also end up at the same place - it seems a reasonable, proactive approach to take that is something of a compromise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Merging details in this manner is pointless and arbitrary and an insult to our project. The fact that these issues are "being raised" by members of our own project shows how little respect these members have for creating and maintaining an encyclopedia based on NPOV criteria.. Creating comprehensive NPOV lists as a reference point, no problem. Randomly picking and choosing names - this is precisely what we should be protesting against in the name of NPOV. Bobo. 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The alternative is clearly risking losing the articles altogether at AfD if a consensus can not be reached here. There is nothing insulting about compromise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Compromise" based on the flouting of NPOV criteria is an insult to our project and raises the question, why should we even bother creating new articles? Bobo. 11:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's your opinion. If anyone else has one then I'd be interested to hear them, if not I'll reconsider what to do with these articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a question, rather than an opinion... Bobo. 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and pretend this is not an issue. Is this more of an issue than this (article picked at random)? An article on a Test player created 13 years ago which contains no sources or references? Personally I think this is a greater stain on our project. Bobo. 11:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to say that a subject of an article needs to be notable: WP:N is an overarching principle of wikipedia. NCRIC and other SNGs are guidelines as to what is likely to make a subject notable, not a guarantee that they are. Constantly arguing the same point destroys the project just as much as moving micro-stubs into lists rather than standalone articles.Spike 'em (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're telling me notability is relative then this works against everything this project - and every other sports project - has worked on for the last 15 years, and this is a sad reflection on the project and the encyclopedia. But that's cool, if that's the way it works... Bobo. 12:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If this the case then THOUSANDS of articles should be deleted from here. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Which begs the question, why are you tagging something with A7 when A7 absolutely does not apply - and why do I have a sneaking suspicion you're not going to get around to speedying all of these too? To state that the article "does not indicate the importance of the subject" is a lie - and the source backs this up. The article clearly states - and cites - that the individual has made a first-class appearance. Bobo. 13:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192:I think WP:NCRIC should be changed. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

People have been saying this - without explaining how, in a manner which is enforceable by NPOV - for over ten years. Go on then. Bobo. 13:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: rule 1 seems to be against WP:NOT. It makes it look like a databooklet. Probably just create lists of players/umpires on certain teams/competitions rather than separate pages? ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Dodging the question. You suggest we change the criteria. How? Bobo. 13:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: It is this WikiPorject's responsibility to seek for consensus and update the subject related guidelines. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You stated that you believe CRIN should be changed. To what? Bobo. 13:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: players/umpires who are insignificant and relatively unknown should not have their articles. This applies mostly for domestic cricket, although sometimes international level if it's really unknown. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Define "relatively unknown" and "insignificant" with relation to any subject-specific guideline please. Bobo. 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: have played very few matches, did not do anything significant for the team. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Define "very few" and "significant" please. It seems strange that this discussion is going on when it's only been very recently that our inclusion criteria for national teams has massively increased. Bobo. 13:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

And by that, I also mean I oppose cricket articles with one or two sentences only. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This includes hundreds of Test cricketers - are these non-notable? Bobo. 13:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: Nope, and that won't stop use from changing. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You are now being inconsistent. Why? To give you an example of a Test cricketer with barely any material and not even a source - Fred le Roux. Bobo. 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: that shouldn't exist . ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take these Test cricketer articles to AfD if you feel they should not be on Wikipedia then, that will save any further discussion here. Bobo. 13:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: these all should be moved to userspace and drafted first for help. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: that's simply too much to bundle and MULTIAFD. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not for anyone determined enough to do so. Bobo. 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: Besides even if I go for only one of them, people will backup with WP:NCRIC. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

And why not? That's why it exists. Bobo. 13:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: and that's why the guidelines need an update. ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

And that is why nobody, over all this time, has ever come up with a basic alteration to CRIN which is universally applicable. And we're back where we started. Bobo. 14:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Exit, pursued by a bear. Bobo. 14:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: I think we are falling into the loophole. I would allow and urge other members to have their say. Consensus should be reached whether to alter the guidelines. Most of us are afraid to change since it will be overwhelming. I say with proper collaboration, it would take no more than a couple of weeks to remove a few thousand articles. ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If we were all following the same rules from moment one, change based on personal opinion rather than brightline criteria would not be necessary - or tolerated. Bobo. 14:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you can think of a way of changing CRIN based on brightline criteria, please do. Bobo. 14:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: I disagree. Guidelines are always subject to change, and there is no one individual who has all the rights. I have seen other WikiProjects, with less members than this alter their style and guidelines significantly. ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Test cricketer at AfD

Now this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred le Roux is simply becoming disruptive to prove a WP:POINT. I suggest you stop this, before you are taken to WP:ANI and probably blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: how is that disruptive if I am open with opinions and discussion? ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Besides, I am not doing anything regarding oppositions. The AFD is to heads up WP:NCRIC. ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No I agree with Lugnuts on this occasion, sending a Test cricketer to AfD is simply beyond stupid. StickyWicket (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of us are here to build an encyclopedia, not to humour someone who seems keener on dismantling it. Johnlp (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)