Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Live scores

From my experience CRIC articles are updated with scores at intervals (including change of innings) and are rolled back if done intra-session. Would anyone here agree / disagree with this, or be able to provide a formal link that this is consensus here? There is an editor trying to enforce WP:LIVESCORES on 2019 Cricket World Cup based on a consensus formed at WP:FOOTY which I don't think holds here. Spike 'em (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My take on this is that the policy cited at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_81#Live_scoring (WP:NOTNEWS) should hold no matter the sport. While the innings break might seem like a natural break, so is half-time in football, but I don't see anybody adding scores then. Furthermore, people shouldn't be using Wikipedia to get live score updates - there are plenty of other, better sources for just that; and since there is no deadline, we can just wait until the match is over and the result is final and all relevant statistics (such as records or whatnot) have been properly covered in WP:RS. Also, while it is a different sport, I do not again see what in "Wikipedia should only record the results of the match, and is not a live scoring service as Wikipedia is not the place for news reports." applies to snookers but not equally to cricket. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Some quotes from that discussion, which show that editors there think that other sports should be considered separately: Finally, you need to stop comparing soccerball to gridiron, they are two different sports with different rules & culture, and what happens in American football is 100%, wholly, completely, entirely irrelevant to this discussion and Short reply- yes. The result in football is no different than other sports that are followed on WP. Four day golf tournaments and five day Test cricket matches. Result is not known but entries in WP are included. Spike 'em (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The sports mentioned there fail to compare with football (though American football is very similar in duration, and I think that the only appropriate time to indicate results would be at end of play), indeed. WP:NOTNEWS, however, does still apply, and here we are talking about 50 overs matches (which are aptly named "One Day Internationals"...), not week-long tests... Speaking of those, including results at end of each day (i.e. after stumps) would be possible since reliable sources tend to publish accounts after each day's play. However that does not apply for ODIs (since play lasts only one day...), and also, we are under no obligation to report everything that is reported in news. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This attempt to add scoreboards to NOTNEWS did not seem to come to a conclusion to prohibit live updates. I'd not go as far as doing in play updates, but end of session is completely reasonable to me. Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The opinion I read from most comments there is not that live score updates should be encouraged; but rather that it is not worth putting it as policy (a prior discussion, also mentioned at WP:LIVESCORES, actually came to the same conclusion as the football project, and again citing NOTNEWS). Putting in results at breaks in play (lunch,tea,stumps,innings break) might not be as bad as what can happen with other sports where results can change in a much more "dramatic" fashion (ex. scoring 2 goals in a few minutes); but it may result in edit conflicts nonetheless (and the information ceases to be accurate as soon as play is resumed, which for an innings break might be as short as 10 minutes). It also doesn't provide any pertinent information other than the relative trivia of the match's score - what matters in the end is usually the result, and that naturally has to wait until the end. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring any consensus and previous discussions, and giving just my opinion: I think that ideally scores should only be updated at the end of a match, but at the end of each innings would be an acceptable compromise to me. No need for any more regular than that. Harrias ^talk 18:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, no score update until end of match is my preferred position. WP is an encyclopedia, not a "latest news" source. RossRSmith (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree—end of match, at least for T20 and ODI; I would only reluctantly compromise on innings break (definitely not session) for Test matches. Bjenks (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

For as long as I've been editing WP, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is to update cricket scores at end of each innings. It would seem odd to me to have no updates on a five-day Test match, for example, until one second after play ends on day five. I don't believe an update of each completed session/innings is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. I know this is related to the Cricket World Cup, rather than Test matches, but the same principal applies. IE report the toss, 3hrs later the innings break, and another 3 hrs later the outcome. Providing it doesn't rain... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It also seems that WP:SNOOKER has given up on such a strict interpretation of LIVESCORES, given there are many edits like this one that add frame-by-frame scores. Spike 'em (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The user in question to whose edit you linked, the first edit he made as a registered user was to a user subpage. Not that that's relevant but it seems strange that someone who so active in live-blogging on Wikipedia, started off by knowing something which I would say you only know given time on the project. Bobo. 16:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

End of an innings is suffice. If someone wants ball-by-ball coverage, head to Cricinfo. StickyWicket (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Does updating stats lists as a game goes on count as LIVESCORES? The List of Cricket World Cup records seem to being updated mid-match as Rohit Sharma reached 50 and 100. Spike 'em (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to undo anything like that that I see (on his article for example) on the grounds that a) the source won't have been updated yet so it's OR and, more importantly, b) it leads to mistakes (error, omissions or duplications) because people don't update all the stats, just some of them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going to revert, but had difficulty finding a sensible version and the edits were coming thick and fast. As it is, editors are just adding him to lists where he doesn't belong so I may just give up and do a big tidy up once the tournament is over (or India get knocked out). Spike 'em (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Spike 'em and others who are thinking of reverting (referred henceforth as you), with all due respect I may have to ask you to take a step back from reverting the updation of scores that have a source. Since I consider that revert as a disruptive edit of a perfectly acceptable "update" to an article. You are free to have your opinion and preference regarding such updates but you cannot and should not enforce them until there has been a consensus to do just that. Now I wont do live updates on the article myself but if there is someone who is willing to do it, I wont stop him either since the article will obviously need that edit someday. You seem to have a preference to have the exact same edit after a few days instead of the same day. There is no justification for such a weird preference. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to break it back by reverting correct updates. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

They were unsourced and in many cases erroneous. As I said, if editors are happy to to have articles full of contradictory information, then I'll leave it to you. People will often go in and edit one particular statistic on a line (e.g. number of centuries) but leave others (e.g. career runs) unchanged. I don't have a problem with doing on the same day, but I do whilst a match or innings is in progress. The same thing happens on player infoboxes (as soon as someone reaches 100, the editor will increment the number of centuries without updating the number of innings/ runs / average etc). Spike 'em (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Spike 'em if you have established that a particular edit is erroneous, then you are always welcome to revert that edit since you are reverting an unhelpful edit with factual errors, this particular revert is not disruptive. You dont need to get a consensus to revert such edits. But one should not revert an edit simply because the event happened the same day (or few mins back) i.e. live edit. regarding the player infobox, I think its best to patrol the article a day after the match and compare it with the version before the match and fix the double additions or any other errors. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Spike 'em, no live score updates necessary or appropriate. RossRSmith (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• RossRSmith You are entitled to have your own opinion on this, but you cannot enforce this opinion on other Wikipedia contributors. If you or anyone else would like to enforce this on WP:CRICKET articles, they would first need to clarify under what policy they are allowed to do that. The thread above doesnt mention this, even though it is full of opinions. Basically you need to have a strong reason to remove a valid piece of data that will anyway be added into the same article next day. Removing a valid piece of data without having a strong reasons or against policy is considered WP:Disruptive editing and the editor in conflict may be dragged to ANI over this. There are other side effects as well, new contributors who get a chance to update an article will be discouraged because someone removed a perfectly acceptable edit simply because the editor reverting has an opinion that updates should be added next day. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If the game's not over then the stats aren't official - simples. Something might happen and the game could easily be called, potentially negating all stats. That's one reason. If it's an infobox stat then the source used in the ib is very unlikely to have been updated before the game is finished - there's reason #2. None of that is disruptive; all of it is following the procedures we have in place and agreements which have been made elsewhere - the clear consensus on the football wiki project linked to in the second post above and, I'd say, a clear consensus here as well.

There are enough errors anyway, we don't need more because someone tried to calculate an average incorrectly or could only be bothered to update one of the stats. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Two cricketers with the same name in the same match

I was initially unsure how to disambiguate these two names although this (11428) game provides a better clue - Col. Joginder Singh 39320 and Capt. Joginder Singh 34174 playing in the same match for the same team over the same period - because they appear contemporaneously, we can be certain that they are not the same individual and that their records will not be conflated.

This game also features two individuals with the same name - Lt. Dalip Singh and Dalip Singh Jr., the former of whom also played for Patiala as well as Sikhs.

If anyone has any bright ideas as to how to disambiguate, particularly for the latter, please suggest. Bobo. 20:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the way you've setup the redlinks here with the Capt/Col in the title is the way to go. A hatnote can be used on each page to avoid confusion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think one of them might be Joginder Singh Baidwan. There is also at least one possible Dalip Singh target who looks at least a possibility. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Steve Smith page move discussion

Hi. Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ICC Members suspended

Looks like three suspensions and one exclusion (Zimbabwe, Croatia, Zambia and Morocco) - can someone check this for me? I'm about to update the world and relevant regional maps that I did earlier in the year. Again, could those be checked once done. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right, here is the MR from ICC--Moedk (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah those are correct. Bet the guy who spent $25 million on this is regretting his investment now it looks like this. Also, where do Zimbabwe stand if they don't get their house in order and end up going the same way as Morocco? Would they have to reapply as an associate? They're a full-member in name only pretty much these days. StickyWicket (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I reckon I'd have a bowl on that pitch. Harrias ^talk 08:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, there seems to be a lot of pressure on the ICC to secure the future of the players, regardless of the issues in Zimbabwe. The next progress update comes in October, so I guess we wait and see. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth a few more eyes looking at the List of International Cricket Council members article. Some recent edits have removed Zimbabwe from the list of Full Members. I believe they are still a Full Member of the ICC, albeit it suspended, rather than no longer being a Full Member. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

While all these members are suspended and expelled, here in Russia, the government does not recognise cricket as a sport. Human (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are probably a number of articles that need looking through and sorting. I only got a chance to do the maps and keys. I suspect Zimbabwe will be back in in October with a couple of heads having rolled: it would be difficult to keep a full member suspended for very long.

On the stadium in Morocco, there was an article in The Nightwatchman at some point about it. Really interesting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, anything useful in the article which could expand it? Just looked on Google maps at it, seems there's a massive concrete slab/foundation covering part of the ground now. StickyWicket (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Quite possibly - also on the association. I'll have to remember to take a look once I have time - perhaps in a couple of weeks time. A reminder then might help!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. I wonder if the ICC might revoke their full-member status. Just because a team is a full-member shouldn't mean incompetent boards can fall back on that. Scotland could be the obvious replacement, but might imbalance the Asian bloc vote. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Cricket page move

This might be of interest. Ho ho. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For a minute, I thought "Oh no, not AGAIN!" and then I clicked. That was funnier than finding Rick Astley. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Helpful edits?

User:Wadelison's edits are not helpful. Please someone stop them. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wadelison: I find them less than useful too. I have no problem if they want to make edits that actually reference what the player has done, but a copy and paste of the same text for 10 players per year, saying they have been nominated for a non-notable award, is just junk. Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And the slang jargon "knock" meaning "innings" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree too. Knowing that a player was in Cricbuzz's XI of 1874 is not important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The majority are simply non-notable journalism - if it were Cricketer of the Year or something I could live with that. The problem is that there may be stuff that's worth keeping in amongst all the chaff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Garfield_Sobers#Requested_move_1_August_2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Garfield_Sobers#Requested_move_1_August_2019. DBigXrayᗙ 11:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Domestic cricket

Hello Editors, I was wondering what would we created page just like International cricket in 2019 etc for Domestic cricket?. We can add A tours and domestic competitions in a single page just like International cricket in 2019. please share your views in this. Thanks. Aditya tamhankar (talk) 13:00 PM, 31 July 2019 (IST)

We use articles such as 2019 English cricket season. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been used for other countries yet, but it would translate easily. Harrias ^talk 08:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: what do u think about this project ? Aditya tamhankar (talk) 5:33 PM, 31 July 2019 (IST)

If someone is putting the work into it, and not just leaving an empty shell, then sure. It'll need restricting to just FC, LA and T20 competitions to avoid bloat (non of that T10 nonsense, for example...) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea, though I agree with Lugnuts that it should be restricted to FC, LA and T20, which will restrict it to the 12 full members + Scotland and the Netherlands with the Euro T20. StickyWicket (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for illustration how we have solved it in the german WP: We have added a table for the FC, LA, T20 domestic competitions for the full members to the international season articles: Example.--Maphry (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Run rate

The early part of answering this question at the Ref Desk led me to visit our article on Run rate.

It's really poor. Not my kind of article for fixing up, so thought I'd flag it here in case it takes someone's fancy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro1 has done some good work in the past on more technical articles, like leg before wicket. Sadly, he hasn't been active since February. PS: Nice to see my photo from the Hants v Sussex 2009 Friends Provident Trophy Final being used! StickyWicket (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Surely Required run rate could also be merged into this article? And a section for Net run rate pointing at the NRR article along with a summary? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Lather rinse repeat

"The CRIN guidelines are flawed". Come on then. How? It's ironic that when we have just expanded our inclusion criteria, people are now complaining about aspects of the inclusion criteria which have existed since 2004.

And not just "how". That is a useless argument. How do they need to be changed? Brightline suggestions only please. Why do I get the feeling these questions will get us nowhere..? Bobo. 07:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Short answer is we don't! We probably have one of the clearest and easiest to understand guidelines going! Absolutely nothing wrong with a player having played in FC/LA/T20 to be notable. I think the opposition comes from not understanding crickets quirk in that its matches are a status based affair. I'm even wondering if the recent T20I status to associates should warrant inclusion too - even though the standard of most matches is shocking! It's frustrating that the same old people who bring this up are the same old people who have never contributed anything to the project. More ironic that one of them actually voted "keep" to a ground I nominated which hadn't hosted a single first-class match, yet was kept because it was once part of a park mentioned a couple of times in a Leeds newspaper back in 18-hundred-and-something! StickyWicket (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've already listed all the Mali women's national team players somewhere around..! I'm waiting for someone to suggest why we are wrong to have the inclusion criteria we do, when every single team sport project has identical criteria. If this were any other team sport project, the users in question would probably be topic-banned for disruption... Bobo. 09:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also like someone to answer the question of why the sources we use are unacceptable. WP:ROUTINE does not hold as this applies to "routine news coverage" of such things as "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism". What we are citing is not news. Assuming WP:ROUTINE actually means anything in practical terms, this evidently only applies to currently-occurring events - hence the word "news". Bobo. 09:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been rattling through the lesser-known teams like the Gentlemen of England or the armed services teams, where there's usually lots of book sources and what not. The core part of their cricket still comes down to CricketArchive, anytime that's questioned (like it's behind a paywall... not exactly our problem), I just say it's an authority in cricket info, which is it. It's no different from using a fan made football club stats site. I genuinely think it comes down to an ignorance of the status cricket matches carry - which if we are to be true to the topic we're covering, we too have to along with. StickyWicket (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you, like others with more information than myself, are bored of explaining why CA and CI are reliable sources... if people refuse to accept that, then they might as well delete every article which only cites these sources... Bobo. 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CA and CI are reliable sources, but that isn't the issue. Let's go through it. WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Okay, so let's move onto the "subject-specific guideline", in this case WP:NSPORTS. It starts off: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." And in the following paragraph: "conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must' be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article".

This wording makes it clear that WP:NSPORTS, and by extension WP:CRIN is not a "bright-line" inclusion criteria, but instead a guide as to whether an article "is likely to meet the general notability guideline". So the fact that we can demonstrate an article meets WP:CRIN is a good start, but if further research doesn't reveal anything more, particularly for a relatively recent player such as Dean Dass, it does not in itself necessarily provide sufficient strength to keep an article. (Though, as mentioned it is a criteria " which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article". Harrias ^talk 10:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Then there's no point in retaining any articles. Fine. If people are unable to stick to bright-line criteria then there's no point. Bobo. 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally I wonder how many of the cricket articles in the Asian languages - which I know existed at one point - which were deleted from en.wiki, still exist. I wonder if other languages' Wikipedias have inclusion criteria as contrary as these... Bobo. 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What about completly ditching the current wording of NCRIC and replacing it with "...only cricketers who've played in The Hundred are notable enough for an article on WP..." :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Which brings me to a future conversation! What is the status of The Hundred? Is it, or can we treat it as, minor cricket? StickyWicket (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that it will have List A T20 status. Ie, exactly the same as the T20 Blast etc. Harrias ^talk 13:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we express our disapproval of the whole thing by amending NCRIC so that anyone who plays in it is instantly non-notable? Spike 'em (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. List A T20 status, as the name implies, refers to matches of 20 overs per-side. The ECB make it up as they go along! If only we could refuse to acknowledge its existence. Hopefully it goes away after a season. Beyond the world of Mumsnet I've not spoken to anyone, cricket fan or otherwise, who likes the idea or is interested in it. I won't be watching the cringely named Southern Brave (I don't even know what makes them brave)! StickyWicket (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke now

Just delete every Indian cricketer on my old user page. Get rid of years and years of hard work. What's the point of having an encyclopedia which selectively deletes information? Bobo. 09:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Why on Earth did you decide to write up a scorecard as a series of many separate biographies of each, otherwise unidentifiable, person on the scorecard in the first place? It would surely have been more sensible to write up the scorecard as a scorecard. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Which scorecard are you referring to? I wasn't writing any "scorecard", I was outlining each cricketer's career, just as anyone would Brian Lara, Donald Bradman, etc, etc. Any material other than information about their playing career is pointless. What else should I have written about - their favourite video game? Bobo. 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And my point stands. If we're selectively deleting information, we have lost sight of what we are trying to achieve. Bobo. 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What needs to be added?

Okay, let me ask directly, here, instead of further clogging up the AfD or the previous topic. Theoretical situation: A cricketer has made a single List A appearance, and this is backed up by a statistical source. Someone finds this unacceptable and sends the article to AfD.

What do you expect further to be added? The cricketer's shoe size? Hair colour? How? Any further "in depth" information is irrelevant to the topic in question. Isn't it? Bobo. 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. That's enough for WP:V. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought so too, but... Bobo. 10:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere on my "to-do" pages I've done a complete list of female first-class cricketers. Dare I suggest, without meaning to sound sexist, that barely any of these would pass some kind of wobbly POV guideline? Hey-ho... (Muahahaha, I made a funny!) Bobo. 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Contact him for some additional coverage if you like. [1] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Wisden will have a match report for that C&G match --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thankfully I don't twit... tweet... twet? I'm allergic to Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, and Donald Trump. Bobo. 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm waiting for people who belong to this project to send those seven Zimbabwean cricketers I mentioned in the AfD to AfD themselves... I doubt it though. Double standards, innit? Bobo. 10:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: Could you list them for me? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Seen this message. Gimme a few minutes. :) Bobo. 13:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A more comprehensive list of the articles which need fixing in some way or other:

Gavin Briant | Glen Bruk-Jackson | Gavin Ewing | Malcolm Jarvis (No links to CA or CI other than in infobox) | Alester Maregwede | Everton Matambanadzo | Richmond Mutumbami (needs bald CA link fixed) | Waddington Mwayenga | Ujesh Ranchod | Barney Rogers (no inline citations or external links) | Bryan Strang (no references, just external links) | Dirk Viljoen (no references, just an external link) | Andy Waller (no references, just three external links to random stories on Cricinfo) | Brighton Watambwa (no link to profile on Cricket Archive or Cricinfo) | Craig Wishart (no link to CA or CI other than in infobox). Make sure you get there before someone else sends them for deletion... Bobo. 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

They all clearly meet WP:GNG, so no danger of any of them being deleted. Most of them have enough detail in their profile on ESPNcricinfo alone, while most have additional articles provided more than just a passing mention. No drama here. Harrias ^talk 13:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How can people be certain they pass GNG with no references..? And with the greatest of respect, who are you trying to convince? You cannot convince me that GNG has any bearing on anything since I've conclusively shown the basic problem with it... Bobo. 13:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You've conclusively shown nothing, other than that you disagree with it, and more broadly speaking, don't understand it. WP:N states very clearly: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.". So the fact that those articles aren't up to much doesn't change the fact that they are notable, and should any be nominated for deletion, that would very quickly be demonstrated. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat - how can you tell the articles pass any kind of notability without references? Please don't start misreading my comments because you find it funny... Bobo. 14:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I clicked on every one of those articles you linked above, and then Googled them. Which is what anyone nominating an article for AfD should do, per WP:BEFORE. Harrias ^talk 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And yet people are whining about articles because they have insufficient linking within the articles? Please. It's one problem or the other, not both... Bobo. 14:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, where are people whining about that? Without context, I can't really comment on that issue, I am merely clarifying the notability guidelines. Harrias ^talk 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, slightly slower. There are many Test cricketers without references. Why you're not linking those for deletion is beyond me. Bobo. 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because WP:BEFORE checks have been carried out, and have demonstrated that sufficient sources exist to establish notability. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And you're judging on the basis of the same material that non-Test cricketers are non-notable? Ultimate hypocrisy. Bobo. 14:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I judge each subject on its own merits. Google searches reveal significant coverage on each of those Zimbabweans that you listed; ESPNcricinfo hosted a lot of that coverage. In contrast, Mr Dean Dass, though a far better cricketer than I, attracted no significant coverage that I can see. He is listed in ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive's statistical databases, but neither has a profile providing any in-depth coverage of him. Additionally, there is brief passing mention of him in some news sources, but only that he played in certain matches. Again, not significant coverage. I fail to see the hypocrisy on dealing with each subject on its individual merits? Harrias ^talk 14:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Its own merits"? Wow. That's how badly this project is broken. Bobo. 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Any chance you could put such pages either on a user page or on a project subpage? Preferably as a bulleted list? It would make working on them so much easier as this page is cleaned out regularly. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize. I was putting them together on a notepad file. I'll be right there. :) Bobo. 14:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Harold Baumgartner (needs link to CA)
Denis Begbie (needs links to any form of profile)
Jackie Botten (needs link to CI)
William Brann
Horace Chapman
Jim Christy (needs link to CA)
Eric Dalton (needs link to CI)
Alan Dawson (needs link to CA)
Fanie de Villiers (needs link to CA)
Friedel de Wet (needs link to CA)
Boeta Dippenaar (needs link to CA)
Allan Donald (needs link to CA)
Faf du Plessis (needs link to CA)
Jackie du Preez (needs link to CA)
Richard Dumbrill (needs link to CI)
Jacobus Duminy (needs link to CI)
JP Duminy (needs link to CA)
Dean Elgar (needs link to CA)
Howard Francis (needs link to CA)
Cyril Francois (needs link to CI)
Billy Frank (needs link to CI)
George Fullerton (needs link to CI)
Ken Funston (needs link to CI)
Robert Gleeson (needs link to CA and CI and general formatting fixes)
George Glover (needs link to CI)
Andrew Hall (needs link to CA)
Zubayr Hamza (needs link to CA)
Reginald Harris (links to CA and CI needed)
Martin Hanley (direct links to profile pages on CI and CA needed)
Paul Harris (needs CA link)
Tony Harris (needs general formatting fixes)
Nantie Hayward (needs link to CA and general formatting fixes)
Frank Hearne (needs link to CA)
Claude Henderson (needs links to CA and CI)
Andrew Hudson (needs link to CA)
Lee Irvine (needs formatting fixes)
Steven Jack
Clement Jackson (needs link to CA)
Justin Kemp (needs link to CA)
Imraan Khan (needs link to CA)
Peter Kirsten (needs link to CA)
Heino Kuhn (needs link to CA)
Adrian Kuiper (references need fixing)
Charl Langeveldt (needs link to CA)
Godfrey Lawrence (needs link to CA)
Gerhardus Liebenberg (needs link to CI profile)
Johnny Lindsay (needs link to CI)
Aiden Markram (needs link to CA)
Cuan McCarthy (needs link to CA)
Neil McKenzie (needs link to CA)
Ryan McLaren (needs link to CA)
Roy McLean (needs link to CA)
Brian McMillan (needs link to CA)
Charles Mills (needs link to CI)
Denys Morkel (needs link to CI)
Morne Morkel (needs link to CA)
Chris Morris (needs link to CA)
Wiaan Mulder (needs link to CA)
Anton Murray (needs clearer links to CA and CI)
Bob Newson (needs link to CI)
Mfuneko Ngam (needs link to CA)
Lungi Ngidi (needs link to CA)
Frank Nicholson
John Nicolson (needs link to CI)
Norman Norton (needs links to CA and CI)
Makhaya Ntini (needs link to CA)
Sid O'Linn (needs link to CA)
Duanne Olivier (needs link to CA)
Tuppy Owen-Smith (needs proper links to CA and CI)
Archibald Palm (needs link to CI)
George Parker (needs link to CI)
Dante Parkin
Wayne Parnell (needs link to CA)
Charles Pearse
Sid Pegler (needs link to CA)
Robin Peterson (needs link to CA)
Andile Phehlukwayo (needs link to CA)
Vernon Philander (needs link to CA)
Graeme Pollock (needs link to CA)
Shaun Pollock (needs link to CA)
Albert Powell
Dewald Pretorius (needs links to CI and CI)
Ashwell Prince (needs link to CA)
Charles Prince
Meyrick Pringle (needs link to CA)
Mike Procter (needs link to CA)
Henry Promnitz (needs link to CA)
Neville Quinn (needs link to CA)
Kagiso Rabada
Norman Reid (needs link to CA)
Jonty Rhodes (links need fixing)
Barry Richards (needs link to CA)
Dicky Richards (needs link to CI)
Dave Richardson (needs link to CA)
Jack Robertson (needs link to CI)
Albert Rose-Innes (needs links to CI and CA)
Thomas Routledge (needs links fixed)
Athol Rowan (needs link to CI)
Eric Rowan (needs link to CA)
Mark Rushmere
Brett Schultz (needs general link fixing)
Reggie Schwarz (needs links fixing)
Tabraiz Shamsi (needs link to CA)
George Shepstone
Percy Sherwell (needs links to CI and CA)
Charlie Smith Graeme Smith (needs CA and CI links checked)
Richard Snell (needs links checked)
Stanley Snooke
Tip Snooke (needs CA and CI links checked)
Dale Steyn (needs link to CA)
Rudi Steyn
Louis Stricker
Pieter Strydom (needs link to CA and general link fixing)
Pat Symcox (needs links to CA and CI)
Henry Taberer (links need fixing)
Imran Tahir (needs link to CA)
Bernard Tancred (needs links to CA and CI)
Louis Tancred (needs link to CA)
Vincent Tancred (needs links to CA and CI)
George Tapscott (needs link to CI)
Lionel Tapscott (needs link to CI)
David Terbrugge (needs links to CA and CI)
Nicolaas Theunissen (needs links to CA and CI)
John Traicos (needs link to CA)
Len Tuckett (needs link to CA)
Lindsay Tuckett (needs link to CA)
Edward van der Merwe (needs link to CI)
Martin van Jaarsveld (needs link to CA)
Hardus Viljoen (needs link to CA)
Ken Viljoen (needs link to CI)
Cyril Vincent (needs link to CI)
Charles Vintcent (needs links to CA and CI)
Bert Vogler (needs link to CA)
Billy Wade (needs link to CI)
Kenneth Walter
Kepler Wessels (needs link to CA)
Paul Winslow (needs links to CA and CI)
Owen Wynne (needs links to CI)
Billy Zulch (needs link to CA)

Thanks for providing this list. Don't you think it is better we spend time improving such existing articles on international cricketers, rather than waste time creating articles about obscure cricketers and then debating about their notability? The number of pageviews on these obscure cricketers articles (See 1 and 2) also shows that it may not be worth the effort working on such articles. I'm willing to work on as many Indian Test cricketers as I can. Would be great if others could take some other team's list and bring all articles up to snuff. Dee03 15:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

*grins ironically* Well, ever since I've been painted as some kind of arch-inclusionist, not really..! Bobo. 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As for other teams' lists, I would, but, I'm tired! ;) Respect, my friend. Bobo. 15:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm too tired to be comprehensive right now, but the following Sri Lankan Test cricketers have no links to either CA or CI - in fact some have no links at all:

Bandula Warnapura
Guy de Alwis
Susil Fernando
Sridharan Jeganathan
Jayantha Amerasinghe
Sanath Kaluperuma
Sanjeewa Weerasinghe
Jayananda Warnaweera
Kosala Kuruppuarachchi
Champaka Ramanayake
Dammika Ranatunga
Charith Senanayake
Kapila Wijegunawardene
Dulip Liyanage
Ashley de Silva
Ruwan Kalpage
Piyal Wijetunge
Dulip Samaraweera
Ravindra Pushpakumara
Sanjeeva Ranatunga
Chamara Dunusinghe
Jayantha Silva
Sajeewa de Silva
Suresh Perera (no direct links as far as I can tell)
Ruchira Perera
Indika de Saram
Prasanna Jayawardene
Dinuka Hettiarachchi
Michael Vandort
Sujeewa de Silva
Naveed Nawaz (need to fix links to CA and CI)
Hasantha Fernando
Prabath Nissanka
Thilan Thushara (no direct links to CA or CI profile)
Lasith Malinga
Shantha Kalavitigoda
Kosala Kulasekara
Dimuth Karunaratne (no direct link to CA or CI)
Milinda Siriwardana (no direct link to CA or CI)
Danushka Gunathilaka (no direct links to CA or CI)

I'm not convinced that articles need a link to either CA or CI. Certainly we can'y external link to CA so Aiden Markram, for example, doesn't need to be on anyone's urgent attention list - it already has plenty of references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well at least it will stop people frivolously sending articles for deletion beca... oh... Bobo. 18:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found the general lists of Zimbabwean internationals as well so I'll start doing what I did this morning to Shaun Young. If other people get there first then obviously that'll help. Thanks again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's Cricinfo's take on that match. No report of course. He did well with the gloves. Shame he seems not to have appeared in the next round. [2] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the concept that a wicket keeper "did nothing" during a match. I'm sure he landed on his bum a few times. Bobo. 10:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I find it frustrating because this sould be a complete resource for FC/LA/T20 cricket and those who have played at that level. I'm working toward getting every English (and every person to have played for an English domestic side) FC/LA/T20 cricketer with articles, irrespective of the amount of appearances. The only exception is articles like 'A. Smith, one FC in 1798' which I redirect to an appropriate list/category. The end aim is to create the only numerical source on the net for the number of people who have played at that level and a complete number for domestic teams. Articles getting deleted really sh*ts on that aim! We should be aiming to be the premier cricket resource on the web, not saying A doesn't get an article, but B does. StickyWicket (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When bored exclusionists get their way... I would like to hear their take on why they think we as a project don't want to be a comprehensive resource... Bobo. 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: - well..? Bobo. 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Succinctly, the internet does not need a third place in which to find out that a cricketer played X matches for Y team and scored A runs, took B wickets and C catches. Literally, it is completely superfluous: ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive already provide that resource. If we can not provide any more detail than the bare statistics provided by those sites, I would far, far rather that we use our time and effort to write prosaic articles about other cricketers, about whom we can find more information, and we can provide a good, quality encyclopaedic article about that subject. Harrias ^talk 14:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

For many people, especially people who don't worry about the minutiae of the sport, Wikipedia is their first and only port of call. Bobo. 14:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's pathetic really, to think that the fifth most-visited site on the Internet is the first place people want to go when they want to find something out... Bobo. 14:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I would suggest that Google is most people's first port of call. You know, the first most-visited site on the internet. Harrias

^talk 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just missing my point for the sake of missing my point. Why would we not want to have a fully comprehensive resource? Bobo. 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would love to have a fully comprehensive resource of well-written profiles for every cricketer. I would go beyond our current criteria, and include every international player through all associate and affiliate levels too. But given there simply isn't the time and resource for that, I would settle for a non-comprehensive resource of well-written profiles for as many cricketers as we can. Harrias ^talk 15:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Then you, my friend, are nothing but a hypocrite. An article being deleted because it is "poorly written"? I'd say that with the information from the secondary sources given, the stubs which exist on Wikipedia are about the best we can get with the information we have in front of us. Bobo. 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not suggesting that articles should be deleted for being poorly written. As I quoted above, that is directly against our notability guidelines. I merely answered your question, as to why I don't feel it is necessary for us to provide a comprehensive resource, if that resource is going to do nothing more than mirror the statistical summaries provided elsewhere, and fail to meet the requirement of significant coverage that WP:N requires. Harrias ^talk 15:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sending Dean Dass to AfD when he has made List A appearances is "directly against our notability guidelines" too... Bobo. 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Really? Really?! Harrias ^talk 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you never read WP:CRIN? Bobo. 15:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

[3] Harrias ^talk 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:N. And that is what this whole nonsense is about. The two basic notability guidelines completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. Bobo. 15:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, they don't. Harrias ^talk 15:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

One says "and", one says "or". Bobo. 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Given the information and facts that we had available at the time, would you say this was "poorly written"? What more or less would you have said that wouldn't have been completely superfluous? Bobo. 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not shy of linking: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dean_Dass --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

---

@Dee03: @Harrias: Please can I re-ask you the same question I asked at the top of this very thread? Otherwise it looks as though you don't have answers. Since it's you two who seem to think there is a fundamental problem here... A cricketer has made a single List A appearance, and there is only enough information to write about that. You two seem to think that this is not a suitable enough amount of material for an article. Number a, Surely any further information is superfluous? Number b, What other information do you wish to see on the article? The cricketer's shoe size? Favourite variety of cheese? Pets? Bobo. 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

[4]. Harrias ^talk 07:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't create an article for that cricketer unless I find newspaper sources that provide "significant in-depth coverage" about his career or him personally (it could be his personal life or how he got into cricket or his post-retirement career). In case a cricketer has made a single List A appearance it is unlikely that newspapers would have anything beyond a passing mention of him. So if no detail can be added about him other than that List A appearance, it is best that he be covered in a "list of XYZ cricketers" instead of a standalone article. The closest examples to this among articles created by me would be Sanath Kumar, who appeared in 11 FC and 4 LA matches but had an extensive post-playing coaching career which has been covered in dozens of sources, and Balu Alaganan, who appeared in just 6 FC matches in which he captained his team to a Ranji title (wow) and then had an illustrious career as a commentator and administrator. Both Kumar and Alaganan have enough "in-depth coverage" to warrant standalone articles unlike the cricketer currently at AfD. Dee03 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

All completely superfluous information. What's the point? Bobo. 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What is superfluous? Kumar is known more as a coach than as a former player while Alaganan is remembered mainly for his commentary. This is evident by the number of sources discussing the so-called "superfluous" things. Dee03 10:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Since 2003, when Martin Harper first added it to Project:Deletion policy (and in fact for some time before that) deletion policy has been that we do not have articles that are impossible to expand beyond stubs. (I retained the old structure of the policy from those years at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do.) A biography where there is nothing verifiable to say about the biographical subject beyond one line on a scorecard is exactly that sort of impossible-to-expand permanent substub article. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented in the form of a biography. (My little green box has been copied at Wikipedia:Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography.) This goes for scorecards, too. It is ludicrous to take a scorecard and split it out into multiple separate biographies of the otherwise unidentifiable people on it. This is not serving readers. Readers cannot even travel to these pages from, say, 1950-51 Ranji Trophy. This is serving a wrongheaded need to hammer everything out of shape until it fits into a biography. Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I don't see how we can be the complete sum of all human knowledge when we are selectively deleting things based on fuzzy criteria. Bobo. 18:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

T10 Leagues

What's our position on these Mickey Mouse leagues? There's the T10 League, based in the UAE, and there's the Qatar Premier T10 Cricket League. There seems to be some justification to assert their notability by saying they are approved by the ICC - they are however still under the bracket of minor cricket and in the case of Qatar, based in an associate well down the global rankings. StickyWicket (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The original T10 League clearly has enough coverage to support an article, though I don't think there is currently enough for the teams or the individual seasons. I don't currently see enough for the Qatar League; especially seeing how some of these leagues have gone in the past, it might not even happen. I'd lean towards a delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Harrias ^talk 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll get round to AfDing the Qatar one at some point! StickyWicket (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Lists of Indian cricketers

What purpose are List of X cricketers serving if they are not comprehensive? I don't mean "ones that have had articles deleted". I mean "ones that only have some articles from those teams but not others". The full list of lists I'm referring to is at Template:Lists of Indian cricketers. Do these need looking at as well? Bobo. 22:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think sadly it comes down to the Anglo-centric nature of this project. English, Irish, Australian and New Zealand cricket is pretty much where all the article creation effort goes/has gone. I can't think of a single user who does anything on expanding coverage of Indian cricketers and cricket teams. StickyWicket (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I question whether the lists serve any purpose if the lists are incomplete - regardless of whether the articles are still there. Bobo. 09:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: I think they serve a purpose, although I would rather see them worked on to be at least a little more complete. That just takes time and having a list there means that someone might take it on. Fwiw, the English lists from List of English cricketers (1841–1850) to the, rather odd, 1861–1863 one could use work - I've done the ones up to 1840, although 1826 to 1840 needs to be double checked against every scorecard to check there aren't any omissions or inclusions that shouldn't be there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I would take it on, but... you know. *shrugs* Just feeling a wee bit demoralized right now. It was a much easier task back in Presto-engine Opera days... Bobo. 12:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's still downloadable you know :-) I might get to one of them at some point - as much as anything, to see how viable the process is - but there are just so many other things I need to be doing just now... Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

CfD

Hi all. Please see the CfD for Category:Lisburn cricketer and Category:Instonians cricketers. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Article for man of the match awards received by a player

• List of International Awards received by Mashrafe Mortaza
• List of International Awards received by Shakib Al Hasan

Do we need this type of articles? No other player have this type of article. we should add them to their main articles. Also their main article isn't big that we need to split. Someone please take a look and if necessary request for AfD or merge. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I know we've had similar ones sent to AfD in the past, however, the only one I can find right now is this one. I'm 99% sure there have been others. I'll try and dig them out tomorrow. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a fan of these. They're pretty unnecessary. StickyWicket (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't add them to their main articles either - not without very clear context being added to the tables. Otherwise you end up with a whole mass of statistical detail being thrown onto pages which people skip over and generally encourages people not to write prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Being a man of a match is a good achievement, yes, but not statistically significant at all. Every match has one. Not to mention, as comprehensive as Cricinfo's Statsguru tool is, I've never seen an option in it to search for "Man of the Match" winners. – PeeJay 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've found this previous AfD (which I started!), where the result was redirect the lists to the players' article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion. AfD added. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Earlier Cricket World Cups

So I have started work on trying to get the 1975 Cricket World Cup into a better shape more in line with the 2019 edition. The problem is with the fact that their are sections in these pages that might be more difficult to come by. A couple of those sections being the venues and the squads section as I don't think their would be an easy way of looking at those particular venues being chosen and the squads that was sent all being in one single page. Of course I do hope that their is other sources and hopefully with help from other people, we can expand these earlier World Cup pages so that it won't just be WP:NOTSTATS. HawkAussie (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You can always include the sections, but comment them out so they're invisible until a RS is found. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Beamer (cricket)

I've twice been reverted on this article by Laurencebeck, who prefers a version of the article that includes WP:OR claims about beamers which masquerade as cited text. Looking for third party input here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted again, and put a warning notice on the user's talk page, as they requested. Always glad to be of service. Harrias ^talk 10:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

First class or not? Request for help

Are matches played for Cambridge University in the late 50s early 60s considered as a pass for WP:NCRICKET as being at the highest domestic level? Michael Willard article claims 41 1st class matches according to ESPN [5]. Thanks for any help. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dom from Paris. Yes, all first-class cricketers meet WP:CRIN, with 41 appearances he easily passes. StickyWicket (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks just to be clear all matches played for Cambridge are considered first class matches and ESPN is a reliable source for that? Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not all matches played for Cambridge are first-class, but if ESPNcricinfo lists them as first-class, then they are. Harrias ^talk 13:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly from 2020 they will no longer be first-class. Another tradition in the English calendar sacrified for a Hundred stupid reasons. StickyWicket (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

More about universites losing FC status here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding test jersey number into cricket template

As you all know, test jersey also contain a number which is due to the ICC Test Championship. But it cannot include into the cricketer template. So if we can add test jersey number in to the template just like ODI and T20I jersey numbers, it will be a good thing. Need opinion from all cricket editors Cheers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gihan Jayaweera (talk • contribs)

I'm in the mindset of getting rid of the field from the infobox for all formats. Apart from being trivial bloat, it's very hard to verify. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. How many people are interested in squad numbers? StickyWicket (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not so bad for domestic teams, but international ones seem to keep changing. Other than one very niche use, which is of no real significance to more than a handful of people, there's no real reason to keep them - certainly it'd be one of the things I'd cut from the ib. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone prepared...

Since Dean Dass got redirected to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players, is anyone prepared to do the same with the other cricketers in this list? If the only difference between Dass' article and Nick Coles is a pretty li'l infobox, can someone please fix these or send them to AfD? Bobo. 10:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes I maintain silence in the hope they aren't noticed... StickyWicket (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The best things to do is to add sources.----Pontificalibus 16:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources are there and have been for the last 11 years or more, as you can plainly see. If the problem is suddenly the sources wihch are being used, then please suggest new ones we can use that are to your satisfaction and add them to the appropriate articles. Bobo. 16:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

To avoid an article being redirected, sources need to satisfy WP:GNG i.e. contain significant coverage discussing the subject in detail, not just a simple table of statistics.----Pontificalibus 16:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you are the person suggesting the problem, you are presumably also the person who knows how the problem can be fixed. Have fun. Bobo. 16:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pontificalibus, please may I direct you to my comments below where you have sent fully international players for deletion? If you wish for articles to be cleaned up rather than deleted, please suggest so... Bobo. 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There's been some discussion about this in a couple of places. It's something I'm currently considering. Bearing in mind that there are several internationals on the list, however, it's not a clear cut as all that by any means. Dass is one of the weakest cases in that category, if not the weakest. There are a couple in a similar ballpark, but, iirc, not as weak as his case. But I may be mis-remembering - it's been a few days since I stopped building the three line bios on the list.

There is a case, by the way, that the 3 line bios provide, in some cases, more information than is in the full articles. Fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Female ODI cricketers

More deletionism afoot. Now even ODI cricketers are being questioned. Worse still, these are being sneakily tagged with PROD rather than sent through the legitimate deletion process. Can someone please keep an eye on the female ODI cricketers' categories to make sure this does not happen further? Specifically in this case, the articles for Shabana Latif and Mariam Anwar were targeted. Bobo. 13:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please note the user's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Atkins - that they would delete three of the criteria in CRIN - all of which refer to international criteria which have been very recently expanded upon. Bobo. 14:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that all women's cricketers should be appropriately tagged, and thus appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts the day after they are listed, whether they are sent to AfD, or PRODed. Harrias ^talk 14:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to show how boringly slapdash this job is often done, I'd better link to the rest of User:Sahara4u's created articles - the ones which weren't sent to AfD (gosh, isn't that suspicious?):

Shabana Latif

Asma Farzand

Deebah Sherazi

Muqudos Khan

Nazia Nazir

Nazia Sadiq

Sharmeen Khan

Shazia Hassan

Khursheed Jabeen

Uzma Gondal

Zehmarad Afzal

Mariam Butt

Have fun. Bobo. 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This has got a bit silly, why are international cricketers on the line? They easily meet WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? People who know nothing about cricket are suddenly experts, which is why we are seeing a disgusting wave of bored deletionism. If this were any other sport, these people would be permanently topic-banned. What is, for example, the difference between the articles we've been discussing, and E.J. Bibbs, other than, in articles where I placed "External links" (ten years ago) it is marked "References"? I can't help but think that if these cricketers had infoboxes, nobody would bat an eyelid. Bobo. 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Poor choice of article, unfortunately. I have changed it to a redirect to E. J. Bibbs which clearly demonstrates the notability of said subject. Harrias ^talk 11:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. My point still remains. Tom Bedore (chosen at random) is another example. Ironically many of the American football articles don't even quote appearance stats or anything of the like. Bobo. 11:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I get your point, but it is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING both lay out why. Harrias ^talk 12:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're really saying that "otherstuffexists", then why do we have any articles on any cricketers? All we need is one article on one cricketer, then the minute someone writes a second we can just say, two cricketers exist so there's no point adding the second. How neutrally are we taking "otherstuffexists"? Not very, by the sounds of it... Bobo. 12:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You either didn't read the links, or didn't pay any attention to them at all. Harrias ^talk 12:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you don't have an answer to my question then that's fine. :) Bobo. 12:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Your question was infantile and self-evident, so I assumed it was rhetorical, borne purely out of frustration. Harrias ^talk 12:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's "borne out of frustration". People are frivolously deleting 15 years' worth of work for a joke. Wouldn't you be frustrated? Bobo. 12:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But the attitude of well, if we can't have it all, we might as well not have anything is far from productive. Harrias ^talk 12:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why can't we have it all, based on the same NPOV and N guidelines we've been following since the dawn of time? Bobo. 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically, because WP:N, and its supporting guidelines, have not remained the same since the dawn of time. Community consensus has shifted towards making WP:GNG the overriding guideline in almost every topic (with WP:PROF being a prominent exception). Whether you or I like it, the Wikipedia community has decided that for sports people, GNG should override the SNG, and the only way to change that is to gain a new community consensus. But I suspect, if anything, the consensus would shift even further from the SNG. Harrias ^talk 12:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that some of the other Asian languages' Wikipedias still have some of the articles that we deleted from en.wiki. I'm not complaining, per se - in fact it tickles me that someone decided to directly translate my articles into these languages - I'm just wondering how much of a cricketing communtiy on there and whether they have specific inclusion criteria - not to mention nonsense like GNG which allows us to bypass N. Bobo. 12:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that WP:PROF is an exception is proof of the utter hypocrisy of the issue. Bobo. 12:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of consistency is annoying. There was a suggestion to switch WP:PROF to also rely on WP:GNG, but this huge discussion found consensus was against it. Many of the comments were about the systematic bias on Wikipedia in favour of sports articles and similar. Harrias ^talk 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It amazes me just how much of an "oppose" philosophy was shown there and yet we, and presumably other places, cannot see through the nonsense. Bobo. 13:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I made a point how a man playing an organ is notable but a woman representing her country at the highest level of her sport is under question. GNG is really messed up if the organ man is considered more noteworthy than an international sportswoman. Given we agreed to delete all initial only FC cricketers (which I'm sure must be around the 1,000 mark by now), this should be compromise enough. I'm not even that fussed about some one-match LA cricketers being redirected toward lists, but to start on international cricketers is too far. StickyWicket (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you might not be approaching this from a neutral perspective, which is understandable as you seem to know a lot more about cricket than about organs and choirs. Consider asking anyone who plays the organ in the UK who David Flood is and I'm sure they'd all be able to tell you. Ask any Pakistani cricketer who Shabana Latif and I suspect many of them would not have a clue. Regarding international cricketers, does this really confer automatic notability? Should for example the physio Adrian Le Roux who fielded as 12th man for South Africa in 2005-6 be more notable than Peter Sainsbury who never played in an international match?----Pontificalibus 07:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

sub fielding appearances are never counted on a player's record, so no. Someone picked for, and playing in, multiple internationals for a major cricketing nation should have a presumption of notabilty IMO. Spike 'em (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If we were "approaching this from a neutral perspective", then judging by woolly, non-existent criteria would not be necessary, and we would judge only by the subject-specific guidelines. "I don't know who this person is and therefore this person is non-notable" is just about the silliest criterion going. NPOV goes out of the window and that is (one of) the problem(s). If we are saying that a CA or CI profile by themselves is "not satisfactory for notability", then all the thousands of articles I've created over the last 15 years - and whose prose content hasn't been touched in that time - which only have these links can also be deleted. And if we're deleting the "initialed cricketers" then we might as well delete them all. "We know so little about this person that we don't even know their first name" is also not a deletion criterion. Bobo. 08:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You continue to, as far as I can tell, intentionally miss the point. Harrias ^talk 08:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I responded directly to Pontificalibus' general query, regarding "approaching from a neutral perspective". If this is "missing the point", then so be it. As a matter of perspective, there are 161 female cricketers on my first-class list whose first-names are not determined. And as for my usual "someone must know the answer", there were six Test cricketers who played alongside L. Corneliussen in the first of her three women's first-class matches. Bobo. 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The GNG is demonstrably more neutral than an SSG. The cricket SSG, for example, is written by members of the cricket project, us. We are clearly not neutral when it comes to whether there should be lots or few cricket-related articles. Whereas the GNG requires significant coverage etc, creating a level playing field across all subjects. Harrias ^talk 08:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

With regards to L. Corneliussen, unless one of those six, or anyone else, published significant coverage of her in a reliable source, then the fact that they know her is completely irrelevant. I know my next-door neighbour, but that doesn't mean I should write an article about him. Harrias ^talk 08:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

How are our criteria not neutral? First-class = yes, Non first-class = no. Seems about as neutral as you can get. My following of these rules is now making me seem like some crazy arch-inclusionist. Picking and choosing articles at random which offend us is not neutral. Bobo. 09:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Taking Sachin's first appearance on CA as a metric, there are three other players who were to later play first-class cricket who played in that match - all of whom had significantly more than one first-class appearance. Bobo. 09:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem with all of this seems to be that there's International cricket and there's International cricket (and the same for First-class etc...). Clearly there's a difference between playing in an Ashes Test and playing in a T20 for Germany - in the same way that there's a difference between playing in the County Championship and playing in a University match or in a match from the 1840s with 15 players a side which someone has deemed to be first-class for some reason (or in a FC competition in Zimbabwe or in the early years of somewhere like Sri Lankan cricket).

It would, however, take time, judgement and compromise to try to create a set of more flexible subject specific guidance (the Ice Hockey project as had a go at doing so btw). Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox query when playing for two sides

Hi. I don't know if there's a better way of doing this, so I've made a workaround on Gregory Strydom's article. He played for Zimbabwe in 2006 (ODIs only). He now plays for the Cayman Islands, debuting in T20Is yesterday. So he has two fields in the infobox for cap numbers (T20Icap and T20Icap2). If I leave the first field blank (T20Icap) it doesn't pull through any cap numbers, as he's never played a T20I for Zimbabwe. Without making some lengthy changes to the infobox coding for a one-off situation, does anyone know of anything better? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Either that, or simply leaving it out altogether for the moment. I will have a look at the coding; it is more likely to happen with the expansion of T20I status, so it's worth having something in place. Harrias ^talk 19:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it only needs 2 more IF statements. I'll have a try too, as I'm trying to improve my template skills. Spike 'em (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Took a bit longer than I thought, as far too many brackets to keep track of (would probably be easier to maintain as a module), but examples at Template:Infobox cricketer/testcases. I think I actually reduced the total number of IFs and now deal with situation where only game in a format is not for country 1. There is a slight GIGO condition, whereby it will show cap numbers for 2 teams if |oneT20I=true and both |T20Icap= and |T20Icap2= are set. I could add another check for both all 3 params being set and then show nothing, but I think that is a bit excessive and we have to trust editors to keep data vaguely sensible. Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work; I had a quick look at the code last night, got a headache and decided to come back to it. Even better news that you've managed to make it work in the mean time! Harrias ^talk 11:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very difficult to figure out how all the nested IFs work, and if you try to add spacing / line feeds to split and check the brackets are in the right place then it messes up the spacing on screen. Spike 'em (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that the infobox will display up to 3 countries, but the match / cap details only do 2. I'll see if I can find anyone who has 3 countries set, but I don't really fancy extending out the cap lists to 3! Spike 'em (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: By the way, do you have the Syntax highlighter turned on in Gadgets? I find that helps a lot with playing with templates and code. Harrias ^talk 12:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it helps a bit and demonstrated where there was at least one problem. Would be helpful if it highlighted the pair to a set of brackets if you click on it. Spike 'em (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Graeme Hick needs this fix too, as his infobox currently links to the lists of Zimbabwean cricketers rather than English ones (he will need his 2 cap params renamed too). Spike 'em (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And Eoin Morgan (so we can reorder his country list). There are 33 members of Category:Cricketers who have played for more than one international team who need a check, and possibly others (Hick isn't in this category). None have |country3= set, but a few players have World XI added as a second country. Spike 'em (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made an edit request on this, will try to fix Hick / Morgan et al once this is done. Spike 'em (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to look into this, Spike. Much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No probs, there were at least 7 other players affected by this (possibly more who haven't been added to the category above). Spike 'em (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow on question : should those playing for more than 1 team show "National sides" as a field name? I've added to the sandbox / test cases pages. Spike 'em (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Good spot. You're clearly competent with templates and infobox modules, so I've given you template editor rights, so you can enact the changes yourself. Please make sure to still fully test them all in sandboxes first, of course! Harrias ^talk 08:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (I didn't see this message before I posted similar on your talk page). I'm thinking of revisiting the conversation from 2 years ago about overhauling the infobox, so may be in contact about that. Spike 'em (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It'd be well overdue. I still have some variations I was playing around with in my user space: User:Harrias/infobox and User:Harrias/infobox2, though the latter would need too much of an overhaul to work. Harrias ^talk 09:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Although the idea of collapsing parts of the ib are a good one I think - we also know we can remove fields that we don't want using the bot now. It's adding things that is trickier. There are some articles that use the 4 stats columns in non-standard ways: Australian women in particular. That might throw a bit of a spanner in the works.

I'll try and update the documentation to take into account the Test caps at some point, perhaps today. I think I understand what needs to go in there... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: I've updated the documentation - I think I've got everything in there. If either you and/or @Harrias: could give it a quick check to make sure I've interpreted the changes correctly that might be handy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

First capped game by Scotland

On the subject of the Balfours, Robert Drummond Balfour played in the first capped match by Scotland according to this Parish History site, and by virtue of the alphabet is regarded as the first such player. While I reckon parish history sites are generally reliable sources, is this little factoid true? ----Pontificalibus 08:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

CricketArchive agrees! Played for Scotland against the Surrey Club at The Oval on 10th July 1865, though the match wasn't first-class. StickyWicket (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. I also found out he batted with WG Grace in the match MCC v Hertfordshire at Chorleywood, May 1872. Do we know how many runs their partnership lasted?----Pontificalibus 11:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The scorecard (here - try pressing esc quickly just after the page loads...) doesn't contain that data, although in the first innings they opened and both scored 0 as MCC were out for 26. In the second innings they also opened, Balfour got 10 and Grace 75, so presumably Balfour was out first. It's just possible that there might be a report in The Times or similar which puts a little flesh on those bones - dates were 10-12 May 1872 (which is early for detailed reports, but it's just possible). This wasn't a first-class match by the way, but that wouldn't stop the Times reporting on it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Working with those dates I haven't found anything on this match yet. A bit surprising as there are numerous reports of the Household Brigade vs Royal Engineers match (which ran 10-13th) and talk of the MCC vs Surrey match due to commence on the 14th (in which is Grace listed as playing). The Morning Post seems best for reports, for example there is a detail one of Surrey vs Colts (With Southerton) at the Oval (commencing 10th). Was Hertfordshire a more lowly side than a colts team back then? Or perhaps Chorleywood was too remote to send a reporter to. ----Pontificalibus 12:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Why was Edward Balfour (cricketer) in Genoa?

He died there in August 1856, any idea why he was there? I can't seem to find anything on his death in the usual places! StickyWicket (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No, all I could add is that he died "after a few days' illness". (The Morning Post (London, England), Saturday, August 16, 1856; pg. 8; Issue 25779) Harrias ^talk 23:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A websearch turned up this https://www.baringarchive.org.uk/materials/the_baring_archive_hc12.pdf , which includes (para 12.3): "In the 1820s Isaac Grant was the senior partner of three mercantile firms in Italy: Grant Brothers of Trieste; Grant, Balfour & Co, of Genoa; and Grant Brothers of Leghorn (see also HC12.1)." It seems highly likely that Edward Balfour was a member of that Balfour family, and so had business interests in Genoa. JH (talk page) 07:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

JH is correct. Edward's father Charles had business interests in Genoa and Edward went to work there. In “Family Notes” by Frederick A.Y. Brown the author writes about his early life and mentions the first cargo of mineral lamp oil being imported to Genoa by Grants, Balfour & Co. He mentions that their agent in Genoa was Azulay the Jew who worked at "the office in Via Nuova, on the ground floor of the first building on the left, when approaching from the direction of Piazza Fontane Marose" and that Azulay "lived on the top floor, which was later occupied by my friend Edward Balfour who died here in 1856". I haven't been able to access this book but you can read a blog about it in Italian here: (part 1, part 2).----Pontificalibus 11:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Cheers all much appreciated. I did see the "Grant, Balfour & Co" and suspected he might be connected but couldn't find anything to connect the two - thanks Pontificalibus for finding the connection. Only the two Gentlemen of England cricketers to do... how I shall miss them! StickyWicket (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added the Gents v Players lists to Template:Lists of English cricketers, along with all of the Cricket Boards. I chanced across an I Zingari list the other day which I added as well. Does anyone have any other lists that can be added to that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Guess I should get a list for the Gentlemen of England on the go at some point, it'll have 634 names on it... will be a long one! StickyWicket (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One further thought. His article currently says "Balfour joined his father in Genoa in 1856", but I wonder if he in fact went out there to join the family firm in late 1854 or early 1855, as CA doesn't have him playing in any matches significant enough to be listed subsequent to August, 1854. JH (talk page) 18:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone have a BMJ subscription?

Might be a long shot, but would anyone have access to the BMJ? I'm researching Howard Luscombe Rayner, an Aussie who came to England as a Rhodes Scholar. His obituary appears in the 19 July 1975 BMJ Journal, but annoyingly his obituary is just outside the free access page and I can't quite justify £138 to read the rest! Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't say much about his cricketing: Dr. H. L. Rayner, who was in general prac-tice at Twickenham, Middlesex, for more than 40 years, died on 13 June. He was 78. Howard Luscoanbe Rayner was born on 12 March 1896 at Glenelg, South Australia. His father was a Methodist minister and his mother a missionary in the Fiji Islands. Educated at Prince Alfred College, Adelaide, he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship and went to England in 1918 to study medicine at Balliol College, Oxford. For a while he served in the Royal Navy and after the armistice returned to Balliol and King's College Hospital. He graduated in medicine in 1921 and in 1923 entered general practice at Twickenham. An active member of the B.M.A., he was chairman of its South Middlesex Division in 1934. At the outbreak of the second world war, as he was above the age for military service, he was to take over the Orleans School at Twickenham and convert it into a first-aid post. He also took over the International Rugby Ground at Twickenham for a similar purpose and re-mained in charge throughout the war. At the end of hostilities he was appointed doctor to the Rugby Football Union there. He had a great interest in anaesthetics and served not only on the medical staff of St. John's Hos-pital but also as anaesthetist from 1938 until two years after his retirement in 1965. While at King's he represented the hos-pital regularly in athletics and rugby and from his early days in general practice main-tained his interest in cricket and tennis, playing for the Wanderers and for the Richmond and Twickenham cricket clubs. Later he took up golf and became president of Fulwell Golf Club. Bill Rayner was a very active man both mentally and physic-ally. A ready listener to the problems of patients and friends, he was at the same time capable of making resolute decisions in a concise fashion. His resolute, effervescent approach to life never varied. He was truly a fine doctor and a fine man. Dr. Rayner is survived by his wife.—L.W.----Pontificalibus 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Pontificalibus much obliged, it's quite useful actually. Confirms some initials I found in the Gazette are his and explains what he was up to in the war. I wonder if "He also took over the International Rugby Ground at Twickenham for a similar purpose and re-mained in charge throughout the war" means he oversaw a medical clinic housed at the ground or was the overall manager of the ground? It does miss out his brief Aus rules football career though. StickyWicket (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

For future requests, access to the BMJ is available through The Wikipedia Library Card Platform. Hack (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hack, had no idea this existed! StickyWicket (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a brief death notice in The Times (16/6/75 - p.26) that doesn't really mention anything detail or add much more other than suggest that he was known as Bill and that his wife was Kathleen. Known as Bill might be worth including in the article. I can't find a more detailed obituary, although the search process in the Times can be flaky. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wicket size

While researching the previous topic I came across this possibly interesting report:

First Eleven of M.C.C. v. Next Twenty: "This one-day match was played at Lord's yesterday in dull and cold weather. The attendance was exceedingly small. The wickets on this occasion were one inch higher and wider than the standard size, with the view to test the theory started by certain disputants, who contend that some such measure is requisite to place the bowler on an equal footing with the batsman" The Morning Post 10 May 1872, page 6

According to Wisden a wicket size of 27x8 was in operation from 1823/25 through to 1931 when 28x9 was agreed. The above match then could have been the first played with the current modern wicket size? ----Pontificalibus 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it could have well have been. Gerald Brodribb mentions the game in his book "Next Man In", a great work on the history of the Laws. In my copy, the 1985 edition, he states on p52 "the height remained at 27x8 until 1931 when an extra inch was again added...a wicket of this size had been tried out in a match between MCC XI and the Next XX at Lord's as long ago as May 1872". He then states that another 60 years went by before anything was done. So it looks as if this was a one-off trial of the larger wicket.--Bcp67 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Women Test debut

The article List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Women Test debut has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

see List of women's Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut (featured list)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Khadar Khani (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The H*****d

Hi. If you recall, there was a discussion here back in March to merge two articles. I've been bold and merged the 100-ball cricket article into the article for The Hundred (cricket). And lets never mention the H word again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I intend to ignore it's existence! I won't edit its articles, add stats to players, ect. I hope it is a massive flop and this time next year we really do never need to mention the H word again! PS: Can't we AfD The H*****d as a non-notable form of cricket ;) StickyWicket (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A Malawian cricketer nominated for Afd

There is an Afd here regarding a Malawian cricketer. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Category:Durham University cricketers

Hi all, please find the above discussion here. StickyWicket (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with edit war at Todd Astle and infobox question

I've got into a small edit war at Todd Astle with 42 marshall who's persistently putting T20I stats in the player infobox ahead of List A stats (against what the template documentation says) and removing content from the lead without any explanation. I've tried communicating with him on the talk page and on his user talk page but he's been mostly unresponsive and his reply didn't explain his removal of content or why he was going against the template documentation.

From the looks of it it's not universally applied that List A stats should go in the infobox ahead of T20I stats even though from what I can tell that's the consensus. Is this something that I should be fixing in articles? TheBigBadBird (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've commented on this article talk page, but essentially it is only deviated from in special cases. Harrias ^talk 06:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rangy Nanan spelling

The usual spelling of Rangy Nanan I have seen is Rangy with the "y" but the West Indies Cricket Annual 1982, continually lists his name as "Ranjie". As it's edited by Tony Cozier and with reports about Nanan from people who knew him well, it would be at least somewhat authoritative. Has anyone else come across this spelling? --Roisterer (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mmm..cannot find definitive answer yet. Here are examples of both spellings being used in various news reports during the 1970s and 1980s:

as Ranje/Ranjie 1978 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/124996385 1980 - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/250606485 1984 - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/124996385

as Rangy 1973 - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136964829 1984 -https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/124996234

RossRSmith (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

He's also called Ranji in some sources.[6][7]Hack (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Most something in a series records

In the process of updating the England Test records page, I notice that cricinfo is showing totals for the just finished Ashes twice on their series records page. As an example, Steve Smith appears twice on the list of most runs in a series; one is for the Ashes itself, the other for the ongoing 2019-21 Test Championship.

A couple of things arise:

1. Do we follow this lead, which will inevitably mean all the series records being overtaken pretty quickly? I wouldn't do this, but leads to next point...
2. Even if we don't, unless cricinfo change how they show things, then all their records pages will soon be full of aggregated records and will be very difficult to use as sources. Do we continue to use them (and will need notes to explain what is happening), or switch to cricketarchive (with its paywall) or is there another source we can use? CA have most runs in a series but not most wickets / catches, and don't have any way of separating by team. Spike 'em (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting empty Cricket categories

Hello, WikiProject Cricket,

Many empty categories in Category:Cricket articles by quality and importance have been tagged for deletion. Is it your wishes to get rid of these assessment categories? If not, feel free to remove the CSD C1 tags. Empty categories for WikiProjects are typically not deleted unless the WikiProject has been abandoned or is defunct. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, here are the ones that have been tagged:

• • Category:A-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:A-Class cricket articles of High-importance‎
  • Category:A-Class cricket articles of Low-importance‎
  • Category:A-Class cricket articles of Mid-importance‎
  • Category:A-Class cricket articles of Top-importance‎
  • Category:A-Class cricket articles of Unknown-importance‎
  • Category:Unassessed cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:GA-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:Start-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:Stub-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:List-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:B-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:C-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:FA-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance‎
  • Category:FL-Class cricket articles of Bottom-importance

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. I don't know if anyone else uses them and/or finds them useful, but I personally don't. Unless someone else does use them, I guess the worst case is they can be re-created later, if they are indeed needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if they aren't needed, then, I guess they won't be missed. As with all deletions due to empty categories (CSD C1), they can always be recreated should you find a need for them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to say, it was me who tagged these categories for deletion. I noted that the project didn't use A-Class or Bottom-importance so there didn't seem to be much point in keeping a bunch of empty and defunct assessment categories. PC78 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Move request

In case anyone is interested : Talk:Cricket (disambiguation)#Requested move 17 September 2019 Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm amazed it's taken so long for this to come around again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

We were just waiting for Sir Geoffrey to finish his innings. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

CricketArchive down?

Anyone else having trouble accessing it? StickyWicket (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it is down. I've had a few sites out today, I wonder if some wider attack is going on... Harrias ^talk 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah maybe a mass DOS attack. Though, quite why anyone would target CA I don't know! StickyWicket (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be OK now (9am UK time). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

List of International cricket centuries in 2019

Is this list, as created by @Aditya tamhankar: a bit WP:NOTSTATSy? Is someone going to create similar lists going back to 1877, to include all 5666 men's, 259 women's and 550 youth centuries (so far)? Spike 'em (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like NOTSTATS to me, I wonder if it could be merged into the main international cricket by year article, perhaps as a collapsible table? StickyWicket (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

International tours and squad alignment

Hi. For as long as I've known, squads on tour articles have been in a table that is centred on the article. However, PeeJay2K3 doesn't think they should be. They participated in this discussion, but could not provide a rationale to change the status quo. PeeJay seems intent on changing this, although bizarrely only on England tour articles. Does anyone else have any comments on this (trivial) matter? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't really see that we have a set format:

• The project's only tour article FA (West Indian cricket team in England in 1988) has it centre-aligned, but in a very different format, and at the bottom of the article.
• My only tour article GA (English cricket team in Bangladesh in 2009–10) was created with it left-aligned, and has been like that ever since.
• Australian cricket team in England in 1948, another GA, uses a completely different format again.
• Australian cricket team in England in 1884, another GA, uses yet another format.
• Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003, another GA, has them centre-aligned, near the bottom.
• Pakistani cricket team in Ireland in 2018, another GA, has them centre-aligned near the top.

@PeeJay2K3 and Lugnuts:In the absence of a style and format guide, I don't think we can really say that we should particularly use one format over another. Do we think there is value in deciding upon a common format here? Harrias ^talk 17:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking some examples, Harrias. I guess it's a personal styling choice - I find the layout on your Bangladesh article to look terrible (sorry)! The 2018 Pakistan-Ireland article is one I wrote, and I used the styling I've been use to seeing as far back as I remember. Maybe it's similar to WP:RETAIN or MOS:DATEVAR (which I know are for English styles and dates), but could apply here based on who created x article, or put in the leg work to get it to GA/FA? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

How dare you?! No, seriously, you're not all that wrong, it doesn't look great. Honestly, I'm not really all that taken by any of them. Unless we want to go down the route of having sample articles with the specific layout and formatting that we want, (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Example race report), which personally I don't think would suit this WikiProject, I think adopting a WP:RETAIN approach is probably the best. Harrias ^talk 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not capable of staying across all cricket tour articles as I have many varied interests when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. I support England though, so those are the articles I generally stick to, but if another article catches my eye, I won't steer away from editing it if I have time. As Harrias states, the formats have been varied over the years and while there does seem to be a trend towards a certain format now thanks to a few committed editors, there has never been a formal discussion about it, especially since it's something so minor. Personally, since it requires extra code to put the tables in the centre of the page, I view it as something that would require a pretty good reason to do – a reason that no one has ever been able to provide other than "people started doing it and no one objected for a while, so I guess we're still doing it". We don't do it with pretty much anything else, so I wonder what reason there could have been to do it in the first place. If it's just aesthetics, we're never going to come to a resolution since everyone will have different opinions, but I would say anything that requires any amount of code above the bare minimum to implement is probably not to be preferred. – PeeJay 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ben Sealy

Members of this project may be interested in following up this claim from an IP editor regarding the spelling of Trinidadian Ben Sealey's surname. Cricinfo and CricketArchive have it listed as "Sealey", other sites appear to use "Sealy" - see here -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added alt name to article and created redirect (but reverted the edit above). From the search above, there are articles from his playing days that use Sealy 1, 2, 3 and what looks like an autograph here that looks like Sealy (though the description says Sealey!). A relatively recent cricinfo article on another player aso uses Sealy. Does anyone have any of the books listed in the references (or copies of Wisden) that may shed light on this? There is a cached page which may mention the originator of the above edit (I hope this is not outing!). As well as the usual cricket sources listed above, noted book Beyond a Boundary uses Sealey. Spike 'em (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The ship's passenger list for team arriving in April 1933 uses Sealy. And articles about the tour published in Australia often use the same spelling, e.g. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32468781 RossRSmith (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We've also got Derek Sealy, a contemporary of Ben, whose surname is also spelt Sealey. Hack (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In answer to my own question, google books has the Wisden book and on page 231 it has the scorecard of his only Test, listing him as B. J. Sealey. Spike 'em (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Separate articles for Test, ODI and T20I teams?

This is probably going to get shot down pretty easily, but would it be worthwhile to have separate articles for national Test, ODI and T20I teams? The squads are rarely the same for any of them, they all follow slightly different rules and statistically they are recorded separately too. While they all play under the same national banner, so do each nation's rugby union and rugby sevens teams and they have separate articles. Any thoughts? – PeeJay 23:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

They're still the same teams playing the same sport, oppose! StickyWicket (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That was quick. – PeeJay 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In all seriousness, though, take a look at England cricket team and how much space in the article is taken up accommodating for the fact that it is trying to cover three codes of the same sport. There is so much that is idiosyncratic to each of the formats that it would make sense to give each of them their own article. To a reader who is new to the sport, I imagine that the article could be at least a little confusing and/or overwhelming. I don't believe splitting would imply in any way that the three formats constitute different sports. Anyway, just something to ponder. – PeeJay 11:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Lose most of the tables and lists and it'd be fine. They're what's causing the problem - particularly the "squad" list which is, frankly, a bit of a joke. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a case by case editorial decision based primarily on WP:SPLIT. - - Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks pity silly to me to have three different articles like Australia national test cricket team, Australia national ODI cricket team and Australia national T20I cricket team. Recently The World Championships in Athletics was changed to World Athletics Championships only according to the consent of the IAAF and the ongoing Athletics World Championships is rebranded as 2019 World Athletics Championships instead of 2019 World Championships in Athletics. So if the ICC also comes with the same concept like this then we can have three separate teams. Abishe (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The solutions to the problem are WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:RECENTISM. An encyclopedia is not the place for lovingly elongated prose about every boundary scored in the most recent forgettable 50 over competition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

England Lions

I just looked at the ECB website and there are no Lions fixtures posted or news of the team since the summer. Has the idea been discontinued? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: They are touring Australia over the winter, so no. Harrias ^talk 09:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Need some help!

hi dear User(s),

i'm user of bn & en wiki's. mainly interested in cricket biography & related topics.

could anybody help me plz about - (a) 'World cricketers : a biographical dictionary / Christopher Martin-Jenkins by Martin-Jenkins, Christopher'; (b) 'Cricketer's almanack, London : John Wisden and Co., 1864-1869'; (c) 'John Wisden's cricketers' almanack, London : John Wisden & Co, 1870-1937' .pdf files (d) or any *.pdf files of cricket related books downloaded from website link (e) or, your own downloaded cricket biographies. (text in English)

i'm waiting from your kind response. have a nice day. - Suvray (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Lots of us have collections of Wisdens (mine's all post 1946) and there are quite a lot of Wisden resources online. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Indian Cricket Organizations

BCCI has gone thorugh major overhaul in the past few years. E.g.-Lodha Panel, CoA. In my opinion, BCCI should defintetley have more articles with its long history. There are quite a new teams and member assocaitions. I know they are considered of low importance but even older member association like Tripura do not have any information. Also India has a new player association but many FICA's member do not have their own pages. Plus discontinued domestic tournaments like Corporate Trophy are in serious need of work. Would some willing volunteers will be intersted in working on any of the above mentioned. I know this is a diverse set of articles but any work would definitely improve the quality. Shubham389 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2019–21_ICC_World_Test_Championship#Variations_in_strength_of_opponents

Someone who gives a stuff about this ridiculous invention ought to sort out this text so it doesn't just read like a (justifiable) ranty opinion piece by a fan. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Some lists up for deletion

Please see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lanka Test cricket five-wicket haul wicket takers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lanka ODI cricket five-wicket haul wicket takers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lanka T20I cricket five-wicket haul wicket takers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hong Kong ODI cricket centurions (bundled list of other teams too)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

T20 World Cup page moves

Please see the following discussions:

• Talk:ICC_T20_World_Cup#Requested_move_19_October_2019
• Talk:2020_ICC_T20_World_Cup#Requested_move_19_October_2019

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 - Possible FA removal

I was browsing through the older FA article and noticed that this page might not be up to standard as say other articles in this particular section as there is a lot of [citation needed] in the opening section of the article and the One Day International section is very brief for the FA. I would argue that the English cricket team in Bangladesh in 2009–10 article is better than this article as that doesn't really have any problems that immediately stick out like a sore thumb. HawkAussie (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that with The Rambling Man, with the help of the much-missed ALoan. I'll take a look at it when I can. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it was Dweller who added all those tags back in 2014... ! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, rest days. I miss those... Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

HawkAussie, the issues are almost all completed. We'll get to the last 2 in the next week or so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Englishmen who are playing abroad this winter?

Hi. Are any England-qualified cricketers playing domestic red ball cricket this winter, in NZ, Aus, SA? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ground (cricket)

I came across Ground (cricket) at new pages patrol and I'm (pun warning) stumped. I'm not sure if this violates WP:DICDEF and should be deleted or if it's a valid glossary term. I would also note it's been linked to a bunch of articles. Any thoughts on what to do with this? SportingFlyer T·C 14:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly (or not), Cricket ground redirects to this article, and has been around since 2003. I think it should be the other way round. I think it's a bit more than a WP:DICDEF, and has potential. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That redirect was ... redirected in August, when this article was made. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Cricket field also exists. It would probably be best if these all ended up at the same spot. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Cricket grounds tend to have a cricket field, but most cricket fields are not at cricket grounds. They're in parks, countryside fields and on school playing fields etc. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest making cricket field a section of cricket ground then. Especially given that Ground (cricket) has a whole bit on the pitch already and really adds very little. Cricket pitch is separate, probably correctly, but ground and field are so inter-related it would seem to be more sensible, for now at least, to bring them together - my kids play their club games at the cricket ground in town, but it's just a green space which most people would consider a park or playing field. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review

Please see deletion review for Category:Wicket-keepers at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 30. Pinging @Dweller:, @Lugnuts:, @AssociateAffiliate:, @Oculi:, and @Spike 'em:, if they are interested as they were participants in the discussions. Störm (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You utter star. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Walkerma, it would surely help your efforts if you spent a sentence or two explaining what on earth it is that your revamped bot is supposed to do and why it's good for Wikipedia and how/why we should use it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. WP:Cricket has been using the bot since about 2007 to collect assessment information from article talk pages and put it into tables like this one; if the bot meets your current needs, then by all means let us know that. This message was about the web tool which provides additional information, but it hasn't been so well known or used. We'd like to remove any features that are unused, and add new features that WikiProjects are asking for - "if only we could find out XXX".

Does this mean you're not currently using the bot's web tool? If you are, are there any additional information you would like it to provide? If so, please let us know. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup required

Hi guys, did anyone want have a crack at cleaning up 2007 Cricket World Cup Group C, 2007 Cricket World Cup Group D and 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eight stage. Unfortunately, the match scores are not displaying correctly because they using old parameters of Template:Single-innings cricket match which were removed in May 2012. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Izzy Westbury

Could I have some opinions and eyes on Izzy Westbury, where a new-ish editor is wiping all the information sourced to CricketArchive, leaving just a bare-bones article. It is far from my finest work, and I would agree that it needs trimming down and re-balancing to reflect her longer career, but the editor doesn't seem willing to interact other than in edit summaries. Harrias ^talk 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the aversion to CricketArchive, which isn't confined to this new editor, as a source for corroboration of factual information; sure, it charges money, but then so do most newspapers, and books are usually expensive and often difficult to get hold of. Johnlp (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Where there is an equally-authoritative alternative that is free, we should be using that. Otherwise, a paywalled source is perfectly fine per WP:PAYWALL. Hack (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Redundant years in cricket articles

Please see this AFD. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2019‎ (UTC)

Quotient and Runs Per Wicket Ratio are same?

Should the Runs Per Wicket Ratio be renamed as Quotient. Please discuss here. Shubham389 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it a Test or a test?

Hello. Something I've noticed often when reading cricket articles is that some editors use upper case for a Test match and others use lower case for a test match. I know it's a trivial point but it looks messy when you see both styles in the same article. Do you have an agreed standard on it or is just done on a by article basis? The media are equally inconsistent, which doesn't help. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I would guess that it depends whether it's a proper noun or not. You would write that the first test match of this series was the First Test at Headingley, and that the second test that England won was the Third Test, which was at Lord's.----Pontificalibus 15:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. As you say, the Third Test is a match title but when talking about matches in general terms, test is an adjective only. It's similar to football when we discuss the FA Cup Final as a specific event but then refer in general terms to how many finals a team has played in. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Going by previous consensus, it should always be capital : WP:CRIC#STYLE states Always use capital T when referring to Test cricket and in any situation where the definite article is part of a title: e.g., in a Test match at The Oval. Spike 'em (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So Test in any context is written uppercase. Fair enough. Interesting that you use T in The Ashes and The Oval too. Thank you, Spike 'em. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The Hundred 2020

Is there a reason that there is no page for 2020 season and its draft of The Hundred?Shubham389 (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Presumably because no-one here is interested in that particularly brand of plastic cricket. The link is here: 2020 The Hundred season, fill your boots. Harrias ^talk 12:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should only have a season article when there's been more than one season? Until a second season is announced, we could easily just write it all in the main article. – PeeJay 17:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but details of both men's and women's competitions will fill it up pretty quickly. Harrias ^talk 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi all. Our old friend Richard Daft is back as an IP targetting talk pages and the usertalk pages of the usual accounts he thinks are BlackJack (clearly demonstrating he's still a pretty sad individual). Seems this time he's got himself lost in NZ. StickyWicket (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Afd discussion

There is currently an Afd discussion on Kathmandu Kings XI. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Day/Night test cricket records

Well sources like Cricinfo are not officially maintaining separate stats for Day/Night test cricket records. Indeed Sunil Gavaskar raised concerns that pink ball stats should be separated from traditional test match records. At least I hope to create a separate list article for List of Day/Night Test cricket matches to differentiate from normal test matches but cannot ensure it without the concensus of fellow WikiProject Cricket members. Yeah, day/night tests are not played very often and we can find easy to update now. Currently ongoing series between Australia and Pakistan has witnessed several pink ball records being broken. Notably David Warner registering the highest individual score in an innings of a Day/Night test match surpassing Azhar Ali's record of 302. Abishe (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. If you do go ahead with this, then be aware of WP:NOTSTATS and the inevitably that someone will take the list to AfD. If you can write a lot of supporting text that will help. As a side, there's nothing splitting out records for day/night ODIs and T20Is. Maybe someone will see sense and scrap these d/n Tests... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I was going to make the same comment : we don't seem to have separate lists for ODIs / T20Is, so not sure one is needed for Tests. Incidentally it is quite easy to search for d/n records on statsguru, but until external sources have lists of Test d/n records, then I'd say you'd fall foul of WP:N / WP:OR to create a list of records based solely on your own query. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own query in your opening sentence. If reputable sources don't keep separate records for day/night Tests (not to mention ODIs and T20Is), why should we? This is a fool's errand, IMO. – PeeJay 13:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I should have been mindful about WP:NOTSTATS earlier. Abishe (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Afd discussions

Please see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Cricket World Cup (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Wabwose

Both articles were created by the same user (Fayyaz Anwar). You may have come across their editing in the past. As you can see from their talkpage, they have a long history of creating non-notable articles. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the articles above, there are major WP:CIR issues here; user has exactly 0 talk-page edits. Spike 'em (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I had a feeling it would be zero! I've asked them to reply on their talkpage to the latest AfDs, to see if they do understand what's going on. I don't hold much hope for a reply, so I'll keep an eye on this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing idea

I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Rename 2019–20 Women's Big Bash League season to... ?

Hi all,
Finished today, and as far as I'm aware, it's still 2019. [[WBBL|05]] has problems due to the pipe character used in links. "Women's Big Bash League 5 season"? "Women's Big Bash League 2019 season"?
A retrospective change of article names from the Southern Hemisphere cricket season each WBBL was played in to its season number would require major changes. Happy to help with anything that needs admin tidy. (I ♥ WBBL. But you already knew that.)
Your thoughts about this? Suggestions?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• 2019 Women's Big Bash League. Full stop. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep as is, as its part of the 2019–20 cricket season. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Sheffield Shield match

Hi. As you may know, the recent Shield match between Victoria and Western Australia ended after 40 overs, due to an unsafe pitch. There have been several values added to the result field, including "Match abandoned", "Drawn" and (currently) "No result". Per Result (cricket), I assume this should be classed as a draw? I believe abandoned only applies to a match with no toss and a "no result" is only for limited overs matches. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. All we can do is follow the source anyway. In this case, the scorecard confirms the match was drawn. Harrias ^talk 13:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not a draw.[8] If the game can't be rescheduled, the teams will receive three points each.[9] Hack (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Frederick Alexander (cricketer)

There are comments at Talk:Frederick Alexander (cricketer) concerning notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Some updating of article has taken place, including adding more refs. Spike 'em (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice find!

Here is John Manners a few weeks ago, still with us at 105. Incase anyone missed this! StickyWicket (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Flags in the fixtures

Hi. Please take a look at the article for the 2019–20 Super Smash. User:Selva15469 insists on adding flags to all the fixtures, for reasons I can't fathom. I've tried discussing this on the article's talkpage, but to no avail. Flags are not used in the same fixtures for the BPL, BBL, etc. What are other people's thoughts? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League used color icons. Why we can't follow the same procedure? Color icons helps to identify teams quickly. Selva15469 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't. They're largely meaningless and simply add clutter to the pages. In my view that makes it harder to identify particular teams as well as essentially using colour to provide meaning - which is a major mistake from the perspective of web accessibility design. It's bad enough having tonnes of fixtures on the page in the first place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BST. I seem to recall a similar discussion (either here or at TfD) to delete some of these icons (maybe IPL related?) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Why flags are used with teams in international matches? Why are they required? Selva15469 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Selva15469: in my view they aren't required and I don't add them when I do anything involving international matches (for example, South African cricket team in Zimbabwe in 1999–2000). I find them distracting and largely meaningless - especially when NZ and AUS ones are next to each other and it's impossible to tell the difference with a standard screen resolution. There are a pile of accessibility issues that come in to play here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, consensus is that they go against MOS:ICON, which says Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative Spike 'em (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

International matches uses flagicons. So they violates the above rule? Selva15469 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

They are also being added to recent IPL matches, which I'm removing until we get consensus that they are useful. As well as breaching MOS:ICON, they seem to be WP:OR / WP:MADEUP. Spike 'em (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you also explain how barely visible made-up icons help searching any better than Ctrl-F? Spike 'em (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ctrl-F is not known to everyone. But colors of respective teams are known to all those who follows IPL and other league competitions. Color icons are used not for decorative, but for quicker identification. Selva15469 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

How about some deletion discussions, where the consensus has been to delete made-up flag templates: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_10#Template:Cr-PSL and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_5#Template:Cr-IPL and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_7#Template:Cr-IPL/Flags Spike 'em (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I knew there were some previous TfDs for these - thanks Spike for the links. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's when it was. Given those discussions, I see no reason why we should be using newly created templates for the Super Smash teams at all - there is a clear consensus that it's a bad idea.

The use of files on multiple BPL pages puzzles me greatly, especially given that the flag files were put in place the day after the TfD discussion was closed for Cr-BPL - and using the edit summary "expand per tfd". I don't quite get the logic of that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the user (@Frietjes:, e.g. [10]) who did that was just replacing the templates with the underlying code so the pages didn't break when the templates were deleted. Ideally the templates should have been edited to remove the flags first and then replaced. My AWB is broken at moment, if I can get it running, I'll try to delete the flags from the BPL articles too. Spike 'em (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds about right - it didn't look like it was a problem user at all, it just puzzled me, especially as it had the effect of retaining the problem that had just been deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Those logos are entirely a violation of WP:OR. There is simply no need for them to exist, let alone be present in an article. – PeeJay 02:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That thought did cross my mind too (about the OR), but I thought they could be correct. The one that is mainly yellow is a very bad contrast next to a blue link. At least on my monitors! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ashes squad navigational boxes

Anyone seen this category? Don't we think it's a little bit much to have navbox templates for Test series, even for the Ashes? I understand that it's an honour to be picked for your country, especially so for an Englishman or Australian in the Ashes, but to have navboxes for presumably every Ashes squad is surely a little ridiculous? – PeeJay 18:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they were all started by the same user, but stop by the early 1920s, before being rebooted from 2015 onwards. I don't think they're needed either. If others think the same way, I'm happy to log them at WP:TFD at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is with the idea of a home team "squad", which, certainly until fairly recently, hasn't really been a thing - people would just be called in to a team as and when. There might - just - be a case for a "tour party" template or something, but even then that's a bit dubious. But, in general, I don't think we need as many navboxes as we have, and I can't see why these ones need to be here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Was the summer of 4 captains an Ashes year? The "squad" for that summer would have been the same size as a WC football one. (it's a no from me too) Spike 'em (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting things mixed up. In 1988 England had 4 captains against WI (but used a mere 23 players), but the following year, in an Ashes series they used 29 players. I thought the 2 happened in the same year. Spike 'em (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And the 1989 Ashes series article lists all 29 of those English players in the "squad". It also lists just 12 Australians as their "squad" despite them bringing 17 players with them. Disappointing. As is the lack of mention for Boon's record achieved on the flight to the UK. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool, so would anyone have any objection to me nominating these for deletion? – PeeJay 07:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Was going to list them myself at somepoint, but if you have a spare moment then it would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of One Day International cricket double centuries

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of One Day International cricket double centuries—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Harrias ^talk 09:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Trevor Jesty

Trevor Jesty was just prodded as a BLP. I added one reference to fix that but it needs more attention. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There are way, way too many first-class and even Test cricketers which contain absolutely zero references. How users randomly stumble upon these articles is a mystery to me.Searching through the letter D on Category:Sri Lanka Test cricketers - chosen at random - I find Ashley de Silva. Given that many of these articles have been present - and almost all unchanged in prose - for 13 years or more before anyone notices, it is a mystery why, and how, these are only just being spotted. For the user in question not to simply request references and jump to PROD-ing said articles is bad form.

Note that the PRODding user account in question, Snowycats (would it be bad form to ping him in this situation?) has already once been indef-blocked because it "has been or may be used abusively". Bobo. 23:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see this Wiki is still populated by idiots. Oh look an international cricketer... I know, I won't check the relevant project notability guidelines, I'll just PROD it. Amazes me, really does. StickyWicket (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't dare mention Shabana Latif. To think how people would react to the dozens, if not hundreds, of initial-only first-class female cricketers I have listed on my first-class players lists... AA, don't rely on the existence of consistency to justify the actions of those who can't follow brightline criteria. Anwar was closed as "no consensus" and Lateef as merge. I'm willing to apologize for my actions but not for the frustration I feel at the way our project is being destroyed by those who don't share our goal to an ultimately "complete" project. This now appears impossible, and I would like any person here to convince me how this doesn't render this entire project completely pointless. Bobo. 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Except there is no requirement to check any project guidelines that may or may not exist. There are policies that cover BLPs and they supersede any project guidelines. By the way AssociateAffiliate, how would you feel if I said something about idiots who let a BLP go unsourced for almost 14 years? There is no need to insult the person PRODDING the article or members of this project. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Policies"? Such as? GNG? Nope. That's a guideline. A guideline which is clearly contradicted by the basic premise of N, as evinced by the word or in point 1? "Policies" which allow people to ignore and disregard NPOV out of sheer boredom? No thanks. An incomplete project is a useless project. Bobo. 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The guy is an international sportsman!!! Instead of PRODing, why not come here and ask for expansion, or take it upon themselves to add references? Them and the orphan taggers add nothing to this project. StickyWicket (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just out of interest, BST, are you planning to remove all references to CA on Wikipedia based on WP:PAYWALL? The whole premise of WP:PAYWALL is that we do not remove links to CA or other sites purely based on the fact that they are behind a paywall. Quoted directly: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." We've been reliant on CA all this time, and now we're supposed to disregard the site entirely? Bobo. 23:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Category:English cricketers, the first five articles on the alphabetical list have: Link to CI, Link to CA, Link to CI and CA, No link to CI or CA in any reference section, other than in infobox where the reference is to CA, references to both CI and CA. Are we to remove all references to CA on the site because of WP:PAYWALL? This appears to have been against our philosophy for a long time. Bobo. 23:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I added references using CA on at least two articles yesterday. What we can't do is use them as External Links - per WP:ELNO point 6. As references they're fine. There was a discussion here when CA put up their paywall that came to that conclusion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If the only distinction being made is the difference between the words "External links" and "References", this issue should be clearly solvable by those who are trying to complain about the article. A net difference of three words. The "references" will be exactly the same as the "external links", so what the complaint is I do not know. Bobo. 00:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with someone prodding an article IF it's in a terrible state (say an unref'd one-liner) AND the person prodding has done some research prior to tagging. On the plus side, this has helped improve this article, that would probably remain dormant. Every cloud. Have a great 2020 everyone. That's the year, not the format... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Same comment as above. If the only reason these articles are being PRODded for "lack of references" is the distinction between the words "External links" and "References", this should be easily fixable by the people who tag these articles as such. This is different. In this case, the user in question, Snowycats, has previously been indef blocked from the project on checkuser suspicions. (Though it is not obvious why based on the Whatlinkshere archives from around the blocking time of July 2018...) Bobo. 01:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

How on earth..

I remember being (arguably unadvisably) involved in this conversation regarding over-inclusivity in sports criteria, at the time. How in the world did anyone find any consensus in it? It is strange how those who "agreed" with the original point were so keen to pussyfoot around the true issue (16:20, 19 April 2017, 06:38, 26 April 2017), such as by saying, "there's so much out there to fix that we need to just go through the whole lot and delete them all". Also, like I've stated elsewhere, it seems very strange that those who were "in agreement" that there was a problem, as always, were unwilling, with the exception of Blueboar, to actually find a workaround solution... Most people who were saying "I agree that they are too inclusive" were whining about specific examples based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (datestamp 07:55, 18 April 2017, et al). As noted further down, potential adherence to GNG exists (it doesn't, in those situations), but, as always I point out, GNG is definitively contradicted by N.

As Hijiri points out further down the conversation, "if there aren't enough sources..." (datestamp 09:37, 25 April 2017) to create an article... Like I've said not so long ago, it's all well and good saying "this meets WP:ROUTINE", but sadly we are unwilling to explaing what WP:ROUTINE actually is, and more importantly, what it isn't, which further invalidates GNG. What sources are we supposed to be finding if they aren't the sources listed under WP:ROUTINE? Their birth certificates? The pants that your mother made you wear to school which had their full name printed in the back in one of those dymo machines? A suspiciously large number of much more "notable" (by CRIN standards) non-English, non-Test cricketers' biographies are supported only by these... where are the people so willing to complain about those, and why aren't they fixing those instead of complaining about the others..?

As Sławomir Biały points out (datestamp 10:42, 25 April 2017), neither NSPORTS or anywhere else, as I've been saying all along, are consistent with GNG, which once again, renders them both meaningless and therefore the only metric we are able to use is N with regard to subject-specific guidelines. MASEM notes (datestamp 14:31, 27 April 2017) a conversation which apparently supported a relationship - or lack of - between GNG and SSG, which was decided upon twelve years ago, which, just as noted even then, show the contradiction between N and GNG. Once again, if we're still using twelve-year-old conversations to justify current deletionist values, most of which are based on specific IDONTLIKEIT examples, this seems strange. And, as isaaci pointed out (datestamp 05:59, 19 April 2017), regarding subject-specific criteria, that the consensus is being ignored that was set out all that time ago. I ask all of you, where were you back in 2004 and earlier when these were agreed on? As MichG notes (timestamp 19:32, 24 April 2017), there is a (non-NPOV) definition of "notable" listed which is "reasonable when applied to argue that a subject is notable, but absymal when used to argue that they are not". Pretty much what all of the IDONTLIKEIT crowd like to do then.

Anyway. My point is not "CRIN is too inclusive" or "CRIN is not inclusive". My point is, how in the world did anyone find consensus in that conversation, which we are apparently so keen to link to in our quest to flout subject-specific notability guidelines, just for a laugh..? I challenge for anyone to convince me that any consensus exists. Bobo. 21:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Balac

Is there anyone please who can further improve on this article beyond where it currently stands? It's fair to say that beyond the version I originally wrote, it had become full of nonsense by the time it was PRODded.

Since he was a first-class cricketer, and not simply a humble List A cricketer, hopefully there will be more that can be written about him. Cheers in advance. Bobo. 17:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Lugnuts. :) Bobo. 17:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added a few refs as a starting point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Literally every List A cricketer article I've ever written is identical apart from the parts that aren't. Let's tag 'em all, hmm? This is why the previous case upset me. There are certain people who are much more willing to tag for deletion than to do the legwork themselves. I ask these people why they think they're here if it's not to build an encyclopedia... and where they have been for the last eleven years when the article was identical - extraneous material aside - to the one that was PRODded... Bobo. 17:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BBL attendance table

Hi. One editor is adamant that a table of attendance figures for the BBL should be included. Their main rationale seems to be that it's on all the previous pages for the BBL. I disagree, citing WP:NOTSTATS. I'd welcome further input at the discussion I started. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Timothy Machin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timothy Machin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Machin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theprussian (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that's the first time I've ever seen that happen. Someone canvassing their own AfD nomination. Bobo. 20:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thanks/You're welcome! I was the one who filed the RM. ミラP 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Richard Wellesley (cricketer)

Does anyone know if Richard Wellesley (cricketer), who played for MCC in 1841, is related to the Wellesley family that includes Duke of Wellington (title) and Earl Cowley? ミラP 22:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've told the peerage and baronetage WikiProject. ミラP 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: There's very little to go on in the normal places. He appears to have played a match for Old Etonians in 1844. If we assume that that means he went to Eton (which isn't certain btw), then the Eton school list has some possibilities. My gut feeling is that he could be Richard Gerald Wellesley who was in the fifth form in 1838. His father was also Richard though, so it could be him. RG worked at the foreign office and died in 1861 in Malta. Here's the page of the Eton list - try searching on the surname and it'll pick up quite a few Wellesleys. There doesn't seem to be any obvious connection to the family of Wellington, but I suppose it's possible - it's never been cheap to get into Eton afterall and he did play for MCC - and the your Duke did go to Eton for a while as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Afd discussion

Please take a look at the Afd on Women's T20 Quadrangular Series (in India). Thanks. Abishe (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hundred policy

Being 2020, the ECB obviously didn't want to take advantage of Twenty20 in 2020 to market the t20 Blast, instead thursting upon us the London Silly Nannies, the Welsh Fire for all you West Country folk and the Manchester Ready Salted, or whatever they're called in 16.4 overs of snack food related 10-ball over 'action'!

I'm proposing to amend WP:CRIN and the stats in the infoboxes to include:

• Any player who has not played FC/LA/T20 and debuts in this competition is deemed non-notable until they debut in one of the three aforementioned formats.
• Hundred stats are not included in their overall t20 stats (it's called t20 because it is 20 overs per side, not 16.4!).

Thoughts? Hopefully it'll be gone within a season or two when all the cricket fans who don't know they like cricket don't turn up! StickyWicket (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Officially, it is classified as "List A Twenty20" cricket, and I don't think we can ignore that. Harrias ^talk 10:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if that happens and CricInfo lists the stats as such, then it needs to be included. Players will also receive significant coverage in the press - I would say especially so if they actually debut for one of the sides without ever having played for anyone else. At least initially.

I'd wait and see before anything gets added to CRIN. If anything I'd rather revert CRIN back to a less bloated state first - and in particular to take out the weasel that was inserted to allow any old chap who played in the 18th century to get an article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As much as people may dislike it, it is clearly a major form of cricket, and will undoubtedly be treated as such by sources. I'd also be surprised if there are many players who make their top-level debut in the competition (have there been any who debuted in the IPL for instance?). Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess it just goes to show the haphazard nature of this creation from the Costcutter Twins; it's not t20, but we'll include stats from the 16.4 with t20 stats. I do recall a couple of BBL debuts which were also top-level debuts, though I use 'top level' loosely when describing the 16.4! StickyWicket (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not 16.4 though is it? Whatever ones thoughts on it, it's basically T20 with 5 ball overs which is why it's being classed as List A T20 cricket, same as four ball overs, five ball overs and eight ball overs count with six ball overs in Test/FC stats. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

2019-20 Big Bash League season finals format template

I'm looking to use Template:5TeamBracket-ICWC2011 in 2019–20 Big Bash League season#Playoffs - it looks like it is the only template in the 5 team bracket category that matches, which is (so far) single use. Does anyone have issue with this being renamed? More to the point, is there a name for this system?

(Tagging User:Tfisher93 in this discussion, as the original creator of the template)

-- Chuq (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in the West Indies in 1998–99

Hi guys, I have just finished expanding Australian cricket team in the West Indies in 1998–99 and have just nominated this at WP:DYK. If you after a QPQ for a cricket article here is your chance. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Dee03 has completed this review. – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction needed

Elisha Rawlinson and Henry Rawlinson (umpire) is the same person. He emigrated to Australia in January 1886 & was called on to umpire a test in 1886-87. He became a publican in Sydney & died there in 1892. 182.239.192.129 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this. Do you have any sources to help with merging these two articles? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the Henry Rawlinson article :The personal details given above are from the CricInfo website. Wisden Australia, 2004-05 (p. 237) lists "Rawlinson, Elisha Barker, Test umpire, b. Apr. 10, 1837. d. Feb. 17, 1892". so if anyone can confirm these details from a copy of Wisden then it should confirm they are the same person, and match with the CI / CA details for Elisha Rawlinson. This article on Cricket Archive mentions his move to Australia, but does not mention him umpiring whilst there. Spike 'em (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In contemporary Australian newspapers, I can see no mention of a "Henry Rawlinson" in connection with cricket, whereas E. B. Rawlinson was quite fêted when he arrived in Australia in January 1886 as a former English professional cricketer, and said in an interview that he was hoping to be involved in cricket in some respect. It seems very likely that the Rawlinson who was the English team's umpire for the match now regarded as a Test match in early 1887 was E. B., but I can't definitively say, because nowhere can I find any news report that gives his forename (or initials). Rawlinson's decisions were regarded (by the Australians) as very suspect on two LBW counts in the match, one report suggesting they won the game for the English team. E. B. became a publican, but was unsuccessful in business and was declared bankrupt a few months before his death. Johnlp (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The press mentions that he emigrated to Aus after his wife died & it seems he remarried in Sydney. In that era, it wasn't uncommon for someone connected with the game to be invited to umpire a match without being a regular umpire. Aus seasons 1886-87 & 1887-88 were a bit complicated with 3 touring teams playing as well as 2 Australian Elevens, one organised by Melbourne CC & the other by NSWCA, via Charles Beal. The match concerning Rawlinson was retrospectively selected as a Test match a few years later. It's the same guy for both articles; likely someone just "invented" the name Henry as maybe they only had a surname to work with. 182.239.205.163 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and domestic teams

Hi. Did we ever get anywhere with the proliferation of domestic (T20) teams in the infobox? I do recall a discussion at some point. What about having a show/hide parameter added to the infobox which can be used to hide excessive lists, such as Chris Gayle's? Or having it auto-collapse if the number of teams is at a certain number, say 6 or more? I don't know too much about infobox coding, but I assume that could be done, if people wanted it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My only point is that we need to be careful about adding in collapsibility. MOS:COLLAPSE is the relevant policy, but it would take a firmer proposal to know if it goes against any of the rules in there. – PeeJay 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue if the detail is included in the article. Hack (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just rebuilt the infobox at Shoaib Malik and run into this very problem. I tried to fix it quite unscientifically and add a note - but there's nowhere really clear to add that note. If anyone has better ideas about how to solve the team information on that page I'd be keen to hear them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

With the increasing movement of players between franchises, there's a case for either discounting T20 information entirely from the infobox - although that would be a massive job both implementing it and then fighting the inevitable fires of IP's adding teams - or of suggesting that once teams > 10 (or similar) that we remove any T20 teams played for for only one season if necessary. That would let us deal with Gayle and similar articles without having to try to roll something out over several thousand articles.

There are huge inaccuracies within infoboxes in general, but without really radical action those will never be dealt with effectively (like, removing all or most stats...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support removing, or at least stripping back the statistics included in the infobox. Harrias ^talk 10:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think stats in the infobox are quite important for giving a career overall, otherwise the infobox just becomes a redundant square box telling you their name, DOB/D and place of birth/death, all included in the main body of text anyway. StickyWicket (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you could provide an overview with matches-runs-wickets. If the rest is significant then it goes in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd probably stretch it to include averages (and possibly catches / stumpings for keepers only), but do agree that the stats could be cut down. Spike 'em (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand the logic of that - I'm just trying to reduce it as much as possible given the whole range of issues there are with stats. It is possible to add a break tag after runs and put the average below it in the same field. I've not tried it with four cols, but it would be a possible solution should the average be particularly significant (Bradman, Smith, Voges, Lab....ghne etc...). The problem with having catches just for wk is that you need to then have the parameter open for everyone - so we're not getting rid of v much. I wonder if it would be possible to add a otherstatname and otherstat parameter which could be added to be whatever was appropriate - so for a wk we could add catches/stumpings but for someone else it could be centuries or 5w/10w?

The advantage of simply culling rows is that bots can do the work for us. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. Thinking of the first comment from PeeJay2K3, about the MOS on collapsing content, I know that our County Championship articles have a default of collapsed for all the scorecards. Outside of cricket, I can think of other sportspeople who've won multiple medals who have this data collapsed in the infobox. For example, Bradley Wiggins, which is also a GA. That was the sort of thing I had in mind when it came to collapsing the teams. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, it's always bugged me that we include match summaries for every single match in every single County Championship season. Those articles are huge, due in part to the fact that we seem hell-bent on including data from over 100 matches. Same applies to the One-Day Cup and the T20 Blast, albeit for fewer matches. Surely there's a better way to summarise the season? The current format could hardly be described as a "summary" at all. – PeeJay 07:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, although I can understand why it happens in preference to summaries being written. It's not so bad on short competitions or things like world cups and so on.

It's almost like some style guides would be helpful... Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating "| date" in info box

I had assumed that the "| date" parameter used in Template:Infobox cricketer was the equivalent of an accessdate for a reference, and that the date would be changed when the data were changed in accordance with the updated numbers in the cricinfo page given in "| source", but I see that sometimes the date parameter is being updated without the associated data being changed, so the data are not consistent with the source on that date. What is the recommendation of the project on this? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The infobox documentation has:

source - Enter full address to the source used, for example the player's CricInfo profile followed by the name of the source. If a single web address is used there is no need to enclose the link in square brackets

date - Enter day of last update in DD MMMMM format e.g. 19 November

year - Enter year of last update e.g. 2007

So its the updating of the infobox in general that should, ideally, be being recorded, not necessarily (just) the statistics - the source is, ideally, one that would apply to more than just the stats in the ib I suppose. I appreciate that statistics are sometimes years out of date: that's one reason why the idea of reducing the statistics section (or even cutting it entirely) has occasionally been discussed - there's a discussion about this above still I think.

The ib documentation can be made clearer if you want. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's one of the growing number of infobox fields that can be ditched. I rarely rely on the stats to be up to date, esp. for active non-international players, and go straight to Cricinfo. Note that the updated field on biographies for cyclists was dropped some time ago. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs for your area!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Cecil Middleton

While sifting thru List of Oxford University Cricket Club players to catch up on StickyWicket's progress, I noticed this particular cricketer and went to his Cricinfo profile and noticed that he was born in Leeds where the Middleton family originated. Is he possibly related to them and by extension Kate Middleton? ミラP 04:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I'd imagine there's a good chance they're related somewhere along the line, I just can't seem to find any proof! My OU progress is advancing slowly, on the look out for any stray Irish cricketers amongst them! StickyWicket (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: I ran his name on FreeBMD and saw that a Cecil Middleton whose birth was registered at Q4 1911 was born to a woman whose maiden name was Berney. I went to The Peerage and saw that a Henry Dubs Middleton and his wife Jane Dorothy Elizabeth Berney had two unnamed sons, as cited in Burke's Peerage 2003 Volume 1, p. 358. Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge says that Henry was a nephew of Kate Middleton's great-great-grandfather John William Middleton, so Cecil was possibly her second cousin twice removed. Of course, better sources should exist to connect them. ミラP 17:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 Cricket World Cup is now a Good Article

I just wanted to say that congrats to everyone that has guided the 2019 Cricket World Cup to a good article status whenever if it was just a little or a good chunk, I want to shre this achievement with all of you. I especially want to thank @Lugnuts:, @Spike 'em: and @A Simple Human: for working hard throughout the tournament and being the top editors for this article. HawkAussie (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you for the thankless task of going through the GA process! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Congrats to all those involved from me too. JH (talk page) 10:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about notability

Hi all, cricket is really not a sport I'm familiar with, so I'm looking for a little help interpreting NCRIC. I'm looking at Mahesh Sharma (cricketer) for new page review. WP:NCRIC mentions that one criterion for notability is to ...[h]ave appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. Does playing in a "first-class" match (according to ESPNCricInfo) meet that criterion? I see that the page on first-class matches uses similar language, but since NCRIC doesn't explicitly mention first-class matches I wanted to ask to be sure. creffett (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) (please ping me in replies)

Yes. Harrias ^talk 07:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The biggest problem with that page is that it was created by a socking editor, and the claim that the name is different from stated on sources is completely false. Spike 'em (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

William Brown (New Zealand cricketer)

Hi. There's a minor dispute if William Brown (New Zealand cricketer) is still alive or not, making him 102 years old if he is still alive. Neither Cricinfo or Cricket Archive have any death details. Usually this is a sign that they simply don't know, and leave them blank. Is anyone able to find any further info on him? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No idea, how he's doing but WP:BDP assumes that everyone lives to be 115 unless proven otherwise! Spike 'em (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a very unique name... I've had a quick look in the usual places but nothing shows up. I certainly wouldn't display the person's age in the infobox if we have no clue whether he is still alive. Schwede66 19:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Like List of centenarians (sportspeople) which had Hirendranath Sadhu (born 1915) down as still alive, until 3 days ago when someone removed him! I'd ask Sammyrice about Brown, he's very knowledgeable on New Zealand cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that if he was still alive we would probably have heard about it. A first-class cricketer turning 100 is news. Of course he may still be living quietly somewhere. I'd remove his age and centenarian status until we know for sure.Sammyrice (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. I guess we wait to see if anything turns up, or another 13 years when he'll be 115! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS

How many tables count as Excessive listings of unexplained statistics? Given there are some minor edit wars over this, I would say that 2 tables of the top 5 run scorers and top 5 wicket takers at a global tournament are not excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed to keep top 5 runs and wickets on major tournament atleast with three columns only (Player,Team and Runs/Wickets). I have observed my edits was removed by User:Lugnuts on the page 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup, so i thought it was already agreed somewhere about WP:NOTSTATS

so i did not enter the statistics part again on that page. -Lesenwriter (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:PeeJay2K3 Whats your thought on this, since you were also involved in some edits on this topic.

I started a discussion earlier today. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment

If possible, please comment here. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)