Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Steve Smith page move discussion

Hi. Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ICC Members suspended

Looks like three suspensions and one exclusion (Zimbabwe, Croatia, Zambia and Morocco) - can someone check this for me? I'm about to update the world and relevant regional maps that I did earlier in the year. Again, could those be checked once done. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right, here is the MR from ICC--Moedk (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah those are correct. Bet the guy who spent $25 million on this is regretting his investment now it looks like this. Also, where do Zimbabwe stand if they don't get their house in order and end up going the same way as Morocco? Would they have to reapply as an associate? They're a full-member in name only pretty much these days. StickyWicket (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I reckon I'd have a bowl on that pitch. Harrias ^talk 08:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, there seems to be a lot of pressure on the ICC to secure the future of the players, regardless of the issues in Zimbabwe. The next progress update comes in October, so I guess we wait and see. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth a few more eyes looking at the List of International Cricket Council members article. Some recent edits have removed Zimbabwe from the list of Full Members. I believe they are still a Full Member of the ICC, albeit it suspended, rather than no longer being a Full Member. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

While all these members are suspended and expelled, here in Russia, the government does not recognise cricket as a sport. Human (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are probably a number of articles that need looking through and sorting. I only got a chance to do the maps and keys. I suspect Zimbabwe will be back in in October with a couple of heads having rolled: it would be difficult to keep a full member suspended for very long.

On the stadium in Morocco, there was an article in The Nightwatchman at some point about it. Really interesting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, anything useful in the article which could expand it? Just looked on Google maps at it, seems there's a massive concrete slab/foundation covering part of the ground now. StickyWicket (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Quite possibly - also on the association. I'll have to remember to take a look once I have time - perhaps in a couple of weeks time. A reminder then might help!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. I wonder if the ICC might revoke their full-member status. Just because a team is a full-member shouldn't mean incompetent boards can fall back on that. Scotland could be the obvious replacement, but might imbalance the Asian bloc vote. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Cricket page move

This might be of interest. Ho ho. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For a minute, I thought "Oh no, not AGAIN!" and then I clicked. That was funnier than finding Rick Astley. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Domestic cricket

Hello Editors, I was wondering what would we created page just like International cricket in 2019 etc for Domestic cricket?. We can add A tours and domestic competitions in a single page just like International cricket in 2019. please share your views in this. Thanks. Aditya tamhankar (talk) 13:00 PM, 31 July 2019 (IST)

We use articles such as 2019 English cricket season. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been used for other countries yet, but it would translate easily. Harrias ^talk 08:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: what do u think about this project ? Aditya tamhankar (talk) 5:33 PM, 31 July 2019 (IST)

If someone is putting the work into it, and not just leaving an empty shell, then sure. It'll need restricting to just FC, LA and T20 competitions to avoid bloat (non of that T10 nonsense, for example...) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea, though I agree with Lugnuts that it should be restricted to FC, LA and T20, which will restrict it to the 12 full members + Scotland and the Netherlands with the Euro T20. StickyWicket (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for illustration how we have solved it in the german WP: We have added a table for the FC, LA, T20 domestic competitions for the full members to the international season articles: Example.--Maphry (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Helpful edits?

User:Wadelison's edits are not helpful. Please someone stop them. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wadelison: I find them less than useful too. I have no problem if they want to make edits that actually reference what the player has done, but a copy and paste of the same text for 10 players per year, saying they have been nominated for a non-notable award, is just junk. Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And the slang jargon "knock" meaning "innings" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree too. Knowing that a player was in Cricbuzz's XI of 1874 is not important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The majority are simply non-notable journalism - if it were Cricketer of the Year or something I could live with that. The problem is that there may be stuff that's worth keeping in amongst all the chaff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Garfield_Sobers#Requested_move_1_August_2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Garfield_Sobers#Requested_move_1_August_2019. DBigXrayᗙ 11:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Run rate

The early part of answering this question at the Ref Desk led me to visit our article on Run rate.

It's really poor. Not my kind of article for fixing up, so thought I'd flag it here in case it takes someone's fancy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro1 has done some good work in the past on more technical articles, like leg before wicket. Sadly, he hasn't been active since February. PS: Nice to see my photo from the Hants v Sussex 2009 Friends Provident Trophy Final being used! StickyWicket (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Surely Required run rate could also be merged into this article? And a section for Net run rate pointing at the NRR article along with a summary? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Lather rinse repeat

"The CRIN guidelines are flawed". Come on then. How? It's ironic that when we have just expanded our inclusion criteria, people are now complaining about aspects of the inclusion criteria which have existed since 2004.

And not just "how". That is a useless argument. How do they need to be changed? Brightline suggestions only please. Why do I get the feeling these questions will get us nowhere..? Bobo. 07:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Short answer is we don't! We probably have one of the clearest and easiest to understand guidelines going! Absolutely nothing wrong with a player having played in FC/LA/T20 to be notable. I think the opposition comes from not understanding crickets quirk in that its matches are a status based affair. I'm even wondering if the recent T20I status to associates should warrant inclusion too - even though the standard of most matches is shocking! It's frustrating that the same old people who bring this up are the same old people who have never contributed anything to the project. More ironic that one of them actually voted "keep" to a ground I nominated which hadn't hosted a single first-class match, yet was kept because it was once part of a park mentioned a couple of times in a Leeds newspaper back in 18-hundred-and-something! StickyWicket (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've already listed all the Mali women's national team players somewhere around..! I'm waiting for someone to suggest why we are wrong to have the inclusion criteria we do, when every single team sport project has identical criteria. If this were any other team sport project, the users in question would probably be topic-banned for disruption... Bobo. 09:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also like someone to answer the question of why the sources we use are unacceptable. WP:ROUTINE does not hold as this applies to "routine news coverage" of such things as "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism". What we are citing is not news. Assuming WP:ROUTINE actually means anything in practical terms, this evidently only applies to currently-occurring events - hence the word "news". Bobo. 09:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been rattling through the lesser-known teams like the Gentlemen of England or the armed services teams, where there's usually lots of book sources and what not. The core part of their cricket still comes down to CricketArchive, anytime that's questioned (like it's behind a paywall... not exactly our problem), I just say it's an authority in cricket info, which is it. It's no different from using a fan made football club stats site. I genuinely think it comes down to an ignorance of the status cricket matches carry - which if we are to be true to the topic we're covering, we too have to along with. StickyWicket (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you, like others with more information than myself, are bored of explaining why CA and CI are reliable sources... if people refuse to accept that, then they might as well delete every article which only cites these sources... Bobo. 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CA and CI are reliable sources, but that isn't the issue. Let's go through it. WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Okay, so let's move onto the "subject-specific guideline", in this case WP:NSPORTS. It starts off: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." And in the following paragraph: "conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must' be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article".

This wording makes it clear that WP:NSPORTS, and by extension WP:CRIN is not a "bright-line" inclusion criteria, but instead a guide as to whether an article "is likely to meet the general notability guideline". So the fact that we can demonstrate an article meets WP:CRIN is a good start, but if further research doesn't reveal anything more, particularly for a relatively recent player such as Dean Dass, it does not in itself necessarily provide sufficient strength to keep an article. (Though, as mentioned it is a criteria " which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article". Harrias ^talk 10:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Then there's no point in retaining any articles. Fine. If people are unable to stick to bright-line criteria then there's no point. Bobo. 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally I wonder how many of the cricket articles in the Asian languages - which I know existed at one point - which were deleted from en.wiki, still exist. I wonder if other languages' Wikipedias have inclusion criteria as contrary as these... Bobo. 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What about completly ditching the current wording of NCRIC and replacing it with "...only cricketers who've played in The Hundred are notable enough for an article on WP..." :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Which brings me to a future conversation! What is the status of The Hundred? Is it, or can we treat it as, minor cricket? StickyWicket (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that it will have List A T20 status. Ie, exactly the same as the T20 Blast etc. Harrias ^talk 13:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we express our disapproval of the whole thing by amending NCRIC so that anyone who plays in it is instantly non-notable? Spike 'em (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. List A T20 status, as the name implies, refers to matches of 20 overs per-side. The ECB make it up as they go along! If only we could refuse to acknowledge its existence. Hopefully it goes away after a season. Beyond the world of Mumsnet I've not spoken to anyone, cricket fan or otherwise, who likes the idea or is interested in it. I won't be watching the cringely named Southern Brave (I don't even know what makes them brave)! StickyWicket (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What needs to be added?

Okay, let me ask directly, here, instead of further clogging up the AfD or the previous topic. Theoretical situation: A cricketer has made a single List A appearance, and this is backed up by a statistical source. Someone finds this unacceptable and sends the article to AfD.

What do you expect further to be added? The cricketer's shoe size? Hair colour? How? Any further "in depth" information is irrelevant to the topic in question. Isn't it? Bobo. 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. That's enough for WP:V. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought so too, but... Bobo. 10:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere on my "to-do" pages I've done a complete list of female first-class cricketers. Dare I suggest, without meaning to sound sexist, that barely any of these would pass some kind of wobbly POV guideline? Hey-ho... (Muahahaha, I made a funny!) Bobo. 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Contact him for some additional coverage if you like. [1] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Wisden will have a match report for that C&G match --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thankfully I don't twit... tweet... twet? I'm allergic to Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, and Donald Trump. Bobo. 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm waiting for people who belong to this project to send those seven Zimbabwean cricketers I mentioned in the AfD to AfD themselves... I doubt it though. Double standards, innit? Bobo. 10:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: Could you list them for me? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Seen this message. Gimme a few minutes. :) Bobo. 13:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A more comprehensive list of the articles which need fixing in some way or other:

Gavin Briant | Glen Bruk-Jackson | Gavin Ewing | Malcolm Jarvis (No links to CA or CI other than in infobox) | Alester Maregwede | Everton Matambanadzo | Richmond Mutumbami (needs bald CA link fixed) | Waddington Mwayenga | Ujesh Ranchod | Barney Rogers (no inline citations or external links) | Bryan Strang (no references, just external links) | Dirk Viljoen (no references, just an external link) | Andy Waller (no references, just three external links to random stories on Cricinfo) | Brighton Watambwa (no link to profile on Cricket Archive or Cricinfo) | Craig Wishart (no link to CA or CI other than in infobox). Make sure you get there before someone else sends them for deletion... Bobo. 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

They all clearly meet WP:GNG, so no danger of any of them being deleted. Most of them have enough detail in their profile on ESPNcricinfo alone, while most have additional articles provided more than just a passing mention. No drama here. Harrias ^talk 13:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How can people be certain they pass GNG with no references..? And with the greatest of respect, who are you trying to convince? You cannot convince me that GNG has any bearing on anything since I've conclusively shown the basic problem with it... Bobo. 13:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You've conclusively shown nothing, other than that you disagree with it, and more broadly speaking, don't understand it. WP:N states very clearly: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.". So the fact that those articles aren't up to much doesn't change the fact that they are notable, and should any be nominated for deletion, that would very quickly be demonstrated. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found the general lists of Zimbabwean internationals as well so I'll start doing what I did this morning to Shaun Young. If other people get there first then obviously that'll help. Thanks again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's Cricinfo's take on that match. No report of course. He did well with the gloves. Shame he seems not to have appeared in the next round. [2] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the concept that a wicket keeper "did nothing" during a match. I'm sure he landed on his bum a few times. Bobo. 10:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I find it frustrating because this sould be a complete resource for FC/LA/T20 cricket and those who have played at that level. I'm working toward getting every English (and every person to have played for an English domestic side) FC/LA/T20 cricketer with articles, irrespective of the amount of appearances. The only exception is articles like 'A. Smith, one FC in 1798' which I redirect to an appropriate list/category. The end aim is to create the only numerical source on the net for the number of people who have played at that level and a complete number for domestic teams. Articles getting deleted really sh*ts on that aim! We should be aiming to be the premier cricket resource on the web, not saying A doesn't get an article, but B does. StickyWicket (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When bored exclusionists get their way... I would like to hear their take on why they think we as a project don't want to be a comprehensive resource... Bobo. 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not shy of linking: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dean_Dass --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)