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.

The efforts of this WikiProject[edit]

Apparently, we've come top of something. See [[1]] --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Now how do we make our articles popular as well as good. :) JH (talk page) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Post random articles on reddit with some sort of sensationalist angle (like the DYK section here). Hack (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as "England" and "Australia" also made the top ten, does that make the Ashes the least popular topic on Wikipedia? ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter May[edit]

Someone has moved Peter May to Peter May (cricketer), making Peter May a disambiguation page. It seems to me that he is far more well-known than the other two Peter Mays, and that the move was a bad idea. What do others think? JH (talk page) 20:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an RfC at Talk:Peter May (disambiguation) now. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. To my surprise, having read the discussion there I've been convinced that the move was justified. It's easy to forget that cricket - and especially anything other than current cricket - is a minority interest. It didn't help that I hadn't heard of the writer, though it seems that he's pretty well-known. I suspect that in fifty years time, though, the cricketer's name will mean something to far more people than the writer's will. Perhaps in 2065 it will be time to move the article back, though I shan't be around to do it! JH (talk page) 09:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that nobody who voted for the writer May had heard about him before this RfC came up and they are commenting based only on google hits. It would have helped if somebody who knows both could comment. Tintin 05:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

East Africa flag[edit]

I noticed the East Africa flag was removed from some articles, and then reinstated by another user. The original removal was on the grounds of "it's probably a copyrighted flag, therefore fair-use says it should only be used in the East Africa cricket team page, and nowhere else".

On 1975 Cricket World Cup, commented out or removed [2], [3], [4], readded [5].

Was wondering what people's views of this are? It's important to me since quite a few of the pages I created use it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My view would be that it shouldn't be used at all, because it's a logo, not a flag, and was probably never used by any East African team. What I've done in the past for teams that don't have a flag (where tables would look odd otherwise) is use File:Flag of None.svg, which generates Flag of None.svg. Notwithstanding the copyright issues, it definitely shouldn't be used on the 1975 World Cup article (or any tournaments featuring the East African cricket team), as the flag is very specifically for the East and Central Africa Cricket Conference, which was only created in 1989. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a similar view, if it's a logo then according to Fair Use policy, it's allowable only at East Africa cricket team. Removed it from 3 other articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's actually a separate image I made myself based on the East Africa design. I've allowed Wikipedia to use it however it wishes, not putting a fair use restriction on it. Therefore it could be used on the world cup page??? Kiwichris (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing what you can find[edit]

On page 7 of H. T. Waghorn's research classic Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730–1773) is the following entry which has been extracted from the 7 September 1734 edition of the London Evening Post:

(London), desirous of playing one match (more) before the season is expired, do challenge to play with any eleven men in England..... (except members of Croydon Cricket Club, with whom they were in dispute)

It is not known if this match came off but there is no reason to suppose it did not and, as such, it should be in all 18th century matchlists. However, it is not, because it has slipped through the net even the source is well known and has been read by countless people. I've just included it in our 1734 English cricket season list with a suitable caveat.

There is more to it than that. Assuming the match did take place, it is the earliest known instance of a team called England (or more correctly All-England) being formed. Previously, the earliest date for an All-England team was 1739 and that is sourced from the same Waghorn book.

So there we are, a piece of history unearthed by WP:CRIC. Jack | talk page 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You say there's no reason to assume the game wasn't played, but there's even less reason to assume that it was. All we have evidence for is the fact that London Cricket Club wanted to play a match against any team that wasn't Croydon. Other than that, we have exactly bupkus to go on. – PeeJay 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I just want to know what the dispute between London and Croydon cricket clubs was all about, and does it still simmer to this day? --Roisterer (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Peejay, all the 18th century matchlists include matches that were "announced" or "pre-advertised" only; there is a high percentage of these. We know there was an intention to play them but there is no surviving post-match report. In some cases, we do know they were cancelled. The point about this challenge is that it was issued but the match, whether it occurred or not, has not previously been included in any published list. The ACS, Stumpsite and CricketArchive for example have all missed it, though they all include numerous similar cases of matches which were intended to be played but which might not have been. Any number of these "intended matches" might not have come off but, unless we know for certain that they did not, the sensible course is to recognise that they potentially did take place and list them accordingly. As long as there is a suitable caveat in each case, of course (e.g., result unknown).
But there's no evidence of anyone even taking up the challenge. You can't have a fixture without two teams, and all we know is that London CC was willing to play anyone but Croydon. – PeeJay 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point, PeeJay, but the existing matchlists already include numerous similar matches where there is only an intention to play and, given the sparse and sporadic newspaper coverage of sport at the time, nothing else is known of them. The first such list to be actually published (I believe) was by the ACS over thirty years ago and, if I remember rightly, they did say in respect of 18th century matches that their emphasis was on historical references given that there was hardly any statistical information until the 1770s. As such, then, their list and those that have followed it all include matches that were potentially played so that the references are listed even though the details may be missing or, as with team names, have different versions. These lists include some matches that were definitely not played: for example, the ACS lists includes a game scheduled for 5 August 1730 between teams raised by the Duke of Richmond and Sir William Gage. This match was definitely not played (though it might have been rearranged later) because Richmond's star player, Thomas Waymark, was ill. Jack | talk page 07:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Roisterer, what happened was that London and Croydon were due to play each other at the Artillery Ground. They were arguably the two leading clubs of the early 1730s. Anyway, there was some kind of social event (okay, a booze-up) at which the Croydon players indulged to excess, shall we say, and suffered for it afterwards. The result was that they withdrew from the fixture and London fell out with them. London wanted another game before the season closed so they issued the challenge to play any eleven men in England (in practice, any eleven from the southeastern counties) but excluding all Croydon players. Neither club survived the 18th century, alas.
The contemporary report clearly says that London "do challenge to play with any eleven men in England (except Croydon)" so they were not seeking to play any one club as such (e.g., Dartford or Chertsey, who were also among the best teams in the 1730s), they were looking for a game against any eleven men and the implication is that they wanted to play the best eleven men they could. Such a team, assuming it was formed, can only be called an England XI or "The Rest" or, per our article for such non-international England teams, an All-England XI. Jack | talk page 19:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The full quote of the entry in issue of London Evening Post 5-7 Sept 1734 is: "We hear a Cricket Match was lately to have been play'd between the Gentlemen of London and Croydon, but the latter having been regaled with a good Dinner, &c. gratis, withdrew, and have not since been heard of; and the former, desirous of playing one Match before the Season is expired, do challenge to play with any eleven Men in England, with this Exception only, that they will not admit of one from Croydon; not that they object against them as good Players, but as Men they have an ill Opinion of; having so lately had the Credit of feeding the hungry, they would not expose themselves to the reflections of sending the naked empty away." RossRSmith (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Grounds[edit]

I had a couple of general questions about cricket ground articles that I've posed at Talk:Indianapolis World Sports Park in response to a recent edit. Not trying to canvass or anything, but hoping some experienced cricket editors might chime in on the general practices for these types of articles, as I am unsure. Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Important Invincibles photo nominated for deletion[edit]

Bsb48052.jpg

This has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bsb48052.jpg on grounds for which I have no skills in assessing or making a case. As it is an important image in terms of several FA and GA articles, and considerable effort was made by project members in identifying the individuals, I mention it here in case someone with more knowledge of such matters than myself can make a case for retention. Kind regards. Moondyne (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)