Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Increasing the number of contributors

First, many thanks to those WikiProject Cricket members who sent kind messages of support to me either by email or by leaving a message on my talk page. It was appreciated and has encouraged me to return to WP and give it another go.

On a different topic, I , myself, am not a member of any of the various cricket-related messageboards and newsgroups on the net. But it strikes me that there must be many other cricket-lovers out there who would be willing to contribute to the WikiProject. I suggest first setting up a new welcome page to introduce the WikiProject on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/contribute, and then seeking to publicise the project to see if we can increase our numbers. Thought? jguk 28 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

We have to define our goals. What do we need in en:? We need 1)images 2) Biographies up to FA status 3) Cricket venues 4) updating cricket articles. Anything else? =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 09:10 (UTC)

I think, as others have said in the past, that while FA-quality biographies should be our ultimate goal, I don't think it's the most important thing just now. I feel that the overriding priority should be to have articles of some sort on every really notable cricketer, which can then be fleshed out into high-quality pieces; we still have a large number of prominent Test cricketers without a bio article at all. For example, Victor Trumper deserves much more than the stub he has at the moment, but having that stub up right now is greatly preferable to having nothing there until a FA-standard bio is written. On another note, jguk makes a good point about newsgroups and the like; I'm a (mostly lurking but occasionally posting) member of uk.sport.cricket and would be more than willing to put a mention of WikiProject Cricket in my sig there. Loganberry (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it wouldn't hurt mention it in a sig. *goes to do that at cricketweb* Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 16:37 (UTC)

I'd like to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/contribute written first to say who we are, what WP is, how to contribute along with ideas of what new users may like to contribute, and then go advertise. I'll start the page over the weekend unless someone beats me to it. It'd also be nice to attract users from countries we don't as yet have (as far as I'm aware) any contributors in. I think we have Brits, Aussies, Indians (and a Norwegian!) - but what about the rest?, jguk 29 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)

There are some New Zealanders who make occasional contributions too. But cricket's reach is not limited to the test playing nations alone. I've been pointed out to matches played in the Ukraine, and also South Korea, Hungary and Iceland. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 30, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

As a new user here, I'm interested in doing little bits to help out. I've noticed that many cricketer's pages don't have infoboxes, so I'll be glad to put those in when I see the need for them. Is there anything else I would need to do to these articles when I add the infoboxes (lists to add them to etc.)? Raven4x4x 09:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just adding a link to the article to the list at List_of_cricketers/full_articles. Thanks for your (future) contributions! --Ngb 09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To add to Ngb's comment, there's no "List of cricketers with infoboxes" (or without) - you've just gotta be looking for them. Another "small tidbit" you can do to the cricketers' pages is to add the category of what domestic teams they played for - for example, a guy like Nick Knight is only listed as an "English cricketer". Meanwhile, Hedley Verity is an English cricketer and a Yorkshire cricketer. So to Knight, you could find out what teams he played for (easy enough from cricinfo, where I suppose you get the infobox stats) and then add [[Category:Lancashire cricketers]] to the page. Thanks in advance for the help, Sam Vimes 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you're looking for ideas, you could always look on Category:Cricket stubs. Everything on there is a short article that needs to be expanding, jguk 12:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

2005 English cricket season - VfD

BD2412 has been putting the articles on English cricket matches up for deletion. Please vote for whatever you consider appropriate to do with these articles. Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 21:38 (UTC)

List of current first-class cricket teams

I've started this list mostly as I wanted a link repository for the teams (which I know is a little bit naughty, but I don't know where to find this information elsewhere). If anyone wants to help, it would be appreciated, jguk 2 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Isn't that one already covered at first-class cricket? Sam Vimes 2 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

First-class cricket doesn't have the websites - nor does it always link to pages about the first-class teams themselves. I intend my list to replace that bit of the first-class cricket page, jguk 2 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Ah right. Worthy of doing. I'll see what I can do, just need to get through last night's Twenty20 first... Sam Vimes 2 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/contribute

I've created this page now, prior to finding lots of newsgroups and messageboards to advertise it on to try to get more WikiProject members. I'd welcome suggestions for improving it - plus suggestions of how best to encourage people from newsgroups and messageboards to join us. Kind regards, jguk 2 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

The page looks bad on 800x600. Too much of a horiz scroll. I tried to fix it but I couldn't find the source of the problem. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 17:42 (UTC)

Probably all those colons I added at the end, I'll remove a few, jguk 2 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

I'll come up with a list of things needed for WPC tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 18:47 (UTC)

I've added some of my ideas on the article's talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 07:58 (UTC)

Thanks, Nicholas. Does anyone else have further comments before it goes live?

I'd also like to have a page showing useful cricket links (sort of like a communal "favourites" list). I'll start one on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/links. Please feel free to add any you think would be useful, jguk 3 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Netherlands or Holland?

I've written a shortish Dutch cricket team article tonight, and have added the country to the {{National cricket teams}} template under "Netherlands", since this is the official name of the country and the name under which they have ICC Associate Membership. [1] However, their shirts do say "Holland" [2] and since they themselves use that name I wouldn't object if people felt that "Holland" was more appropriate for the listing in the template. Loganberry (Talk) 4 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

I think we should go by The Netherlands as it is the official name of the country. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 06:02 (UTC)

Same here, I changed an ICC Trophy article from "Holland" to "Netherlands". I'm guessing they use Holland because it's simpler to fit on a shirt (either that or they're all from the Holland part of the Netherlands, which I find somewhat unlikely...) Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

Probably the former; after all, you don't see "England and Wales" on shirts. Anyway, I'll stick to the Netherlands. (So to speak...) Loganberry (Talk) 4 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

User help

I've made this sub page a sort of a desk like we have in wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/user help. Please add you name if you can volunteer specific tasks such as copyediting, photography etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 07:51 (UTC)

Succession list for captains

Should stand-in captains, who were chosen only because the real one was injured (and not dropped) - be excluded from this ? Tintin 5 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

My view is that it depends on whether the "stand-in" effectively captained for a majority of a series or not, jguk 5 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)

Thanks jguk. IMHO, it is alright to also include those who were dropped from captaincy Tintin 5 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

Did the succession box for India. Included everyone except

Chandu Borde - one test in 67/8 when Pataudi was injured

Venkat - 74/5 ditto

Gavaskar - 75/6, for Bedi

Viswanath - two in 79/80, Gavaskar was planning to skip a tour (which was later cancelled) and he stepped down to give Viswanath some practice.

Shastri - 87/8, for Vengsakar

Dravid - in different series, for Ganguly

Included Pankaj Roy who was cap when DK Gaekwad got injured because he was the captain for half the series. All the other one-off cases, AFAIK, were instances when a captain was dropped or resigned, and so was a genuine pass of the baton. Tintin 6 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Cricketers who have played for more than one international team

We have a category with the above title - but it strikes me that the "Tsunami Appeal" teams are international teams, as are the 1970 Rest of the World XI, the International Cavaliers and so on, not to mention the forthcoming Rest of the World sides. The last point especially means that the number of cricketers who have indeed "played for more than one international team" is going to steadily increase every year from now on.

My personal preference is not to include such players in the above category, but rather only those who have played for more than one national team - so that Gavin Hamilton qualifies because he's played for both England and Scotland, but not Barry Richards who played for South Africa and RotW. I also wonder whether something like "Cricketers who have played for more than one country" would be a better title for the category, since it would avoid the problem I've just outlined, but in any case I don't know whether categories can be renamed. Loganberry (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Some categories need to be scrapped. I just edited a page of someone who has cats - Indian batsmen, Indian cricketers, Indian test cricketers, Indian cricket captains, and Indian Test captains. Atleast two of them are useless. And I don't know how many relevant ones I have missed. Tintin 5 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Isn't it a guideline that articles should not generally be in both a category and a subcategory thereof? So in your above example, "Indian cricketers" is certainly redundant. I don't use "English cricketers" in bios I write, since "English batsmen/bowlers/all-rounders/wicket-keepers" does the job. Besides, I tend to think that the most important categories are the teams they played for. (As in Category:English ODI cricketers or Category:Worcestershire cricketers etc.) Loganberry (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

This category is just meant to include cricketers who have played for more than one Test or ODI team (or mixture between the two). I think it's interesting trivia (particularly if we can complete the category). Admittedly, Category:ACC Asian XI ODI cricketers and Category:ICC World XI ODI cricketers can be subcategories of Category:Cricketers who have played for more than one international team, as can the future Category:ICC World XI Test cricketers. Personally, I've never been a fan of the batsman, bowler, all-rounder and wicket-keeper categories, but I know some like them. Come the end of the day, categories are cheap - if they're useful, we should keep them, jguk 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Theoretically they might not be subcategories, if we ever have a repeat of the Alan Jones situation from 1970, with a player making appearances for the Rest of the World but not his own national team. I admit that's unlikely, but you can never rule anything out where the ICC are concerned. After all, I've recently been editing substitute to add a mention of the new ODI tactical subs, which are incompatible with Law 2! Oh, and a question about that: can a tactical sub act as captain? Loganberry (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Gentlemen v Players

Do we have an article on this? I keep wondering what to do as regards links with cricketers who played in this match; both Gentlemen and Players already exist in unrelated contexts. Loganberry (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Want some free cricket pics?

Search in this UK based site Licenced under CC. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 7, 2005 10:21 (UTC)

ODI records to get more complicated still...

CMJ in The Times reports that a new series of "Africa v Asia" one-day matches, the first three to be held this August, will be given official status. This is going to play merry hell with the records, given that Wisden and/or Bill Frindall may well refuse to recognise them; Frindall makes it quite clear in this year's Playfair what he thinks of the tsunami games being afforded full ODI status by the ICC. Here's the article: Purists incensed by ICC agreement Loganberry (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Well, at least it's only our job to report on WP, not to decide. It seems that arch-politician Dalmiya, not content with Asian control of the ICC, is eager to push the white nations out - I just hope it doesn't go too far - cricket needs Australia and England just as much as it needs India, jguk 8 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

If the ICC and Wisden disagree, though, whose statistics should we use? That, at least, does need to be decided as far as players' Infoboxes are concerned. I imagine that we'll go with whatever appears on Cricinfo, simply because it's simple to check and cite as a source. Loganberry (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

I think we go with whatever the ICC says as they are in charge of things, though we can note the controversy. Mind you, I wouldn't mind (for the relevant players) giving both their official statistics and new statistics including their results in the England v World and Australia v World "Tests" and the World Series Cricket "Supertests", jguk 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe this isn't so odd: after all, an athlete might easily appear for, say, England (in the Commonwealth Games), Great Britain, Europe and an International Select XI. I suppose we'll just have to get used to the same sort of thing happening in cricket now. Loganberry (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

This page looks like it is going to survive it's VFD, and whilst I've been updating it daily it takes a lot. I don't know if someone keen on cricket would mind posting relevant cricket scores to it? Hiding 18:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Match reports

Unless I hear any reasonable objections, I am going to move the articles in Category:2005 English cricket season matches back to being subpages of 2005 English cricket season. --Ngb 17:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One of them you can't move - Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005, as that one is currently on VfD. So are, (technically), all the articles in the category (yet again...this is the kind of thing that makes me ponder why on earth I'm writing all these...*sighs*). Personally, I'm not fussed either way, but adding 2005 English cricket season in the title at least specifies what kind of thing this article is about Sam Vimes 19:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I will wait, then, until that VfD is over. I don't really understand how we can be facing another VfD just a few days after surviving the last one, to be honest. --Ngb 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The user putting this up, User:R. fiend (I wish to say appropriate name, but that probably wouldn't be well received) has apparently been keeping a watchful eye on us since early June ([3] and [4]), but was away when the last VfD was around. At the moment, it looks like the English cricket season is the new GNAA ;) Sam Vimes 21:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ngb, I think it's best to leave them where they are. Whilst they are subarticles - not showing them as such makes Category:2005 English cricket season matches look a lot neater. Also, we need a bit more stability - they're currently in their third location already! However, we do need more "Keep" votes at the VfD on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005. Please guys, come and support this project's retention, jguk 14:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about the category, but I think it should be a secondary consideration to the fact that leaving them where they are is basically tantamount to asking for them to be deleted -- as long as they're there they will keep on getting put up on VfD. On their own they really aren't encyclopaedic and lack any kind of context (for instance, if we're leaving them as articles in their own right they ought to start by saying things like "Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005 was a cricket match played in the National League between Essex and Glamorgan on 15 May 2005" etc.). Our argument has always been that they aren't supposed to make much sense outside of the context of the season reviews, but that argument is substantially weakened if we try to make the case for these reports as independent articles. --Ngb 09:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will help - after all, subpages no longer work the way they apparently used to. The 2005 English cricket season tag in the title could help with explaining what it is, but then again, so should the category. As seen by the references to the talk pages above, some people noticed these match reports when we moved them out of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket namespace, not when Bryan moved all the pages. It's tricky. I still think smoddy found the best solution for this season's games, but I don't want to use that for all the other seasons, because I'd prefer to work on the articles and not defend the content all the time Sam Vimes 13:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've only just read this. What was my solution? [[smoddy]] 09:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Keeping them as they are until mid-September, then doing a major copyedit, and then merging them - leaving redirects, I suppose, though no one is going to type the whole of that in the search box ;) Sam Vimes 10:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah right. If you still want to keep the original texts after the merging, I am perfectly happy to host them on my own server. [[smoddy]] 10:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm - I don't really see the need for it, given that most of the content will be part of the season articles. Thanks all the same, though. Sam Vimes 10:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this now that the articles have (narrowly) survived VfD? I still strongly tend towards moving them back to subpages. --Ngb 06:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005

Please click on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005. That page is part of our work on the 2005 English cricket season - and it'll look odd, to say the least, if one match is missing from the oeuvre - or alternatively, there is the risk that hours and hours of hard work on the project could be thrown away through overzealous VfDers. Your support would be very much appreciated. Thanks, jguk 14:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Deterring copyright images

I seem to spend a lot of my time removing copyright images from cricketers' pages. A batch from User:Differentgravy was just the latest example.

I don't believe the users are trying to "get away with it". I think they're trying to be genuinely helpful, and are just not aware of the rules with regard to copyright images. That means that their time is being wasted locating attractive images, uploading them, and linking to them; and then my time is wasted removing them all again.

While thinking about this, it occurred to me that Image:Cricket_no_pic.png might be part of the problem. We effectively write on the top of every cricket player "please help find an image of this player" and then when they do, we turn round and say "sorry, not that one".

This is all a very long-winded way of saying, can we improve the text on the bottom of Image:Cricket_no_pic.png to make it clear that the image has to be non-copyright? (I know that's not strictly true, but it's probably close enough). I couldn't think of a short enough way of phrasing this. Also, could anyone volunteer to actually redraw the image with the new text?

Stephen Turner 08:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that the description text on the image page does specify "Wikipedia has no licensable picture of this cricketer" (emphasis mine) but, yes, I take your point. I'll redraw the image sometime today (maybe I still even have the original somewhere :). --Ngb 08:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I suspect most people don't get to the image page. Also, "licensable" is compact and accurate, but I suspect it's not meaningful to most people, which is why I suggested the less accurate "non-copyright" (although if anyone can suggest an even better term...). Anyway, thanks in advance for redrawing it. Stephen Turner 09:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Another five today — and it would have been more if I hadn't caught him in mid-flow. Any progress on that new image, Ngb? :-) Stephen Turner 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And another one today. Help! Stephen Turner 14:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your Tremlett picture has just come back ! Tintin 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I just spotted that too. So make that two today. Stephen Turner 15:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2005

Well done to all those who contributed to the Ashes. Raul has scheduled the article for the Main Page on 21 July, the day the Ashes start, jguk 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• And I'm expecting a ball by ball commentary from you Londonites starting in about 1 hour ;-) - Ian ≡ talk 07:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Yup, well done, now we just gotta watch it for vandalism. Sam Vimes 09:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

...so far a case of whatever you can do, I can do better... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Stockport cricket club

For those not watching the ashes... ...a local cricket club has been bizarrely kept at vfd, see my explanation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club 2. Dunc|☺ 12:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How I could contribute?

I registered about a week and was kindly welcomed to the project by Sam Vimes. I joined for three reasons, in this order: 1. to be involved in Wikipedia; 2. to learn about cricket; and 3. to add knowledge or information about cricket. My knowledge of (and interest in) the sport is growing rapidly, but I still know far too little. My idea is this: if I were to read through as many articles on the Cricket portal as I can and then come back and list gaps in my knowledge, would that help others improve the articles? I'm working on the basis that Wikipedia is as much to be read as it is to be written, and with cricket very much in the public eye at the moment, there are hopefully many unanointed users looking at the articles here in the hope to answering questions like: what is a leg break and why doesn't it (necessarily) hurt? Wouldn't 'googly' describe the properties of a particular search engine? Where is Third Man, and what happened to the first two? And if Ponting has just hit Harmison all the way to the boundary, won't poor Steve need medical treatment?

Joking aside, I'd really appreciate some feedback on whether it will help if I put up a list of things that the articles don't make clear so that others can improve the encyclopedic (and educational) qualities of the articles. Please, please let me know either here on the talk page, my user page or both.

Here's one for starters: the article on fast bowling doesn't make clear whether all fast bowlers are either swingers or seamers, or whether some are just fast and not necessarily seamers or swingers. E.g. Glenn McGrath - watching (with anger) his 5-21 heroics yesterday, I couldn't work out whether he was a seamer or a swinger as the seam didn't stay upright as the ball moved through the air (but boy, was he good). Anyway, please let me know if my suggestion would help the project. Many thanks, --High^(Hopes) 20:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be very useful indeed. As very great cricket fans, it can often be a mistake of ours to assume that what we know, everyone knows. I don't really know whether you know a lot about cricket or not, but I'm sure your contributions will be very helpful. Incidentally, Glenn McGrath seams the ball every match, and swings it when it suits him. How annoying. Cheers, smoddy 20:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Joking aside, I'd really appreciate some feedback on whether it will help if I put up a list of things that the articles don't make clear so that others can improve the encyclopedic (and educational) qualities of the articles. That would help a great deal, I'd say - as long as your list points to concrete points that we can improve. Sam Vimes 22:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Recently updated articles

The one on rabbits - does this even merit its own article?

If anyone read my introduction, they'll know that my knowledge of the sport is still somewhat limited. Both articles (rabbits and batting order) are written with the view to being torn apart and corrected; once this has taken place I'll revisit and help tidy up the language etc. Either way, I hope that the article on the batting order is useful - it's certainly one of the aspects of the theory of cricket newcomers don't always understand (esp. why 3 and 4 tend to be the best batsmen and what qualities each place in the order demands). --High^(Hopes) 18:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Rabbit is covered by List_of_cricket_terms#R already, I think - a redirect should be enough. The batting order article is certainly very sueful, though. Sam Vimes 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Domestic cricket

I've been writing reports on English cricket for three months now, along with jguk, and while I think that it's a useful project, I've been wondering just how much detail we should go into. There's a LOT of first-class cricket around (as evidenced by the list I worked out today at User:Sam Vimes/Cricket competitions), and even if I try I doubt everything can be covered in the same detail as the County Championship. Then again, if we don't, it tastes a bit of systemic bias. So I'd like some other people's input here - both on how we should do it (the transclusion method and including the same content on four pages seems vastly unpopular with absolutely everyone except me and jguk, for example) and in how much detail. Sam Vimes 15:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to bail out of the transclusion debate, since it's causing so much controversy and I really don't know for certain how I feel, but on the issue of competitions, looking at your list it's pretty clear that doing even all the first-class competitions would be close to impossible. Personally I would be inclined to concentrate on English cricket, even if that does skew things a bit, with the hope that more non-English people will join the WikiProject in the future to handle non-English competitions. I certainly think that the Sheffield Shield (Pura Cup, if you must) deserves most attention out of the non-English competitions both because of its prestige and its high standard of play. After that things get a bit trickier. Loganberry (Talk) 22:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)~

Yep - I feel like the detail should be around roughly the level of the CC for the Sheffield Shield, for the others we can just put up tables and match results or something. Which reminds me - given that this season has so much coverage, I should probably start putting up tables for past seasons as well... Sam Vimes 23:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Catastrophe ahead

I suggest all members of this project immediately shift their screens over to Talk:Cricket, where some rather dangerous goings on are happening at the bottom of the page. There's a plague of crickets invading, methinks... [[smoddy]] 22:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)