Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Skip to:

If you want to request for a batting graph for any cricketer, please do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Graphs/Requests.

"Template:Infobox cricketer" only allows four columns: why not six?[edit]

Hello WikiProject Cricket people.

At present Template:Infobox cricketer only allows four competition fields.

It would seem sensible that the infobox should allow six columns. Like this:

Career statistics
Competition Test ODI T20I FC LA T20
Matches 1 1 2 3 5 8
Runs 1 2 3 5 8 13

This would allow the inclusion of international and domestic T20 stats.

OK, OK, so if T20 was a snack food, it would have to include on its label:

Artificially coloured and flavoured sports entertainment product. WARNING: may contain traces of cricket.

But, like it or not, T20 is here to stay as a major form of international and domestic cricket. And I suggest the template be extended to include T20 stats.

Your thoughts? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I would not even include LOI or LA. With all forms of limited overs play, I think it is sufficient to say within the narrative that his HS was z and his BB was x for y, though I personally do not even do that. I just do not see the point of creating lies, damned lies and statistics out of a form of cricket which is so inherently artificial. Jack | talk page 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Arguing that limited overs matches are artificial is like arguing that ice is a chemical. Both statements are true, but fail to recognise that they could also be applied to other forms of the same sport/compound. Considering professional cricketers may play hundreds of list A or twenty20 matches, it seems only sensible to lay aside our personal opinions and give those games some attention.
As for how it looks in the inofbox, my instinct is that four columns can look crowded anyway at the moment. Six may be too many. But didn't someone create a mock up of how it would look? Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nev1. Take the case of Brendon McCullum -- he's played almost as many T20Is as he has Tests and more T20s than FC, but all six groupings of them have substantial numbers. It's quite annoying to not include his T20Is or T20s in the infobox when his stats in those are as notable as the rest. Same for Dwayne Bravo, as also many others. We probably need to look at actually filling the columns on a case by case basis -- e.g. in Sachin Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid we wouldn't want to include T20I, and so on. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I too agree that we need to work against an anti-T20 bias in our infoboxes now. In many ways, T20 is the leading format of the game. One issue, however, I see with Spacemanspiff's idea is that the arguments resulting from decided who would warrant T20 stats and who would warrant only LA/FC stats as prominent. Is it an issue of spacing, having six columns? If so, can we have a laterally scrollable stats area? --S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I still think, given the sheer number of statistics now, especially for up to six forms of cricket, the best option is to have a much shorter infobox, WITHOUT the statistics, and put the statistics in a separate table at the end of the article, similar to how it is done for ice hockey players. (See Claude Giroux for example). It would be a huge change, but it would allow us to include all the information, neatly without having an infobox that often as not is longer than the article anyway, clogging things up. Harrias talk 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Or could it be a separate stats box underneath the infobox? Another benefit of your suggestion would be for people who are only secondarily notable as cricketers, for they could have their primary infobox (for whatever they were, politician etc.) and then a cricket stats box elsewhere in the article. That would avoid the ugly 'infobox in the middle of article' thing that we sometimes get. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I like this option, a lot cleaner than either a six+title column stats section or a scrolling stats section in the primary infobox. Perhaps a bit radical, but if RD can support day-night Tests, I can support a split infobox for personal and statistical details. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be most happy with this option. Cricket seems to be the only sport to have such extensive stats included in the infobox. If we cut the stats out of the infobox and created a separate table, that would not only make the infobox easier to handle, but it would also provide a way of making new articles more substantial with the minimum of effort. – PeeJay 10:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Away at present, so weighing in late... A consideration when we've discussed this before is that the stats that are important in T20 are not necessarily identical to those in Test or FC (for example). So rate of scoring or runs per over bowled may be more relevant, as a measure of quality of T20 player, than batting average or 5wi/10wm. I'm somewhat against wholesale revision since for the vast majority of CRIN-notable cricketers (who pre-date 2000) the current infobox which copes with up to four columns is fine. I agree we should do something about current/more recent cricketers to accommodate T20, but personally I would prefer it not to be a drastic change. Johnlp (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we not format is to that SR is not an option for FC, but only for LOI/T20 columns? S.G.(GH) ping! 04:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion about this in the archive. See, for example, January 2014 and April 2013 - that latter includes some links to earlier discussions in May 2010 which include some mockups.

For what it is worth, T20 does not seem to be going away, and for some players is an important part of their career. I think the time has come to include it in the infobox, which means six sets of stats, and I would prefer the first of the collapsible versions of the infobox from the 2010 discussion - separating the stats into two blocks of three, domestic (FC, LA, T20) and international (Test, OSI, T20I) - rather than a separate free-floating databox, but we need someone to create some examples so we can compare and then decide. -- Ferma (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Initials in score templates[edit]

Are we resolved as a WikiProject to use players' full names in the cricket score templates (Template:Single-innings cricket match and Template:Two-innings cricket match)? It's far more traditional to use initials, isn't it? And yet I keep seeing full names in new articles. – PeeJay 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. There is, as far as I'm aware, no convention to use first names and I agree that initials are the preferred form. Using the title of the article instead of piping to initials is laziness, really. Jack | talk page 04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I had the impression that historically (long before Wikipedia) it was initials for amateurs and first names for professionals. Now that they're all professionals, using first names, just as with all other sports, should offend nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Until the distinction between amateurs and professionals was abolished in English cricket after the 1962 season, the usual convention on scorecards was to have amateurs denoted as, eg, "Mr. D.R. Jardine" and professionals as, eg, "Hobbs J.B." or - more commonly - simply "Hobbs". As for what we should do on Wikipedia, so long as the names in scorecards are wiki-links to the players' articles I don't see that it greatly matters. Incidentally, I think it's a great pity that players' entries on CricketArchive and Cricinfo don't tell you whether they were amateurs or professionals, as that is a vitally important element in understanding their careers. JH (talk page) 06:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you see, they'd probably feel bound to tell the truth and put "W. G. Grace – professional". :-) Jack | talk page 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
So we can go back to using initials like the stats sites do? – PeeJay 19:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the sense in using initials when most of our articles on cricketers use their full names. Just because someone annotated it in a particular way a century and a third ago in very different circumstances and for a rather different purpose to our own doesn't mean we need to follow slavishly, and very rarely are we trying to reproduce full scorecards as, say, cricketarchive.com is doing, where some compression is advisable simply because of the forest of names. Simple direct links are best in my view. Johnlp (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think space is the key to it. If compression is necessary to prevent space problems, as might arise when you have two of the longer Sri Lankan names on one line, then piping to initials should definitely be used. I've been looking through a whole raft of articles that have these templates and really it's a fait accompli as far as use of full names is concerned. No one is going to go through the whole lot and change them now so I think we just need to ensure that presentation is tidy by using piping if necessary to retain balance and keep things aligned. Jack | talk page 08:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with this. But I think the default should be full names, not initials, lest we appear wedded to archaic notation. On JH's point above about amateurs and professionals, there might presumably be scope for us to put it as a line in the Infobox template which, if left blank (e.g. for all except pre-1962 English cricketers), then doesn't appear. There are already lines in the infobox (height, nickname) which are usually omitted. Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
As a project we had a vote a couple of years ago and decided to use the first name rather than initials as it is more accessible to casual fans. Harrias talk 11:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you give us the archive number for that. Just for interest. Thanks. Jack | talk page 12:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
67. Harrias talk 14:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting. Jack | talk page 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ivor Mendonca[edit]

Recently deceased, and maybe worth keeping an eye on. An IP who seems to know about him has changed the running order of his names: I've asked them to supply a reference for the change as it's not what is on the standard database sites. Johnlp (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember him as I. L. Mendonca from scorecards in the early sixties and that appears to be verified by current online sources. Is it someone messing about or does he "know" something no one else does? Reminds me of the argument about Gary Sobers' second name. Jack | talk page 16:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he's I. L. Mendonca everywhere. But this IP user was very quick on the draw with details of his death, so it may be that they have inside info. I'll leave it a few days, but if they haven't replied to my note I'll revert again... unless someone else gets there first. Was that "Gary Sobers" or "Garry Sobers" whose second name was problematic? Johnlp (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Or Garfield? :-) Jack | talk page 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

The article on "MCC Bicentenary Celebration match" keeps getting redirected to a new page called "Bicentenary Celebration match" by a particular user. Cricinfo calls the match as MCC Bicentenary Celebration match. This user also thinks that the match was an ODI. It was actually an exhibition match without official status. I need some help in determining the correct title for the article. Dee03 19:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the bicentenary of the current Lord's cricket ground, not of MCC, whose bicentenary was celebrated in 1987. So your proposed title is wrong. "Lord's Bicentenary Celebration match" might be better, though there seem to be too many capital letters there. It's not an official ODI. Johnlp (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
CricketArchive calls it the Lord's 200th Anniversary Match which is accurate and verifiable. See [1]. And it was not an international match, only an exhibition game. Thanks. Jack | talk page 04:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cricket controversies[edit]

I came by this cat because it was added to N. Srinivasan and that's a clear vio of BLP -- this isn't a category meant for bios and while there can be different opinions on the individual, our policy clearly requires a conviction before such things are added. However, I noticed that other BLP articles have also been added to this category, so before I remove them all I just wanted to check if there's been any discussion on this over here (I couldn't seem to find anything on the archives). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I think we should move remove the category from those bios immediately. I'll start on it now. Jack | talk page 04:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The category is of course for controversial events and situations, not people as otherwise anyone from Grace to Pietersen could be in there according to some people's point of view. Jack | talk page 04:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed all the bios from the category and added a note about bios and BLP on the category page. As an additional issue, I'm not entirely happy with the titles of these three articles which name four specific individuals, two of whom are living: Chappell–Ganguly controversy, Controversies involving Donald Bradman and Mike Denness and Indian cricket team incident. Should they be renamed? Jack | talk page 05:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The first is probably what's being used all over (and I guess it's difficult to say Captain v Coach controversy), but the second and third I think require some sort of rethink at least. I'm not even sure if #3 merits an article in the current form. The Oval incident is titled as Ball tampering controversy in August 2006, so perhaps something like that ought to be considered. —SpacemanSpiff 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Slovakia national cricket team[edit]

Someone has moved this page to Slovak National Cricket Team. If I recall correctly, isn't this against the project's style guide? Andrew nixon (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, convention is as per the original title with the name of the country and then "national cricket team" in lower case. Jack | talk page 09:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He did it first[edit]

I just came across the John Atkinson Pendlington article, which is written almost entirely in a "he did it first, not the other guy, here's some proof" style. Almost certainly written by the grandson or other relative, I don't have access to either of the Richie Benaud or Bearders books that apparently verify the claims. Can someone who does have those books, or knows of other historians of 19th century cricket scorers, please review and rewrite the article to say what he did, not just that he did it before someone else. The-Pope (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article seems fine. It is correct and the references are true - they do not apparently verify the claims but as anyone who has them will know, they do!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.98.250 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have found a few additional sources that largely track back to Benaud (which is in Google books) and Frindall (ODNB mentions Pendlington in Frindall's entry, for example). It would be good if we could identify the 1914 newspaper report / obituary to verify Benaud's account, but the fact of Pendlington's existence and life can be verified He would not be notable without the (reputed) invention of linear scoring, though! -- Ferma (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly people don't believe the Frindall book so cut the fellow out. You know best and of course WP does notaccept primary sources which the paper would be. Any serious scorer knows Mr P invented the system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.98.250 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link. And here is the blurb for Frindall's own book. There was also a letter to The Times a couple of days after Frindall's obit correcting the impression the obit had given that the bearded one had invented the scoring system. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There was an Australian scorer named J.G. Jackscohn who used scoring 'tables' which enabled him to keep track of balls faced per batsman, balls faced per bowler and what the batsman did with it. For instance, a report of a Shield hundred by Victor Trumper in 1906, derived from Jackscohn's tables, tells that "he played 61, missed six and scored off 34, with one six 18 fours, two threes, four twos and nine singles. He made 51 off 23 balls from Saunders, 19 off six from Collins, 16 off 13 from Laver, 9 off 15 from Christian and 6 off 6 balls from Tom Warne". Most of this would be impossible to track from the conventional score book. Jackscohn used some of form of it at least as early as 1891/92. However it is not known what these tables looked like, and most of this is original research which cannot be added to wiki. Tintin 12:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now that is interesting. No mention in any of the usual places, but there is enough in the contemporaneous Australian news reports to cobble something together, I think: see J.G. Jackscohn. I wonder if Bearders was aware of him - probably not. -- Ferma (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Doubly amusing, as Jackscohn scored for WG Grace's team in 1891-2, and then Grace saw Pendlington's system in Scarborough in September 1893! -- Ferma (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Jackscohn may have been either a misprint or he changed his name at some point. There are a bunch of sources that give his name as either John Gottlieb Jackschon[2] or Johann Gottlieb Jackschon[3] (also his father's name). Hack (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
In a lot of early reports, he appears as "Jackson", like in the first paragraph here. You'll find a few more hits if you search for Jackson and scorer.
Ferma - I found his DoB as 23/1/1846 based on the mention of another birthday somewhere. Have to go back and find that reference again. Tintin 08:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/128106818 - unfortunately it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Tintin 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A very knowledgeable acquaintance says that according Ray Webster, Story of a Cricket Country, Jackscohn scored at SCG from 1887 - 1895, and again from 1905. Tintin 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
NSW register of deaths has the spelling as Jackschon for both the man and his parents: here. Johnlp (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
His marriage records list his name as "Johann Gottlick Jackschon" while his death record has two entries - one for "John G Jackson" and another for "John G Jackschon". Hack (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But happily, both have the same registration number ! Tintin 09:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Various unofficial family trees have him born in 1844 or 1845 in an unidentified place called Maust in Spree-Neisse, Prussia; his father certainly arrived in Australia in 1852 and became a naturalised Australian in 1855. Johnlp (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Maust is in Teichland, just north of Cottbus. Richard3120 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all of that. Clearly Jackscohn is one possibly incorrect variant of the surname. Jackschon makes more sense. I've moved the article and added some of the material you have suggested. Feel free to add in further details. Now we need a cricket historian to pick up the baton and convert the primary sources the article relies on into some nice secondary sources. A Cricinfo article would be great :) Hmm. Is this DYK-able? -- Ferma (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Pendlington again, is the name of the 1914 newspaper mentioned anywhere, or do we know what exactly the paper said ? Tintin 03:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The only 1914 mentions of Pendlington in UK newspapers that have so far been digitised in the British Newspaper Archives are the death and funeral notices of 16 and 17 January and the details of the will on 13 February, all in the Newcastle Journal. None of them mention anything to do with cricket. The BNA digitisation process has only reached a limited number of newspapers so far. Johnlp (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricketer[edit]

A Dutch Wikimedia Nederland board member User:Ad Huikeshoven took it on himself to alter this template this evening with the result that the many thousand articles that use it, if they have been opened, carry the full tabular workings of the template as their introductory paragraph. The change has been reverted and where pages retain the altered version they can be purged by resaving. I've asked him to come here to discuss if he wants to change things that are fairly fundamental to the project. Johnlp (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for disrupting your project. My intention was to add TemplateData. They help editors using VE. In the template structure they would belong at Template:Infobox cricketer/doc. That would punt them automatically between <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Are you guys ready to add TemplateData yourselves to infobox and other templates within scope of your project? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain, please? I'm sure we don't want to be unhelpful, but your edit last night made a mess of quite a lot of our pages that carry this infobox. Johnlp (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Purging by re-saving. The most convenient way to set the "purge" facility is to access Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance and check the option: "Add a Purge option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache when followed". This adds "Purge" under "Move" in the "More" tab at the top of each article/talk page. Click that when you need to purge and it does it in a couple of seconds. Jack | talk page 11:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I know how to purge. What I'm looking for is an explanation why this change needs to be made and whether, if it is done, any casual passer-by (a reader, perhaps, who might not know how to purge pages or even know of the need) will come across the kind of fluff that was obscuring the main text in pages with this infobox last night. Johnlp (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

First class cricketer up for deletion[edit]

Morning all. C. Lodtag up for deletion here. Stats here.

Hope you are all keeping well. Bobo. 09:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wounded Tiger[edit]

Anyone interesting in Pakistan cricket would probably find it worthwhile to read a newly published history of the subject entitled Wounded Tiger by Peter Oborne. The Telegraph have published some extracts from it in recent days:

JH (talk page) 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan[edit]

We seem to have lost our way re Afghanistan in terms of naming convention. We begin with the root category Category:Cricket in Afghanistan which complies with the standard "cricket in name of country" concept. This decomposes at present into:

All of these are named correctly as three require the country and three the nationality. Difficulty arises in the next tier where we have Category:Afghanistan cricket tours abroad which should be Category:Afghan cricket tours abroad. Within that are nine articles:

The national team article is correctly named Afghanistan national cricket team (e.g., per India national cricket team and the rest) but, in the tour articles, the adjectival form should be used and so the first should be entitled Afghan cricket team in Canada in 2011. The 2013 title is, obviously enough, incorrect in any case.

I'm taking the appropriate action but this is a problem that could recur and we need to ensure that we differentiate between the nominal and adjectival forms as appropriate. The main exception is of course New Zealand. We could use "Kiwi", I suppose, but.... Nah! Jack | talk page 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

International tour articles[edit]

I've been reviewing and revising international tour articles lately, which is what led me to the Afghan articles as described above. I think we would all agree that we need to present broad coverage of international tours but the situation is that we have a handful of very good articles such as the 1884 and 1948 Australian tours of England, several which deserve to be rated B- or C-class and a large majority which are either basic starts or mere stubs. Even of the starts, many contain statistical summaries only. The worst problem I found, though, is that there were over a hundred "bluelinked" articles in the various tour templates which are actually redirects, usually to general history articles which are themselves only summaries.

Other problems include lack of inline citations and sources with many articles not having a reflist or an external links section. Most of the articles did contain a tour template which is good, though these in themselves have needed work to update them. Categorisation is surprisingly quite good except that some category types have evolved over many years and action is needed across the board to ensure synchronisation.

Back in 2006/2007 when we had a drive to get tour coverage up and running, we agreed that there should be five category types fundamental to all tour articles, plus others as needed. At that time the five types were, using for example Australian cricket team in England in 1964:

Evolution in categorisation has necessitated change to the typical set, such as the above. The "ccyy in cricket" category type has increasingly been decomposed into sub-categories termed "ccyy in (nationality) cricket" so now we can use Category:1964 in Australian cricket and Category:1964 in English cricket. The latter has also replaced the "ccyy in nation" type as that has decomposed into sub-categories termed "ccyy in (nationality) (activity)" including, for example, Category:1964 in English sport. This has been further decomposed by sport and so we arrive at Category:1964 in English cricket by two routes, the national one and the sporting one. The other three category types (tours, competitions and seasons) are essentially unchanged except that competition and season categories in the 21st century tend to be period-specific whereas in the 19th and 20th centuries they remain ranges.

As a result, the fundamental categories for Australian cricket team in England in 1964 should now be changed to:

I've reached a point where articles, categories and templates about tours of Bangladesh, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe are satisfactory and the next thing needed with any of those is article expansion. Many of the articles are stubs but in every case they contain a summary of the Test series including venues, results and references while the article also summarises things like tour dates, team captains, LOI series result (if applicable), etc. Therefore, although they are stubs, they are at least meaningful and this has to be the minimum standard.

Apart from a detour via Afghanistan, my next jobs are to bring India, South Africa and West Indies up to the same minimum standard. To illustrate the status of these three, I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles. This shows what is needed at article level but work is needed on the tour templates and categories too. As for the two big ones, Australia and England, I'm leaving those till last. Although they are the two biggies, I think they will need the least work because of all the effort that has gone into them over the years and it will just be a housekeeping job for the most part.

If anyone would like to get involved, you are most welcome. The best thing to do is pick up some of the items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles where the main headache is the number of South African redirects. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 09:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tours of the West Indies[edit]

Following the above re tour article status, Jenks has contacted me to point out that tours of the West Indies should be titled "Team X in the West Indies in YYYY", rather than simply "Team X in West Indies in YYYY". As he says, the latter does not look good and is not grammatically correct. I know there was consensus years ago to use this form and I believe it reflected a view that we should comply with CricketArchive which uses titles like "New Zealand in West Indies 2014". I agree with Jenks that we should rename all these articles (107 at present including redlinks) to "Team X in the West Indies in YYYY". What do you all think? Jack | talk page 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We rely on CricketArchive a lot, but don't have to follow them slavishly on every point.Johnlp (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Mainly thanks to Jenks, the name changes are complete. This covers all articles and categories which had "in West Indies" in the title: these now say "in the West Indies". If anyone should spot one we may have missed, can you please do the move so all are in synch. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cricketers with with unidentified given names[edit]

We have a number of very short stub articles, with little chance of expansion, about cricketers with unidentified given names. For example:

and many more in Category:English cricketers of 1787 to 1825. They probably fail notability requirements.

Rather than deleting them, the content should be added, and the pages redirected, to list articles.

See List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names for a comparable list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. They are all first-class cricketers and they meet WP:CRIN. There is a recent precedent at AfD in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young (MCC cricketer) and as research is going on there is always the possibility of additional information becoming available about any first-class player. Jack | talk page 18:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I can see that a list of these less-than-fully-identified cricketers might be useful for primary researchers as I'm not sure that such a list exists anywhere else, and you can add in people like A. E. Bailey whose first name is unknown. But whether that's WP's job is another matter... As far as notability is concerned, Jack is right: they meet WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar (4th) GA nom[edit]

Please note that Sachin Tendulkar had been nominated for GA (fourth time) and is currently under review. Due to the unavailability of the nominator, requesting anybody interested in getting it passed as a good article to respond in the review here. Otherwise, the reviewer will have to fail it within a week. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)