Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

John Sidoli

Can anyone find anything on John Sidoli (also called "Jack") for his cricket career? He was a Port Adelaide footballer of the 19th century, but his obits seem to focus more on his cricket exploits (as a player and umpire), yet I can't find a listing for him with Cricinfo/CricketArchive. I'm probably missing something obvious, but my time to spend researching it is a bit limited at the moment and I'd appreciate some help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You won't find him on Cricket Archive or Cricinfo because he never played first-class cricket. The obits you've found so far are in error as to the level of cricket he played. I'll have a look and see what else I can find but as an example, this one in The Advertiser seems a more rounded and accurate picture http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/35016640

RossRSmith (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. So you think that he didn't represent SA in any cricket match, or just that he did and they weren't deemed FC for whatever reason? Would they also be incorrect as to the level of cricket he umpired, i.e. he wasn't a FC umpire? Incidentally, the history of the Port Adelaide Cricket Club is a bit of a mess. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

South Australia didn't play a great deal of first-class, or even significant, cricket during the period he was active. I would suggest that any games he played for them were "exhibition" matches, probably often with uneven teams (11 vs 15 or similar). Harrias ^talk 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, but even so I thought CA would have had the scorecards if he had played for SA in any match – they do have several scorecards from the 1870s and 1880s with South Australia as one of the teams, even if most of the matches aren't categorised as first-class. Having looked into it a bit more on Trove, I think the claim he played for SA in any sort of cricket match might be incorrect. Jenks24 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Imran Khans

We're in a bit of a tangle, especially regarding this chap: Imran Khan, Sr.. Is this the one who's really called Imran Khan Jr (born 1988), or another cricketer altogether, born in 1992 (as the infobox says)? Either way, he's not Imran Khan Sr, because he's this one, born in 1987.

I think.

Just in case you're not confused enough already, Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1988) currently redirects to Imran Khan, Sr. ... as does Imran Khan, Jr.

My brain is as numb as Adil Rashid's fingers must be. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The player whose article is currently at Imran Khan, Sr. was born in 1988, but an IP editor messed with it. As you said (and as the note in the article specifies), that player is not known as "Imran Khan, Sr.", but rather as "Imran Khan, Jr.", assuming that sort of labelling is used (which isn't always the case). I think in this case we should stick to the (cricketer, born xxxx) format – as you can see from Imran Khan (disambiguation) the list of first-class cricketers named "Imran Khan" is ever-increasing, and that seems like the best way of distinguishing them. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original title, after IA's note above. Unfortunately GreenCricket has this habit of moving pages to some weird titles (e.g.: 10:03, July 8, 2015 GreenCricket (talk | contribs | block) moved page Indian Institute of Technology Bombay to Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (Mumbai) (According to wikipedia rules) (revert)) and I had to spend a lot of time fixing those. GreenCricket, please stop with these moves and use the WP:RM process. —SpacemanSpiff 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work, you two, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the article for Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1987) and I've lost count of how many times someone has moved it to another title. These Imran Khan, Sr/Jr links should redirect to the disambig page (which I've now done). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all just one editor. I've left a final warning now as it is getting to be highly disruptive. I thought the 20 odd articles I dealt with a couple of months ago were an aberration, apparently not. —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention fantastically useful articles such as Brighto Paints and a whole load of Pakistan university articles with no sources at all. Richard3120 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• A lot more moves today. While these moves don't fall into the earlier category as this seems to follow the ODI list naming convention, it would really be helpful if GreenCricket either responds here or on their talk page where both Dweller and I have left messages. —SpacemanSpiff 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I have moved them because they should follow pattern of odi and test records lists which includes word 'cricket' in their naming but was not there in twenty20 so i included it..i think universities articles include sources which i have added and improved i think they must be observed by Pakistani wikipedian so he can remark on that GreenCricket (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you were asked not to make unilateral moves because they were getting to be very disruptive, then you went ahead and made ten more. Please check here (or at the other relevant Wikiprojects) before your moves. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Harry Pougher

I'm just going through the list of players for minor counties to make sure any notable ones end on my to-do lists, while looking up Lincolnshire players I came across Harry Pougher.[1] CA has his date of birth as 1941, with his debut for Lincolnshire in 1952, during which he opened the batting and scored 80-odd. Surely this has to be incorrect, as he would have been 11 in this match! His obituary in a local paper says he first appeared for Lincolnshire when he was 18. CA wrong for once? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wisden's Minor Counties averages have an "A. Pougher" playing a single innings in 1959 (1960 edition); in 1952, there is an "R. Pougher" playing five matches (1953 edition). Looks like it could be a bit of CA conflation of two different people. Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Johnlp, that makes sense. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I know little about cricket, so I need some definite help with this. I restored the article for Prakash Nayudu per a WP:REFUND request and found a source about his cricket career so it's not completely unsourced. However that's where my expertise with this ends, since I don't know if his position was the type that would show notability or not. There should be sourcing out there somewhere (although I don't know where to look for it), especially as his father was a notable cricket player. I figure that there's got to be something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely notable per WP:CRIN as having played first-class cricket with Madhya Pradesh. StAnselm (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I wasn't sure of any of that, so it's good to have confirmation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Virat Kohli page

The man of the match awards table of Virat Kohli is obstructing the method of man of the match tables of other cricketers. I reverted them into current format, but they are always reverted to the old version. Also, the table of T20I of Kohli is outdated, only single man of the match award is cited. The other two awards are not citied. So, anyone can change the format of Kohli awards to the format of others. Thank You.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk), 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, although we generally prefer it, Wikipedia has no particular policy saying that similar pages and tables have to be consistent with each other. So, while it might be preferable, unless there is a compelling reason that one is better than the other, it might be easier to just leave the formatting as it is. Obviously though, the information should be correct, cited and up to date. Harrias ^talk 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Template:Batsmen with an ODI batting average above 50 has been created. It is kind of pointless as we already have a template for "average above 40".

Also how about renaming List of 400+ innings scores in ODIs to "List of highest team scores in ODIs"? (in line with List of highest individual scores in ODIs)... 117.192.178.12 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there's more call for a template showing average over 50 than for one at the totally arbitrary figure of 40. If one is needed at all. --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This sort of thing has been discussed here before, and there has not been any consensus to change the parameters. I think there should be some consensus here before changing the template structure like this. But I note the corresponding ESPN Cricinfo list actually uses 38 as the benchmark. StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Pointless. Average of 50 is a thing for modern/recent/current ODI players. Its easy these days. The list has only current players except for Bevan. Every template should include players of all eras. We can create n number of templates only for current cricketers. For example.. Batsmen with an ODI strike rate above 100 will have 21 cricketers of which 20 are current players. One must understand that the game has changed so much in the past decade that, due to the lack of quality pitches, batsmen have higher averages & strike-rates by playing on dead tracks. In 5 years, averages of 55 & stike-rates of 110-120 will be common. What will we do then? Create templates for that too? If this goes on, 90% of all templates will have recent players only. We might as well rename all templates with "Batsmen of the last decade with .....xyz stat...."

Next time, when in confusion whether the template should exist, just check if the template has players from all eras. If not, template shouldn't exist.

As already been discussed on Template talk page & here, the minimum innings criteria for Template:average above 40 should be changed from 20 to 50.

And yes. I agree with renaming List of 400+ innings scores in ODIs to "List of highest team scores in ODIs." Either way, there shouldn't be 'match summary of every match' on that page, because there's going to be hell lot of 400+ scores in next few years. Vjbxk (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template overload

Cricket is a statistical game and it's quite nice to link related articles, but where do we draw the line? Take a look at Waqar Younis or Kapil Dev for example, we now have so many templates at the bottom that they no longer serve the purpose of being a useful navigational aid. We already have a lot of statistical insight and graphs linked within the articles and the colourful nature of the templates at the bottom is also a bad distraction. Perhaps it's time to come up with some sort of a formal guideline on templates and start enforcing it. Thoughts? —SpacemanSpiff 14:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For a start, I'd get of all the batsmen and bowlers who have done X templates. They're completely arbitrary accomplishments and not what navboxes are for. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a TfD for deleting templates for the teams that were semifinalists and losing finalists. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a TfD is fine for individual templates but I'm thinking along the lines of some sort of WP:CRIC guideline on creating templates, like identifying markers for which templates could be created -- triple centurions, 100 Test caps, 100 wickets in Tests combined with 200 wickets in ODIs etc etc (just throwing stuff here, not actually suggesting them). Also, related, we have squad templates and we should create a guideline that all squad templates should be under a master squad list or something like that. If we get some ideas floating and then create some acceptable standard, we could run an RfC and settle this matter once and for all. TfDs at that point could be handled referencing the RfC. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As you say, we've got to template overload. Category:Cricket navigational boxes has 110 pages, plus at least the same amount again hidden away in subcategories. Some of them are useful and appropriate, but too many of them are just clutter. A lot of them overlap significantly too; look at Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket, Template:Bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in ODI Cricket and Template:Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career for example. The problem is, with so many, where do we start! Harrias ^talk 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with the team/squad ones, because each one appears on at least a dozen biog pages and I'd guess we can probably get consensus fairly quickly on them. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with targeting those is that they are present across sports; see Gary Lineker and Jonny Wilkinson for example, which might make getting a consensus harder than you would think. Incidentally, if you think we have it bad, look at Michael Jordan!! Harrias ^talk 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Michael Jordan article shows a simple way to alleviate the problem, which is roll up types of template under a master. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Implementing something like "XXX with the Fooian cricket team" and "Achievements of XXX" master templates might be a good interim measure at least. Harrias ^talk 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some ideas:

1. Limit Runs template to one single template: {{Batsmen who have achieved scored 8000 runs in a single format}} (8000 being modifiable to whatever is considered significant) and list Test and ODI stuff there.
2. Limit wickets template to one signle template: {{Bowlers who have taken 300 wickets in a single format}} (300 being modifiable to whatever is significant) and list Test and ODI stuff there.
3. Limit to one T20 international stats template: {{T20I milestones and achievers}}, listing batting and bowling records
4. Limit to one template per team for world cup squads with individual years listed as rows {{India national cricket team world cup squad}}
5. No templates based on batting averages, batting run rate, bowling economy rates, runs per wicket etc etc
6. Fielding and/or wicket keeping template if others think it might be good

If we go for something like the above for internationals then it might bring down the number of transclusions by at least 50% in most articles and up to 80% on some like Kumble and Younis. Also, I like Harrias' idea of the Achievements of XXX, but more as a sidebar than a bottom navigational template. Thoughts? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another idea is to have a single team/caption nav box: merge Category:Cricket captain navigational boxes for the three formats into one single one with rows for the different formats. Also, how about merging {{National cricket teams}} and {{ICC Cricket Team Ranking}} and keep a single team linking navbox (including others that I may not have across yet) instead of the different ones now.—SpacemanSpiff 04:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates that should be taken to TfD

1. {{Cricketers who have won most man-of-the-match awards in ODI cricket}}
2. {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}}
3. {{Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career}}
4. {{Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in ODI cricket}}
5. {{Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in Test Cricket}}
6. {{Australians with 100 or more Test caps}}
7. {{Indians with 100 or more Test caps}}
8. {{South Africans with 100 or more Test caps}}c
9. {{Pakistanis with 100 or more Test caps}}

These templates are either redundant to existing ones in terms of scope and/or categories. If you look at Jacques Kallis, the template area is now larger than the 2008-current section! Pinging GreenCricket and SWASTIK 25 as these are their creations. These are just ones I came up on my watchlist recently, so there are obviously others, including older ones that we have to look at. I'm ignoring the averages one for now as that may be covered by a proper discussion above. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the back of the first two, especially. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The first five are really just "some scribe/commentator mentioned this" type of statistics, not really relevant to the game in particular, and anyone featured on any of those is already featured on the other templates that are included in the article, so the purpose of navigation doesn't exist. But this brings up the issue of future template creations in the absence of some sort of guideline; every time Bhogle or Morrison say something, we'd be looking at a new template. —SpacemanSpiff 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree that a lot of these should be deleted, navbox pile-up seems to be an issue across all sports. I find point 4 of WP:NAVBOX to often be good guidance, if the topic of the navbox doesn't have a notable article about it then it's probably not worth keeping. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The reasons to delete these templates are many.

1. Cluster of things is irritating & makes a viewer to skip it altogether.

2. A viewer would not know which ones are important & which ones are not.

Yes Jenks24, point 4 of WP:NAVBOX is the only/perfect solution for this problem.

And there are many templates on records which shouldn't be here. There can be n number of templates created (on cricket records) based on users imagination. Hence only the most important ones for the batsmen, bowlers & all-rounders should be allowed.

Fielding records are useless. Two same useless templates are created by same user. {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10,000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}} and {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}}.

Just to mention the silliness of users, there are 2 almost same templates in kohli's page {{Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40}} & {{Batsmen with an ODI batting average above 50}}. Just imagine the number of bowling records (on avg & SR) one can create, if this is allowed.

Adding to the list above by Spaceman

10. {{Hat-tricks in Cricket World Cup}}

11. {{Wicket-keepers in ODI cricket}}

12. {{Wicket-keepers in Test cricket}}

13. {{West Indians with 100 or more Test caps}}

14. {{Englishmen with 100 or more Test caps}}

These templates are as irrelevant as 2 drops of monkey piss.

And there are too many color squad templates on cricketers page. They should be hidden under master squad, like the one on Gayle's page. Vjbxk (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

15. {{All-rounders-Double}}

16. {{Bowlers with career strike rate of 50 or less in Test matches}}

17. {{Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140}}

Some of these are pure rubbish and should be deleted without any discussion. 117.192.184.54 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there are a lot of these now -- some may be acceptable to some editors while not to others, therefore my original point of some sort of a guideline. I can start that up and based on discussion here, it can be modified. I prefer that approach as if we don't do something like that we'll probably continue to end up discussing individual templates here and at TfD. —SpacemanSpiff

There's a simple solution. If templates of statistics are allowed on wiki, then, In tests & ODI's, most important stats are runs, wickets, average. In T20I's, it is strike-rate. Hence only the following are allowed.

10,000 runs for batsmen

300 wickets for bowlers

3000 runs & 150 wkts for allrounders

Average 40 in ODIs & 50 in tests

strike-rate of 140 in T20Is

Every other stat is useless in wiki. So, except for the 17th one, the mentioned 16 templates makes no sense whatsoever in wiki. If you ask me, since most important stats are already mentioned in the career section of the respective players, there is no need of a template on stats. If templates of most important stats are necessary, then apart from the above mentioned 5 stats, nothing else matters. Vjbxk (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Guideline proposal

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Navigational templates to document a proposed guideline for this. I've just started with a couple of entries now and we can add/remove/whatever based on consensus here. Critiques, suggestions etc etc area all welcome. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Spaceman, Before that, someone should put the above listed 16 templates for mass deletion at Tfd. Vjbxk (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

List of centuries

Are there no criteria for creating "List of international cricket centuries by X" articles? Steve Smith has only 15 international centuries to his name (as of now), but already has his own list. Without any criteria, we'll have hundreds of such lists being created. 117.192.172.86 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion but if you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 73#Criteria you'll see reference to minimum 25 centuries or 15 fifers for stand-alone lists. I do remember the discussion taking place. —SpacemanSpiff 13:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Central Districts (New Zealand)

I'm not that familiar with domestic cricket in NZ, but there seems to be an oddity with the categories. Central District has its players in the category Category:Central Districts Stags cricketers, but the article is at Central Districts cricket team. Compare with all the other NZ domestic teams, they omit the nickname element, eg Wellington cricketers and not Wellington Firebirds cricketers. I found this CfD from three years ago that had a weak proposal to move it from Category:Central Districts cricketers to Category:Central Districts Stags cricketers. Any objections for this to go back to CfD to move it back? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd even try for a speedy rename under WP:C2C (bringing category into line with established naming conventions) or WP:C2D (renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article). The standard for first-class teams in Category:Cricketers by team is not to use nicknames. It's obviously a different case for the more recent franchise teams, Twenty20 or otherwise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IA. Sorry, forgot about this - will do it now as no-one else has added an objection. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

First-class cricketer up for deletion

Good evening all, first-class cricketer up for deletion as always...

S. Perera is the article, here is the AfD debate.

Thanks in advance. Bobo. 00:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is actually S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), I've recommended a speedy keep and a proper discussion about WP:NCRIC here or at WT:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)