Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Australian cricket team in England in 1948

39 articles

1948 Ashes series

First Test

Second Test

Third Test

Fourth Test

Fifth Test

Don Bradman

On the tour

Lindsay Hassett

On the tour

Sid Barnes

On the tour

Bill Brown

On the tour

Ron Hamence

Neil Harvey

Ian Johnson

On the tour

Bill Johnston

On the tour

Ray Lindwall

On the tour

Sam Loxton

On the tour

Colin McCool

Keith Miller

On the tour

Arthur Morris

On the tour

Doug Ring

Ron Saggers

Don Tallon

On the tour

Ernie Toshack

On the tour

Keith Johnson

Jalat Khan

Interesting deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalat Khan that project members might want to comment on. The player concerned has not played first-class or List A cricket but has played for his national side. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just comment on this as I'm the one who nominated it for deletion. I originally attempted to speedy delete it, but the tag was originally removed with the comment that someone who played for the national side was notable. As WP:Athlete does not mention national sides, under the strictest interpretation, this article should go, though I personally think that anyone who has played for a national side should be considered notable. I've added a comment to that effect on the AFD. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This could be a very significant discussion because if Jalat Khan is kept, it will create a precedent whereby any player who has represented an associate, affiliate and even non-affiliate member country will meet notability criteria without having to play at major level. If that happens, then players in minor counties or grade cricket may be notable too. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

this guy's probably not even at A-grade standard. I know some Ugandan ODI players ran away on a tour of Australia and ended up playing in C-grade cricket in Adelaide. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The decision was delete so we can use this as a precedent. We do have to be careful of the overall notability rules, however, as these can override WP:Athlete and WP:CRIN if there is sufficient evidence of notability despite not meeting the level of competition criteria. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we must accept that some players who have not played "major cricket can be notable, eg. A. E. J. Collins or the players who played in the 1900 Olympics cricket match, (two of those had played first-class cricket though!), but our current guidlines should be fine. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor separating out Ashes Tests information from tour articles

I came across this response to an understandable vandalism warning. It wasn't vandalism, but it does seem to have been (unless I missed a discussion somewhere) a unilateral, undiscussed move by a single (and, surprisingly, an experienced) editor and, it seems, part of a large series of such edits.

Personally, I disagree with such a move, mostly because the separation will put the Eng v Aus articles in a different style from other tour articles where the trophy has less notability.

I've not posted to any user talks - wanted to know what you guys think, esp. people like Blackjack who've done masses of work on tour articles. I perhaps have a jaundiced view, having written what is currently (but hopefully not for long) our only FA on a tour. --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't like this. The Tests are the central feature of these tours and to separate them out leaves you with articles that have much less coherence. Can we get him to stop and revert his previous efforts? Johnlp (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on it either. And it certainly seems to be stretching things for the editor to flag it as a minor edit. I'm not very keen on the whole idea of having "Ashes" articles in addition to tour articles in any case, even when (as in 1948) the tour article isn't emasculated. It makes things less coherent, and you risk having the two articles saying incompatible things about the Tests. JH (talk page) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered this person before and have already reverted many of his edits. I thought he had given up on his Ashes articles but he has returned to them. An admin has challenged him on his talk page and I've pointed out to him that he must consult WT:CRIC to ensure that he is complying with consensus. You are all right about coherence and the danger of duplicated effort. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, such large cut and paste moves are a contravention of the GFDL. Contributions to Wikipedia remain the personal intellectual property of the contributor/s and must always be able to be attributed back to the author. Anyone who copies someone else's contributions without acknowledging their authorship, or otherwise without complying with the GFDL, has stolen from them in both a legal and moral sense. Moondyne 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Is that the main reason why each article has a visible audit trail (i.e., history)? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly its one of the reasons. Moondyne 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I should also say, in the spirit of this thread, the above text was copied and modified from this edit by another user. Moondyne 07:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the editor in question in relation to the separation of these articles. As I responded directly to BlackJack's personal criticism ("he is an extremely clumsy editor and makes loads of mistakes" - example??) of my edits here, the purpose of what I was attempting simply lies in the fact that it is my opinion that The Ashes, as the most historic and probably important series in test match cricket has notoriety in its own right, and therefore Ashes series should have their own articles. Nobody had written articles related to most of the series, and many of the ones that have been done are short stubs, so I felt it was a good opportunity to create longer articles. I personally don't think that tour matches between the Duke of Arundel's XI and the squad players who would otherwise not feature in the test series, are worthy of inclusion in the same article as the Ashes tests, but do deserve a mention in the tour page. As it seems to be the case that the general consensus goes against my opinion, I will bow to the democratic power of Wikipedia, and give up on creating separate articles for the Ashes series. BlackJack was of course, quite right that Wikipedia is a shared resource, and I should have sought prior consensus opinion from WT:CRIC - I stand corrected, and apologise. Robert Fleming (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I gave my views on the matter here and actually stood up for Robert a fair bit, as I don't think he deserves all of the flak he has copped, and he is willing to admit to mistakes in editing protocol. I will post my thoughts on the substance of the issue in the "Proposed way forward" section. Juwe (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

I think we need to propose a policy to address situations like this.

Cutting and pasting significant contributions from one article to another breaches GFDL and cannot be allowed. Even if all of the original contributors agree and are given due credit in the new article, there will be concerns about coherence between articles and reduction of the original article's quality. I think we should declare such actions immediately reversible. Copying and pasting is less serious, because at least the original contributions remain in the original article, but it is also a breach of GFDL and it creates duplication.

I think development of a separate series article should not be allowed if there is already a significant series section in the tour article. There is bound to be a lack of coherence and an element of duplication. Even if the tour article does not have a significant series section, given that most are only a results summary, we will ultimately face the problems of lost coherence and duplication of effort if someone goes ahead with a spinoff.

The principle doesn't only apply to tour vis-à-vis series. It would equally apply to a player's Test career being moved into a separate article; or to a separate article about one competition that took place during a particular season; or even to articles about individual Tests independent of a series, etc.

I propose that we should state as policy on the main project page that we will revert any subset/spinoff unless the proposal has been fully discussed at WT:CRIC and consensus has been achieved. I don't think this should be applied to long-standing subsets such as the 1948 and 2005 Ashes articles because their longevity implies consensus; but I do think we should take action to revert any recent or future subsets. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to BlackJack's excellent proposal, should it be made clear that separating for example the Test matches out of a long tour article into a 'sub-article' would be allowed, provided that the main article was becoming too long? –MDCollins (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I cannot think of a circumstance where that would be warranted. The key information the visitor will be looking for about a tour will be its Tests (if it's a Test tour). Yes, the 1948 Australians had a particularly brilliant day against Essex, but do you think it more likely someone wants to read about the Middlesex match or Bradman's dismissal by Hollies? The solution would be to spin out a daughter article on the non internationals, not the opposite, and not even to remove that information altogether from the main article. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, my thoughts.

Firstly, this GFDL attributions issue is an interesting new (for many of us anyway) problem and must obviously be dealt with when moving blocks of text. However, this must be a wikipedia-wide problem, as sections of articles must constantly be being expanded into new articles, or transferred from one article to another. As such, there is clearly a simple, acceptable way to do this. Maybe someone more knowledgable than me could point it out?

I agree with BlackJack that matters of when spinoff pages are allowed to occur should be part of the project's policy, and that potential expansions of articles should be discussed here first. I also think the information about the correct method of achieving it should be stated.

However, I disagree with many people that Ashes series and England-Australia tour articles (for example) shouldn't have separate pages. I agree with Robert Fleming that The Ashes "has notoriety in its own right" and that each Test series could sustain an article separate from the relevant tour article. One problem is that that this requires someone to create such articles and bring them up to standard. We apparently had one editor willing to do this (or a significant amout of this) in Robert, but maybe he is no longer keen on it. All this presumes that the consensus is for such a scheme, which it appears might not be the case.

Although I favour having separate articles for Ashes series and Ashes tours, I don't advocate the situation we have now with the 2006-07 tour merely having a link to 2006-07 Ashes series when it comes to the section about the Test matches. I think that the scorecards for the Test matches, along with a brief summary (such as the summaries for the other tour matches) should still be included in the tour article, along with whatever other paragraphs the page needs to put the Test series (and other matches) in context.

I'm not actually sure that myself, MDCollins and Dweller are that far apart on this issue. I don't know exactly what MDCollins had envisioned for a Test match "sub-article", but I think something like the 2006-07 Ashes series page would be appropriate. In this way, it is not that there would be more information about the tour matches than the Tests on the tour page. There would be concise summaries of all matches on the tour page as well as contextual paragraphs that make clear what the main purpose of the tour was (ie the Tests and to a lesser extent the ODIs). There would also be a link to the Test series page (much like there is now on the 2006-07 tour page), where the Tests would be described in greater depth. Juwe (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Juwe - to clarify, your example of the 2006-07 Ashes series article is exactly what I was thinking really. (I haven't read the article), but if all of that information was moved (back) to the 2006-07 Tour of Australia page (or whatever), it would overwhelm that article. In that respect, I was thinking that the Test series (not an individual match) on a separate article may be advantageous. A parent 'tour' article could include the full squads and touring parties, for both the Tests/ODIs etc, and any detailed description of the Test series/ODI series could potentially be seperated (leaving a summary, and a Main article: 2006-07 Ashes series, of course) into a new page. I don't propose that this happens for every tour/article/series by any means - only when length becomes an issue, and possibly with any other really major series. Also, I am not saying that a near ball-by-ball account of every Test between Bangladesh and Pakistan is necessary either! I have often wondered whether a day-by-day account is required, but that isn't the issue here. In short, cutting/copying and pasting is a no-no, but I would support some arguments for article splitting. Hope this helps clarify my position.–MDCollins (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is essentially what I had originally set about trying to achieve. Albeit, without consulting WT:CRIC as I should have done, and have acknowledged. It was my thought that the Ashes series should have a page focused just on the test matches, with detailed day by day analysis of the match, as I have done with the 1989 Ashes series, and each of the tour pages should have paragraph length analysis of both the tests and tour matches, as is the case with Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Notable events have occurred in tour matches, therefore it should be worth writing about them, but if you are a test match cricket fan, you might search for the 1981 Ashes series, and be confused as to why when you have searched for the Ashes, there is very little information about Ian Botham's incredible reversal at Headingley, but you do get to read about the Australians stopping off in Sri Lanka, which, in personal opinion, has nothing to do with the Ashes.

Also, for what it is worth, on BlackJack's page, I found a link to this: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name, where it says: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers", and as I wrote in response to him: "It should probably also be noted that in common language, cricket fans usually refer to the '1981 Ashes series' or '1981 Ashes', not the 'Australian cricket team in England in 1981'. In fact I think I am fairly certain that it was in searching for a detail about the 1989 Ashes series that I discovered the coverage of the topic was so poor, and endeavoured to create pages for each of the Ashes series. Robert Fleming (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in England in 1981 is the name of the tour, not of the series. You seem to be confusing series with tour; the series is only one part of a tour. Furthermore, we have to use a title that is meaningful to people who are unfamiliar with the topic. If we simply called it "1981 Aussies in England", it could mean anything. Indeed, some people might be confused by "1981 Ashes" and expect to read a rugby league article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not confusing the series with the tour, merely arguing that both should co-exist. As I was attempting to create. You seem to object to having a separate page for the Ashes series, which I feel have more notoriety than the rest of the tour. I am arguing for having both articles. '1981 Ashes series' and 'Australian cricket team in England in 1981'. As I stated above, I feel we should have a detailed page with day by day coverage of the happenings of each test, uncluttered by non-test one day and tour match information, as I did with the 1989 Ashes series. Then in aditition there should be the tour article, titled as they currently are, which as you say, will help people unfamiliar with the topic, but also provide obvious links to the Ashes articles, so if they want to read more than a single paragraph about a test match during the series, they may do so by looking at the Ashes series page, instead of the tour page. You are quite right that if we said '1981 Aussies in England' it could mean anything, but the term "Ashes" is synonymous with the cricket series, even to non-cricket fans. Although there is apparently a rugby series which also uses the name it is much less well known - I am an Australian, albeit from Aussie Rules territory, but I had never heard of the rugby Ashes until I moved here to the UK. However even non-cricket fans usually know there is 'something' called the Ashes that Australia and England play for. Even my Italian girlfriend knows what the Ashes are, even though she knows nothing about cricket, simply because she moved here in 2005 and it is so important is impossible not to know what it is. She actually hates cricket, but quite enjoyed the Ashes due to the fervour it created in the public in general. I am sure if someone knows enough to be looking in the first place, they are more likely to look for the common language name - ie Ashes series, and if they are unfamiliar with the topic, it is highly unlikely they will even know that cricket teams do tours, to look for that title. I just can't see what the argument is against having an article about the tour which has match boxes and single paragraphs about each test, tour match and one-day game played, and then having an Ashes series page which has much more detailed analysis of just the test matches?? Robert Fleming (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the general consensus of people interested in this debate in my following proposal. I will take one of the series and tours that has poor coverage at present, say the 1977 series and tour. And write two separate articles 1977 Ashes series, and an expanded Australian cricket team in England in 1977 - which at the moment is a short stub. If people think the combination works, we will retain the system, if the general consensus is unhappy with the result, we will merge the two, and go with just having tour articles. If the Wikiproject Cricket community is happy with the way the two compliment each other, I will continue to write detailed Ashes articles, alongside the existing tour articles. I think the current situation with the 1948 Ashes series, and Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is pretty much the ideal, IMHO. Robert Fleming (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly approve of this idea (although I'm sure everyone already knew this). Juwe (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You've made some good points, and have pretty much talked me round. JH (talk page) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is consensus but there is also WP:BOLD. Go for it and lets see what people think. My only problem is cutting, really. You cannot decimate an established article in order to create a new one. But if you follow the 1948 or 2005 model, then, fine. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow getting back into this: I'm (mostly) away. I remain to be convinced. If the tour articles are to have coherence, then they have to include the Tests, since they are an integral part of any tour. I have to say that the only argument I've seen in all of this that gives me pause is the argument about length of articles, which is a real problem in a few cases. In these limited cases, splitting on the lines you suggest may indeed be the best option. But even with these, though you might get away with mentioning the Tests or the ODIs in passing in the tour article with a link across to an article about the Tests, I don't think you should omit them entirely. And don't forget too that performances (and injuries) in "other matches" influence team selection for major matches. I'll look at what you do with interest (and hopefully without prejudice!) Johnlp (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

1948 Ashes series

In light of the above thread, I think it's time to bite the bullet on a thread I've long wanted to post. I propose we merge this information to the tour article and make this a redirect.

I now stand back and await a barrage of rotten eggs. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, so long as we don't lose any information in the process. JH (talk page) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree in principle, but actually there is nothing wrong with this particular article which was developed independently of the tour article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, why? In any case the article will get too big eventually and some forking scheme has to exist. If people want a sequential thing, we can do a chronological fork and break it into months like Australian cricket team in England in May 1948, see 2008 Tour de France they just break the stage reports into two halves. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the old days, tour matches were taken seriously, and in this case there were 34 of them, with some "festival matches" such as Leveson-Gwer's and also the MCC matches using a virtual Test XI, whereas nowadays, tour matches are just glorified nets and nobody cares if people lose or win. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And in the tour matches, they usually sent Miller and Lindwall in at full tilt against the likes of Yorkshire and MCC to try and demoralise Hutton in the warm-up games, and the same with the batsmen against Surrey to try and intimidate Lock and Laker. Although nowadays, the tour match usually allows 11 bowlers and 11 batmsne and eefectivley lets 13 guys have a hit-out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the 1948 pages are a good example of why separate articles for Ashes series and tours are generally desirable for all Ashes series and tours. The structure and level of detail in both articles seems about right and each page is a sensible length. The difficulty is that it would take considerable effort to bring every Ashes series/tour to the level of the 1948 articles. However, I don't see a problem with this being done gradually, one series/tour at a time, and/or with the creation of (initially) far less detailed spin-off articles. After all, this is how progress tends to happen on wikipedia. Of course, this shouldn't necessarily be limited to Ashes articles, but it would obviously take even more work to make separate series/tour articles for India-Pakistan series, Australia-West Indies series etc.

Blnguyen's point about tour matches being more important in the olden days is certainly valid. However, ODI series/tournaments are often part of modern tours, so this somewhat balances the lack of meaningful first-class tour matches. I don't think it is a good idea to split tours up by the month, as I think it is far more natural to create separate articles for Test series and even ODI series/tournaments (see eg 2006-07 Commonwealth Bank Series). In the Tour de France example, it is natural to group all the stages together when creating "spin-off" articles, and it makes sense that the 2 "spin-off" articles are simply "Stage 1 to Stage 11" and "Stage 12 to Stage 21". For cricket tours, some matches are of a fundamentally different character to other matches, and so merely grouping matches according to their chronological order makes less sense than grouping all the Tests together. Juwe (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowadays, they keep the ODI and Test tours separate and have separate teams, thank goodness. So we can just break it in two if it gets too big and the two parts are still chronological. In the 1980s and 1990s they had the same guys playing ODIs and Tests and usually played 1-2 Tests separated by 2-3 ODIs and that makes it annoying when writing a paragraph about a certain player in a certain season...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that a split might become necessary due to size of the tour article. I would not wish to merge the 2005 articles again, for example. If a split is necessary, I agree with Juwe that it is best to do it by match type rather than by month (e.g., what do you do with a game that starts on 30 May and finishes on 2 June?). The only concern I have is that we must guard against the problems highlighted in the previous thread. Obviously if someone decides to create 1968 Ashes from scratch without touching the summary in the tour article, then fine, but if it involves taking stuff out of a tour article we need a consensus on it.

At some point, we may need a rethink on "tours" in the LOI era. Maybe we should define a tour according to number of non-internationals played. Food for thought. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My article's safe... :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

One point worth mentioning is that at present, even when thee isn't a separate "Ashes" article, many of the tour articles lack the Ashes template and The Ashes category, which I think that they ought to have. JH (talk page) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos of cricketers

Hi, After using Stepshep's bot's help a whole bunch of cricketer's articles have been included in the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople

I was wondering if anybody knew a way to search for a large number of photos online in one go.

ajoy (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

flickr? but many are not usable :( SGGH ^speak! 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To do

The following are cricketers who have made their first-class debuts in England this season but as yet do not have Wikipedia articles (click on the player's number for a link to their Cricketarchive profile):

• Imran Arif (player number: 179431)
• Matthew Gitsham (player number: 35342)
• Michael Balac (player number: 313422)
• Nick James (player number: 74039)
• Richard Johnson (cricketer, born 1988) (player number: 128176)
• Andrew Miller (cricketer, born 1987) (player number: 64220)
• William Beer (player number: 90785)

If you find this list useful, please feel free to knock off an article if you so wish. If you'd prefer I kept this list elsewhere, please say so - it's of no particular worry to me, there are several other places I can keep it safe. Bobo. 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but ...

... I think this person is asking for help, if anone can. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?

An IP address is presently editing county club articles with limited overs kit colours and details of the team's sponsors. Does this breach WP:ADS?

See recent edits to Derbyshire County Cricket Club‎, Essex County Cricket Club‎, Leicestershire County Cricket Club‎, Warwickshire County Cricket Club‎ for examples. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the Derbyshire article, I don't think that a brief mention of their shirt sponsor in a lengthy article contravenes WP:ADS. However it's hard to believe that the identity of the shirt sponsor is notable enough to be worth mentioning, especially as no doube the sponsor will have changed in a year or two. JH (talk page) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's more the point. Indeed, the one day colours might change just as frequently, especially if the new sponsor insists. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability guideline for clubs

WP:CRIN talks about individuals but is silent on the thousands and thousands of cricket clubs and associations. WP:ORG sets a high bar and is fairly clear but I wonder if some specific exceptions need to apply for cricket. Moondyne 10:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting because I frequently move local club articles out of category:Cricket into one of the club categories (and, lo and behold, there's another one there right now!). I have AfDed and speedied a couple of these before now because they seem to be nonsense or not part of any organised competition. But most of them are bona fide and just need to be categorised right. In WP:ORG there is this criterion:

• Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found (my italics)

I would interpret this to mean that if the team is just a group of lads on one street playing against the next street then it is not notable. But if it is a local team that belongs to an established competition and plays regularly against teams from other localities, as in village cricket, then I think it passes because the scope is regional rather than local.

I agree that WP:CRIN needs to say something about clubs. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Counties: Isle of Wight

According to this page from the Southern Premier League as well as several local sources, the Isle of Wight has been a Minor County for a year now. Is the reason it is not shown at Minor counties of English cricket that it doesn't yet have a CCC First XI? Is there any other reason it is not shown? Are these valid reasons, or should it have been added to the list in 2007? --Peeky44 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that, because it is not yet playing in either the Minor Counties Championship or in the KO competition, nobody had noticed that the club had come into existence. I see that the article that you linked to says "The Island has tentative plans to enter the Minor Counties CA Trophy competition in a few seasons time." It would seem appropriate to add it to the list, with a note pointing out that it is not yet competing in the two major Minor County compertitions. The present structure of the article makes in non-obvious where you could add the IOW, though, as presumably they won't yet have been allocated to either the Eastern or the Western Division, as that's an artifact of the Championship. JH (talk page) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this page [1] at the ECB's site, which claims to list the websites of all the Minor Counties doesn't include them. Maybe they don't have a website yet. JH (talk page) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found them icluded here: [2]. However it shows them listed amongst the County Boards but not amongst the Minor Counties. Perhaps you should check with the Minor Counties Cricket Association concerning precisely what their current status is. JH (talk page) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the team in the MC category unless it actually takes part in the MC championship. Are we sure the IoW merits a county club as I always understood it to be part of Hampshire? It would be "minor" in terms of being a parish team, albeit a large parish. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It used to be part of Hampshire until the late 19th century (I think). It retained its status as a separate county in the local government restructure in the 1970s. It does share some services with Hampshire from what I recall though. It is the smallest county in England, but only at high tide. At low tide, it's bigger than Rutland, at least if QI is to be believed. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Club categories

Following on from the clubs thread above, I notice that Category:English club cricket teams includes some but not all county clubs (including Sussex and Yorkshire) and several former first-class clubs like Hambledon and Slindon. All of these are in more specific categories like category:First-class cricket teams and category:Former first-class cricket clubs.

I also notice that category:Minor counties cricket is not part of the category:Cricket teams structure, which is surely wrong. It is under the cricket in England structure.

Should the English club teams category be reserved for clubs that have never been first-class and have not been in the Minor Counties Championship; or should it include all English clubs? At the moment, we are very inconsistent.

Any other ideas and suggestions? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that conventionally we distinguish "club cricket" from "county cricker". By that convention, I think MCC - even though playing some f-c cricket - would be a "club cricket team" whilst Sussex (or a Minor County) would not. I suspecr that the person who put most of the counties under the "club cricket teams" wasn't aware of that distinction. I think that Hambledon would count as a club team, even though on occasion it was effectively a Hampshire XI. I'm not sure how the university teams should be categorised. JH (talk page) 09:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

Aggers is busy shooting himself in the foot by chatting about his article on the wireless - have an eye on it, it's getting a bit silly over there. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given up, my browser can't load fast enough to revert the vandalism. I think we should ask for semi-protect for an hour until people get bored. Nev1 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)