Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Names of cricket team pages

(The first part of this discussion is copied from Talk:English cricket team. Stephen Turner 11:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

Myu view is that the correct title for this entry would be the "England" cricket team not the "English" cricket team; not least beacuse there are (or have been) Welsh, Scottish and Irish players in the side! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this a few months ago. I don't remember the reason for using nationalities, and I definitely agree with you in preferring country names, but I'm sure there was a reason for the choice. Stephen Turner 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks a little odd. it does seem that it was decided that the adjective "English" or "Pakistani" or "Indian" is preferable to the country name. However in cricket parlance we always refer to "England" or "India" or "Pakistan" (etc.) and you will not find the adjective used as the descriptor of the team in any cricket record or reference books. PaddyBriggs 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually you do - on tours it's always said "Australians in England", "West Indians in Pakistan", that kinda thing. (However, I believe England is an exception - they used to be MCC and are now England?) Sam Vimes 10:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam. You are quite right that in non Test matches the convention is (now) that we refer to the "West Indians" or the "Australians" in matches they play on tours that are not Test matches or One Day Internationals (expect for the England touring team who are always "England"). However in Test matches it is always "West Indies" or "Australia" or "England"...The entries about the national teams are (rightly) all about International matches not at all about the touring sides. So I stick to my view that the correct descriptor of the teams is the "England" or "Australia" (etc.) Cricket team. Another reason is both grammatical and accuracy concerned. Kent (or Surrey or Middlesex) are "English" cricket teams but not of course England cricket teams. The only England cricket team is the one that plays for England! PaddyBriggs 10:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was when Wisden, Cricinfo or Cricketarchive write about a team touring another, they put "West Indians in Australia in 2005-06". I agree with you, though, but I think we should go one further and align ourselves with the rest of the sports in Wikipedia - we have England national football team, England national basketball team, England national rugby union team, England national rugby league team, so I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't use the precise England national cricket team Sam Vimes 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure this format is suitable for all teams. India cricket team is not the commonly used form. Tintin

And "West Indies national cricket team" is wrong, of course. There are other implications in all of this. There is a category called "English cricketers" in which not all the names listed are "England cricketers" (i.e. not all have played for England) and some of the names listed are not English (e.g. Welsh). Johnlp 13:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In cricketing terms, Welsh cricketers are English. Indeed, up to 34 years ago, Wales was England. The first point doesn't seem so illogical against this background. [[Sam Korn]] 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But see also Welsh cricket team, whose history is slightly involved! ;) Loganberry (Talk) 23:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There were also many cricketers who were not from England at all, but represented The British Empire. A good example was Ranjitsinhji, an Indian who played for England. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 10:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects that need fixing

The following is a list of redirects that should be fixed, and then deleted, since it is never likely anyone will type article names like this. --AllyUnion (talk) desk 10:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

<removed list for the purpose of What links here>

Should you like a bot to work on this task, please place a request either at my talk page or at my desk. --AllyUnion (talk) desk 10:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The redirects that were listed here are deleted or being deleted now. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vegans?

I've noticed two new cricketer bios which claim the players are vegans — Martyn Moxon and Jimmy Maher. Can anyone confirm either of these? Stephen Turner 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On Daniel Vettori's page it says he is a vegeterian... is he? Hamedog 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That was added here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Troll on Talk:Shane Warne

User 203.3.197.249 is making what looks to be trolling comments on Talk:Shane Warne, implying that people who edit Wikipedia should get a life. I suggest ignoring rather than engaging this person. -dmmaus 05:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he's annoyed because I reverted his assertion that Warne is the greatest leg spin bowler in history, back to something less definitive. I agree it's time to ignore him though. Stephen Turner 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

He's also just asserted that Allan Border is a smoker. Is this true? Stephen Turner 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is, it's not relevant to the article. To say he's a noted smoker (whatever that is) implies there would be references to that claim. These aren't given. Reverting. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits to cricketers' talk pages

For a list of recent edits to cricketers' talk pages, see here. Stephen Turner 12:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

CricketBot

You may see a user called CricketBot going around editing some cricket articles in the future. At the moment, it's busy changing "test" into "Test".

CricketBot is really me in disguise. I wrote a bot to find common errors in cricket articles, but it only suggests the changes to me, and I check each one before saving the page. (You may have noticed me doing this under my own account before, but it turns out to be good practice to run it as a separate user).

You can see a list of ideas I have for future edits of this sort on CricketBot's home page. If you have any more similar ideas, drop me a note. And if there are any problems with the edits, likewise let me know.

Stephen Turner 14:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Stephen, great work your doing there. Having our own Bot on call will be very useful I'm sure. Another idea for your Bot in the section below...

Season styles (again)

I'm suggesting that we standardise cricket seasons to be (for example) "1971-72". Currently we have 1971/1972, 1971/2, 1971-2, 1971/72, 1971-72 (and other combinations I'm sure). There is a related discussion on this above, under =Style guidelines=, although that's specifically talking about article names. I am talking about plain text in the body of an article.

I see no reason to link years when referring to seasons, and I suggest that while the MOS seems to be silent (AFAIK) on seasons specifically (other than this) , I think a "-" (or en-dash) just looks better and is more widely used these days than a "/".

The other day I amended the Cricket Article Style Guide (on the WP:Cricket page to reflect this, without really getting confirmation that's what everyone agrees or disagrees with. I'd like to know if we can agree on it here. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I like 1971-72 in the title of an article, and 1971–72 in the body of an article. (The first is a hyphen, the second is an en dash). I'm not sure whether it should be 1971-72 South African cricket season or South African cricket season 1971-72, and Sam Vimes pointed out a separate Wikipedia-wide proposal for South African cricket season (1971-1972) (in parentheses, with the years in full). Stephen Turner 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we'd better put our viewpoints in there instead of here - since it would be a bit odd for WP:Cricket to have style guidelines flying in the face of the rest of WP. Sam Vimes 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That proposal is for naming conventions (article titles). I'm taking about content in the body of an article. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, never mind then. I like 1971-72 too, preferably with a link to the season involved (so 1971-72) Sam Vimes 07:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer both years in full as per 1971-1972. Leaving the century out looks lazy and if you are producing a list by years it becomes disjointed when you are obliged to include 1899-1900 and 1999-2000. --Jack 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think articles quickly become bloated with useless numbers when you write 19 twice (yes, I know that is a reason for leaving out the third digit as well, but any article on a decent-length career will be inconsistent if the third digit is left out - whereas most will use the same system if the third digit is kept). Sam Vimes 17:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Sam's last point about too many digits with repeated 19s, and also with his view that we need the third digit. And I'm not sure I see the logic of having a different style (with a hyphen) in the title from that in the article (with an en dash, as per Stephen's suggestion above). "Keep it simple" isn't a bad rule to have, unless there are over-riding reasons for complexity. In this case, hyphens are probably easier to handle for more people. Johnlp 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm replying to this a bit late, but I like an en dash because it's typographically correct (in the sense of "conventional in educated publications") and because the Manual of Style says so. Not that I care enough to change hyphens if other people write them. Also it doesn't work in article titles because it's too difficult to type into the search box. Stephen Turner 20:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent updates on Zimbabwean players

An anonymous user 139.222.182.61 (talk · contribs) (which my IP locator places in Norwich, England with 75% certainty - but then it places me in Bristol with higher certainty and I'm in London!) has just added quite a bit of info to a number of pages on Zimbabwean players. No references, and the internet doesn't show it up as a copyvio. I have invited the user add references, sign up and join WP:Cricket, jguk 09:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pakistani bios

I am fed up with reading Pakistani cricket biographies (and a few Indian ones) full of non-NPOV statements, and unsourced claims about their personalities. Most of the Pakistani bios read like magazine articles, not encyclopaedia articles. Some of them even have alternate sentences portraying them as heroes then villains. I know those people are fanatical about their cricketers, but it doesn't make for a good encyclopaedia </rant>. Stephen Turner 13:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

um...Ok. ;) At least they don't change the facts...or...[1] Sam Vimes 16:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cricket in USA

An anonymous editor created the article Cricket in USA. Apart from the fact the article is very poor at the moment, I'm not sure what it should be called. Do we have another article already that we could redirect it to? Stephen Turner 08:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• United States cricket team, maybe? It's the best we've got at the moment, since it also deals with some of the history of the game over there... Sam Vimes 08:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to be about the United States of America Cricket Association. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Thanks. Redirected now. Stephen Turner 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Guideline for article inclusion

WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of a cricket person for an article in Wikipedia:

• has appeared in at least one Test, ODI or ICC Trophy final, as player, umpire, coach or administrator
• has appeared in at least one first-class or List A match as a player

---

I have a major objection to the above criteria in that they are too wide and allow far too many one-hit wonders and bit-part players to be included. In particular cases these guidelines go against Wikipedia:Importance, particularly:

Note that an article should still be deemed inappropriate, and subsequently deleted, regardless of importance, if:

5. It is unexpandable (it cannot ever be more than a stub, and could never be a perfect article due to its subject matter - it may however belong as part of another article)

Remember, in most established cricketing countries even B league provincial/state cricket counts as first-class, and players in these games would hardly be recognised in their own country, let alone the wider cricket community. Likewise with players who are only selected for a few ODI's or Tests before being dropped — not an entirely uncommon occurence (except perhaps if they are notable for other reasons). It would also permit articles on recently selected players who may or may not yet make the grade (there are already some articles on players who have only debuted this season). If each of these are allowed there would be an explosion of short articles about obscure players and — in the case of players who have subsequently been dropped — no hope of ever expanding these articles to full length. The criteria for inclusion needs to be much stricter, and should perhaps exclude players who have recently made their debut or who have played less than X amount of matches. (I suggest X=10 Tests or 30 ODIs.) Zunaid 14:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Importance is not policy anyway, so that point is pretty much moot. What is policy is Wikipedia is not paper, which clearly states that Wikipedia can cover topics in much more detail than any paper encyclopedia ever can or will, which is why we have got space for these cricketing biographies. We've also got Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, where it states:

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.

which would cover most first-class cricket leagues in the world. As for "Remember, in most established cricketing countries even B league provincial/state cricket counts as first-class". Only in South Africa is this the case - Division Two cricket in England has an established promotion and relegation system, so the teams are only at a slightly lower level, the same for the Plate League in India and the Silver League in Pakistan. I'll readily admit I haven't heard of Aubrey Martin, but then cricketarchive hasn't either, which means he hasn't played a first-class game and therefore isn't notable. (A better example would be Morne Morkel, with eight first-class games, although I suppose he's notable for bowling more no-balls than overs... [2])

Side-note (trivia): Aubrey Martin was a noted left-arm swing bowler for Western Province, who eventually got selected for South Africa on an England tour in 199something. However he got injured before the first warm-up match was played, which put him out for the entire tour (he did not play a single match). He was never again selected, making him (AFAIK) the only cricketer to earn a Springbok blazer (I think they were still called Springboks back then) without actually having played for South Africa. As you can imagine, this issue is quite contentious. Zunaid

Ah, [3] there he is. Martyn, not Martin. Assuming the anecdote above can be verified (which I'm pretty sure it can), then I think your vote to delete would be the only one on AfD. If anything, that should make the player more notable. Anyway, I think you're in the wrong place, and if you want to change the Wikipedia-wide policy you should go to the Criteria for biography inclusion instead. Sam Vimes 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There's plenty that can be written about a player's domestic career, such as the articles on IL Bula and David Wigley show perfectly well. Just because something is obscure does not mean it's not worth bothering about on Wikipedia, as it aims to be the most in-depth encyclopedia ever written - and therefore, what should really concern people is verifiability and NPOV, which it is possible to achieve with these articles. Sam Vimes 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

International players can certainly all be expanded to a full article, as I already remarked at Talk:Paras Mhambrey, because they have domestic-level professional careers too. I wasn't sure about players who have played just one first-class or List A game, but the Wikipedia-wide policy Sam Vimes quoted above seems to correspond very closely to our cricket criteria.

(As an aside, we do have a problem at the moment with this person who keeps creating articles with just date of birth, and number of Tests and ODIs. Frankly, I think it would be better if those articles weren't created. Many of them are grammatically weak too. But that's a separate question to the general policy.)

Stephen Turner 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Coming to this slightly late as I haven't been that well... since I've written a number of articles about players with short careers (or who are young, such as the aforementioned David Wigley article) I have an interest in this. Specifically, I've recently been writing bio articles about the 1899 Worcestershire side, especially those who played in Worcs' first ever first-class game. There isn't really much to go on for most of them other than their stats, but I think nevertheless that they are worthy of a place on Wikipedia.

I'll certainly grant that Test/ODI players are more important, though, and I would be aghast to see any Test/ODI player deemed "not important enough", even someone like the hapless Charles Baksh of Canada (one ICCT, one ODI, two ducks, did not bowl, no catches!). I think we're right to keep the main criterion a broad one (any f-c or List A game is enough), since I think any such player's article could be expanded from a stub, if an editor discovered the answer to the obvious questions: why was this player good enough for the team in the first place, and why didn't they have a longer career. Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD

There is an AFD on Substitute fielder . No big deal, an obvious redirect.

South Africa vs Wales at rugby union is also on AfD. Tintin 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with cricket, of course ;) Zunaid 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been similar AfDs on cricket articles. So the arguments and the progress of this would be interest to people here :) Tintin 13:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Shane Warne again

A user is still busy editing Shane Warne, apparently in a bid to see how fast the "Wikipolice" can revert it. It's fairly low-level, maybe once or twice a day, but it might be helpful for more people to keep an eye out for it. Thanks. Stephen Turner 10:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I just had an edit conflict trying to add this:

Anonymous user 203.3.197.249 is continuing his campaign to make trouble with deliberately disruptive edits against the consensus reached on Talk:Shane Warne. Is it time to consider a ban request? I don't know the mechanics of how we go about dealing with this. -dmmaus 10:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The person seems to have a dynamic IP. It would be better to have the page locked for a while. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting nastier than I expected. See Talk:Adam_Gilchrist for some more. This person (assuming there's only one) appears from several addresses in 203.* and 210.*. Anything which implies that I'm some sort of Wikipoliceman is from the same person (or a small group of people). Stephen Turner 13:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The troll added this line to Mark Taylor yesterday - He is also famous for his air conditioner promoting. Do the Aussies know whether this line is of any significance ? Tintin 18:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

He has done a series of ads for Fujitsu air conditioners, but I wouldn't call that a particularly notable aspect of his career. I don't think it's worth mentioning. He's also advertised a couple of other products that were no less notable. It's the same with Justin Langer's Johhny Walker ad, or Gilchrist's mobile phone ads. Simple promotional work with no real significance. If we add this sort of trivia to cricketer pages they'll just bloat with useless garbage. -dmmaus 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I reverted it. Tintin 22:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Domestic cricket

I'm shocked at the lack of content on domestic cricket. There is nothing on fringe Australian international player David Hussey, who has played for Australia A, for example. Is there going to be a profile starting on such domestic players?

At the least, key players such as captains of Victoria, NSW etc should be included. There was nothing on Darren Berry, who made an Ashes tour in 1997 and captained his side to a Pura Cup title. Surely such key players should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty bad, yes. I think the reason the current domestic players are neglected is because there's currently so much to take care of on the project - profiles of all the Test players have been prioritised, for example, and we're still due articles on all first class teams in the world. It's definitely something that's under consideration, however. Sam Vimes 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Though, of course, Rogerthat, you'd be more than welcome to help increase our coverage of non-international cricketers, jguk 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added an article on Nick Jewell, but the reason I'm not working on it much at the moment is because I've got another neglected project that I basically maintain myself - WikiProject AFL Rogerthat 11:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

South African national cricket captains

Given the gaping hole in our coverage here, I have started a page (format copied wholesale from Australian national cricket captains). I've added a list of men's Test captains with results, but help to add a men's ODI list, women's lists, etc, and to diambiguate players, is welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by a vandal (?)

Looks like 68.71.35.93 is a vandal, and someone reverted his changes including Trumper and Johnny Douglas]. But his edits in Douglas were correct (or atleast the half that I know about) and I reverted them.

He has also added a passage to Trumper - Interestingly , even though Trumper is best known for his prowess at cricket, he was also a very good Rugby player and he can lay claim to being the prime mover in the development of Rugby League in Sydney in particular and Australia as a whole. The vandal fighter has reverted this too and I don't know whether this is true or not. Tintin 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That was a while ago, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure I Googled on it and there was some corroboration. Don't have time to check again now. Stephen Turner 09:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I forget to google :-/ Tintin 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

List of sub-stubs

I've put a list of cricket biography sub-stubs up at User:CricketBot/substubs. These are articles of only one or two sentences which are so useless that they're in danger of being deleted. Many of them are also grammatically weak.

There's a depressingly large number of them at the moment, so feel free to come along and work on expanding some of them. Or if you don't feel that inspired, some of them are just redirects that need bypassing.

Stephen Turner 18:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Um - M. J. K. Smith is listed as a 16 and VVS Laxman as a 17, but look at the articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, look at them without getting redirected - then they're 16 and 17 (which is what the bot picks up). I suppose they need to be struck through, though. Sam Vimes 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The links should be changed to bypass the redirect. That's why I left them in. Although next time I do it I'll watch out for them and put them in a different list. Stephen Turner 19:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Good explanation. Sorry. Mouth<->foot. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to the ever-enthusiastic Sam Vimes for expanding four of the articles already. I've now removed the redirects to a new list, User:CricketBot/redirects. Stephen Turner 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of these aren't just grammatically weak: they're factually suspect too. I've just spotted that Sylvester Clarke is an Indian cricketer, according to his sub-stub. Bit worrying when you see that there have been six edits, not including those by bots. I'll give these sub-stubs some proper attention over the weekend, but am I alone in thinking that, where they refer to pretty obscure people, we might do better to let them be culled and concentrate our efforts on the important gaps in the cricket coverage? Eventually, we'd get around to the obscure people, but this is giving them a rather false priority. Johnlp 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some obscure people there, but a surprising number are not obscure at all: Mark Boucher and Alfred Valentine were two I noticed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've tackled a couple already (Jackie McGlew and Jim Parks, or rather half of Jim Parks because the sub-stub didn't seem to recognise that there were two of them). But essentially, these sub-stubs are in many instances little better than a redline, and at least if they were redlines then we would know where we had gaps and could tackle them in a more relaxed and maybe more orderly fashion, each with our own take on what constitutes priority. Johnlp 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what are the important gaps in our cricket coverage that you'd want covered instead? A lot of people on the to-do list above, admittedly, but they're just as embarrassing as the substubs and should be fixed too. I've heard of ten of them and I don't read much about cricket history (apart from what I get online and in research) Sam Vimes 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the things on the pending list at the top of this page for a start, which have been identified as priorities over a long period. In my view, many of the sub-stubs don't have any real value as they stand: you have to virtually delete them and start again to make them proper articles. So why not do that and then we'll know exactly where we are (in terms of missing biographical articles, at least) and can tackle the gaps according to how we individually and collectively see the priority. Johnlp 15:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

International cricketers are on that to-do list - so, technically, we're just doing that ;) The substubs do give you some information (what team they played for), plus, if we ask for the whole slab to be speedied, we're going to look pretty foolish when we recreate the article. I think, anyway. However, it's not meant to impede you on work you already had planned, so if you don't want to do it that's fine too. Sam Vimes 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is a matter of opinion and taste. Some like to specialise in a specific area (John and BlackJack), some freelance (Sam). As for me, I prefer to start articles only on Indian cricket for the time being, and usually only fix errors and add a few lines in the other areas. Tintin 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that most are no better than a redlink, possibly worse, and I've said before that I think it would have been better if they hadn't been created. But for some reason an anonymous editor has taken it upon himself to create several hundred of them, and in those circumstances I think it's useful to have a list of people that we think we've covered but whom we haven't really. Personally I'll concentrate on expanding the more famous ones, but if Sam wants to do the shortest ones first, that's fine too. The bottom line is, we have 18 decent mini-biographies that we didn't have 48 hours ago. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cricketer lists

We now have several lists of cricketers, a couple of which are probably redundant.

1. List of cricketers
2. List of cricketers by country
3. List of international cricketers

My understanding is that 3) is now pretty much the master list, courtesy of Stephen through scans of [[List of <country> Test cricketers]] and [[List of <country> ODI cricketers]]. 1 & 2 could therefore now be deleted as the potential size of these lists makes it almost impossible for them to be maintained manually, and I don't see they offer anything extra that List of international cricketers doesn't, other than a place for non-international cricketers. In respect of listing domestic only cricketers, we could start up a new list, if anyone is so inclined. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the by-country lists, I wonder whether we need any of them. For example, List of international cricketers could be a disambiguation page which links to the individual page for each country, and the others turned into redirects to it. We would then need a separate (new) page for notable non-international cricketers, such as AEJ Collins, and the first two would need to be combed for such before they are deleted. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The main purpose of List of international cricketers is so that you can see all edits to cricketers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists 1 and 2 can include players who have had no international experience. Surely, at least in theory, they are not both redundant, jguk

• OK, how about this:

1. Rename List of international cricketers to List of cricketers (copy/paste move actually) under a new section ==International cricketers==
2. Add a second major section ==Domestic cricketers== to contain significant non-international cricketers
3. Make List of international cricketers and List of cricketers by country both redirects to List of cricketers

Ian ≡ talk 01:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me, but I'm keen that the combined list shouldn't contain any hyperlinks other than the players, because it makes "Related changes" much less useful. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephen, I've done that and agree with your wish. We'll just have to revert if that srarts happening. The new list at List of cricketers now needs to be expanded in the ==Domestic crcketers== section - that'll just have to happen manually over time I expect. IMO, this change makes "related changes" even more useful, as it (will) include domestics. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we have a section for non-ODI international cricketers, too? IL Bula and Ole Mortensen spring to mind... Sam Vimes 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not sure that I understand your question. There are two major sections currently: ==International cricketers== and ==Domestic cricketers ==. Are you suggesting a third? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep - for players who have turned out for the national teams of Associate and Affiliate members at various times. They're not really "domestic" players in that they haven't played in a first class league, and haven't turned up in official internationals. Sam Vimes 14:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. What section name would you suggest? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Non-official internationals" perhaps? Sam Vimes 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think rather than make a third section, it would be better to keep them with the domestic players, but think of different names for the two sections. Like "Test and ODI cricketers" vs "Other cricketers", or something like that. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea better too. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, done. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thought. Does anyone use the List of Test cricketers and List of ODI cricketers or can we get rid of them? I know they're linked from those boxes counting the number of bios, but that's probably not essential. Personally, I only use the combined list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I regularly use the Test and ODI cricketers lists. They should stay. They only need updating occasionally anyway (ie on someone's debut), jguk 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not referring to List of Australian Test cricketers etc., but to the combined List of Test cricketers. Do you use those? Myself, I only use List of cricketers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I regularly use those. I very, very rarely look at List of cricketers, jguk 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't have any problem with updating them, I just didn't want to keep them if no-one was using them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Cricket Ground infobox

heya all, i'm sort of new around here at this project, but not new to cricket (ok call me a tragic). anyway i have been fixing up some Australian stadium articles by adding the infobox_stadium to them, and now I have noticed that none of the cricket grounds currently have a like infobox for them. So I am wondering, and posing it to the cricket buffs on wikipedia, if there should be an infobox created for cricket grounds and if so what information should be included in it (obviously things like location, capacity, first game/test, etc). So support, disagree and comments welcome. if agree i will go ahead and create one and throw it up here. Nomadtales 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting idea - as far as "tragic" goes, I think you'll be hard pressed to find more tragic than a Norwegian bloke with 7,000 edits, mostly related to non-notable cricket matches. :) You could sign up on the project page too, if you like. Anyway, ideas.

1. First first class game
2. First test match
3. First one-day international
4. Number of test matches (could be hard to update)
5. Capacity
6. Names of each end
7. Image (free-licensed, obviously)
8. Home team (domestic cricket, maybe grade team for Australia too)
9. World Cup stadium, and if so, when Sam Vimes 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And

1. Highest individual score (fc and one-day)
2. Highest team total (fc and one-day)
3. Lowest team total (fc and one-day)
4. Best bowling (fc and one-day)

I reckon you've got a job for life here if you want it! Johnlp 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• A great idea but I strongly disagree with including stats and records that are ever changing, such as number of Tests; Highest/lowest scores etc etc. As it is, whenever a match is played, we should be updating individual player pages, Test/ODI cricketer lists, List of Test/ODI records. These often don't get done promptly now and let's not forget about watching out for sneaky vandalism also. I did a quick count and there's about 95 cricket grounds articles we'd have to maintain. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you say, Ian, and as an (occasional) contributor who doesn't much enjoy doing these kinds of monitoring and updating task I'd agree with you. But as a reader of an encyclopedia, I think I'd want some of this information at times, and one of the merits of the wikipedia approach is that information of this kind can be kept as topical as possible, unlike conventional reference works. I'm not underestimating the amount of work involved here, but let's not overestimate it too: for a lot of grounds that have been used for a long time, records don't change that often. Johnlp 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Match stats don't need too much maintainance as compared to players' stats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne Cricket Ground

MCG
File:Melb-MCG.JPG
Location	Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Capacity	99,000
Tenants	Australia (Cricket), Victoria (Cricket), Melbourne (AFL), Richmond (AFL), Collingwood (AFL), Hawthorn (AFL)

OK seeing as people think this is a good idea, I have gone ahead and created a template to use, called Template:Infobox Cricket Ground. It is a start and needs to be expanded (a demo of it is on right for the MCG). There are a few things I am unsure about, especially when you do one like the MCG and AFL is also played there, so a section on other sports may be needed, or perhaps that can be included under the tenants, in this case the AFL teams (like I have done). In fact I think it is probably wise not to have too many categories and just have broad ones that can have multiple entries. Nomadtales 01:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it. Good work. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mysore cricketers

I nominated Mysore Cricketers for deletion. There is no need for it as Category:Karnataka cricketers is already around. The Mysore team was renamed to Karnataka in the early 1970s. Tintin 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to do a redirect for this kind of change rather than delete the category? I'm thinking that biogs of old cricketers would tend to refer to the teams they played for under the names they had at the time, and there might be a degree of confusion if we introduced other names. There's a similar point somewhere in here about Australian cricket team names: Donald Bradman played for New South Wales and South Australia, not for New South Wales Blues or Southern Redbacks, which is what the articles on these cricket teams are called. Is there a way of getting across the continuity of these teams without introducing anachronisms into other articles? Johnlp 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Afraid not - the current software doesn't allow "category redirects" like that. There is a template called {{categoryredirect}} but the categories with those templates should be empty, which I gather is not what you want. Sam Vimes 13:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks a fair option. Tintin 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Hussey

FYI, Hussey played in his 21st ODI today getting a magnificent 88 not-out off 56 balls (although it wasn't enough to save the match from the Kiwi's). By my calculations that gives him an ODI batting average of 151, more than double that of the next highest on the list - Kevin Pietersen with 73.09 from 23 ODI's. Cricinfo and Cricketarchive have not updated their record tables yet. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Argh! Substubs on talk pages!

Now that anonymous editors can't create new articles, our anonymous cricket-loving friend has decided to create his sub-stubs on the talk pages instead! See Talk:Owen Wynne and Talk:Frederick Fisher (cricketer). I moved these to the respective article pages, but should I just have blanked them instead? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd report that as a bug (I don't know where though) - I really can't think why we'd want a talk page of a page that doesn't exist. On the grounds that they don't actually do any harm, I wouldn't worry about them - move them if you want. As far as I can tell, they are all very short and not too useful, but they are correct and we will end up writing proper articles for them sometime. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketer talk pages so we can easily check what's happening, jguk 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about reporting it at Village Pump but decided it would degenerate into an argument about whether Jimbo's new policy is correct or not. You must have missed the announcement about User:Stephen Turner/CricketersTalk. :-) Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Cricketers not on List of cricketers

My trusty side-kick CricketBot has made a list of articles in Category:Cricketers which are not in List of cricketers. The list is at User:CricketBot/missing cricketers. Any volunteers to look at a few, and determine which need to be added to List of cricketers#Other cricketers and which are false positives? Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we move all cricketing people to the list of cricketers (writers etc) ? Tintin 13:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. I'd be happy to have everyone there, but what do other people think? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. What about umpires, officials, commentators also? I can see arguments for the list to be inclusive to be a catch-all and therefore possibly more useful for the "Related changes" feature; or alternatively restricting it to players only, as the list name infers. I sway (slightly) towards keeping it for players and ex-players only. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

How much cricket do they have to have played to count as an ex-player? I'm not sure where to draw the line here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One first-class match. (?) -- Ian ≡ talk 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cricket

I've listed Portal:Cricket as a featured portal candidate. Any comments would be useful. See Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cricket, jguk 14:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ianbrown at RFA

WikiProject Cricket member Ianbrown has been nominated for adminship. Vote here by 03:10 19 December 2005 (UTC). Snottygobble | Talk 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL

Hey guys, it seems that I'm doing the WikiProject AFL solo! If you haven't checked out this sports project, my fellow cricket (and hopefully AFL) fans, then I hope you do soon, because I've put a fair bit of effort into it. I understand we also have a Cricket project to complete, but just posting this if anyone is interested. :) Perhaps you could give me some tips that you have learnt participating in Wikiproject cricket and perhaps applying them to the AFL one?

If you feel this isn't appropriate to "wiki-advertise", feel free to delete this message. Rogerthat 10:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Photos required

on Wikipedia:Requested_pictures#Sport it said you guys needed photos. A mate of mine got about 30 photos of cricket recently. I uploaded one under Mark Boucher. Reply on talk if you need any more because if you do I will take my camera to the WACA with me. There is also cricket nets and a cricket field across the road from my house.Hamedog 09:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovely! Yes, please do take the camera. We're mainly in need of photos of international cricketers, though other things we need are listed here. Thanks for your help! Sam Vimes 09:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much! But please remember to put on the image page that you took the photo, because photos without a source will be deleted under Criterion for speedy deletion I4. Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I will upload some photos now, including Shaun Pollock batting. Hamedog 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Here they go: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/hamedog

I replaced the photo of Boucher in his article with a cropped version of the same photo. I hope that's OK! Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to change the photos etc. I suck at all that stuff any way! Hamedog 15:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

• What do you want photos of when I go to the test? Hamedog 05:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the highest priority is photos of individual players, that we can put on their biography pages. Either portraits or action shots are fine, whichever you have enough zoom to capture! Thanks very much, Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have a look at the link below for photos from the first days play.

• Has anyone looked at them? I will post the other days up towards the end of the year. Hamedog 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I looked at them, and put them all in Category:Cricket images. I wasn't sure which articles to use them in though. None of the people were large enough to illustrate their biographies. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've used them in 2005-06 Australian cricket season Sam Vimes 10:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

photos are located here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/hamedog

Page mover

User:PatsyHendren (talk · contribs) has started moving several cricket pages to versions with initials (and without a space too: e.g. Alan Wells to A.P. Wells). I've asked him/her to stop and discuss it here first. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All of the following need to be moved because they have a non-standard format for initials. But could someone who's familiar with these players comment on which of them are more often known by their names (so the move should be reverted) and which are more often known by their initials (so they should move to correctly-formatted initials). Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• 14:11, 13 December 2005 PatsyHendren moved Chris Adams to C.J. Adams (Chris Adams plays first-class cricket as C.J. Adams)
• 14:06, 13 December 2005 PatsyHendren moved John Barclay (cricketer) to J.R.T. Barclay (John Barclay played first-class cricket, as J.R.T. Barclay)
• 13:49, 13 December 2005 PatsyHendren moved Alan Wells to A.P. Wells (Alan Wells played first-class cricket as A.P. Wells)
• 13:35, 13 December 2005 PatsyHendren moved Jim Parks senior to J.H. Parks (Jim Parks senior played as 'J.H. Parks'. This also distinguishes him from his son 'J.M. Parks')
• 13:32, 13 December 2005 PatsyHendren moved Jim Parks junior to J.M. Parks (Jim Parks played as 'J.M. Parks', which distinguished him from his father 'J.H. Parks')

Chris Adams is almost definitely known by that name - at least that's what Wisden 2004 used after he captained Sussex to the 2003 Championship. The other four we'd better ask the resident historians. John or BlackJack may have a clue... Sam Vimes 13:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved him back to Chris Adams. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

...and I've reverted Jim Parks senior. I see the others have been done also, except for John Barclay. My recollection is that he was usually called John, Johnny or Trout (after this third name) and not by his initials. I think he should be moved back too, but am unsure about the etiquette as the article was created by PatsyHendren. Thoughts? Johnlp 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

substub writer = vegan vandal

I'm coming to the conclusion that the substub writer is the same as the vegan vandal. Have a look at these edits. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team

I've put the format of Arsenal F.C., which is a featured article about a soccer team, onto West Indian cricket team. The idea is to work this up now into a featured article. It's the kind of thing that would be good for a collaboration. Please pop by and help, jguk 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

New template

I've created a new template to allow people to advertise their membership of this project. You can add {{WikiProject Cricket member}} to your user page to get this:

This user is a member of WikiProject Cricket, a project to improve the cricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help, come and visit the project page, or join in the discussion at the project talk page.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...we already had one at {{CricketWikiProject-Member}}. I don't remember who made it, but I think it was Nichalp. Sam Vimes 12:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, bother, I should have asked here first. I'll get mine deleted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That other one's still using the non-free cricket ball image. I'll fix that too as my penance. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Cricket member}} deleted ;) -- Ian ≡ talk 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverse (cricket)

Is Reverse (cricket) is a commonly used term ? I have never heard it. Tintin 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. That's why I added it to the list of recent changes. I wonder if it's known as something else in different parts of the world. Any bowlers out there who could tell us what's being described? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Has someone asked the author of this page? It seems like a lot of effort to make up a page on a bit of false cricket terminology, jguk 18:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added a question in his talk page. Tintin 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This site talks about a 'reverse release' slower ball bowled by Ian Harvey. I don't have much idea how Harvey bowls it. Tintin

I definitely know of and have seen (and attempted) this type of delivery... I think Steve Waugh was one of the first to do it, and Ian Harvey was/is very good at it. But I haven't heard it called the "reverse". AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket is the first Featured portal

The sentence above says it all. Thanks to everyone who's helped develop it, jguk 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)