Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Notable or not?

Singaporean cricketer Sagar Kulkarni - notable or not? He hasn't played up to WCL Division 5 level, but holds a T20 record for scoring the first T20 double. This was made in a club match in Singapore, so I'm unsure whether this record warrant notability. My gut feeling is a no. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it can go either way. Need to remove the bit about it being the only double century in a Twenty20 match though as Tyson Gordon has one in Canadian club cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Blimey that guy didn't look like he knew which end of the bat to hold during the World Cup! I'll AfD it and see what the feedback is. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• My query is really how applicable acreditation of First Class or List A status is for domestic cricket competitions, players, teams and grounds outside the full members, or played before a nation gained full membership is as a measure of notability. Consider this, ICC if a domestic competition is not held in a full member it simply does not get List A/First Class status. [1] irrespective of everything else. Does this always serve as sufficient grounds to delete a page? My opinion is no. See also the debate around the deletion of this page Northern Nomads.

Kimemia Maina (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I see that the woefully unreferenced Indian Premier League, and the even more poorly referenced Chennai Super Kings (thrice nominated for FA) are up for GA. Both easily qualify for quick failure: for the integrity of the project, it'd be nice to get them at least somewhere near the required quality, but quite frankly I don't care enough about the IPL to do so. Harrias ^talk 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I never go for GAs or FAs because I don't think I'm a good enough editor, but even I thought I was, I'd echo similar sentiments! AssociateAffiliate (talk)

Just to follow up on this, I have reviewed the IPL article and failed it as it is a long way off. I left some suggestions in the review, but we'll see what happens. It's a shame, for whatever anyone's views of the IPL (and I'm not a big fan either) it is one of the biggest things in cricket at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally!

I've finally remembered to look through the contributions by User:Mendesa, noted for his creation of articles of pure fantasy on Great Britain national cricket team, One day Internationals Teams and National cricket stadium (which was the best of the lot), among many, many others! Much of what he has contributed was utter nonsense, I believe it is all removed/reverted now. Phew! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news Head-up

2011 Champions League Twenty20 has been nominated for inclusion on the main page under the In the News section, a discussion is going on here. Mtking ^(edits) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming cricketers

Hey everyone. In Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne/archive1, I've had a comment about the way in which Indian and Pakistani (and Bangladeshi I think) cricketers' names are listed. I've tended to stick with Cricinfo, which is to say that (for example) Michael Atherton becomes MA Atherton while (for example) Yuvraj Singh becomes, ... well ..., Yuvraj Singh. The comment (and a fair one at that) has highlighted that we (or, at least Cricinfo) treat the naming of cricketers differently from nation to nation. This may have been discussed before (if so, my apologies, please link me up) but it would be useful to me, at the very least, to understand (1) how the naming works and (2) if the naming on the list is legitimate and justified. I feel oddly stupid about the whole thing and don't want to cause offence, so please accept my apologies (again!) if this clearly basic question causes anyone to twitch uncontrollably...! As ever, thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at the FLC. Harrias ^talk 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Recently stumbled across this again having pretty much forgotten about it! Would be nice for a bot to go through them all, whether such a bot is even possible is beyond me! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

RM

The discussion at Talk:Reverse (cricket)#Requested move may be of interest. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

English/England cricket team

Shouldn't this article be "England cricket team..."? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No. If you look at the category you will see that we long ago established "English cricket team" as our convention. I think there was a WP guideline in place which we had to follow. Actually, I agree with you as "England cricket team" seems to be in common usage. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is one of the vagaries of our system - I think I remember it being something to do with being "England and Wales"? The discussion will be in the archive somewhere.—User:MDCollins (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricket tournament

Just looking through the 2009 ACC Twenty20 Cup article when I noticed the tournament infobox has the batsman that scored the most runs down as the "best batsman". I've reverted the edit which changed "most runs" to "best batsman", but may be some eyes on it to make sure it remains reverted!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Another milestone

I think that's articles for all notable grounds in Europe (Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Jersey, the Netherlands and Scotland) that have now have articles. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia done now. Argentina next, then perhaps what I'm expecting to be a long task with the Indian and Pakistani lists. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NEW BOOK reveals all pre-1750 scores

From Commons to Lords, Volume 1 was published in 2009 by Ian Maun and was nominated for the Cricket Society Book of the Year 2010, but didn't win. It has used the British Library Burney newspaper archive to access all references prior to 1750. It is a massive scholarly work and it renders elements of the pre-1750 contributions inaccurate. The book is available from an address listed on the ACS site. This scholarly work is the first to include all known newspaper references. I understand cricketarchive will soon update their database using Mr Maun's source. KestevenBullet (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am probably sailing into the tempest but on what basis you are claiming this book is a scholarly work? Hack (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The book exists and here is a review. As for whether it's a scholarly work, I'll leave that for others to judge. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack in KestevenBullet's post and have edited his content to represent his essential point which is about how WP:CRIC should use this book vis-à-vis existing sources.

Mr Maun's book is a history of early cricket to 1750. It apparently uses the methodology employed in the past by G B Buckley and H T Waghorn of reproducing contemporary notices and reports found in newspapers and other primary sources. I haven't seen the book but it may begin about 1696 when the Licensing Act that controlled the press to that time was repealed. During the period in question, cricket was played with a two-stump wicket, the bowling was underarm without pitching, the bat was shaped like a hockey stick and there was no lbw. Evolutionary changes into the modern game occurred in the 1760s and 1770s. Due to infrequency of reports, information about matches, teams and players are piecemeal and all articles about the period are necessarily short.

Daft may be correct when he insists that Maun's work is "scholarly", but Hack and Nev are certainly correct when they question the assertion. Daft also says that CricketArchive will soon update their database using Maun's data. This may or may not be so and all we can do is wait and see if it happens.

The issue is how WP:CRIC should utilise this source given that it not only introduces new data from formerly unsourced reports, but also directly challenges content that has been documented in the past by other researchers whose works are cited in CRIC articles. For example, Daft has taken a match out of 1728 English cricket season and placed it in 1729 English cricket season because Maun has a match with the same title in 1729. Daft insists the 1728 date is an error by Waghorn, who originally found the reference, but it is possible that the same match was played in both years and that Maun has found the second one but not the first. And it should not be assumed that Maun is always right: he might have made errors too. We don't know. So, when Hack and Nev question Daft's insistence that the work is scholarly, this is the sort of point that must be addressed.

The 1728 date for this Middlesex v London game was originally recorded by Waghorn and it has subsequently been agreed by the ACS, whom Daft normally extols to the skies, and by Martin Wilson whose 2005 book corrects Waghorn's many errors. In addition, CricketArchive presently has the match in its 1728 matchlist, not in 1729. So this is a good example of how data in Maun's work may contradict existing information.

My suggestion is that we should continue to recognise the existing sources but, at a future date, adopt Maun's version if CricketArchive should ever change its match listings to comply with his. Otherwise we will have a conflict between Maun on the one hand and the likes of Ashley-Cooper, Buckley, Haygarth and Waghorn on the other. It makes sense to let CricketArchive be the umpire. Where Maun has found new data, I see no problem with that being used here as long as it is properly cited and it does not disrupt the structure, flow and context of the article. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if I may be able to get a copy of the book and, if so, I'll see what can be used. I'm told, by a reliable contact this time, that it is recommended and it contains a lot of previously undiscovered material, though there are some variations from the earlier sources such as the Middlesex v London game. Will report back if I do manage to buy it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got the book now and it is very good. I wish I'd known about it earlier but better late than never. I was right that the Middlesex v London fixture was played more than once and, contrary to Daft's dogmatic statements, Ian Maun lists it in both 1728 and 1729, the latter record being newly found. As and when time allows, I'll use the book to update the early seasonal articles. It covers 1700 to 1750 inclusive. If anyone has any questions about the book, let me know on my talk page. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

T20 Rankings

As far as I'm aware this table is a new development, but I assume it should be placed on the season articles alongside the Test and ODI ones? Tony2Times (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy, another reason for fans to start posting on pages that a player is top ranked by the ICC. Though it is amusing to see Afghanistan at 9, Bangladesh absent, and New Zealand above South Africa and Australia. The headline on cricinfo's front page is "England No. 1 in new T20 rankings" so I guess that means they're new. Nev1 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All down to the amount of T20's they've played in a year I think, so Bangladesh and Ireland should enter above Afghanistan. But joys of joys, more fan worship on its way! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman/archive1

I have taken this to WP:FLC/CONTEST. Since the number of centuries is 22 (3 less than 25), the reviewer feels it might not be appropriate to have a separate list. I have had this doubt when I created this list and even asked that to User:SpacemanSpiff, a well experienced editor in this project, who made it clear that having a separate list isn't a problem, as the main article is not too short. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 03:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Eye on

Appears to be a mass IP editing war of "my favorite cricketer is x number on the list" on the ESPN Legends of Cricket article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is a mess, hit by years of people falsely changing the list. Look at older revisions and you'll see Kapil Dev's been promoted a handful of spots, Murali's been put on it when he wasn't originally, Keith Miller's suddenly missing, etc. Not to mention the only source it cites is unreliable, and the external link seems to have changed to the extent that I'm not convinced ESPN publish this list any more. But the biggest problem is that we shouldn't include the entirety of the list -- an encyclopedic article on this should cover the notability of the list, not just restate what's included. The content of that list is copyrighted and we cannot republish it in its entirety. This is a long-standing precedent stemming from debates over at The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time -- see here. As such, I've removed everything below the top 10.

Beyond that, is this list really notable? Has this list's merits and importance actually been discussed by any reliable, secondary sources? I'm not convinced it has. It's just a list that some website made as a feature -- that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time has a reception section (even then, consider how small it is, when that's a far more well known list than this), which is the kind of thing this would need if it was to demonstrate notability, but I expect it's highly unlikely that this has ever garnered the kind of attention beyond non-trivial coverage. Could be wrong, though. Googling it now, I can only find forums discussing this -- absolutely no critical commentary from any reliable sources at all. Any thoughts on whether this should be AfD'd, or does anyone think it can be saved? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the article not being notable. Buttons to Push Buttons has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. If independent third party sources don't cover this, it's not notable. Time for AfD. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, reading up some more, the entirety of the list should be removed -- that old thread certainly was the consensus on lists of this type, but that has been supplanted by the official legal position of the Wikimedia Foundation. See User:Moonriddengirl's comment here and Wikipedia:NFC#Text 2, point 5: "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner." is unacceptable. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If it went to AfD, I would support deletion. It isn't notable, it's POV and there is the real risk of copyvio if it isn't regularly watched. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I did look though the history and to be honest couldn't be very much bothered to revert all the edits! It looked a lost hope when I came across it on the watchlist, but as it dated back to 2007 I assumed it had gone through the notability debate. If it goes to AfD I'd support deletion. I'll do a quick search and see what sources come up, (not holding my breath though!) nothing much does I'll AfD it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep found nothing whatsoever which implies notability. I've taken it to AfD. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)