Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Broadcaster information[edit]

Can anyone recall the discussion about NOT including this in articles? I recall it for a World Cup or World T20 article, but I can't find the discussion. For example, we don't include a list of broadcasting stations in each country for tours. It comes off the back of this at the Global T20 Canada tournament. Also ping @A Simple Human: and @PKT: for info. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'ping'! I was adding this to Talk:Lugnuts while he was adding the comment above: "I bring your attention to 2015 Cricket World Cup#Broadcasting rights, as well as 2018 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. Regarding the Canada T20 event, it was certainly unsourced, but I'm sure a source can be found and added by User:A Simple Human. Apart from that, it's relevant in view of the ICC's efforts to penetrate our market here in the Great White North." However, I have no idea about a previous discussion about this sort of content. PKT(alk) 19:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow enough of the discussions here to know if one took place or not. But I tend to think that in most cases there's really no case for large sections on either broadcasters or, for that matter, sponsors. These seem to be added as a matter of course (often as tables) on some types of articles and add little or nothing to the article. In the case of the article in question I can see why it might be significant to mention that it will be broadcast throughout south-east Asia, in Australia and the UK and in Canada on ATN - notably not a larger network such as TSN But I'd pretty much say that unless there's good reason to go any further - I don't see that a list adds anything of value beyond that and a list of individual country broadcasters (with flags of course - how can you have a list without flags?) is really not notable in itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
As per BST, I don't see the need for a table of broadcasters for every tournament / series that happens. At a stretch I can see that they might be OK for truly global events (I see the FIFA broadcasting page is fiercely protected), but having a huge list of broadcasters on the main Cricket World Cup pages just bloats the page. Better to mention the main broadcasters in a section that discusses the attempts to make this a notable league rather than a standalone section. Spike 'em (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both. While were on the subject of the Global T20 Canada tournamnet, does anyone know why these matches are not classed as T20 matches, but as "Other T20" matches? More info is on the talkpage of the current tournament. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

List of matches[edit]

Is anyone aware of any sites that list all the FC/LA/T20 matches a player has played? Other than CricketArchive - I can't justify the subscription for the occasional Wikipedia edit. Wouldn't need any deep historical data, only dealing with current players, but need more than CricInfo's 10 most recent games or whatever it is on the player profiles... Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@HornetMike: I don't think there is one really, although the data must be out there. CricketArchive exists in things like the Wayback Machine, but that might not be all that helpful if you want more recent players. Or you could try hitting gate Esc key on your keyboard at the right moment - after the page loads but before it pushes you to the paywall front cover. Tricky though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft/Notability Expertise Request[edit]

Hi all,

I just finished reviewing Draft:Myles Arkell in AfC and was left with a slightly confused viewpoint.

Most of the AfC grounds are fine, and as far as my non-cricketer self could gather, Cambridge University did have first-class cricket status and thus those who played for it would count under WP:CRIN. If someone could confirm that, that would be appreciated.

Obviously it's a very short article, which in most AfC reviews would have it declined, however I am aware of many NSPORTS articles that are this short and are in the guide - as a guideline it is somewhat more "generous" in this aspect

I had a look in the history and saw that the article was removed per An RfC NSPORTS discussion for its lack of quality.

So as well as the Cambridge uni question I was also wondering if you had any viewpoints about whether the NCRIC guidelines would allow this article or not.

Cheers for any answers - please ping with any response so I can see it

Nosebagbear (talk) 4:47 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Cambridge University Cricket Club held (and for the Varsity Match still holds) first-class status. The team is not as notable / important / good as it once was, but in the 50s it certainly was first-class. As such, this player passes NCRIC. I personally believe these guidelines are too inclusive, but have no better ideas for an inclusion criteria that is workable. Spike 'em (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Technically this would meet the subject specific criteria as Spike em says. Whether it would meet the GNG is another question and there has been much debate about the relative weight of those two criteria. I tend to think that the article as it is now would be marginal at best and a quick look finds nothing very much that would be possible to add to the article - he played a handful of times for Northants Seconds and a few times for Cambridge in other matches, but I can't get a lead on anything non-cricket related. Blue Square Thing (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's taken over a year for anyone who has said, "These SSG criteria are too inclusive" to admit "there is no other way for workable NPOV inclusion criteria". And this is why I no longer contribute to a project which has systematically destroyed itself. As for "lack of quality", a two-line stub on a synchronized swimmer who competed at the 1896 Summer Olympics (for example) may be the best "quality" article we can manage. It certainly seems fine for the cricketers who appeared at the 1900 Summer Olympics - some of whose prose content hasn't changed in 12 years. "The article is short" because of a paucity of information available is a nonsense deletion criterion. Bobo. 10:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, it was BlackJack who was respectful enough to help expand the articles that 02blythed was kind enough to contribute to Wikipedia before being driven away by people complaining about the quality of his articles rather than being thankful for the time and effort he put into creating them. Says a lot about the fact that the quality control of this project went so far off the rails that it provoked Jack into doing what he did. (There are 22 of 02blythed's articles still in draft space if anyone wishes to enhance them). Bobo. 11:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
For someone who doesn't want to contribute to the project you are remarkably quick to pop-up and tell us we're all doing it wrong whenever there is a discussion on notability requirements. Times change, as does consensus on requirements. Jack had a history of SOCKing long before last year. Spike 'em (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not actually an answer though, is it? That's just a random ad hominem attack out of sheer boredom and incapability of finding an answer to the problem. I, BlackJack, and everyone else who had been working hard for the 'pedia before then, were working towards exactly the same criteria that we, and every other sporting project, had been working towards. If you are incapable of finding an answer to the problem that you, yourself, have now admitted exists, I'd say that you're probably not in the right place to be arguing either side of the coin. Tell me how "consensus on requirements" has changed. Are you telling me that there is consensus to change the "one first-class match" criterion? Are you telling me there is consensus as to what to change it to? What would you change it to?
On a semi-serious point and away from all this, what is a "quality" article? Is the article on F. Roques of sufficient "quality"? I'd say, based on the information which is available from the quoted sources, that it is more-or-less the best quality we can manage. I contributed to this project to the exact same rules and criteria for as long as the project had existed. Maybe, just maybe, these rules are irrelevant now that the person who built these rules right from the bottom is no longer around to have right to reply. Bobo. 14:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
As it happens, there is a workable solution to the issue of obscure players who do not meet WP:GNG and for whom nothing but statistics is available. And that is to merge them into lists of similar players by club. That would avoid diluting content over a multitude of almost-empty articles and prevent the inadvertent introduction of inaccuracies that can occur when inflating statistics to prose. This would also solve issues we've had in the past where players were identified only by surname and first initial, and it was not possible to determine whether we're talking about two separate similarly-named people or one person playing for multiple teams. Of course, every time I have suggested such mergers previously I've been made the target of arrogant patronizing commentary, frivolous blocking threats, and personal attacks. Let's see if things have changed since last year. Reyk YO! 11:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This solution is absolutely fine. As long as it is universally applied. I would love it if every club which played first-class cricket - down to a team such as Kalat, who only played two first-class matches, or Gwalior, who only played a single first-class match - had individual "player by team" articles. Do we wish to expand these statistics as per any of the "players by Test nation" articles? For me, this is the best solution - although leaving redlinks at random seems silly. Bobo. 14:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I just found this after six months of not knowing this existed. Perhaps if we had included all the articles in these categories which would have come under the blanket of this discussion, this discussion wouldn't even be necessary. Comme ci comme ca. Bobo. 14:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sledging_(cricket)#Sledging_incidents[edit]

This is going to fill up more and more and in a less and less encyclopedic manner. I'm not very active, so flagging it up here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to be a completely random list, I'd favour removing it completely. Can't see half of them being remembered a week after they happened. Spike 'em (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
On a related note, there was this AfD from about this time last year, which closed in delete. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be worth retaining a handful, at most, of the most infamous incidents I suppose. But the subheading needs to be changed and there needs to be a range of examples. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Shirt numbers[edit]

Does anyone find the fields for ODI and T20I shirt numbers in the infobox useful at all? My main issues with this parameter are that a) it adds clutter to the infobox, b) they are always completly unsourced, and c) you get examples like this that add no value to the article.

A while back, there was some discussion on cleaning up the infobox and reducing the number of fields being used. IIRC, it really didn't go anywere, and nothing much changed. I propose we tackle this one bit at a time, and I would fully support the removal of this field as a starting point. It can easily be deprecated in the infobox, and a bot can then sweep articles to remove it from articles. Unless, of course, I'm alone with this view, and editors here wish to keep it!

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Harrias talk 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we can keep just one number like used in football. In football, they keep number he wears for the club though it might differ from their national team shirt number. In cricket, we can keep only current national squad number and if he didn't play yet, then it's state/county cricket team number. We can remove rest of them. Sagavaj (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Are these shirt numbers actually sourced though? Pretty sure they're not. Also what do you do about a player who wears different shirt numbers for different teams? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to remove them, although I can live with the lack of sourcing as an issue per se - it's not a life threatening lack of source is it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Rose Bowl page move[edit]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

IPL-play-offs[edit]

There is a problem with user Mayerroute5 who is not able to understand that the playoff matches in the IPL are considered to be on neutral ground, other users before have tried to explain that to him but he constantly marks the games as home games.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

On seeing his talk page and contributions, it seems like he is vandalizing IPL and Formula 1 pages. I might be wrong too. Sagavaj (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this needs action against the user, he is heavyly editwaring!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The user has edited as an IP: [1].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ball-tampering page move[edit]

Another page move. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

and a related discussion given my attempt at BOLDness failed. Spike 'em (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)