Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

List of ODI international records

I have nominated List of One Day International cricket records for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Another new article!

Just created this: List of Test cricket centuries at The WACA Ground. I wrote some stuff on there myself this time so there may well be a few errors in it. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, so are we just going to have Test centuries not ones for ODIs? What about creating a cat eventually? —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to fix the table when you use the sort options as it goes a bit wild? =S —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I've undone the table change. Good job on the other tweaks though. Adding number of balls sounds like a good idea too. I was just going to do test centuries, I'm not sure if ODIs would have to go on a seperate page. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the SCG at the moment, it's taking a lot longer! Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the FL reviewers would want a sortable table so it might help it we can get a FL regular to comment on how to format the tables correctly. —Aaroncrick (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging cells always makes things tricky. I had to remove all the merged cells from List of Philadelphia Flyers players to get that to sort properly. I'll have a play in my sandbox at some point and see what I can do. Harrias (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, my play-around didn't work too well. —Aaroncrick (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you call it "List of international centuries" you could have Test and ODI in one article. Or would it be too long? SGGH ^ping! 13:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

For the WACA it would only be an additional 19 so that sounds ok. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: List of International cricket centuries at The WACA Ground Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions: Normally our century lists include the innings, so a column with the innings and a reference to the CA or CI scorecard might be helpful at the end. For sorting to work the rowspans will need to be removed and the dates etc would have to repeat in each row. Also, it might be worthwhile adding these lists to {{International cricket centuries}} with a new section for grounds. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to make it sortable: List of international cricket centuries at The Basin Reserve. Do you think the team of the century scorer should go into a different column? The way it is at the moment you cannot sort by team. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Per WP:MOSFLAG, you shouldn't label players purely with flags anyway. Harrias ^talk 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think it looks a lot better now. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; sorry if I sounded a bit snappy with the MOS comment. To improve the sortability of the dates try using {{dts|format=dmy|1974|December|11}} to display 11 December 1974. It will then sort by year, then month, then day, rather than at the moment sorting by day, then month, then year. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great work Apples. The SCG list just goes to show how rapidly and ridiculously the conditions have been altered in favour of the batsmen, per the boom in centuries in the last 10 years. But the WACA and Basin Reserve have not for some reason.... But I think a list of the other Australian grounds will show a big boom as well YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have completly finished the SCG now. What is the deal with the new article template at the top, can it be removed by anyone? Also might it be a good idea to seperate the grounds into different countries in the template at the bottom? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag is auto added if you use the article wizard. Not sure if the creator should remove the tag, but if you create as a new page instead of doing it through the wizard, the tag will not be added. I've removed it from this one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Test cricketers

and some other lists of articles need RC patrolling on RCs linked; with Jpeeling gone, vandalism is lasting long time on the weekends and British daytime YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct? I'm guessing not, but I couldn't find evidence one way or the other on CI. —SpacemanSpiff 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. His grandfather came from Kashmir, and Kabir spent some of his youth there. See this article. Harrias ^talk 08:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there then, I really wish these reports would at least say where in Kashmir. I'll leave it as is, if anyone has a better informed opinion they can remove/replace the cat. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hwange Country Club

Needs some help from you guys, I reckon. I forget why it is on my watchlist. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this ground really notable? It hasn't hosted any full international matches, first-class matches, List A matches or Twenty20 matches. Harrias ^talk 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue it is non-notable, as per the above. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Have PRODed the article. Harrias ^talk 09:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely minor but have you seen this re its alternate name? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lalit Modi

Eyes might be needed. I'm getting the impression that many IPL/Modi supporters just see IPL as equivalent to one of those Asian weddings where being the most lavish etc etc counts the most in proving one's superiority YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting about death of Ron Hamence

Cricinfo said Invincibles were in 1948 and "Adelaide Now" and Deccan Herald, the sponsors of the Deccan Chargers have copied it in incorrectly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually The Deccan Chronicle owns the chargers, not the Herald. —SpacemanSpiff 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Full form or abbreviation?

In Template:Infobox cricketer biography, is it necessary to write the full form of 'Test cricket', 'One Day Internationals', 'First-class cricket', 'List A cricket', or abbreviations are ok like 'Test', 'ODI', 'FC', 'LA'. Some random IP user is making edits to some articles like Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and says that this is the proper British English writing forms and changing to full form. Need your views on this.--Managerarc^(talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The abbreviations should be good enough IMO, they are all linked anyway and very very common usage. The only one that may merit a full form is "List A" instead of "LA" as that I believe is not commonly used (at least not in the subcontinent). —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe in "List-A" and "One Day" or "One Day International" for the parts where it discusses debut and last match, however the statistics part (the columns) should be LA/OD, ODI, Test, FC, T20 etc. SGGH ^ping! 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi - point him towards the template guidelines. As Spaceman says, as long as they are linked, the short form is to be used (in the statistics), and in actual fact is necessary otherwise the infobox has width issues. With the 4 column box, Test, ODI, FC, and List A works best (List A fits and as it is the less obvious one I tend to use it); For the 2-3 column version, the abbreviations are not always necessary. Claiming "british writing forms" is pretty stupid. Expanding the date ranges as in some of his edits to 2002, 2003, 2004 etc is just wrong.—MDCollins (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another first-class cricketer up for deletion

George Blackmore, former cricketer for the Europeans and Kent, up for debate. His article is here, his AfD page is here, and his stats are here (CA) and here (CI).

Hope everyone is well. Bobo. 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIN needs revision

The above case of George Blackmore has raised a few interesting points. The main one is that WP:CRIN may need to be revised, even though most of it was written by me. On reflection, I have to ask what exactly is "notable" about someone who played a handful of first-class matches? What exactly is notable about anyone who ever played in limited overs, especially the Twenty20 rubbish?

As the site is so fond of lists, why not populate some lists of first-class cricketers with the meagre details of those who made a few appearances instead of individual articles, especially as those articles tend to be stubs and orphans. I, as one of the worst offenders, have seen the futility of that. Having said that, see List of early English cricketers to 1786 which contains basic information about numerous players who made a couple of appearances and do not have an individual article. A standard?

Any thoughts? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles that are what I like to call "super stubs" with only 1 FC appearance, lets say, shouldn't perhaps be discounted in light of future expansion. Particularly about lower level cricket matches (not notable enough on their own, but notable information for a subject which passes the current CRIN.)
2. Having FC, LA or T20 experience is a quantitative assessment criteria, most other forms would be too subjective I feel "A few appearances" is a bit vague, and if we left it to, say, three appearances, well that's just back to quantitative assessment again. I cam see the arguments that appear when we have "list of notable off-spinners" appearing on such articles.
3. I know T20 has its detractors, but given its impact around the world I think being against it as an inclusion criteria would make a lot of notable players non-notables, particularly in the future.

Just some thoughts that come to mind. I'm in no way admonishing your suggestions, merely advocating devilry. :) SGGH ^ping! 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mkativerata makes a good point at that AfD though: FC cricket was not always professional like it is today (professionalism that forms the basis of players of FC cricket's notability per WP:ATHLETE) as it was at one time an amateur or semi-professional thing. SGGH ^ping! 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well salary shouldn't be a criteria of notability, else a person in the top 10 in swimming or track cycling would be nn but for their govt scholarship YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BlackJack. It is very hard to defend WP:CRIN at some AfD discussions when the only source for the article is a scorecard or two at CricketArchive. I think the "list" option with a redirect to the list for very early players and players with very limited sources is a worthwhile endeavour. This may also apply to some of the minor county players in English List A tournaments including the somewhat infamous autobiographic Gareth White article!

In fact, the only thing I can disagree with in the above is the use of value judgements about the relative worth of different forms of the game in determining notability. I do not particularly enjoy limited overs cricket (although I prefer the brief 20 over form more than the bloated and pedestrian 50 over version) but my views are not important. Availability of sources and compliance with WP:ATHLETE are the important considerations. Certainly it would be hard to argue that a person who has played the one match in the KFC Big Bash in front of 30,000 people is any less notable than a player who has played the one match in a Sheffield Shield match in front of a crowd consisting of the scorers, the groundstaff and (maybe) the players' wives and girlfriends! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it could apply as a precedent but the position in List of early English cricketers to 1786 is that players with one or two appearances don't have a standalone article unless they acquired notability beyond those appearances. Okay, I accept that T20 and LO is going to be equated with FC for notability purposes, especially going forward. I like Mattinbgn's point about "a scorecard or two at CricketArchive". As you say, the number of sources is important and one thing I have tried to do with the early players is try to establish other sources besides the merely statistical. I would propose that if a player is only known via a scorecard, he is what User:Rnickel refers to as a bit-part player or an "extra". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

<ec> These AfDs seem to be coming up quite a bit at the moment (remembering in particular Basanta Regmi (AfD)). What I like about the current guidelines is that it is definite and non-subjective. It is clear cut. Maybe on the wrong sides of battle lines for some, but it does provide clarification on what is a very grey area. By saying that, I am in no way advocating that the current set-up is the best, nor that I would (necessarily) argue that 1 List A drubbing in the NatWest trophy (or whatever guise) for a minor county against a major one should meet notability. The Basanta Regmi argument was whether a match for Nepal against another country counted as a full international, even though the match was no where near List A. I opted for deletion, going by our current guidelines (as that is why they were put in place), even though I said I would support a (well-devised) revision, with full-consensus, of WP:CRIN.

As for "super-stubs" (I think "sub-stubs" would be better), yes WP:CRIN advocates inclusion, but as we've seen "Mr X played one FC match in 1764 for so-and-so village"+infobox is about the limit. A well-devised table which could include the stats horizontally for which they could be redirected would be an excellent solution to this problem, providing they could all be grouped in a logical way. That wouldn't really work for the Basanta Regmi-types, where full information can be found (mostly at U19 level) to make a "full-stub", but if we are considering a revision of WP:CRIN, it probably needs to be a full one.—MDCollins (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging content to lists, there's nothing that prevents us from doing so, with or without an AfD. However, if we apply the "scorecard" rule, we will also be eliminating potential notables as SGGH opined above. Many of the women cricketers, have nothing except scorecards and CI/CA profiles available easily, despite having played over a dozen or two games for the national teams. As it is we don't recognize Belinda Clark as the first double-century scorer in ODI cricket, but if we go the list route, a good chunk of these players who deserve articles wouldn't have them. Keeping the notability criteria as-is but discussing lists here would be my preference. —SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The ICC has a list of what it regards as "official cricket" at this link. It clearly defines all official internationals and it has a good list of what is regarded as first-class in each of the ten ICC full members, and whilst it doesn't go into as much detail for List A and Twenty20 cricket, I think we can certainly use it as a basis for any future rewrite of WP:CRIN.

Whatever happens though, we can't have the situation we currently have, where people argue that (the following names are made up) Frederick Harrington-Smythe, who played one first-class match for Lord Snooty's XI in 1827 is worthy of an article, whilst players who have played more than 20 official internationals aren't worthy of an article. Andrew nixon (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The official list is interesting but it doesn't answer the old question of how to classify matches played before the definition was made. We can only go on what the sources indicate on the understanding that, while the sources are verifiable, none are official in terms of any match's status.

Your Lord Snooty example encapsulates the current problem with WP:CRIN. My proposal is that the early cricketers list sets a precedent in that bit-part extras should go into a list of this kind but not have a standalone article unless a source indicates that they have additional notability: e.g., Sir Horatio Mann made just a couple or so known appearances but he has enormous importance as a major patron during the sport's formative years. The same precedent would be easily applicable to someone who made a single Sunday League appearance. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sometimes felt it's a little ridiculous for players who have played a single f-c match without distinguishing themselves to have an article. But I think the advantage of having a definite guideline means that we should stick with that, as it's hard to see what other truly objective guideline would be practical (requiring three matches, say, would be artitrary). I think the "professional league" thing is a bit of a red herring when it comes to cricket, where some of the greatest players have been amateurs. One wouldn't want to exclude a player such as Frank Cobden, who played only for Cambridge University and MCC, and hence never in a professional league, but was the hero of one of cricket's most famous matches (at least as far as those of us interested in the game's history are concerned). JH (talk page) 10:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A player like Cobden would easily pass the "additional notability" test because he is mentioned in numerous sources and is not just a name on a scorecard; besides, his feat in the 1870 match was exceptional. I think Cobden and his ilk pass WP:ATH because of its second criterion: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". The University Match, GvP and most MCC matches have always been first-class fixtures, so the amateurs involved have been taking part at the highest amateur level. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While sometimes vague, I do think there only needs to be minor tweaking with WP:CRIC. Providing the player has played at least 1 first-class/List-A/T20 match then they are notable. Non-Test/ODI cricketers are more of a grey area, but at the end of the day we are a type of cricket archive, so providing they have played the above then they are notable. How many players who have played 1 of the above articles created? Not many, so not worth fussing over. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm like User:Mdcollins1984 and User:Jhall1. I'm relatively happy with the clear-cut-ness of the present CRIN, and with the fact that there are hundreds of obscure-but-notable cricketers who qualify but won't ever have more than a stub article, if that. We're not paper, and I don't think it matters too much. But aside from the pre-definition problem, where I'd always defer to Jack's knowledge, a couple of other areas do concern me: one a little, the other a lot.

The big one is the point raised by the Basanta Regmi deletion case, which highlighted the inadequacy and anomalies of the present limited definition at CRIN, and after which we really should have amended CRIN to avoid another such instance. The point is that CRIN relates reasonably well to historic cricket between, say, 1890 and 1990, but is wobbly before and after these dates, latterly because of the worldwide explosion in venues, teams and types.

My smaller worry is that we define people as "cricketers" when, in many cases, that cricket career formed a very small part of their total lives: you can get around that to a degree by the phraseology - "Samuel Beckett was a playwright who also played first-class cricket for..." rather than "Samuel Beckett was a first-class cricketer who played...". Because cricket is so well-served by cricketarchive and cricinfo, and other aspects of lives often aren't so well-served, we're at times in danger of emphasising something that the subject of the article might not recognise as significant, let alone notable. Johnlp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The smaller worry has long been a concern of mine too, When the article for William Worsley was first created, for instance, you'd hardly have known that there was anything more to him than cricket. Even now, the lead paragraph still only covers his cricket.Even consulting Wisden obituaries isn't always much help, as they tend to concentrate on the cricket to the near exclusion of everything else. But of course the Akmanmack is specifically for cricketers, rather than being a general encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. JH (talk page) 22:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't previously seen the Basanta Regmi deletion case and I agree with Johnlp that it does highlight a significant problem with CRIN because, within it, the status of international teams is a grey area. I wrote the section called "Clubs and teams" but it is domestic stuff that was aimed at classifying minor English club sides in particular. In the "Individuals" section, this statement does not help much at all: "The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971". The problem is that, strictly speaking, a limited overs international is defined by the ICC as one between teams of LOI/ODI status and there are only 16 of these at present.

Given that six countries with ODI status are all ICC Associate Members, and it seems inconsistent (typical ICC) that the rest of the Associates are excluded, I think CRIN should be amended to include any international match involving two teams representing Full or Associate Members. This would presumably put Mr Regmi above the line and make him notable in terms of his many international appearances. I would also amend major cricket to include these internationals: remember that "major cricket" is a completely unofficial term and has no definition which would exclude an international between, say, Nepal and Germany.

I suppose we ought to take a view about tournaments such as the World Cricket League but I think if we lower the line to a level just below Associate Member, that will solve the problem.

I notice the Regmi AfD made reference to the case of James Rice and, although I created the Rice stub (it isn't an article), it is players like this that are the basis of my original question above. Rice did play first-class cricket but he is only a name on three scorecards and I haven't seen anything else about him, although I suspect, from an earlier usage of the name Rice, that he is a pseudonym used by Thomas Assheton Smith II. Conspiracy theory! Rice definitely meets CRIN because he was involved in major cricket even if it is argued that the term "first-class cricket" should not apply so early. The point is what else can be said about him other than churning out the statistics of four matches (three major and one minor) which are included in S&B? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Category for discussion at Commons

See commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/03/Category:Cricket players. –Moondyne 03:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Super Fours

Does anyone know if these are put together on a regional basis, random mixing up by selectors from year to year, or the palyers can just sign up wherever they want? Also of the women's counties, only Kent have an article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the teams are selected by the England selectors. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIN – proposed wording change

Further to the topic above and with specific reference to the point raised by Johnlp about international matches, I suggest a rewording of the second paragraph of WP:CRIN to read as follows with the addition of one new sentence:

"The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any major domestic competition. For this purpose, a limited overs international is defined as any international match involving two teams representing countries that are Full or Associate Members of the ICC. Major domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Major domestic limited overs competitions include all ListA matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc."

We need to be clear that embracing all Associate Member international matches will greatly increase the scope of our notability criteria. It may be that some of you prefer to impose a limitation according to certain levels of competition; some of you may prefer an even broader scope by inclusion of Affiliate Members. Could we please discuss and try to achieve a consensus? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it excludes high ranking affiliate members, notably Afghanistan, and also Oman, who are in WCL Division 2, which has List A status. There's a chance that those two will meet in the semi-finals or final of the ACC Trophy next month - is a player in that match notable, if he has no major appearances? It also over represents low performing Associate members, such as Israel or Gibraltar, who are currently ranked below eight affiliate nations.

I'd propose a cut off based on WCL division and regional tournament division. The most recent WCL5 tournament included three teams with first-class matches under their belt, and one that played in the most recent World Twenty20 Qualifier, so that seems as good a place as any to place the cut off point. As for regional tournaments, the top divisions could theoretically include ODI matches (the 2006 and 2008 European Division One and the 2006 Americas Division One did), so that seems the correct place to place the regional cut-off. The ACC Trophy before 2008 didn't have a divisional structure, so we may have to limit that to the last eight of the tournaments.

The question is what we'd do with the ICC Trophy tournaments before the WCL started - the 2005 tournament has List A status, so that's not a problem. Our current cut-off is playing in the final, so I'd suggest extending that to the quarter final/Super 8s stage. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I should of course mention that we should include a clause similar to what we currently have indicating that just because a player doesn't match the criteria, it doesn't mean he can't have an article - for example, Shamazuddin Khan, who played at low levels for Germany, wouldn't meet my proposed criteria, but he does have the distinction of being the first player to score a double century in an international limited overs match, (see my article for the others who beat Tendulkar) which clearly gives him notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack's solution looks good to me, and thank you for acting on this (as I said upstairs, we really should have done this after the Basanta Regmi case, but it is, in any event, only a few weeks). My only change, for completeness, would be to add within it a link that would take a prospective user quickly to a list of who's a Full or Associate Member so anyone new coming in would be able to see at a glance whether the criteria were being adhered to. This may greatly increase the scope, but I don't see massive pressure to create vast numbers of articles from these associate member nations, and if that happens, then WP is big enough to handle it. I think there's a strong case for the line being clear wherever it is drawn and based on current status of match participants, not their actual playing strength: you could probably argue, for example, that Staffordshire in the 1920s with Sydney Barnes were stronger than the Worcestershire sides of the time, but that doesn't alter their actual status. To draw a line that isn't supported by some external criterion is, in my view, taking us close to OR. Johnlp (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points on Jack's suggest/Andrew's comments — presumably players of associate (possibly affiliate matches) must count for notability only after the Associate status was granted - players who played before this don't count? Andrew mentions Oman in Division 2 (having List A status) - obviously matches under this would qualify under List A, rather than the Associate/Affiliate criterion so that should work around that issue.—MDCollins (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

By saying "major FC" are you omitting people if they made a one or a few appearances only, in stand-alone tour matches against foreign teams that don't count for competition points, or things like one-off matches for Tasmania before they were in SS YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ICC World Twenty20: Questions

Hello everybody,

I'm in the process of expending the articles related to this competition on fr.WP, but I have a few questions. On en.WP, we have a separate article for each edition for the male's event and for the women's one. The men's event has the title "ICC World Twenty20". I would be okay with that if we were speaking about the World Cup: the men's and women's events are clearly separated, and the men's event is clearly much more famous/notable than the other one. But, as for the World Twenty20, I think that the ICC try to promote it as ONE event (have a look here for exemple) including a men's competition and a women's competition, a little bit like the Olympics, for instance. If you agree with this assertion, we should have a global article "20xx ICC World Twenty20" dealing with BOTH competitions, and, if needed, two specific articles "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Men's competition" and "20xx ICC World Twenty20 - Women's competition" (except, obviously, for the 2007 event). Moreover, the main article ICC World Twenty20 would contain complete sections about the women's competition. If you don't agree, an article ICC Women's World Twenty20 is badly needed. Waiting for your answers, OrangeKnight (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think seperate articles work fine, as although they are Twenty20 events, they are different events - if you see where I'm coming from. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles at review

Featured article

• First Test, 1948 Ashes series • review

Featured list

• List of international cricket centuries by Viv Richards • review
• List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records • review

Good article

• Wilf Barber
• Douglas Jardine
• George Macaulay
• Wally Hammond
• Cri-Zelda Brits

Harrias ^talk 16:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Some of you saw the latest gripping instalment in the User:Richard Daft saga earlier. It is very clear from comments last time and again today that we are all sick and tired of this disruption. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and have removed the content in accordance with WP:BLOCK as the person is involved (yet again) in block evasion. I have put a notice on his latest talk page and reported the incident to WP:ANI. I suggest that this sets a precedent which we can all follow whenever there is a recurrance. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur entirely; the section below was a horrid mess of accusations and the opposite of a bunch of our policies (WP:AGF, WP:TROLL, WP:SOCKPUPPET), so I've blanked it. I've got no stakes in any kind of dispute, have never heard of the user, nor have I seen his edits to the mainspace, but this dispute being held here is silly: this is the forum for discussing improvement for cricket articles, not for fostering arguments that only get worse and worse over potential sockpuppetry. We'll get nowhere just by holding some messy argument here as opposed to in channels where people can actually take an honest look at the situation.

Was just about to suggest you post at WP:SSP, but I see you've already done that. Not sure if that's the right format (no experience in that kinda thing) but certainly you've made the right kind of move in this situation, despite his claims of harassment. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be submitted using the buttons towards the top and filled out correctly with evidence provided by diffs ideally. SGGH ^ping! 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Thanks for your help with this problem (again). I've used the SSP process as designed and left a message on the talk page of Rosebank2. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain Cricket

Seemingly a very pointless article; Great Britain Cricket starts by stating there isn't a Great Britain cricket team! Don't know if speedy or a prod would be appropriate here? Just a regular AfD maybe? Any thoughts? Harrias ^talk 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've speedied it as recreation of deleted material per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Britain national cricket team. SGGH ^ping! 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking that man. This is why I have little desire to adminship! Harrias ^talk 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also clearly some ducky sockage going on between the two accounts that created the original and then this new version. Almost identical name and identical article creation, however it's not worth acting upon without evidence that disruption will continue, IMO. SGGH ^ping! 13:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

National cricket stadium

Is this encyclopaedic? I'm not sure if even the subject is true, and the inclusion criteria seem to be the editors own opinions. The only "references" given are external links to the home page of each stadium. This is the same account that created the above GB cricket team articles. Does this stand or is it OR/own opinion? SGGH ^ping! 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably qualifies for G3 IMO, clearly the concept doesn't exist in India and I can't think it does elsewhere either. If not a snow close AfD would be good. —SpacemanSpiff 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly WP:OR. Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National cricket stadium. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. Most cricketing nations do not have a national stadium to which they keep to. Ireland on the List-A currently play at 3-4 grounds ect, so I support deletion. We have a List of Test cricket grounds article, so maybe a page of stadia that have hosted ODI's should be started one day? Meh... just an idea. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mendesa, with his associate/alternate account User:Amar Mendes and his IPs 78.109.14.129 and 78.109.14.130 aren't having a good run with their articles at the moment. SGGH ^ping! 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just PRODded one club ground that doesn't even have a pitch. I haven't looked at the other articles, a couple that I saw were converted to redirects by others, but I think there are more articles that need a look. —SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

His contributions (and those by what I suspect are his alternate identities) to our international forum at CricketEurope are always worth a read. (link) The GB national team idea was proposed recently at our forum by someone called "Ryan", and he compared the "reunification" of the England/Wales and Scotland teams into a GB team to the reunification of the East Germany and West Germany football teams - really. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, his posts are quite amusing. Why is the fool constantly going on about some bizzare notion of a Great Britain cricket team??? Never has been one and never will, fool! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Clarke better than Shaun Marsh and Hodge at T20??

So says Hilditch. I have to disagree YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you here, but it is a little awkward to drop the skipper/Test skipper-in-waiting. Personally I would make White skipper of the team but I can understand why that would be awkward. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. —Aaroncrick (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys do know that Wikipedia is not a forum, right? This page is for discussion of articles covered by WP:CRIC. – PeeJay 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel some minor comment on some cricket-related issues is not unreasonable. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz is permitted, the very occasional non-article related comment here can stand, no? Or does it all have to be about work ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this has been happening since the project was initiated. Have a look through the archives. —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to know what Hilditch must have done to YellowMonkey? Refuse to be photographed one day in the nets? I just hope that this decision is as fruitful as his last rubbish decision. ;+) The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI thread about YM's POV.... :P SGGH ^ping! 16:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I did take a picture of Hilditch. Not very good from 25m away, but there YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April fools???

On the CricketEurope site there is this article regarding the 2019 World Cup. I had initially included it as a reference for the Cricket in Afghanistan page, but then I remembered what day it is. So does anyone think it is a serious article or an April fools joke? If it is a joke I won't want to put it in the article! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, convincing. I think it almost had me until the last line: "but it would not be surprising if the 2027 event were to be co-hosted by the USA and China." , the tone of which suggests maybe it is a rouse. Assuming it is only on CE and not on CI I think they are pulling legs.—MDCollins (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I never read that far, but when after putting the info on the Cricket in Afghanistan article I went back and read the whole article, then it struck me... 1st April and it's on about holding a tournament across an entire ocean. I could possibly believe Zimbabwe, UAE and Afghanistan as that could possibly work... but the 2027 bit is so not believable. I kept the information about new grounds being constructed in those cities, because I know they're building international standard facilities, like here.

As it is April fools day, you could be forgiven for thinking this scorecard was an April fools if you had no idea about the two teams involved: AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

1 April 2010

United Arab Emirates 510/5 (50 overs)	v	Bhutan 73 all out (32.2 overs)
Saqib Ali 141*		Damber Gurung 25 Shadeep Silva 3/13

United Arab Emirates won by 434 runs Kuwait Oil Company Unity Ground, Kuwait City

It was an April fools day joke, but I'm sure my colleague who wrote it will be glad it almost convinced people! The UAE v Bhutan result isn't a joke though, and is the new record for the highest score in an official international one-day match. Papua New Guinea have a higher score in an unofficial match against New Caledonia though. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Although if the ICC was strict on teams who used expats then the UAE would struggle to field a decent team. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets trying to ruin the project

It relates to the ongoing dispute between BlackJack and the IPs and known socks. In my ignorance I asked what the problem was between them, got an answer and am now it appears the new frontline for the disrupter to wage his war. I have started a suspected sockpuppet thingy here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The admin who looks after that page, User:Spitfire, seems to be overworked at present but I've written to him to ask if he can possibly expedite the Daft case. The attack on AA was especially reprehensible. We really must summarily remove or revert anything that Daft puts on a cricket page from now on. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So its fine for BJ to wage war on this page but apparently no one else. I was asked a question and gave a polite response and got an abusive reply. Note too the level of abuse BJ has been laying at various peoples door without provocation. He sent me a post saying if I played ball I could play WP yet simultaeneous he was writing abusive posts elsewhere. My aim has always been to remove factual errors from the site. BJ perpertrates so many it is hardly surprising I have reverted some of his edits. Those of his followers who don't see that - well, the real historians, me about six others who've attempted to rectify laughable errors, we do at least have the real facts at our finger tips. As I've said before - Any reasonably informed cricket historian considers From Lads to Lords a questionable affair - some have been far more vitriolic. No doubt BJ will revert this. He reverts anything that opposes his position as WP's greatest cod historian. Any new editor is immediately Richard Daft. In fact six people have been tarred with BJ's brush. It is now not possible to log on and make any constructive suggestions unless one is a member of the dozen or so geniuses on this project.88.108.10.215 (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you want to discuss things, however, register a username so that we can be more sure that we are talking to only one person.The-Pope (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to revert inaccurate information then do so using references to back it up. Bitching with other users isn't going to get that done is it. The options are simple: Contribute or get lost. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

These "real historians" include the "distinguished" Keith Warsop who is a member of the ACS, which is itself a small and largely unknown statistical society with about 1000 members (see the article). It self-publishes various statistical stuff, some of which is quite good and some of which is not so good, for the benefit of its members; though admittedly a few items do find their way into the wider market, but they are hardly best-sellers. I did a search for this distinguished cricket historian Mr Warsop on Google and, apart from one purely ACS reference, all I can find is someone who wrote a book about Notts County in the 1980s. It may be the same man, I don't know, but I think that is football, not cricket.

If he does have the "real facts" at his fingertips, can we please see them, backed up by verifiable sources other than the ACS quarterly journal which regularly includes gems such as "List of left-handed batsmen who...." As I have said to him, if he will use the site in a positive and constructive way to improve its content, he is welcome. Unfortunately, he persistently attacks me because of some petty grievance or other from the past, when I was in the ACS, or he deliberately disrupts articles and talk pages to make his WP:POINT. As such, he is not welcome.

By the way, I don't claim that LTL is anything special (it was actually a fun project) but I have received a number of messages from people who read it and enjoyed it. And, would you believe it, some of them are ACS members. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we see a straightforward lie. BJ knows full well who Keith Warsop is and in fact has referenced him as 'the distinguished historian'. He has exchanged letters with Keith regarding pre 1800 cricket. ACS has 1500 members and has sold over 120,000 publications with 130,000 going to members. The Minor Counties Histories have sold 8000 copies alone whilst the pre 1900 match scores sold out. (About 40,000 copies) In fact I spoke to Keith yesterday about this. It was Keith who first discovered the Britcher book and compiled the first list of pre-1800 matches. Don't tell lies John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.4.232 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I don't know who he is: in fact, I explained that he is a member of the ACS, so where is the lie? In your little world, it is probably difficult to appreciate that no one in this world has heard of Mr Warsop and few have even heard of the ACS. I do not deny that he did some good work on the Britcher stuff but it was within the ACS. But another writer has published Britcher so are you saying Mr Warsop has had his credit stolen? If you are going to call him distinguished (notable, if you like) and thereby put him on the same level as Arlott, Altham, Webber, Simon Rae, etc., we need to see some wider evidence, which I looked for in Google. Several people have compiled lists of matches since the research was FIRST done by Messrs Waghorn and Ashley-Cooper; and then more comprehensively by Mr Buckley (note that I speak here about matches with no surviving scorecard; therefore mostly pre-S&B). Mr Warsop's list from 1772 to 1800 was very similar to mine and to those proposed by other people. If he wants to claim all the credit, or if you want to claim it for him, go ahead. When I have used the word "distinguished" it was to quote you, as anyone on here can see.

Your figures about the ACS contrast with the article on here which says it has 1000 members and I think that came from an ACS source. If you know better, let's have a verifiable source for your statistics and we'll amend the article.

One final time. Why don't you stop making a fool of yourself by carrying on a pointless vendetta over some petty grievance from years ago and use this site constructively? One positive thing that emerges from your generally negative postings is that you seem to have a lot of useful material at your disposal. You must like WP as you visit so often, so why not make good use of it and endeavour to improve its content? Or are you only here to make a WP:POINT and be a WP:TROLL? As I've said before, the ball's in your court. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Although it was immediately kicked into touch by the admin involved, this item was posted yesterday on the arbitration requests page.

Since you are all members of my fiefdom and have been admitted by my power into the elect (sic), I question if you do me sufficient honour? From now on, when you post on this page, you will begin with the words "Hail Jack".

Actually, I think the funniest thing in the whole ridiculous piece is the suggestion that there is a "serious cricket history community". Why not have a bit of fun too with their hobby?

When I was working on my book, which is essentially a matchlist derived from many sources, I actually stopped using a list published by the ACS because it contained so many errors and duplications that I found it unreliable. I relied mainly on the likes of G B Buckley and F S Ashley-Cooper for my information and, apart from typos, I'm satisfied that the match details are fundamentally correct. I checked some of them against primary sources when I had the time. Where I expressed a personal opinion, however, others are entitled to have a different opinion: that applies to historians like Arlott too and not just amateurs like me. You will note that, in all of the "risible" nonsense we have seen from Mr Daft/Fieldgoalunit/HughGal/Rosebank, there has never been a suggestion of one single specific error of content, although details have been requested. If he can point to one statement and say that is wrong because, for example, Buckley wrote such-and-such, then I'll take it on board, but all we ever get is that the small clique in the ACS have a monopoly of wisdom (because they are so serious) and anyone else (including Harry Altham and Roy Webber, incidentally, as he has actually said so) must be talking rubbish.

If some of his posts like this arbitration one were not so bloody hilarious, it would all be rather sad. Hail me! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

All hail Jack! Andrew nixon (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if consensus is that your work is a suitable source, then consensus is! SGGH ^ping! 10:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)