Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

Bob Woolmer (again)

A note to draw attention to a list that Tintin (and Johnlp - (edited by Tintin) ) has have compiled which puts the recent news in a bit of context. Are there others that we don't know about? Johnlp 09:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What a depressing list. I think a nice addition would be differentiating those who have played international (ie. Test and/or ODI) cricket from those who have only reached first-class. GizzaChat © 09:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
David Hookes might merit a footnote, though the person charged with his manslaughter was acquitted. JH (talk page) 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Added Tertius Bosch and Hookes in the "other deaths" section. Tintin 11:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the Hookes wording a little. The original use of "responsible" could be taken as implying that, in spite of the verdict, you thought he was guilty, and thus could have been libellous! JH (talk page) 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving international cricket teams

It's time that some consensus was reached on this (I can't find any, correct me if I'm wrong). Cricket international cricket team articles have names such as Bangladeshi cricket team, as a pose to Bangladesh cricket team. All other sports use the country name, and not the adjective. Wales national football team, for example. Surely this should run consistently across all sports. Why is cricket an exception. Also, you don't hear the team referred to as the Australian team very often, you hear them referred to as Australia. England cricket team has already moved and I think all other international cricket teams should follow suit. What say you all? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the adjectival names are just wrong. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Haven't we discussed this before? I seem to remember some debate over, for example, England cricket team, English cricket team, England national cricket team, English national cricket team, England men's cricket team, English men's cricket team, England men's national cricket team, English men's national cricket team (the redlinks suggest these last may be unnecessary!).
Is someone offering to use a bot to sort out all the incorrect links? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is a perennial favourite! It seems to come up every 6 months or so. I see I did the talk archive archaeology when this came up in November 2006 - here are some links to previous discussions:
Among the problem cases seem to be West Indian cricket team, who are not a nation, England A, who are an English cricket team, and Welsh cricket team. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
My memory is that we always agree we prefer country names to adjectives, but no-one ever gets round to changing it. The only question is whether to say England cricket team or England national cricket team. The former seems more natural to me, but the latter matches other sports. However, we can't say West Indies national cricket team because it's not a nation, which argues for the shorter version too.
I don't understand the problem with your other two examples. England A cricket team and Wales cricket team seem fine to me.
I'm not sure a bot could do it, because how would it know what the name of the country should be?
Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are right about us agreeing before. It would be nice if we actually got around to sorting it out :)
I was thinking of a bot to turn all of the links to English cricket team / English national cricket team / England national cricket team links into England cricket team (and the same for all of the other international cricket teams). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that would be easy enough, once the articles are moved. But on the other hand, it's not a very high priority to avoid linking to redirect pages. (Linking to dab pages is bad, of course, but redirects are pretty harmless). Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But "India cricket team" is hardly ever used, it is always "Indian cricket team". (I don't trust google much but in this case, "Indian" beats "India" by 307K to 34K hits.) Tintin 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we had that discussion about Australia before. There must be something about it ending with a vowel. In fact, I disagree that it's always "Indian cricket team". Usually it's just "India". But even when it is "Indian cricket team" it's actually "The Indian cricket team", but we can't distinguish between "The Indian cricket team" and "An Indian cricket team" in the article title. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'ending with a vowel' argument is probably correct. I think that what is gramatically correct, and therefore standard across all countries/teams/counties etc should take precedence over 'what is often said' (if incorrectly). Therefore I think England/India/Australia cricket team is correct. I had noticed the inconsistency, but hadn't noticed the above debates. Whether or not to include 'national' or not, my heart says know, but if it works for other sports...? Correcting the links would be simple with AWB (except it isn't working on my computer for some reason). –MDCollins (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Australia Cricket Team and India Cricket Team just sounds plain wrong to me, grammar or no. I honestly think that you'll have a hard time keeping the articles with those titles, due to other editors moving them (in good faith) to a better sounding name.
Generally, I much prefer the adjectival followed by National Cricket Team, eg. Australian National Cricket Team, but what then of the West Indies? I think that West Indian Cricket Team is OK in this instance, as whilst there are many cricket teams that could be described as English, other teams in the Windies would take the name of their nation, eg Jamaican Cricket Team.
As for "correcting" the links, I really don't see the point. What are redirects for!? Just make sure the articles are in the right place, and all other conceivable ideas point there, making sure there are no double redirects. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I heard someone say earlier that 'no one gets round to changing it'. I'd be perfectly happy to; it wouldn't take long. But it appears this arguement has a lot of history. India cricket team and Australia cricket team don't sound great, but using the Indian cricket team and Australian cricket team is even worse! It sounds like you're referring to an Australia club cricket team, as a pose to the national team. I don't mind if it goes to Australia national cricket team instead of Australia cricket team, in fact, it's better the first way because you are clearly saying the topic is about the national team. I just don't believe that the adjective should be used. I'll put the controversial names (Australia and India) on my watchlist to moderate that situation of course. I don't think the adjective should be used, because in general, it is not. If it is, but with 'national cricket team' at the end, I'll be happy to help moving the articles then anyway. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we're heading towards a consensus with "Australia national cricket team" etc.; except non-countries drop the "national" so we have "West Indies cricket team" and "East Africa cricket team". With copious redirects, of course. Does anyone disagree with that proposal? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NB I think that countries ending with a vowel sound slightly better with an adjective even before "national", but most countries don't, so I think we should use the noun form for internal consistency and for consistency with other sports (see Australia national rugby league team and India national football team, for example). Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. For Rugby League we do that, and have "Country name national rugby league team" except for West Indies rugby league team, so it seems the best thing to do in my opinion. There, we do have Ireland national rugby league team though, which I'm not sure about. Andrew nixon 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
My suspicion is that whatever scheme we come up with will end up having some inconsistency in it somewhere, because things in the real world don't get drawn up along logical rules. Accordingly, I have no problem with Stephen's suggestion: it seems to be the solution that's most straightforward, and redirects can get us out of any consistency holes quite agreeably. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This all sounds fine. Like you said, there will always turn out to be some inconsistency somewhere along the line, but with 'England national cricket team' and the like, we're being consistent with all of Wikipedia's other sports, which is surely what we want. When we agree on something (which looks like it's happening), I'll help change the names like I said I would. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should say this very quietly, but I'm not entirely happy with England being renamed in this way, partly because the England cricket team is very rarely referred to as the "England national cricket team" and partly (this may be related to the first reason) because the England team actually is the national team for both England and Wales. --Dweller 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to say that too quietly, as I see your point of view (in particular with the Wales bit). Of course, as we have England as the exception at the moment, we could keep it as an exception to the rule then, as we will with the Windies. Now I think it's about time we done this. I'll wait for someone to give me the go ahead of course, but I was hoping that all this moving would be done tonight...it's starting to irritate me. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and done this move. Exceptions to the '... national cricket team' rule, some of which may need some further discussion, are as of now:

I moved the teams for British Overseas Territories (Bermuda national cricket team, Cayman Islands national cricket team, Gibraltar national cricket team, Turks and Caicos Islands national cricket team) but it's arguable that overseas territories don't constitute nations either so perhaps they should be moved back. Thoughts? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's done! There we are, we got round to doing it this time! I've just edited the national cricket teams template to comply with the new names (I think it's important to do that so that the teams bold on the template). I noticed an incorrect (I think) name. You had Surinam national cricket team where it should've been Suriname national cricket team. I changed it. Still, it must have taken a good long time (it took long enough to change the template) so well done! Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone (unfortunately I don't have time at the moment, sorry) also needs to find all the double redirects and point them to the new canonical title. E.g. Ireland cricket team redirects to Irish cricket team which redirects to Ireland national cricket team. The first article should redirect straight to the last.
I also noticed that Australia is still at Australian cricket team.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorting out the redirect structure is going to take a little white I think. I've fixed Australia, not sure how I missed it last night! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Working out the redirects at present. Starting from the bottom of your contributions and am up to Slovenia now. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're also missing loads of tour articles, like those listed in this Cat: ([1]) --Dweller 12:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did look at the tour articles but I think it's too big a job for a human; we may need the assistance of CricketBot. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have realised that Ireland should be at Ireland cricket team not Ireland national cricket team, because it represents the whole island of Ireland, not just the nation. Unfortunately it's one of those moves that only an admin can do: maybe one could oblige? Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. There's a heap of double redirects to Irish cricket team to be fixed though. I'll get to it later if someone doesn't beat me. —Moondyne 09:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fixed the double redirects. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, could an admin move Talk:Ireland national cricket team to Talk:Ireland cricket team too, please? Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to volunteer to move all the women's teams too? There's less of them! Andrew nixon 12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing that now. I started doing it [Country name] women's national cricket team. But I decided to do it [Courtry name] national women's cricket team. I hope that that's the best way... Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm sorry if I've done it wrong (and I haven't fixed out double redirects). Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 15:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related topic, there are some at Talk:India national cricket team saying that Team India should be the correct name of the page. I think it's a load of rubbish myself, but they do have some references (which I haven't read fully) about court cases saying that the team represents the BCCI and not India. My opinion is that whatever the result of those court cases and whatever name the team is given officially, it doesn't change the fact that it is still the India national cricket team. After all, we don't move the ODI section of the Australia national cricket team page to "Commonwealth Bank One-day International team", which is their official sponsered name. Thoughts anyone? Andrew nixon 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll reply there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wisden Cricketer of the Year

I've updated this page with the 2007 selections, and also the pages of the five cricketers selected. JH (talk page) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I was interested by Wisden's choices. Ramprakash?! Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Averaging over a hundred in an English season is a rare feat. And bear in mind that it's primarily based on performances in England and that no-one can be chosen more than once. JH (talk page) 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I just heard that he averaged that on Sky Sports News. That is sensational! When you say no one can be chosen more than once, do you mean, Kevin Pietersen, picked last year, could not be picked this year? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's correct. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Warwickshire article

A few of the county cricket articles have been updated for the 2007 season. Warwickshire's hasn't. Also it doesn't have a "current squad" like Lancashire and Leicestershire have for instance. Can somebody do it? I'd just balls it up Speedboy Salesman 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing SS, I've been through Derbyshire and Durham recently but haven't got as far as Warwickshire. I'll see what I can do in the next few hours. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sidenote here - while doing disambiguation for the table in the article, I did notice the article on Ian Westwood had been redirected to James Westwood, a nonsense article which I've nominated for speedy deletion. Just thought I'd mention it. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is James Westwood? Cheers AMBerry for doing all this. Speedboy Salesman 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but why do Warwickshire have 3 overseas players, I thought you could only have two? Speedboy Salesman 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be that one is replacing another part way through the season. Alternatively, if either of the South Africans have not played for their country in the last 12 months, they don't count as an overseas player under the Kolpak ruling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
James Westwood is no-one, it was a nonsense article that's been speedied. As for the overseas matter, I think Ollie may be right, in fact my memory tells me Steyn and Harris are sharing the second overseas spot. I think. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jan du Plessis

A little help needed here. I'm pretty sure this article is a hoax and have marked it as such. Reason being that the content sounds remarkably similar to a biography of Eoin Morgan with the team names changed, Namibia didn't play ODIs in 2006, the link in the infobox goes to a player who has been dead since 1944 and searches on cricinfo and Cricket Archive reveal no such player. Can someone else just confirm and if I'm right, nominate it for deletion? (possibly speedy?) Andrew nixon 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly not a cricket player, but chairman of British American Tobacco amongst other things. I've changed the article to reflect this. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Should probably be kept an eye on in case some joker tries it on again. Andrew nixon 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a link to Jan du Plessis in the Sussex article under current squad, I've removed it but I suspect there could be other bogus bit floating around. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One-Day International

I can't remember where we discussed it before, but Ktalon (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself, in pretty much his first edits, to move One-day International (and various other articles with a similar title) to One-Day International, capitalising the "d" bcause the ICC website does that (the ICC also seem to capitalise "One-Day Cricket", "Test Cricket" and "Women's Cricket"). Should these moves be undone, or are we happy with "One-Day International"? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the "One-Day" version, but I don;t see it as massively important. Whichever version is chosen, there should be a redirect from the other. JH (talk page) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Purely in the name of consistency across the site, I'd say stick with One-day. There must be an enormous number of articles which use that capitalisation, which we would effectively be declaring incorrect - it would be an enormous effort to change them all. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I had another look at the ICC website and as far as I can see One-Day International is used consistently, everywhere except in their documents, i.e. pdf files covering rules, regulations, playing conditions etc. where One Day International is used throughout. It seems a bit odd to continue to use the One-day International variation when it is never used by the International Cricket Council. While I agree that it would take a while to change every player's page, I think this should be seen as a challenge, not an obstacle. -- Ktalon 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Double hattrick

Is 4 in a row called double hat-trick anywhere ? The hat-trick article as well as Lasith Malinga says so. Tintin 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard it referred to as a triple hat-trick yesterday. The explanation made in hat-trick for double hat-trick does seem to make sense though. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Search on Google for [ "double hat trick" bowler ]. You'll find lots of references (including many from the last 24 hours!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad somebody else was worried by this to! I see I have started a nice little debate on the hat-trick talk page. It looks like from all the comments at various places that at the phrase is contentious and should usage should probably be refrained. –MDCollins (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Stuart Clark

I see that the Clark is just like Curtley Ambrose stuff is back. Didn't someone get blocked for this some time back? I'm on Wikibreak... please can project members keep an eye on it. --Dweller 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was semiprotected, I don't know about blocking anyone. Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on it for now. Enjoy your Wikibreak - though you don't seem to be being very successful ;) →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not that again. They had teams of sock puppets and/or meat puppets working on it last time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We can protect it, if need be. I see some dubious edits to other articles too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that Clark is a target but any article being subjected to sustained vandalism must be protected. --GeorgeWilliams 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Britcher

Since the "sprotect" tag was lifted a few weeks ago, this article has been vandalised again three times by the same moron, although his IP address has now been blocked despite protests from genuine (presumably) users at that establishment (a school in Nebraska, apparently).

Is there any chance of the article being protected permanently so that it can only be edited by users with a minimum number of recorded edits? --BlackJack | talk page 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need. The article has been quiet for three weeks now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It rather depends on how long the current block of this address lasts. The article has been vandalised by the same person no less than eleven times in the four months since it was created. --GeorgeWilliams 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Corruption in cricket

I was wondering if there should be an article Corruption in cricket? There is currently a very small article Betting controversies in cricket. Yet no doubt the issue is a huge one and is worthy of an article here. This came to mind after reading this article in the NZ Herald where one writer is arguing corruption makes the cricket world cup a joke. Any thoughts? - Shudda talk 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think its as a big now as it was before in the '90s because of ICC's strong stand against it and its anti corruption program, even if it still might exist its not that big.--Thugchildz 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's still very big. Even if it's not, the article would include a history of corruption in the game. I think an article like this would add significantly to cricket related content in Wikipedia. - Shudda talk 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to give the priority to that "Betting controversies in cricket" article. Though it says that it's "a history of cricket-related stub", it only deals with the last decade or so, when there's a lot to be said about the 18th and early 19th centuries, when the growth of the sport was largely driven by its suitability as a betting medium. JH (talk page) 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, but you'll have to be careful to avoid original research. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's an issue here unless people start looking up primary sources and editorialising. There will certainly be lots written about this, certainly enough to avoid original research being necessary. - Shudda talk 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a knee-jerk reaction to the latest here today, gone tomorrow news story. There has been corruption in cricket since the professional game began in the 17th century. It was financed by gambling interests right through the 18th century and there was always sharp practice. William Lambert, probably the greatest player of the early 19th century, was banned for life though he was almost certainly a scapegoat. Try to develop Betting controversies in cricket and leave it at that. --GeorgeWilliams 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That article certainly needs expansion then. It's only a stub and only mentions one incident. Considering all the great cricket articles out there this one is incredibly poor. - Shudda talk 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there are only few proven "corruption" controversies and the rest is most of speculations that happens in all others sports too, so writing down speculation isn't really helpful in my opinions which doesn't leave much to write about.--Thugchildz 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Corruption is a major topic in cricket, more so then in many other sports (maybe not football, boxing or cycling though). It's not speculation. There have been all these reasons listed for the article not being larger and none of them add up. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems that there is an apathy to expanding this article because it's a negative aspect of cricket, not because it's unworthy of a detailed article. - Shudda talk 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if you don't call it speculation than what do you call it? Unless it was proven how is it not speculation? I don't think there's much more corruption in cricket than any other sport(this might very little bit from sports to sports) but unless anything was proven, like some were in the '90s, you can't call it anything else than speculation. because there's gambling in other sports too, there's been problems in other sports too, it is as much of a major topic in cricket as it is in other sports. There's anti-corruption program for cricket and if the speculations were proven then the people would know. So you can't write much about stuff that's just speculation(not proven), on the other hand there's stuff written about the proven stuff though. That's why people don't pay much attention to it now unless its proven because until it is, its still mere speculation; just like there was when the referees were calling silly penalties against the Sea hawks in the super bowl 2 years ago. Plus this was just a knee-jerk reaction like GeorgeWilliams said because of the sudden death of Mr. Woolmer; although many don't see it as a related reason anymore. --Thugchildz 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article I linked to at the top of this section, and read this one here from the bbc. It's not speculation, it happens, people have been banned, more people then the two mentioned in the Betting controversies in cricket article. Don't kid yourself that these are just rumours. There is even this list - List of cricketers banned for match fixing that's not comprehensive. Add to that players that have given pitch, and selection information to bookmakers and the list expands. Also read this Panorama transcript. It has people much more notable then you or I saying it is a problem. Just speculation? I don't think so. - Shudda talk 04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No that's what I'm saying there's the few cases that's been proven and so that's all you could write about. Like I said, those in the article you provided were the only ones proven and so that's all you could write about the rest is still speculation. It's not hard to get, no matter what people say, whether it's you or i or a player, its still speculation until its proven via investigations. So all you can expand is upon those that were proven. Not hard to get.--Thugchildz 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

double standards

"Michael Phelps breaks five world records in swimming at the 2007 World Aquatics Championships; seven other records are broken as well." That's in the INT but the cricket world cup which had so many records broken could be up there even though the pages are updated with those. Why is that?--Thugchildz 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. There are no precedents on ITN, as you've been told many times.
  2. There's no disparity anyway. The swimming world championships have just finished. The news item appears to be a wrap-up, and we've been (as good as) promised a line when the cricket world cup finishes.
  3. Your aggressive attitude on the ITN suggestions page is detrimental to the good reputation of WikiProject Cricket, in my opinion.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad.--Thugchildz 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

The article, Cricket in Australia is the current Australian collaboration of the Fortnight. Any assistance you can provide to assist WP:AUSTRALIA in our aim of getting this article to FA standard would be much appreciated.--Mattinbgn/ talk 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First International Match

Several online sources note that the first international match between the US and Canada took place at the St George's Cricket Club in New York. this page from CricketArchive says that it took place in Montreal. Anyone know who's right?--Eva bd 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always read stories of it being in the United Stated. I've never heard of Canada as the venue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Eva bd 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My money would be on CricketArchive. You could email them and ask them; I've found them very helpful. JH (talk page) 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
ACS thinks it was Montreal too, and gives the result ("Canada won by 23 runs") and a reference (Sixty Years of Canadian Cricket, John E Hall and RO McCulloch, page 266).[2] There was apparently a match on 28 August 1843 in Montreal between Toronto and New York, and one earlier that year in Toronto on 25 July was cancelled, but the teams did not call themselves national representative sides.[3] However, as you say, lots of pages say the match was held in New York - such as this scorecard.
Presumably the date is definitely 24 September 1844? CricketArchive lists a few other matches on Saint Helen's Island, including the Toronto/NEw York one in 1843 - [4] -- ALoan (Talk) 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting findings all around. I'll try e-mailing CricketArchive today and see what they say. I'll also see if I can find that source used by ACS. Thanks, all.--Eva bd 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've e-mailed Cricket Archive and just got a reply this morning. The respondent said that they are in the process of researching this match to try and find the full scorecard. I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I'll probably leave it as New York and put something about the Montreal possibility in the reference citation.--Eva bd 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Bore

Hello, i've written a series of articles today on Yorkshire First Class players and hope to write something about them all. I was annoyed to see that a piece I'd written on Michael Bore (Mike Bore) the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire bowler was flagged for speedy deletion because supposedly i had not asserted the importance of the subject. I assumed that any first class cricketer was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Was this the action of a lone person who simply does not understand cricket or is it policy on Wikipedia to remove cricketers who are not fashionable enough? If someone could help me argue the case on the Michael Bore talk page I'd be grateful. Nick mallory 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) nick mallory.

This is not uncommon, but WP:BIO makes it clear that "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are normally regarded as sufficiently notable. For cricket, that means first-class or List A. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of interest, should we now expand that to include players who have played Twenty20 cricket in a national competition? Andrew nixon 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to have gone. Did you classify it as a cricket biographical stub? Did you categorise it adequately in line with other first-class cricketers? Did you supply some reputable sources such as Wisden or Cricket Archive in line with other biographies? Did you make clear that he was a first-class cricketer and that he played for Yorkshire and Notts with links to the two club articles concerned? I think you should also advise us on this page of who requested the speedy delete and who actioned it. I would persevere: expand it and recreate it.--GeorgeWilliams 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article os still there, and no lonmger flagged as a deletion candidate. Could you have mistyped the name? JH (talk page) 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mistype the name while looking for the Bore article again, it wasn't deleted, only flagged for deletion and that notice was thankfully removed after a short debate. Nick mallory 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.

Common sense and a precedent

The result of deletion proposal several Indian cricket teams in England is KEEP!

I recommend that everyone reads this discussion apart from the bit at the end by yours truly which was of no consequence. The real contributions came from ALoan, johnlp and BlackJack. Common sense at last and a precedent has been set for the next time a cricket stub is randomly challenged by some wandering "deletionist" (!) who cannot see the big picture. --GeorgeWilliams 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I hear what you say, George, and I've added some content to some of these articles myself, as you have noted. But I'm personally not convinced that "articles" that are, essentially, devoid of content have any more merit than a redlink; and in that a redlink indicates work to be done, whereas a bluelink would suggest that a real article lies beneath, the redlink may give a slightly "truer" picture. In any case, the point now, I would reckon, is to try to ensure that these articles that have been "saved" from deletion are indeed expanded PDQ, with some real content. Because if they're not, then I suspect they'll be up for deletion again fairly soon, and defending them then will be even more difficult. Johnlp 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its better to have red links than nothing articles...but the redlinks should stay in those templates so someone can find and expand them.--Thugchildz 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting one. I agree with both points of view but obviously, as Thugchildz points out, the redlinks are only useful if the templates exist. I think this issue highlights a failing in Wikipedia which encourages creation of stubs and then doesn't use a different colour of link to signify them. Does anyone know if it would be cost-effective to have, say, a brown link for any reference that is classified as a stub?
Assuming a different link colour is not going to be provided immediately we have to consider what is the minimum content needed in these tour and season stubs.
Before looking at content, can I ask if anyone has any problem with the titles, the references, the overall layouts, the stub classifications and the categorisations of these articles? I presume not and that we are only concerned with content but if anyone does have an issue with the foregoing factors, can they please say so?
A typical Australian season stub begins with either:
This article is a review of the 18yy-zz Australian cricket season
Or:
The 19yy-zz Australian cricket season took place in late 19yy and early 19zz
The former has been deemed insufficient but the latter, as provided by another user, is still live. Yet neither say anything except that there was an Australian season in those dates. I suppose the first one infers it while the second positively states that it did take place. Is this inflection all that matters or should I actually provide one or two definite facts by saying something like:
In the 19yy-zz Australian cricket season, Victoria won the Sheffield Shield. The England team toured and played five Tests.
Would that be enough to ensure acceptance as a bluelink or do you think much more should be stated, even though the article is only a stub? I suppose what we are trying to understand is the minimum level of content that qualifies an article to be a stub? --BlackJack | talk page 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Before looking at content, can I ask if anyone has any problem with the titles, the references, the overall layouts, the stub classifications and the categorisations of these articles?" I have a problem with the apparent supplying of a standard set of references in your stubs, even when some of them don't seem at all relevant to the particular stub in question. JH (talk page) 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreeing with User:Jhall1, I have a problem with having references added that haven't been referred to in the creation of an article. It's happened today to Indian cricket team in England in 1959, which I've filled out as an article pretty much as fully as I intend to (and I think no one else has added much to, though of course they're welcome to), and the 1952 equivalent which is on its way but by no means complete. If the references were added as a "See also" I would have less problem, but I didn't use any of the books/annuals that have been added, and I doubt very much if some of them would have had much to say on the subject. While one wants the encyclopedia to be encyclopedic and to have a degree of "family feel" in terms of structure, I think it is dangerous to be too formulaic and very off-putting to be this prescriptive. Titles, fine. But these articles need content, much more than they need spurious references to books that haven't been referred to. Johnlp 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But sources like CricketArchive and Wisden have been referred to in order to establish that the tour or season actually occurred: i.e., that the title is valid and that there is real subject-matter to be developed. They are the basis of the article's existence. How, for example, do I know that an Indian cricket team toured England as long ago as 1911 given that India did not play a Test until 1932? I got the information from those general sources.

The point of having what I might call "summary references" at the outset is that they prove the event in question did take place or that the person in question did/does exist. When the article is developed beyond the level of a stub, more specific references can be introduced and perhaps some of the general references can be omitted.

What you have to remember about the tours and seasons is the question of scale and the problem of how a few people are actually going to create the articles in the first place. As I've said before, there is a syndrome among WP editors whereby the vast majority will expand an existing article but NOT create a new one: Have Article, Will Expand. But the converse is No Article, Will Not Create One.

So, the reality is that only way these articles were ever going to be created was by someone doing it in bulk and that means applying certain standards and a lot of clipboard use offline. WP insists on reputable sources as otherwise the speedy mob will hit the article as soon as it's created. As it happens, I think that's harsh but fair. If the article is a bare stub which is put there in order to encourage development as per WP:STUB and what have you, then its sources can only be those that prove the subject's existence like the specific CricketArchive tour itinerary page (note that I never just link to the CricketArchive homepage like some editors have done) or Wisden or the Hamlyn A-Z or Playfair. The ACS is a source for all cricket material and is any case a default if you are quoting CricketArchive.

I realise that might be four sources too many and that any one of those on its own might suffice among ourselves; but you have to remember the Wood For Trees brigade and I have taken the view that a few sources is better than one.

I admit I'm at fault in one respect and I do edit this as and when I spot it. Use of clipboard has led to oversights and meant that in some of the articles, you might see a reference to Playfair before WWII or to Hamlyn A-Z after 1982. Apologies for that sort of clumsiness which needs to be edited out where it is found. --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's right to reinsert references into articles when the works cited haven't actually been referred to in the writing of the article and when other real references have been cited and cover the "existence" of the article subject. And my view remains that stubs that merely say that something or other exists, providing no information beyond a re-statement of the article title, can't be justified, and that no amount of referencing will compensate for a total lack of content. I'd also be far less certain than you seem to be about WP editors' preferences for expanding articles rather than creating them: I simply don't know, and am happy myself to do either and to give others the choice to do either too. But I suspect we're not going to agree. :) Johnlp 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
John, I do agree that references should not be added unless they have actually been used to amend the content. I've removed the surplus references from India 52, 59 and 74.
I'm going to create a list of season and tour stubs that are short of meaningful content and do something about them. Any suggestions re a level or type of content will be welcome. --BlackJack | talk page 06:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability criteria

I mentioned this somewhere above, but thought I should probably bring it to wider attention. As you know, the notability criteria currently state that anyone who has played a first-class or List A match is eligible. Should this be extended to include anyone who has played in one of the main Twenty20 competitions? Andrew nixon 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Twenty20 if played by teams involved in "first-class" or "ListA" cricket is a major contest. I think we need to make use of the term "major cricket" to summarise all the top levels of cricket as what is erroneously called "first-class cricket" is just one part of it. There is a good example in olden days when single wicket cricket involving teams of threes or fives was hugely popular just as Twenty20 is now. Single wicket in its day was more popular and more significant than eleven-a-side; Twenty20 is today more popular and more significant tnah the County Championship. --BlackJack | talk page 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See Andrew Johns. There have been celebriteis picked in 20-20 Matches for publicity stunts. No I don't think that 20-20 is serious enough or established enough as a genre to merit getting a bio simply for 20-20 matches. I feel we should concentrate on the important stuff as a first priority anyway. I haven't bothered to write anything for non internationals in my 15 months here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but there have been "guests" in first-class cricket too. To take the question of Twenty20's notability a stage further, consider a Twenty20 match at Lord's between Middlesex and Surrey which is televised and has a crowd of 20,000 there. Is that less notable than Oxford v Cambridge whose players would not get a game if they tried to join the Oxfordshire or Cambridgeshire minor counties clubs? Yet Oxford v Cambridge is "first-class". --BlackJack | talk page 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does playing for Oxford and Cambridge uni count as first class? are they county teams? In the case of 20-20 matches with 20k supporters -> boo for mesurements of merit along the lines of public consumption! We measure academics by academic publishments, so hopefully people think that we should measure cricketing achievement by cricket-scholarly measures, thereby placing Tests and First class above ODI and list A, and with 20-20 on a lower rung! Just on an idle thought, most Noble prizewinners don't win until about 30 years after their discoveries are published and then become part of the"orthodox establishment" so to speak. by that criteria, ODI cricket is only being "matured" about now. Heh, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The four University Centres of Cricketing Excellence (Cambridge, Durham, Loughborough and Oxford) are first-class (when playing against other first-class teams), as are the MCC.
But I don't see that there's an inconsistency here: the notability criteria for sportsmen (WP:BIO) suggest that competitors 'who have played in a fully professional league' should be considered sufficiently notable, and the domestic Twenty20 competitions are 'fully professional' as much as the County Championship is (whatever your opinions on whether twenty overs of random slogging should be considered a 'professional' display!). I know at one point we were discussing specific notability guidelines for cricketers, but I can't find anything in the talk archives here on a quick inspection. Is this where this idea of first-class or List A but not T20 comes from? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's true of course, unfortunately, 20-20 cricketers do count....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Johns is the only publicity stunt I can think of, and he's notable for non-cricketing reasons anyway. Cricket Archive considers Twenty20 important enough to have it's own statistical category for it, and not all Twenty20 matches go in it, in the same way as not all one-day matches go in the List A category. It probably doesn't apply to many players anyway, mostly those players from the Stanford 20/20 last year. If we're going to say that one first-class or List A game is enough to ensure notability, one Twenty20 should be enough to establish notability too, especially as both Cricket Archive and cricinfo give it a category in their statistics. If Cricket Archive lumped it in with their "misc" category, I'd be saying something different. Andrew nixon 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the notability criteria, I've created a page on a first-class cricketer that has been nominated for speedy deletion, Joseph Donnelly. I have put a {{hangon}} template on the page and explained by reasons on the talk page, and would appreciate any support on the talk page, or any edits to the article page that can assert the notability of the subject. Andrew nixon 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of notability. How high up the scale must a team be before it is considered notable for inclusion? There seem to be an abundance of people writing about teams which are far below the highest level of amateur competition specified at WP:BIO. I'm happy for fully professional, I'm happy for highest level of amateur comp - but I'm not happy for every high school cricket team to have an article, win loose or draw.Garrie 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateur teams are sometimes have articles more as social institutions...I guess teams in the Lancashire league, and those types of things are notable, but I don't think anything that is more than one rung below first class is notable. There's a lot of rubbish that needs to be cleaned out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A high-school cricket team, or unremarkable village cricket team, should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What about ovals? At what point does a sportsground become worth writing about? I ask because Memorial Oval, Aquinas College is claimed to be an article where Australian State Womens cricket matches are held (Western Fury vs... well, it's not specified).Garrie 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The ground issue is a bit tricky. Unfortunately, women's cricket is played in rubbish venues usually in front of less than 100 spectators. There was a ladies' ODI played in Adelaide at Prince Alfred College once. I think we can just merge the ovals to the school article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wisden confusion

Rather oddly, the article entitled Wisden Cricketer's Almanac is actually a redirect to an article about the Wisden Group, rather than redirecting to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one would expect. The confusion caused by this has just led to me talking completely at cross-purposes with someone. I'll fix the redirect. JH (talk page) 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First class cricketers

I would just like to follow on from Andrew Nixon's point. I believe that all First class cricketers deserve and are worthy of their own article and not that I have found that a cricketer that has over 200 first class appearences is put up for deletion. This was the case for Trevor Ward before I edited it back before the user Garrielrons put it forward for deletion. I understand that they are brief but why can't it stay as it is ready for someone to expand on it when the time arises. Other articles that have been put forward for deletion I can understand like the players that never played First class or List A cricket but I believe that all players that ahve played either First class, List A or 20/20 as discussed above should have its own article and are notable enough to have their own article. I would be very pleased to hear people's responses to my query above. Thankyou for reading my concern and responding if you decide to 02blythed 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
I think part of the issue with Trevor Ward is the style of the article and the lack of appropriate wikilinks. I have given the page a quick tidy up, have a look at some of the things I have done, and try to incorporate them into other pages you are working on. If the page is "wikified" and looks like it has the potential to be a decent article, it is less likely to be nominated for deletion. –MDCollins (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree wholeheartedly with MDCollins above, that when the article leads with
Trevor Ward was born on January 18 1968 in Kent in England.
He captained the England under 19 team on one occassion
you have not presented him in as well a light as when it is re-cast to say
Ward has played county cricket for Kent, Leicestershire and Norfolk and is also an occasional off-spin bowler.
When someone is active in cricket into the 21st century, what they did in the 1980's would hopefully be trivial.Garrie 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I can sympathise with this problem.

I'm currently trying to write articles for every Yorkshire CCC player who's played first class cricket and I've had similar problems with editors marking them for deletion. A piece about Michael Bore, the Yorkshire and Notts bowler was flagged as was one on Matthew Wood, who's played over a hundred games. This one was flagged for deletion by an editor called Phillipe and it's still under discussion despite half a dozen people pointing out that it's perfectly valid.

Today a twelve year old American editor called TechWiz flagged an article I'd just posted for deletion and then wrote to me saying that ALL the articles I'd written on first class cricketers should be deleted as they weren't notable people. This was despite the article citing the right Cricinfo and Cricket Archive pages for reference and being linked in the Yorkshire Cricketers category.

I had to engage in a lengthy and tedious exchange with him, quoting the Wikipedia notability criteria for athletes several times, before he'd accept that such people are worthy of inclusion. He then criticised the articles for using terms like 'right arm bowler' and 'runs' as they wouldn't be understandable to anyone, like him, who didn't understand cricket.

Obviously when first written an article may not be perfect but I think we should point out when over zealous editors, often from countries and cultures which have no understanding of cricket, try to delete articles without bothering to research their validity. This wastes our time and puts people off contributing. Nick mallory 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.

I wouldn't worry too much when these things happen. It will simply blow over. Anyway Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TeckWiz_2 -> the user you spoke to believes that writing articles is irrelevant to becoming a good adminstrator and helping to manage Wikipedia. This is probably why the community reacted so negatively to his request to become such an administrator. This can be easily fixed up in the case of an AfD if it is done wrong. Anyway, great work on those articles, although I have to say that you need to clean up your use of language as your articles have a high amount of editorialising and hagiography. In particular, please note WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Blnguyen. Most of the articles I've done recently are very short and just state an obscure player's bare facts and figures - which is why some of them have been immediately flagged for deletion as previously discussed. The pieces I've expanded on the important men like Hedley Verity or George Hirst are more colourful because the subjects deserve a more in depth and interesting treatment but if you and other people think they need pruning that's perfectly understandable.

I'll return to them and edit them again but as I only wrote them in the last day or two my changes are still in their infancy. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia writer and I'm quite happy to admit that my writing style is not a perfect fit for the drier accepted form here. Quoting Herbert Sutcliffe's high opinion of Arthur Dolphin's wicket keeping skills for instance is not hagiography in my opinion, it's evidence supporting an assertion that he was a fine cricketer, but I'm sure I have overstepped the mark in places and that such hyperbole will be edited away. Thanks for your interest. Nick mallory 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I don't think they need pruning in terms of length, just that the language needs to be more concise. You have provided us with a lot more info than was there before and you should be proud of your contributions. It just needs to be polished further. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I'll read through these longer pieces again over the coming days to winnow out the chaff. It's an evolving process as you know. By the way, this is what the lovely TechWiz wrote after he'd withdrawn his move to have one of my pieces deleted.

"However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's. And if they do, is a 3 sentence article going to help?"

Maybe he's right? Maybe we're wasting our time writing about some old guys from the 1900s and not really important cricketers like Babe Ruth? Nick mallory 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.

Having read the above, it sounds like other people are experiencing the sort of problems I have with trolls and them wot karnt see the wudd for the treez. From what Nick says, I reckon that this TechWiz is a troll and Nick should not have got involved in a discussion with him: I bet he isn't 12 at all.
If you do create a new stub that is very short of content pending future development, you MUST quote some reliable sources like ACS, Wisden, CricketArchive and you MUST use the right categories including the stub category. See other similar articles and stubs to get guidelines. On categories, DO NOT just put it into category:cricket - find the right category in the crikcet structure. You MUST write the text in an acceptable way with appropriate headings and you MUST make clear at the outset that your subject is about a first-class cricketer, cricket tour, cricket venue, etc. If it is a person, make sure you include birth and death details immediately after his name which must begin the article. And so on. The best thing to do is find an article that is similar, copy it onto your text editor and then overwrite it. Good luck. --BlackJack | talk page 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
TechWiz said: "However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's. And if they do, is a 3 sentence article going to help?" You could point out to him that he is supposed to apply the guidelines as they stand, not to put his own interpretation on them. If he thinks that the guidelines are wrong, then he should try to get them changed. If people weren't interested in historical figures, then encyclopaedias would be a lot shorter. Not many people willl be interested in relatively obscure players from a hundred years ago, but if only a handful are then an article is justified. JH (talk page) 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blackjack. This guy wasn't a troll, he'd applied to be an administrator and he's got his own user page which clearly states his age. He was just overkeen and a little misinformed. All the articles I've written are referenced with both the right Cricinfo profile and the player's main page at Cricket Archive. They are all categorised as 'Yorkshire cricketers' and with any other county they played for as well. I always begin by saying 'so and so was a first class cricketer who played for Yorkshire county cricket club' which I wikify. Sometimes it doesn't make any difference, they still put them up for deletion! Some of the articles are short, but I want every Yorkshire player in there. It's an encyclopedia innit? Nick mallory 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

No, not a troll. Just very green, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick. As a fellow Yorkie, I couldn't agree more. If I can be of any help, especially with 19th century players, drop me a line. Good luck. --BlackJack | talk page 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy Ellis

He is listed as one of the cricketer's who needs an article at the top of this page. I can't find any reference to him though. Who is he? I can't find any reference to James Pamment either. Nick mallory 08:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

Ah well, they probably are real people. But they may also be a further part of the phenomenon discussed in [5]. That doesn't detract from their realness, but might affect your view of their priority. Johnlp 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found James Pamment, he's a yorkshire born New Zealander who played a bit for Aukland. I'll write him up. Still stumped on the other two though. The Indian one might be a writer. Nick mallory 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

There are two players named Andrew Ellis on Cricket Archive: [6] who currently plays for Canterbury, and has played for New Zealand Under-19s and [7] who played four first-class matches for Transvaal B in 1971 and then died on a nature reserve later the same year. I'd guess the current player is the one that the to-do list though, unless the 1971 player died in a rather grizzly manner on said nature reserve. Andrew nixon 09:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just done James Pamment. One of the Andy Ellis's died on a game reserve?!?!? See, that's a story right there. Who's the third one then? Anyone have any ideas? Nick mallory 09:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I've done the New Zealand Andy Ellis too. Nick mallory 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I'm assuming Shantha Rangaswamy is the woman who played for the Indian women's team in the 80's, so i'll write it up on that basis.Nick mallory 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I think the mischief is still around. Unless, of course, Kirsten Pike's favourite film really is Copying Beethoven. Johnlp 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Cricketer

I have created a stub article on Peggy Antonio, the "Girl Grimmett" of the 1930s. When I place the Template:Infobox Cricketer on the article. I found that the autolink to the national team went directly to the Australian men's team. Is there a way of getting that template to point to the women's team that I am missing. --Mattinbgn/ talk 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the links to men's test cricket and ODIs.--Eva bd 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The way to do it is to set "nationality" as "Australian women's". Sam Vimes | Address me 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I see you have fixed the Peggy Antonio article for me. Cheers --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to make a template for female cricketers, though, to make links to women's Test cricket and so on. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article on her 'spin twin' Anne Palmer. Nick mallory 09:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

You beat me to it, I had a redlink sitting there waiting for me! Good work. --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A search for Anne Palmer currently takes you to Anne Lennard, Countess of Sussex. Can someone with more expertise than me do a disambiguation? The Aussie Anne Palmer is listed under Anne Palmer (cricketer). Nick mallory 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

cricket

can some on protect it or semi-protect it? its getting some heavy vandalisms. Some other cricket related articles are being vandalised often as well.--Thugchildz

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_30&oldid=1136052950"