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 Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles 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 Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gloucestershire. 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
The article is 120k and would grow considerably, perhaps to 250k, if substantial inputs per season are done. Partly as an experiment, I created W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season recently and I suggest that is the way forward. Grace is too big a subject for a single article and even needs his own category! ----Jack | talk page 10:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It might be illuminating to see how Wiki biographies of major historical or literary figures (eg Churchill or Shakespeare) have dealt with the problem. JH (talk page) 17:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Winston Churchill has been tagged as over 100k and has its own category which contains numerous other biographical pieces. ----Jack | talk page 18:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
As the article is subject to extensive restructure via the creation of multiple sub-articles, I've reduced the rating to start until it adequately meets criteria 1 and 5. ----Jack | talk page 12:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Should there not always be a space between his initals, as in W._G._Grace? Both this and the unspaced W.G._Grace appear randomly throughout the article. In keeping with List of literary initials (maybe there is some WP:-type rule to invoke?), I propose a name change to W._G._Grace (without the underscores, obviously) wherever it occurs. >MinorProphet (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I think I've done them all. It applied to E. M. Grace also. Jack | talk page 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Quite simply what are the brackets in the opening section for? ILikeCycling (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@ILikeCycling: Not entirely sure which ones you mean. On the top line, they are his dates of birth and death. I'm not sure if brackets are strictly WP:MOS for these dates but most editors seem to use them. Other brackets in the intro are to denote MCC and USEE as common abbreviations for two of the teams he often represented. Hope that helps but please let me know if not. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 14:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I was referring to the brackets in the career statistics. ILikeCycling (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, those! Gulp! Long story, I'm afraid. Basically, there are two conflicting versions of WG's career statistics because he played the majority of his career before first-class cricket was officially defined ahead of the 1895 season. Some chroniclers have included certain of his matches as "first-class" (unofficial) and others disagree about the status of those matches. If you look at Variations in published cricket statistics, it tries to explain it all. There is a bit about it in the Grace article's footnote which explains what the figures in parentheses are.
Basically, what are called WG's "traditional" first-class figures, which were first published in Wisden 1916 with his obituary, are given first outside the brackets and the "amended" figures published by CricketArchive are in the brackets. Generally, the "traditional" figures are accepted.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you think of anything else to ask. All the best. Jack | talk page 19:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If the traditional numbers are the most widely accepted, wouldn't it be best to move the others inside the note entirely? The way it's presented now is confusing, especially since most probably won't read the note. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)