This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
This list is far too long. Over 140 names is ridiculous: could someone with knowledge of which of these people played the most significant roles for League clubs please cut it down to a sensible size? I'd have thought 50 should be the absolute maximum, and even then a two-column format would be better. Loganberry (Talk) 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The split into England and overseas is some help, but the problem remains. As things stand there's no way to tell who played two games and who played 20 seasons. Really only players with substantial BL careers should be included, and maybe Test players who appeared. :Who is Gus McKay, for example? A Cricinfo search shows nobody called Gus or Angus McKay (unless it was the "A McKay" who played precisely one first-class game over 100 years ago!) People like that should be deleted from the list in any case; I will do so myself very soon unless some evidence of notability is provided. Loganberry (Talk) 06:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the full list of test (and in rare cases, such as Gus Mackay, one day international players) who have appeared in the league should stay. It shows how prestigious the league has been and the remarkable number of international players who have appeared in it over the years. If anything i'd like to see the list added to. Only including those players who'd played a specific number of seasons in the league would involve a great deal of extra research and is in my eyes an un-necessary task. Eddsnake 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the list is certainly improved now it's been split up into each country's cricketers, so I'll withdraw my opinion that it should be cut down significantly. And I'd fallen into the trap of forgetting Mackay wasn't MacKay, so that explains that. The list still looks terribly unwieldy though, and would benefit greatly from a better layout - and especially from naming which club(s) each man played for. Otherwise it could be seen as unreferenced information and deleted on those grounds: I won't do that, but I suspect someone else would do so eventually. I'm not sure about keeping the three "unofficial" South African men though: they're undeniably not Test or ODI players, so shouldn't really be under a list containing such. Loganberry (Talk) 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)