User talk:Blue Square Thing

I usually archive this talk page on or around 18 December each year. I also archived it in April 2022 after having taken a short break from Wikipedia.

Speedy deletion declined: Thomas Chambers (cricket patron)

Hello Blue Square Thing. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thomas Chambers (cricket patron), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having been discussed at RFD would make this redirect inelgible for speedy deletion as it has substantial edits by others. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Thanks - I did wonder about that; I'm learning a lot about CSD just now! I might take it back to RfD given the socking, we'll see. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of early English cricketers to 1786" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of early English cricketers to 1786 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 17 § List of early English cricketers to 1786 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow super giants

I have made an edit of current squad of lucknow but you have revert my edit once check the edit i made and revert it Sridharsana (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your user talk page explaining why your edits were not appropriate. It would be easiest if you read that and then probably easiest if you replied there in order to keep the conversation in one place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert on Women's Premier League

You just reverted my edit on Women's Premier League (cricket). I just updated logo and there has no relation with spamming. I always respect Wikipedia edit policy and never did any inappropriate edit. If there is something else please let me know. Thanks and have a nice day. Gorav💬 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the logo was massive. I removed another link that seemed to be spammy and have since removed others that I pretty much consider to be the same. I'v eno idea if you added those links or not - you might have done, someone else might have done. I'm sure that we can find better links in all cases to reputable news media sources.

The file you uploaded for the logo also has issues with regard to the size and its non-free nature. The one Joseph uploaded is a better choice for now because of this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Joseph’s one is screenshot from logo reveal video with unpleasant background and useless stuff like celebration cracker and blue hue accordion to theme of that video[1]. And I was about to change the size to 250px by using imagesize = 250px. If you still think Joseph one is suitable because of copyright related issue, I’m ok with that. Thanks for clarification and have a great day ahead.🥂 Gorav💬 13:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the image that's been uploaded has to be changed to comply with copyright restrictions. Perhaps you need to look into that first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks for highlighting mistake. I have updated that image with lower resolution to comply with copyright restrictions. Now I have green signal to put it on Infobox? Gorav💬 13:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Joseph - they know more about logos and copyright that I do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virat Kohli

The article have lost of problems, some section looks like essay, some one messed up popular culture sect, by adding media comments/designation. You'll know once read, just wanted to take this thing to your notice.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to avoid that article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Last champion in CLT20

In the Champions League T20, we need to add Last champion as Chennai Super kings. Can you kindly add. Ashokkumar047 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't. No such parameter exists for the infobox. We don't need to add it - it's a league that happened a long time ago and no one really remembers or talks about now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the edit (8 to 10 teams in IPL 2022 line), please consider this!

Hello Dear,

I noticed you reverted my edit mentioning "IPL 2022 was upgraded from 8 teams to 10 teams". I think it was a major difference and worth mentioning. Because it never happened before.

I think you should allow this! HridoyKundu (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. So, a) did you read the following paragraph of the article, because it literally says the same thing; b) there were 10 teams in 2011. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPL 2023

Hi, you removed a lot of material for this article's lead. If it shouldn't be there than you should move it in sub sections without removing it. We can expect this from experienced editors like you. I hope you'll fix your mistake.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need most of it at all - and it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. The article's going to be a cluster* for the next three months - it's honestly not worth considering until the dust has settled. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read [IPL]], its broadcasting section lots of outdated/mis-information such table say Viacom18 Broadcasting IPL in S Africa but presently Super sports is airing it here. One line say Hotstar have online streaming right but Viacom18 have. It say Pakistan is broadcasting IPL but the leauge was prohibited there. Grammar is also awaful.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PollyErn53

I think we may have the same concerns about this editor. Something seems fishy to me, as if they are making edits to meet some minimum requisite number. BD2412 T 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, possible - but if they are I'm not sure they've done it very frequently before; the date stuff is an obvious flag that someone was going to spot. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket coach lists

Hi any reason you're mass deleting these sections? I'm happy to work my way through and add sources but they're pretty useful so it would be better to use an unsourced tag rather than just delete them. Beeeggs (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I’ve done anything with also seemed to be very incomplete- to the extent that they seemed misleading as well. That’s the primary reason I removed them. If you can find complete lists of everyone who coached a side then I’m happy with a list. Otherwise a brief prose section of highlights might be better? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Surrey cricketers' articles

Thanks for your work on this, and in particular the removal of the spurious Test careers that someone has put in the infoboxes of a number of them. When that happened to cricketers whose articles that I follow, I don't know how I failed to spot it. I think it must have been done when I was away on holiday and so not keeping an eye on my watched articles. JH (talk page) 08:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhall1: Hi. I think it happened a long time ago in an old version of the infobox - lots of them date from pre-2010 iirc. I think it was deemed the way to record first-class careers back then? When the infobox was updated or things moved over they didn't get removed so we ended up with all sorts of stuff in there I think. I'm just working through some lists from the parameters to try to reduce things down so that it's easier to spot vandalism really. On the way I come across things like Bomber Wells who I didn't know about and made me smile. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further on this - on Ted Pooley, what seems to have happened is that an old infobox - Old Cricketer - was done away with at some point. That had debut date and so on - but not for internationals. When it was done away with it was merged with Cricketer and the old debut date values were deemed to be Test debut dates in every case by the looks of it. That means that the values that were there (and in that case added by you) were moved across to the international section and he suddenly became an international! That seems to have happened at some point in 2010 when about four temples were merged together. It's a shame it was done in a way that created something that caused odd looking infoboxes, and I'm not sure there's an easy way to pick them all up in some form of query. Be nice if there was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the esplanation. I see there are also one or two cricketers whose articles I watch where you've removed their places of birth and death from where they weren't supposed to be but they aren't present anywhere else, so I'll try to put them either into their infoboxes or else in a more appropriate position in their articles. JH (talk page) 15:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it's a bad habit that I've been trying to kick but have ended up working quite quickly the last few days. I keep on trying to remember to deal with them properly... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I see you are doing a lot of housekeeping to clean up infoboxes and external link sections. Have you thought of using WP:AWB to assist with that? You can set search parameters that will operate across several related categories to identify suspect cases. You still have to deal with them individually but it takes much less time, especially if you can incorporate an edit command in your search to change a value if found, though I think that could be difficult with the sort of changes you are doing. AWB isn't cutting edge but it might be worth considering, and the site does have other seek-and-find functions. 92.31.4.56 (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not usable by me I'm afraid. Tbh although there are similarities, each one's a bit different anyway so I'll probably not use anything automated. But thanks for the thought. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It is something you need to feel comfortable with. 92.31.4.56 (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your fine work in saving Douglas Godfree with thorough research and well considered prose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I enjoyed discovering this interesting chap - literally the first one I clicked on on the list! I suspect there will be less interesting people, but it was a fortunate first click Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time during 2021-22 developing some Lugnuts microstubs, albeit from sportspeople much later in the 20th century with better coverage, but still it is refreshing to see that some of the early 20th century ones can be viable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NZ cricketers

Hello, BST. Thank you for your work on NZ cricketers in general and Arthur Symonds in particular. I just wanted to note that the book, New Zealand Cricketers 1863/64–2010, is available online, so perhaps consider adding it to each article. I've already added it to the Arthur Symonds article. 47.72.214.158 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should really work it into the ref I copy across. Thanks for the reminder. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can you kindly participate in the discussion taking place in the talk page of Jasprit Bumrah? জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROSPLIT

When you "created" this article, your comment was "moved in from sandbox", as if you had built the article there by means of your own research and development. You did not attibute the material to its true source which is the original (to 1786) version of List of English cricketers to 1771. See this edit in which you removed the entries from 1772 to 1786, saying "to new article".

That action constituted a split and was fair enough providing you had WP:CONSENSUS. Did you? What is not fair enough is the effective theft of someone else's work, which is the whole point of attribution. Or are you saying that you studied all the books which provide reliably sourced information about each of those people and built the "new article" by yourself on the basis of that research? No, you removed the credible citations from first-rate sources like Haygarth, Buckley & Co. and replaced them with what you can see on a highly questionable database site.

I'll give you until the weekend to rectify your, er, "oversight". Failing that, it's off to the Privileges Committee to see what they think about your deliberate breach of WP:COPY. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I did't copy it, I developed it from scratch iirc - almost certainly using a filtered search at CricketArchive with player name starts with used and limited to first-class matches between the 1772 and 1786. I might have cross referenced to check nothing had gone missing, but it would have taken far too long to use the original list and try and turn it into a reliable alphabetical list. The original list was a little unreliable in places when it comes to actual matches deemed first-class wasn't it? People such as John Gouldstone were on it, for example.

I think, on the whole, that it's best you raise this formally now. Please. That way this dispute can be resolved one way or the other. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The split was raised formally and no one objected if that helps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you didn't copy it? (And you didn't know you were at a party?) Why did you take the names out of the original if not to use them as a basis for your "new" article? Why would you even think to start a new article at the same time as you were reducing the size of the original? What was so difficult about conversion from a date key to an alpha key? I would have thought any competent editor could do that in a matter of minutes. It would take far longer to scour an unreliable database site for the "new" information.

Let's consider John Gouldstone and people like him as they illustrate the POINT of the original list which was to provide a historical view of persons known to have been part of the sport's development from 1597 to 1787. While the list includes people like the Dukes of Dorset and Richmond who were politically notable, and the great players of the 18th century such as Newland, Small, Stevens and Harris who were notable in cricket terms, the overwhelming majority of names are just names and could not have their own article. Hence the need for a list so that readers can see what is known about these elusive historical figures. You say, re Gouldstone and others, that the "original list was a little unreliable in places when it comes to actual matches deemed first-class". Who says anything about "first-class" in the original list? Unless my search facility has gone on the blink, the list before you first edited it does not contain any mention of "first-class". Gouldstone's entry, sourced to Dawn of Cricket, says: "1785. John Gouldstone aka Goldswain. Essex. Recorded in twelve matches to 1793". I just checked my records which were created with ACS assistance and that information is correct. Gouldstone is recorded as a player in twelve matches by the reliable sources, whatever rubbish you might have found on the FC1772 database.

First-class? There was no first-class cricket until 1864 (unofficially) or until 1895 (officially) as confirmed by, inter alia, Derek Carlaw and John Winnifrith. See their opening paragraph: "(scope) important matches from 1806 to 1863 and first-class matches from 1864 to 1914". In the original version, which was properly sourced using reliable books rather than some dodgy database, Tom Walker is described: "Outstanding all-rounder who was noted for his determined, defensive batting. Known as 'Old Everlasting', he was a leading player until he retired in 1810". The citation is Haygarth, page 64, but there are plenty more books about early cricket which verify the comments.

In your "new" article, you say of Walker: "Made 177 first-class appearances, most frequently for Surrey. Brother of Harry and John Walker". You do not provide any source for that information. You do, to be fair, have a caveat about finding sources in a person's article but in Tom Walker (cricketer), there is nothing to verify 177 "first-class" appearances and nothing to verify that he played mostly for Surrey. There isn't even a source for his brothers although I'll give you that one because I know they were. Tom Walker did not play first-class cricket. He played top-class cricket in the underarm era – what the ACS and Carlaw/Winnifrith among others call "important matches" – but that was NOT first-class. As is so often the case, CricketArchive is WRONG.

Again based on mentions in reliable sources, Tom Walker is known to have played in 181 matches from 1786 to 1810. Probably all were top-class matches and I can provide a full list if required which would highlight any minor events. Obviously, he is known to have played in many matches which left no scorecard and it is safe to assume he played in numerous others about which little or no information has survived.

I said I would give you until the weekend (let's be fair and make that Monday morning) to rectify the lack of attribution. It isn't difficult.2.99.208.127 (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archives